/lit/ - Literature

The KJV is simultaneously the best English version and the most beautiful.

Clementina
https://youtu.be/pe0TkIVH488

>>23103142
King James (1611) and Douay-Rheims read the best.

>>23103142
King James Bible, no brainer.

>>23103183
>>23103180
>>23103156
Why are pushing for a version that is dead wrong? KJV says "do not kill" when the actual hebrew passage says "do not commit non-authorized killing" there is a ton of difference there. KJV makes the reader think all killing is bad, when in reality it's only non-approved killing that's bad, approved killing is perfectly OK. It would be more accurate if it said "do not commit haram killing, but halal killing is good."

>>23103241
Nevertheless, the KJV is absolutely indispensable for a first time read in English. Its issues are merely peripheral.

>KJV

https://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-kill-vs-murder.html

>In fact, the KJV’s wording of “Thou shalt not kill” is needlessly broad and inexact to the point of impairing clarity. Nearly all modern translations, including the New King James Bible, correctly render the original Hebrew wording as “You shall not murder” (NIV) or “Do not murder” (CSB). The Amplified Bible words it this way: “You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide).”

>The Old Testament uses over half a dozen different Hebrew words for the taking of a human life. In Exodus 20:13, the Hebrew word used is rasah, which means “murder.” It is the same word that the KJV correctly renders elsewhere as “murder” or “murderer,” including all eleven times that rasah appears in Numbers 35:17–31. Oddly, when they came to the sixth commandment, the KJV translators chose to translate the word as “kill” instead of “murder.” “Thou shalt not kill” is an incorrect and inconsistent translation.

>That mistranslation has created needless confusion and personal, moral conflict for centuries. Christians have debated with each other—and struggled in their own minds—over whether to serve in the military during war time, to use deadly force as a police officer, or even to protect their own families from homicidal attacks. It’s unfortunately true that protecting a nation, protecting society, and protecting loved ones sometimes require killing, but that is different from murder. The command “Do not murder” does not apply to justified killing in the course of one’s duty.

And this is why Israel has no problem slaughtering the terrorists in Gaza, they always knew the correct version unlike stupid white people.

>>23103241
Read the OP, retard.

>>23103269
Mistranslations are bad for literature.

>>23103241
>>23103263
Keep coping all you want but it's the best and overall most accurate translation.

>>23103142
In general, the KJV is still the standard for literary appreciation, but if the archaic English gives you pause, try Robert Alter's translations for the Hebrew Bible and David Bentley Hart's translation of the New Testament.

>>23103287
>most accurate translation
>literally caused believers and skeptics alike to question the reliability of the Bible as after commanding the Israelites not to “kill” anyone, God orders them to kill criminals for capital crimes (Exodus 21:12–29), Israelites who worshipped the gods of Moab (Numbers 25:1–8), all Midianite males and non-virgin females (Numbers 31:1–18), and the pagan societies of Canaan (Deuteronomy 2:30–36; Joshua 6; 1 Samuel 15:1–3). Capital punishment for the crime of murder was, in fact, the first commandment God gave to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:6)

>>23103295
>He's STILL coping.

This motherfucker's insane.

>>23103300
You know there is a reason why muslims insist on learning the Quran in the original arabic language, so shit like this doesn't happen

>>23103304
No Muslims have ever done that, I asked them

>>23103304
>It would be more accurate if it said "do not commit haram killing, but halal killing is good."
>And this is why Israel has no problem slaughtering the terrorists in Gaza, they always knew the correct version unlike stupid white people.
>You know there is a reason why muslims insist on learning the Quran in the original arabic language, so shit like this doesn't happen
I don't know why I didn't realize you were a Muslim before now. Lmfao, what a joke.

>>23103315
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations

>According to Islamic theology, the Qur'an is a revelation very specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in Quranic Arabic. Translations into other languages are the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations". Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text should not be isolated from its true language or written form, at least not without keeping the Arabic text with it.

