/lit/ - Literature

>>23396348
get the RSV or RSV-CE
avoid KJV NKJV NIV NRSV

imagine the smell

I prefer Douay-Rheims

Latin Vulgate

KJV if you're familiar with early modern English, RSV if you aren't. Avoid the NKJV and NRSV

>>23396348
>that pic
Obviously a false flag like the guy who was caught spray painting swastikas to make "goyim" look bad.

Also, go with the KJV if this is your main criterion. Modern versions typically shill for modern Judaism in several ways. For instance, see these two examples:

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
-- Genesis 22:17

This is example one. Notice it says "thy seed [singular] shall posses the gate of his enemies." It's a prophecy about Christ. Paul says this explicitly over in the New Testament:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
-- Galatians 3:16

But what do modern versions (including the NKJV) do? See the same verse in Genesis there.

"blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies."
-- Genesis 22:17 NKJV

It's the same in all the others. It says "your descendants" (plural) and "their (plural) enemies" rather than singular. Even though Paul made a point that it's singular here! One seed, not many! The modern versions change the Genesis verse to make you think that the promise is to a big group of people (i.e. those claiming to be Jews) and not to Christ, who is a single person.

Another example:

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
-- John 5:16 KJV

The modern versions remove the words, "and sought to slay him" from this verse. You can check for yourself.

The modern versions also tend to make it seem like homosexuality is okay or less of a problem than it is. And that is what the modern synagogue of satan always promotes and does activism for today, so they would probably be behind such changes (see pic). Of course, I have more examples of all of this if needed.

>>23396348
Lexham English Septuagint Old Testament
It even includes Enoch

>>23396348
There isn't one. Christianity IS Judaism. Judaism is apostate. No offense Jews, you'll come around supernaturally, eventually.

>>23396922
>Christianity IS Judaism.
Bingo. And both of them are also Muslim. Muslim only exists because Abraham and his brother couldn't agree on things. The religion wars between these three are stupid.

>>23396709
Worrying about these translation quirks is stupid. Find a bible that was translated relatively recently straight from Greek and or Aramaic originals. Don't pick and choose which bible version to read based upon the early modern translators biasis. A scholar from the 15 hundreds had a more difficult time learning the languages involved and had less sources to work with.

A reading of the bible should also be accompanied by reading about the history of the jews, early christians and the formation of the bible.You should also read up on Babylonian history/beliefs.

>>23396348
>least jewed
the bible is inherently jewed

>>23396348
>What version doesn't shill the jews
The one without bible in it.

>>23396922
Christianity is not Judaism. One of the central ideas of Christianity is that membership of Christianity superceedes social standing and race. That idea developed from Judaism which is to this day more focused on being a religion for a people instead of being for everyone.

In the early decades of Christianity there was a debate amongst the jews how open one should be to outside influences. Ironically Jesus was pretty much a reactionary hard liner and opposed to grecoroman influences. I mean, the dude went to the temple and physically attacked the money changers who facilitated trade between jews and non jews.

Yet still Christianity opened up and spread amongst non jews while the jews doubled down on being jewish.

>>23396932
>A scholar from the 15 hundreds had a more difficult time learning the languages involved and had less sources to work with.
Modern translations, even the NKJV, are blatantly biased and made by a small number of people with nothing to stop them from making idiosyncratic changes whenever they want. The 1611 translation was made by a large committee that subdivided the work to different groups over seven years, and it was largely the same as two Bibles that came before it, the English Geneva Bible of 1560 (later revised 1599) and the Bishop's Bible which was made around the same time. The Authorized version wasn't made by one guy. And these people were far better scholars than what is produced today; many of them knew ten or more languages. They were much more well-grounded in learning, scholarship and so on compared to the people we have today who try to replace that translation with very low effort slop that's meant to be nothing more than a placeholder, to prevent you from reading a good Received text translation.