>>23103328
Not even a muslim, just someone who cares about geohistorical context and accuracy. The Bible is a middle eastern book, reading it through white European eyes misleads the reader about its nature. The israeli god is never against killing per se, only against killing without its authorization. This is the same concept as haram (forbidden) and halal (permissible) in islam, where killing also depends whether Allah said it's permissible or not. Killing an infidel is perfectly permissible and in fact encouraged, both in the Bible and the Quran. You are looking at middle eastern books here, read them for what they are.

>>23103241
>>23103263
>>23103295
>the Sixth Commandment is translated wrong
>it's okay to kill, according to God
Meanwhile, Leviticus 24:17 (NIV)
>Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death.
The original Hebrew (יַכֶּ֖ה כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ) means 'smite the whole life'. God still commanded man to not kill.

>>23103142
King James is a foundation of English literature and language in general. Top 5 canonical English works. No contest at all if you want literary value out of the bible. Disregard the shitflinging. Some transations are more accurate, theologically convenient, more accessible, whatever, but there's no actual dispute over what English translation is literarily greatest - KJV.

Are you ESL? Or trolling? I'm surprised there's somebody here who wouldn't already know the answer to this.

>>23103362
He's talking about blasphemers and those who commit murder, dummy.

>LORD said to Moses:
>"Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.
>Say to the Israelites: `If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

You can't just go around and kill anyone, you need a justified reason to kill someone. Like if they disobey god they are perfectly fine to kill. You're talking of murder, killing on your initiative, that's a no-no.

>>23103387
>bible literally says to stone the infidels to death
>people somehow still don't think both the bible and islam are the same middle east shit

>>23103411
I've always wondered.
Will white people somehow manage to change t he Quran like they did the Bible, or will muslims actually force their middle eastern worldview on whites? The catch that the Quran must be learnt in arabic only doesn't allow for much shenanigans. Unless muslims are content with an Ottoman Empire 2.0 where whites are not allowed to convert so muslims can keep that oppressed infidel tax money flowing.

>>23103411
Every culture is like this. This isn't exclusive to the Middle East.

>>23103439
I've met arab muslim quran scholars who can't read or speak arabic, seen hundreds of qurans sold in swedish but not a single one in arabic. "White people" don't have to do jack shit, the western muslims will fuck themselves up. Homopride muslim groups are already common, and they're on the mainline ultradegen shit, too. The idea that muslims are so very resolute in their worldviews that western liberal-humanism yields to them is false, caused by the fact they to a large degree live in ethnic enclaves that obviously change slower. Others are desperately rootless enough to be easily radicalized, and that one in millions does much to the public image.

>>23103241
>actual Hebrew

lol
lmao

>>23103459
Nope. Stoning is peculiar to judaism and islam. If you look at pagan Europe, stoning happens once, when Aristocrates of Orchomenus rapes a priestess in her temple. And that's an extrajudicial mob killing. There is no law that prescribes it like in the middle east, European culture is different from that.

>>23103526
It doesn't matter. Execution is execution. The means of execution are irrelevant.

>>23103535
>anon DESTROYS in one single post centuries of philosophy on how to administer a painless death so the condemned doesn't needlessly suffer, because that shit is cruel

No wonder euthanasia is an European word

>>23103535
You don't think there's a fundamental difference in the crowd actively participating in the violence, as opposed to simply being complicit in a state hanging or beheading? I think there is. Especially in the context of calls for punishment, mob stoning invokes lynching and vigilantism more than authoritarian law enforcement.

>>23103568
The views of philosophers do not reflect the views of the general public at any point in history. To this day, the general public has little to no concern for the suffering inflicted during punishment. You're deluding yourself into thinking this kind of behavior is exclusive to the Middle East.

>>23103579
Very little. It's been a common occurrence in every culture in recorded history.

>>23103142
KJV
Geneva Bible
Alter’s OT and Lattimore’s NT

>>23103598
What, lynching? Mob violence? Legitimizing it certainly has not been common occurence. Where I live, our earliest recorded laws were famously intended to pragmatically reduce extrajudicial violence as far as possible and to systematize and regulate what they couldn't get rid of, which meant specific rights given to specific individuals to be used in specific ways. Zero mob violence. No equivalent of stoning. Needless to say, every incarnation of our legal system since has allowed for less and less violence by both state and non-state.

I do not believe your claims at all.

>>23103598
[citation needed]

>>23103628
The only reason mob violence has generally lacked "legitimacy" is that it represents a possible danger to the established order. What I am taking issue with is this idea that stoning is somehow drastically different from other forms of barbarous punishment or execution that have existed both legitimately and illegitimately throughout history. I think that crowd participation in any form approaches the same level of barbarity and even mob violence has at times been at the very least tolerated or tacitly endorsed. And in terms of the suffering caused by the mechanism itself, it's hardly a standout among centuries of badbaric punishment.

>>23103377
Yeah, I'm trolling.

>>23103500
your incomplete picture hardly guarantees islam is in europe is doomed or that islam will defeat itself.

id prefer better arguments, because it still seems about 50:50 to me.

>>23103700
[still can't provide citations]

it will never cease to amuse me that a board full of tradcath larpers always push the king james bible

>>23103990
I mean most people are are white, so of course they will push for that which resonates with them, white culture
whenever you tell them to learn the actual correct version that shows actual middle eastern culture, they recoil in horror - rightfully so

>>23103263
>>23103356
The fact that pacifism is an age-old topic of philosophical debate, including in Christian contexts, has nothing to do with the 1611 KJV English translation of Exodus 20:13. There were pacifists in Europe before 1611, such as the Swiss Brethren.

>>23104057
cool, now tell me about the pacifist movements in the middle east

>>23104070
So your objection to the KJV as a translation is really irrelevant, because it isn't the source of what you even are talking about. There is no point to that objection. Also, earlier responses about the KJV being both accurate and high-quality from a literary standpoint are correct on both counts.

what matters is the translation of the greek word aion as either eternal or agelong. this is the most pivotal translation in human history. so the kjv is a horrid translation yet the language indeed is impressive. i recommend the clv. thanks for reading.

galatians 3:20
now a mediator is not a mediator of one, yet God is one

>>23104087
The fact that you are still kjv "accurate" despite extremely glaring errors as shown ITT, which change the nature of the work completely, shows you are retarded.
>it isn't the source of what you even are talking about
I'm still waiting on all those pacifist movements in the middle east. Surely they have not been squashed to death because middle eastern culture feels legitimized by its "holy" books to murder anyone in sight if they don't submit and comply, eh anon?

>>23103990
>>23104038
What's your recommendation?

>>23104828
The RSV is the most popular catholic bible
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible uses the RSV

>>23104228
>I'm still waiting on all those pacifist movements in the middle east. Surely they have not been squashed to death because middle eastern culture feels legitimized by its "holy" books to murder anyone in sight if they don't submit and comply, eh anon?
Irrelevant.

If you want a rigid literal translation from the Greek, try the orthodox new testament from holy apostles convent.

>>23103142
For me, its wycliffe
>In þe bigynnyng God made of nouȝt heuene and erþe. Forsoþe þe erþe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depþe; and the Spiryt of þe Lord was borun on the watris. And God seide, Liȝt be maad, and liȝt was maad.

>>23104915
I have no problem reading that (no surprise there), I like how it informed the KJV in places. Like the whole archaic voice it uses consistently through the whole. Honestly, it reads pretty plainly in middle english and doesn't quite do what some difficult hebrew does.

>>23104153
>i recommend the clv.
how does this compare against similar literal translations?

>>23104932
The wycliffe bible is in an odd spot overall. It clearly influenced later translators, but seems to have been completely forgotten at some point, and most people will never attempt it because of the middle english.

>>23104976
English was evolving so quickly that even speakers knew something was up. It's a very clear middle english but without the godawful latin poetics and hebrew syntax that make it so malleable and elevated. It reads like stately norwegian or dutch does, nice but eh overall.

I reach for it when I want to be understood and seem smart for using a few french loanwords.

>>23104976
>>23104989
It was in fact an influential translation, both on Tyndale's translation to an extent and eventually the King James version of 1611. A little known fact is that there are actually at least two versions of Wycliffe's translation, the later of which could not have been made by Wycliffe himself.