>Worrying about these translation quirks is stupid.
The fact you think this is a "quirk," despite me having just explained it, really says a lot. It's not even a "translation quirk" when it comes to John 5:16, as the modern versions are using a coptic-derived text as their source and reason to remove that phrase entirely. Their source text simply doesn't have it, so they omit it while the KJV includes it. The modern versions also remove entire verses from the New Testament in other places for the same reason. Because it's based on the same non-original, non-received source. And wouldn't you know it, these missing words and sentences are effectively an attack on the divinity and infallibility of Christ and other important doctrines. People should be aware of this.

new jerusalem

>>23397008
*Former vatican lexicon translator Mauro Biglino reccommended the New Jerusalem version.
You get cleaner results because it doesn't try to substitute words

>>23396970
>non received texts
>removed passages that call Jesus divine
The canonization of the bible was itself a political process full of biases. These people ages ago wanted to justify worshipping Jesus as a god and wrote or selected texts accordingly.

The bible is a document that was put together over many hundreds of years. That's why I told people to read up on the historical circumstances. Because then you stand a chance at filtering centuries of agenda.

There is no single definite version of the bible. There are only versions that are closer to the source texts, of which there are several versions too.

>>23396970
>and made by a small number of people with nothing to stop them from making idiosyncratic changes whenever they want.
Anon... the KJV was commissioned by King James because he didn't like the tone of the Geneva

“Fellas, can I get the Torah but without the Jewish influence?”

>>23397608
I know you're joking, but the Scofield study Bible was commissioned by the Rothschild family for the express purpose of promoting Zionism. It was widely read in the US.

How about just getting into literally any non abrahamic religion? That way there's no cognitive dissonance

>>23396927
Yikes buddy. Wonder how often you go around thinking you're too smart

>>23396348
KJV or NKJV. NASB is evangelical and literal but not pozzed, NRSV is ultrapozzed

>>23396401
the rsv is giga kiked, Isaiah 7:14

Get an authorized KJV pew Bible. Check for details, mine has zero footnotes, only introductions. Basically no way to insert any modern ideas into your reading that you don't bring yourself. The book will explain itself through context with enough readings.

>>23396927
No. This is retarded. You need to read the Bible and stop talking.

>>23396952
C O P E
Read your Bible. Your rhetoric is worldly.

>>23396348
Basically the older you go the better, but the entire point of new translations is that they're more accessible, so you'll probably have to make do with archaic language.

>>23396348
So you're looking for a Bible with the old testament removed?

>>23397043
The prophets and apostles were real people and their original writings are what constitutes the Bible. There are indeed corrupted versions floating around that were made later. But it is possible to systematically filter them out, and the theological biases of the major corrupted versions are easily detectable. For instance, the theological biases of the Alexandrian text (which modern versions use a partial modern reconstruction of in most places) are easily detectable.

>There is no single definite version of the bible. There are only versions that are closer to the source texts, of which there are several versions too.
This is what the unbelieving world largely thinks, because of the fact that they simply presume the nonexistence of God, specifically the God of the Bible. But one cannot do that, and then claim to be unbiased or to be reaching conclusions that an unbiased person would make. This is because in reality, God preserved the original word in an uncorrupted form, making the Bible unlike any other book, both for its inspiration, as well as its preservation. If you just assume that can't be true, then you'll miss out on that conclusion because you've already closed the door on that possibility before even starting.

Some people never look any deeper, they just assume it is like any other book and don't look any further. But because they use this method, their conclusions do not turn out to be based on solid research. They are based on presuppositions which they never properly established. For example, they assume the Bible can't contain real prophecies about the future. So when the book of Daniel predicts Alexander the Great, they just automatically assume it must have been written after that happened. They think that constitutes "solid reasoning," and they don't investigate any further than that. It's the same for everything else, they've already assumed it can't be true. This presupposition then becomes a premise to draw the desired conclusion.

These people never actually challenge this assumption that they make, and usually don't acknowledge it as an assumption (except when doing so accidentally), but only as a "conclusion" that they reach AFTER having assumed it. This is called "begging the question." Of course, they come to wildly divergent conclusions about how exactly they think the Bible is untrue. They all have the same motive though. They like to pretend it is an unbiased investigation of the truth, but it is not.

>>23396348
>where can I find non-jewish jewish fanfiction

>>23396348
>i want to read about a jewish religion without it mentioning jews
Are you retarded OP? Christianity came from the middle east, not Europe. If you don't want to read about jews then don't go out of your way to do it.

>>23396348
kjv uses masoretic text which is the thing you're looking to avoid. get a septuagint translation from brenton or lexham and then cambridge kjv for nt.

>>23398708
Good post

>>23398023
go read parable of the tenants again and tell me what it's about.

>>23398708
>kjv uses masoretic text which is the thing you're looking to avoid.
Actually it uses the Daniel Bomberg 1525 text, which represents the original Hebrew. The Masoretic is what modern versions such as the NASB use. It is based on Codex Leningradensis, which was not in use in 1525.

The Septuagint meanwhile is something that Hellenistic Jews produced in the 2nd century BC, and the final version of it that we have today removes several messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 2:12, Jeremiah 33:15-16 (entire verses removed), Zechariah 12:10, etc.

The Septuagint of Origen (which is what we have) is also missing 1/12 of the entire book of Jeremiah, it is missing more than 30 entire verses from the book of Proverbs, and it has signs that it was edited by someone who wanted to make it match the New Testament in some places. It also contains a contradiction in Genesis chapter 5 where it says that Methuselah outlived the flood by 14 years.

If you want to know what the Old Testament actually said, you really don't know what you're talking about if you think that a translation of the Old Testament that was made by hellenistic Jews and edited by Origen is going to be better than the original that was there before it, anon.

>>23398828
>read the new testament
>whenever ot is quoted, it's always different
>read lxx and it's identical to the nt quotes
>check dead sea scrolls vs the lxx and it matches with it over the masoretic text every single time.

>>23398828
Or you know, they should have used the Latin Vulgate which Jerome confirmed against the pre-Masoretic Hebrew

>>23398888
>whenever ot is quoted, it's always different
It's not always different though, sometimes it in fact agrees closer to the Hebrew.
>read lxx and it's identical to the nt quotes
This is sometimes true, but it is because Origen in the 3rd century AD copied it from the New Testament, and he was the one who edited what we have today.

There are also cases where both the Hebrew and Septuagint differ from the New Testament, such as in Luke 4:18. Here, Jesus quotes the words of Isaiah 61:1, but adds in the phrase "and recovering of sight to the blind," which is taken from another place in Isaiah, chapter 42 verse 7.

If you look at Luke 4:18 though, you'll see that the final part of this New Testament verse which says "to set at liberty them that are bruised," is only found in the Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1, not the Septuagint.

>check dead sea scrolls vs the lxx and it matches with it over the masoretic text every single time.
Where did you hear this? That isn't even remotely true.

>>23398913
>but it is because Origen in the 3rd century AD copied it from the New Testament
Anon he made the Hexapla which was a compilation of the original Septuagint and the revisions of Aquila and Theodotion, two anti-Christian Jews

>>23398930
The only thing we have from before the Hexapla is scattered fragments. The original "Septuagint" was said to be a translation of the five books of Moses. And it seems clear that others translated other parts of the Old Testament later, which makes sense since Greek was an important language, and all of this was eventually compiled and edited by Origen and whoever else worked with him. We don't have anything close to a complete version of whatever Greek Old Testament translation(s) existed before him.

>>23398935
We have an independent source in the Syriac Peshitta

>>23398913
>Where did you hear this? That isn't even remotely true.
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/septuagint-vs-masoretic-which-is-more.html
peshitta, lxx and dss agree more often than with the mt.

>>23398976
The poster I was replying to said "check dead sea scrolls vs the lxx and it matches with it over the masoretic text every single time." He didn't say "more often."

He said "every single time" it matches the Septuagint, but what about the fact that the Isaiah scroll, which is an almost complete scroll of all 66 chapters of Isaiah, matches the Hebrew text over the Septuagint version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Scroll

>peshitta, lxx and dss agree more often than with the mt.
Prove it. Some of the examples in your article show the opposite of what you are trying to show. For example, the changing of "70" to "75" in Exodus 1:5 (and also in Genesis 46:27 which your article failed to mention) is an obvious error in the Septuagint that was an attempt to make it match Acts 7:14. How do I know? Well, the same Septuagint still contains the number "70" in Deuteronomy 10:22. They forgot to change all three places to 75. It's a blatant mistake.

I can also show that changing the number to 75 is a mistake, because the number given in Acts was never meant to count the exact same group of people in the first place. If you read Genesis 46, you will see that Joseph and his sons are counted as part of the 70. But the 75 people whom Stephen mentioned in Acts 7:14 cannot possibly include Joseph, since Stephen said these are the people that Joseph "invited" into Egypt.