The Early Version of 1382, the earlier of the two translations attributed to Wycliffe, appears to have two "editions" of its own, if not more. Wycliffe's work in the late 14th century represents a handwritten manuscript tradition, since the Wycliffe translation predates the printing press by about seventy-five years. This fact leaves the door open to more variation over the course of time, within the tradition of Wycliffe's English translation manuscripts. More investigation of all the editions of Wycliffe's work is needed. It's entirely possible that Wycliffe's original translation, which seems to have been more literal than later revisions of the translation, was either obscured, or even partially or completely destroyed or replaced by those who wanted to suppress it. The English historian Thomas Crosby (in a book published in 1738) observed, regarding the writings of John Wycliffe, that many of Wycliffe's other personal writings were destroyed by his persecutors and that we no longer have them. Because of this circumstance, it is possible that a version which was altered in significant ways has been presented to posterity as Wycliffe's own work, rather than being correctly presented as a modification that was made to either the Early Version or some other version of Wycliffe. There exists at least one such example of this, namely the Later Version, or LV, written circa 1388-1397. The LV was a significantly diverse rescension of the Early Version of 1382, and it was produced by John Purvey or other editors. The existence of a "Later Version", having been written many years after Wycliffe's death on December 31 of 1384, raises the spectre of his work being potentially edited or significantly modified by others.

Terence P. Noble noted: "And yet, comparing all three versions [EV, LV and KJV] side-by-side, it becomes clear that the KJV translators often rejected revisions made in the 'Later Version' of the Wycliffe Old Testament, and instead reverted to words and phrases found in the 'Early Version.' Why did they do this? Sometimes the 'Early Version' had a more accurate rendering of the original Hebrew; other times the 'turn of phrase' in the 'Early Version' was more compelling. As well, the KJV translators often followed the 'Early Version' regarding prepositions (e.g. 'the' in the 'EV', replaced by 'a' in the 'LV'), verb forms, and phrase order within a verse (e.g. 'a/b/c' in the 'Early Version', rearranged into 'b/a/c' in the 'Later Version'). There are fewer instances where the 'Later Version' of the Wycliffe Old Testament and the KJV agree, and the 'Early Version' differs, or where all three are distinct."

Douay, King James is protestant (therefore missing books)

>>23103142
Skip it entirely. It's literally a record of ancient barbarians who cut up the penises of babies, committed genocide and kept sex slaves, and did all this under the claim that the creator of the universe condoned it. Then, the second half, some hippie con man tells everyone to give their stuff away and be a cuck because the end times are about to happen and that if you don't believe in him you'll burn in a lake of fire for eternity. These are the insane ramblings of deeply disturbed people, no point reading it as literature (unless you cherry pick like 4 individual passages which have some merit, the rest is shit).

>>23104871
Culture is always relevant, anon. You are reading the product of a culture, only an idiot dismisses the culture that created it.

>>23105129
>King James is protestant (therefore missing books)
The 1611 isn't.

>>23104976
There's a version with adapted spelling available.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Wycliffe-Bible-WYC/

I still recommend the ERV (1895) since it's a single conventional translation among classical ones with the most deuterocanonical books included.

https://ebible.org/eng-rv/


https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

>>23104976
There's a version with adapted spelling available.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Wycliffe-Bible-WYC/

I still recommend the ERV (1895) since it's a single conventional translation among classical ones with the most deuterocanonical books included.

https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

>>23105122
It's been long assumed now that the received version of the Wycliffe translation probably involved the revision of multiple editors and students throughout the years. Even the Clementine Vulgate is an edited compilation from various manuscripts just like the traditional and Alexandrian NT texts.

>>23103362
So does the executioner who puts the killer to death also have to be put to death?

>>23105782
Problems with the Revised Version (or English Revised Version):
It removes about 5% of the New Testament since it is based on the critical text. However, it doesn't make as many removals or changes as later translations do.