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." (Acts 7:14)

The reason for the difference is that you have to subtract out the people that Joseph didn't invite into Egypt (such as himself) from the 70, and then you add in the wives of Joseph's brothers, who weren't part of Jacob's house but were invited into Egypt by Joseph. That gets you up to 75. The Septuagint editors didn't even grasp this, and they clumsily tried to get Exodus 1:5 and Genesis 46:27 to match what it says in Acts. Not only does this prove that they had access to the New Testament, but then they made yet another mistake. They forgot to even change Deuteronomy 10:22 in the same way. Because that verse ironically still says 70 in the septuagint rather than 75.

>>23398888
Amen.

>>23398909
I thought Jerome used the Hebrew as a source for the Old Testament Latin translation he made though.

It is clear where the facts are on this issue, despite the attempts to create confusion.

>>23398935
>and all of this was eventually compiled and edited by Origen and whoever else worked with him.
The translations of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus pre-dated Origen. Theodotion's edition was so popular that it actually replaced the original Septuagint in Christian usage and quotations from the book of Ezra by ancient Christians often came from his Greek translation (1 Esdras) which is wildly different from Hebrew Ezra. In the case of Aquila and Symmachus both consciously altered the translation of Psalm 22:16 because the original translation was being used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the Christ. Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho witness to the original Greek reading a century before Origen.

>>23399037
The facts are that the Masoretes were frauds

>>23399053
What does that have to do with the King James Version or the text that it used though?

>>23399050
Maybe that's why people in modern times are mistranslating Psalm 22:16 in the same way today. Fortunately the correct translation of the Hebrew there says "pierced."

As a side note, I mentioned before that the LXX version we have is missing a messianic prophecy in Zechariah 12:10. Notice the difference in the prophecy below:

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
(Zechariah 12:10 KJV)

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son."
(Brenton Septuagint 1844 translation)

Notice what changed. In Zechariah 12:10, the phrase "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced," is changed in the LXX to, "they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me," The reference to being pierced (see John 19:34, Rev. 1:7) is removed by the LXX.

Two more examples here:

Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
- KJV

Brenton Septuagint 1844 translation says:
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

Notice the difference between the received text Isaiah versus the Septuagint from the Greek LXX Isaiah. The latter has no reference to the title of the Son being "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." That's only in the received Old Testament.

A few other examples:
Psalm 2:12 KJV
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

1844 Brenton Sept. translation:
"Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him."

A few more examples you can check along this same line: Jeremiah 33:15-16, Daniel 9:26, Hosea 11:1 (as quoted in Matthew 2:15 from the Hebrew of Hosea 11:1 and not the LXX), Haggai 2:7.

The above are all examples of messianic prophecies that are present in the text used by the KJV, but they are removed in the Septuagint. And there are no real examples of the opposite happening.

>>23399050
>quotations from the book of Ezra by ancient Christians often came from his Greek translation (1 Esdras) which is wildly different from Hebrew Ezra.
Mixed up two different lines of thought. Quotations of the book of Ezra by ancient Christians often came from the Greek translation, 1 Esdras, rather than Hebrew Ezra; the Greek version has an extra section. Theodotion's revision of Daniel was notably different from the original Septuagint Daniel according to Origen and Jerome, but was the one that was most widely used by churches.

>>23399075
accept correction is the more appropriate hebrew translation though, even as much as i like kiss the son. the use of the word "bar" is pulling aramaic into a verse that has none and you don't see this again until proverbs where it was telling a story and from a different author.

>>23399111
verse 7 has son, "ben", but in 12 it's "bar" which is purity. "do homage" is a paraphrase of "kiss, the literal meaning.

>>23399075
>Maybe that's why people in modern times are mistranslating Psalm 22:16 in the same way today. Fortunately the correct translation of the Hebrew there says "pierced.
The "Hebrew" says ka'aru, "like a lion", and that's how Jewish translations like the New Jewish Publication Society version translate it. There is a ancient fragment from Nahal Hever which appears to attest to the Christian reading, but Jews dispute it due to it being somewhat damaged and charging that the scribe was sloppy.

The rot in modern Bible translations really metastasized with the RSV and its mid-20th century ecumenicist philosophy including Jews on the translation board, leading to Isaiah 7:14 being translated as young woman as it was translated in the JPS 1917 and Leeser Bibles.

>>23399111
>you don't see this again until proverbs where it was telling a story and from a different author.
So you already know about Proverbs 31:2 then.

My friend, these are all messianic prophecies. The reference to the Son in Psalm 2:12 is significant. There are 39 different Psalms which say we should trust the "Lord," from Psalm 4:5 to Psalm 144:2, but Psalm 2:12 connects all of this to the Son, making it a messianic prophecy.

>>23399186
>The "Hebrew" says ka'aru, "like a lion",
כָּאֲרִי means "pierced".

>leading to Isaiah 7:14 being translated as young woman
הָעַלְמָה means "virgin". Simple as that.

>>23399075
>What does that have to do with the King James Version or the text that it used though?
I think they were based in not slavishly following the scholarship of the rabbis and going by the inspiration of Holy Spirit across church history.

>>23397778
>Check for details, mine has zero footnotes
The KJV 1611 had both footnotes and the Apocrypha.

>>23399203
>I think they were based in not slavishly following the scholarship of the rabbis
Obviously because those guys were often incorrect. That's why they are a gnostic occult group from the middle ages in the first place. What would they know about something that has nothing to do with them like an ancient text?

>>23399192
I meant ka'ari
>they pierced The textual reading is kaari, `as a lion my hands and feet;' but several MSS read karoo, and others karoo in the margin, which affords the reading adopted by our translators. So the LXX [], so also the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic; and as all the Evangelists so quote the passage, and apply it to the crucifixion of Christ, there seems little doubt that this is the genuine reading; especially when it is considered that the other contains no sense at all. The whole difference lies between wav and yood, which might be easily taken for one another.
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/22-16.htm

>הָעַלְמָה means "virgin".
Bethulah means virgin, not almah, which means maiden.

>>23399220
So, explain to me how exactly does this make the Old Testament text that the KJV used incorrect? Are you saying they were bad translators, then? Couldn't it just be that some moderns are mistranslating the words today because of some kind of agenda to get people away from God's word, and those are the people you're choosing to listen to?

>>23399192
i noticed you didn't address the actual translation though, after i already said i appreciate the son being in my bible. it doesn't make sense to go with son with ben, but then also go with son when the word is bar. the line in proverbs is quoting his mother, so it's more understandable.

I got this
Reading the introduction atm

>>23396348
>bible
>not shilling the jews
What fucking planet are you on?

>>23399249
There are times where the Old Testament switches from Hebrew to Biblical Aramaic (sometimes called Syriac-Aramaic) in midsentence, such as in Daniel 2:4 or Jeremiah 10:11.

It even goes into using single words in this language, such as in Genesis 31:47, and the examples in Psalms and Proverbs already mentioned. So yes, it makes sense, and the Proverbs translation even does it with the same word, so there's basically no excuse for arguing that it's wrong.

>it doesn't make sense to go with son with ben, but then also go with son when the word is bar.
It does make sense, according to everything that I know.
>the line in proverbs is quoting his mother, so it's more understandable.
It's equally understandable, anon.

>>23399257
I assumed he was talking about the people who call themselves Jews today, not the Biblical group.

>>23399024
>They forgot to even change Deuteronomy 10:22 in the same way. Because that verse ironically still says 70 in the septuagint rather than 75.
You know there are multiple editions of the LXX right? Over 20 LXX witnesses say 75. Maybe you shouldn't be using the Alexandrian LXX.

>>23399234
>Are you saying they were bad translators, then?
No, I'm saying that they were able to overcome the stumblingblocks that were set in their path by the rabbis' meddling because they were convinced of the veracity of their faith and its articles. Unlike modernist translators and their unceasing doubt about everything. Did you hear about Daniel Wallace, the textual critic who had a massive crisis over the integrity of the New Testament because a single manuscript fragment said 616 in Revelation instead of 666 despite hundreds upon hundreds of witnesses attesting to 666? Their faith is founded on sand and it shows in their works.