For example, the ERV (or RV for short),
– In Luke 10:1 and Luke 10:17, it doesn't change the number 70 to the number 72 like all modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) do.
– In John 3:13, doesn't remove the words "which is in heaven," found at the end of the verse, like all modern versions do.
– In John 4:16, doesn't remove the word "Jesus" like all moderns versions do.
– In John 9:35, the RV does not change "Son of God" to "Son of man" like all etc.
– In 1 Corinthians 1:14, does not change "I thank God" to "I am thankful" like the RSV (1952) or the NASB 2020 edition does, or the NAB/NABRE which puts "God" in brackets.
– In 1 Corinthians 13:3, the RV does not change "to be burned" to the phrase "that I may glory" like the NIV, NASB (2020 edition only), NLT, CSB, HCSB, and NET do.
– In Hebrews 3:6, the ERV does not remove the words "firm unto the end" as all modern versions do, other than the pre-2020 NASB editions.
– In 1 John 2:20, the ERV does not change "ye know all things" to the phrase "all of you have knowledge", or "all of you know the truth" as all modern versions do.
– In Matthew 21:12, it does not remove the words "of God" as all modern versions do.
– In Mark 7:24, the RV does not remove or omit the words "and Sidon" as all modern versions do.

However, it does omit things that most modern versions do not. For instance:

– In John 19:16, the RV omits the phrase "And they took Jesus, and led him away" along with only the ASV, RSV (1952) and NASB, but all other versions including even the NIV include this phrase.
– In Acts 3:6, the RV omits the words "rise up and," instead saying only one word: "walk." This removal is only found in NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, and the words are in brackets in the NAB or NABRE. Other modern versions like the ESV, NRSV and CSB of 2017 however still include the words without brackets.
– In Revelation 15:3, the RV, ASV of 1901 and RSV of 1952 say "king of ages," while the Received text says "king of saints." But the modern versions like NIV and others instead say "king of nations." The reading should be "king of saints," which is the reading that's always been used.

The above changes in the RV, or other translations that are not based on the Received text, all significantly alter the meaning of the Bible. This is before we get into the entire verses removed by the RV and others, such as Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24, or Mark 11:26 and Mark 15:28 (both verses in Mark, by the way, have no parallel in the other Gospels).

And this is before we get into any particular inaccurate translation choices of the Revised Version as well, which is a whole different discussion unto itself.

>>23106103
Ok, but this thread is about biblical translations as literary works.

>>23106103
Ding dong King John

>>23106103
King of the saints sounds underwhelming and underinclusive compared to king of the world/ages.

>>23106173
Remember what it says in the Gospels and elsewhere in the Bible.

"But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever."
(Daniel 7:18)

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
(Matthew 7:21)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
(Luke 19:27)

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
(John 18:36)

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
- 1 Cor. 6:9-10

>>23106103
The Received Text only appeared in the 1500s, it refers to the printed editions made by scholars in western Europe at the time. They used whatever handful of manuscripts they had available, so it's a mix of Byzantine and Western text types with influence from the Latin Vulgate. It doesn't represent an ancient version of the text, it's basically a worse critical.

The Eastern Orthodox 'Patriarchal Text', which used Byzantine manuscripts only, is much closer to what you're claiming for the Received Text. It represents a text type that was actually used for hundreds of years by the church, and is usually called 'The Majority Text' because it aligns with the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Received Text has readings that don't exist in the Majority Text like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7b-8a) which is from the Vulgate.

>>23106103

>In John 19:16, the RV omits the phrase "And they took Jesus, and led him away" along with only the ASV, RSV (1952) and NASB
Because it's instead what's used to begin the verse which comes right afterward. Pretty slovenly and disingenuous being this nitpicky, to look over such an imaginable possibility. At this point your ilk would do well to reassess your assumptions about the facts and observers should take heed and be critical of such folly.

>Acts 3:6
Doesn't really change the narrative in any significant manner as it regardless says the beggar was then grabbed and lifted up by the apostle himself.

>Acts 8:37
Looks like a pedantic insertion compared to the more natural-looking reading without it. The fact that manuscripts without it exist is further support to its antiquity over those with it, knowing how establishment institutions tend to be.

>Romans 16:24
Looks repetitive in light of another "Amen" a mere three verses later.

>Mark 11:26 and Mark 15:28 (both verses in Mark, by the way, have no parallel in the other Gospels).
Covered in Luke and the sermon on the mount. A reliable cross-referencing tool would reveal this. So dishonest to lie about such a thing again.

All this should serve to demonstrate how much more convincing the text of the New Testament reads without the spurious and pedantic insertions that were added to it by institutional actors over the ages.

>>23103241
>t. bowdlerizes the Good Book with mountains of midrashim

We don't care.

Translations are better the more faithfully yet skillfully adapted they are.
How would those who are here want to render scripture?

>Yashayahu 40:27–31
O Yaaqov, why doth thou say, and O Yisra'el, doth thou speak, that my circumstance hath been hidden from the Lord (Yhwh), and that my adjudgement is passed over by my God? Knowest thou not? Hast thou not heard? The eternal God, the Lord (Yhwh), creator of the ends of the earth, doth not become weary nor doth he become tired. There is no search to his understanding. To the wearied it is that he giveth power; and to those who are devoid of strength, he swelleth their might. And even youths shall become wearied and tired, and young men shall stumble stumbling; but those waiting for the Lord (Yhwh) shall be renewed of strength; they shall ascend with pinions as eagles; they shall run without becoming tired, they shall walk without becoming weary.

>Matthai 16:18–19
And I tell thee also that thou art Rock, and I will build my convocation upon this rock, and netherdom's gates shall not prevail over it. I will give thee the keys to the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind on the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.

>Matthai 10:37–38
Anyone more fond of their father or mother than of me is unworthy of me; and anyone more fond of their son or daughter than of me is unworthy of me; and anyone not taking up the beam of their own cross and following after me is unworthy of me.

>Matthai 19:29
and Yesus said to them, Amen I tell you, that in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit on a throne of his own glory, those of you who have followed me shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Yisra'el. And everyone, who for my name left their houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or woman or children or fields, shall receive a hundredfold of them, and shall inherit everlasting life.

>Yoannes 8:58
Yesus said to them, Amen, amen, I tell you, "I Exist", since before Avraham had even come into being.

>Acts 23:2–5
But the chief priest Hananias was bidding those who were standing by him to strike him in the mouth. Then Paul said to him, It is thee whom God is about strike, thou whitewashed wall; and thou meanest to sit there judging me by the law, yet thou contrary to the law, orderest that I be struck? And those standing by said, art thou insulting God's chief priest? Then Paul said, Brothers, I did not perceive that he was a chief priest, since it is written that thou shalt not speak evilly of thy people's ruler.

>Galates 3:28
There is no Yudaian nor Hellene, there is no bondservant nor freeman, there is no male and female; for among the uncted one Yesus, ye are all one.

>>23103241
It sounds great, the language is beautiful. Just go into it knowing it isn't the most accurate.

>>23106303
>They used whatever handful of manuscripts they had available,
That shows it's inspired, because God preserved it to all generations. The modern critical text though is based on sources that nobody ever had. That's before we get into any other problems, like correlation and dependency on the Coptic versions (ancient Sahidic and Bohairic translations) in Aleph, B, and others.

Also, the scholars like Stephanus and Beza had access to plenty of Alexandrian version manuscripts, like Codex D (Bezae) and Codex L (Regius). They still chose not to include the Alexandrian readings. They also had access to ancient manuscripts like Codex Claromontanus and others. Nevertheless, they only incorporated the true received readings, and perceived where the errors were located in any particular source through textual criticism. This includes those of Byzantine type.

Erasmus may have only been working with a few manuscripts, but the later editors corrected his work based on much wider sources. It's never pointed out that Stephanus had more than three times as many manuscripts as Erasmus, and that's just among those that he has been confirmed as having which still survive today. I believe it very likely that Stephanus and others had access to manuscripts that are not longer extant, which explains why they kept certain readings, even though Stephanus, Beza and others felt free to disagree over quite a few minutiae elsewhere in the New Testament.

>The Eastern Orthodox 'Patriarchal Text', which used Byzantine manuscripts only, is much closer to what you're claiming for the Received Text.
The PT didn't exist until 1904, so it couldn't have taken into account any important manuscripts that might have survived until the 16th century but not to the 20th century. Also it is more limited in scope, not taking into consideration that the majority won't necessarily be correct 100% of the time. Statistically speaking it should most of the time, as we see, but in at least some places the minority reading is right.

>The Received Text has readings that don't exist in the Majority Text like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7b-8a) which is from the Vulgate.
I don't believe it comes from the Latin translations. You have three people quoting it before Jerome, namely Cyprian, Tertullian and Origen. The most straightforward explanation for this fact is that they had it in their original copies. Their copies are far older than Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, or indeed most other sources. 1 John 5:7-8 is a very distinctive passage of Scripture, and unlike some other places in the Bible you can't mistake it or the language it uses for any other passage. It's the only place where the Bible says "and these three are one."

Furthermore, 1 John 5:7-8 is better supported today than many other parts of the Received text, but I still believe that the editors back then had manuscripts aligning with those parts too, for example in Acts 10:6, otherwise they wouldn't have all agreed.

>>23106345
>Covered in Luke and the sermon on the mount. A reliable cross-referencing tool would reveal this. So dishonest to lie about such a thing again.
I don't see where it says "and he was numbered with the transgressors" anywhere in Matthew, Luke or John. That's a removal of something that's only found in Mark's Gospel.

I went down this rabbithole and it made me very pessimistic with the Bible.
I think I'm Christian in a non 4chan way but I just don't trust it at all especially in English. I'm not smart enough to learn Greek or Hebrew. And I don't trust humanity to preserve it either way. The catholic default is Latin for some reason. I don't really like or understand all the big churches they build. Every Christian sect seems to play it fast and loose with the Bible anyway

The old testament has so many Jewish specific things and strange events and irrelevant laws that I don't understand why including it is the default.
No Christian seems to agree what to take from the OT either. They all pick and choose which is just weird to me. Its either all relevant or its all irrelevant.

And now online people are in this weird annoying phase due to politics . I suppose they're going to move onto Islam or something

>>23107605
>>23106345
More specifically, where Mark 15:28 says, "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." And connecting it with the two other men who were crucified in the previous verse.

I know that in Luke 22:37, Jesus says, "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end."

>>23107627
That's because the bible already had some form of canon before the early Christian period and it continued to be redefined in later periods. The problem is Protestant divergence has led to many at the present putting all the weight on scripture and throwing the baby out with the bath water in disregarding the broader historical development of the traditions and doctrines of the churches, when this likely would not be the case for many other religious communities lest they also have fallen down the path of radicalist literalism.

It might be comfier to just resort to relying on a single book that can be held in your hand for all your answers, but that likley won't provide a satisfying understanding of all that you might still be left wanting to know regarding the community which would require further research. And it should stand to reason that much knowledge of importance and utility should not be expected to come by easily within a very complex and complicated world.

>>23107854
I don't know. I don't really trust either protestants or catholics. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see why I should trust the churches at all. I don't get why Christianity even has such ostentatious churches. I don't get all the Rome obsession either. Just seems like another silly secret society. The whole way that humans have structured this makes no sense. The catholic church has circular reporting to support their position which just doesn't work for me. And protestants put it all into the book which to me is suspect to begin with and then they pick and choose with it anyway and their churches are fast and loose anyway.

>>23107887
What's in the Bible versus what's not is the difference between the witness of God and the witness of man. Scripture is designated as the record that God gave of His Son, and is the faith once delivered unto the saints that is spoken of by Jude.

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
- 1 John 5:9-10

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:23-25

And as Paul said in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." So that is the Biblical view of where to find the faith. Everyone has a choice of what they believe, but I believe the Biblical account of how to acquire faith, and I choose to believe the record that God gave of His Son. I found that I'm not alone in doing that, either. But that loyalty has to be there. It has to be a belief in the goodness of God to make things possible for us to be saved.

Like the Lord says in John 10, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." (John 10:28-30)

Is the Creator of the universe really capable of doing this? I believe so.

>>23107887
It wasn't easy even in Jesus' time having to debate between the varying doctrinal postions. You be the judge regarding how credible anyone insisting otherwise might be.