>>23399267
>Daniel 2:4
the rest of the verse is in aramaic though.
>Jeremiah 10:11
similar here where it's an entire passage in aramaic.

it's literally one word in the psalm that was turned to son, when in the very same verse it wasn't. i can't really understand how you can argue it being that way and as i've expressed twice, i do really love the "kiss the son" line more.

>>23399274
The fact that some of them say πέντε and others say καὶ πέντε according to that apparatus is a sign of the lateness of the addition.

>>23399288
>it's literally one word in the psalm that was turned to son, when in the very same verse it wasn't.
You're talking about Psalm 2:7, that isn't the same verse. And Proverbs 31:2 is accepted to be literally the exact same thing except not just once, but three times.
>i do really love the "kiss the son" line more.
It's not about preference.

>>23399287
To sum it up, I'd say that with the skepticism of modern scholarship, they can't never produce the result of the KJV even when they have access to the exact same sources. It takes more than that to interpret the Bible.

>>23399313
The Authorized Version is a good way to cross check translations of the original Hebrew and Greek, but it's not absolutely necessary. I get accused of being a "KJV onlyist" and similar things despite this.

>>23399303
ok i don't know if you're the same anon, by my argument is that ben and bar both being son isn't consistent with psalms and its author. proverbs is more understandable because it's solomon quoting a king who is quoting his mother. there are indications in daniel 2:4 and jeremiah 10:11 where aramaic makes sense. it even says in daniel that the quote was in aramaic preceding the verse. you're making a generalization to the usage of it.
>You're talking about Psalm 2:7, that isn't the same verse.
my mistake, same chapter, but i think you knew what i meant and are just being a pedant. compare 2:7 to 2:12.

>>23399303
>The fact that some of them say πέντε and others say καὶ πέντε according to that apparatus is a sign of the lateness of the addition
>others
You're doing that sneaky thing they do in modern Bibles with the ending of Mark where they say "some manuscripts contain this longer ending" when it's actually the vast majority. 20 say πέντε, only 3 plus the Slavonic translation say καὶ πέντε. I think the former has the greater weight of authority. Most Septuagint texts (like most Hebrew OT texts as well with the Leningrad Codex) are diplomatic editions to Vaticanus or Alexandrinus though, so they go with the minority reading of 70.

>>23399323
>my mistake, same chapter, but i think you knew what i meant and are just being a pedant. compare 2:7 to 2:12.
It makes a difference, because if it was actually in the same sentence that would strengthen the objection a bit I think.
>you're making a generalization to the usage of it.
The translation just makes more sense based on the totality of everything that I know, and despite extensive searching, nothing I've seen has ever indicated that this isn't the correct translation of that word there.

>>23399320
One of the funniest translations and also fitting with the KJV's year of publication is 1 Kings 16:11. The KJV translated it literally as did other Reformation-era Bibles like the German Luther Bible, but later Bibles beginning with the Revised Version 1885 / ASV 1901 made it family-friendly by translating the somewhat rude Hebrew idiom as "male". Check it out.

>>23399329
you prefer kiss the son over maintain or do homage to purity. that's the bottom line here and i understand that, but you aren't being objective. the words are different and the pivot to aramaic doesn't happen anywhere else in the book of psalms. you cite other examples in other books by different authors, but it's clearly different there, as i've noted.

>>23396348
Some anons stay with the jew on their mind to an unhealthy extent

>>23399328
That being said, I think such differences shouldn't have serious impact on core doctrines of faith and translating the LXX or Vulgate into English may be misguided in that God intended the LXX to be used by the ancient Eastern Mediterranean and the Vulgate to be used by Western Europe for 1000 years, and the KJV has been that standard edition for English for the past 400 years.

>>23399328
That being said, I think such differences shouldn't have serious impact on core doctrines of faith and translating the LXX or Vulgate into English may be misguided in that God intended the LXX to be used by the ancient Eastern Mediterranean and the Vulgate to be used by Western Europe for 1000 years, and the KJV has been that standard edition for English for the past 400 years. God knows how He wants to shepherd his flock and I hear that the Reina-Valera 1960, which is a TR edition akin to the KJV, is its parallel for the growing population of Latin American Protestants.

>>23399372
*TR-based translation

>>23399328
>20 say πέντε, only 3 plus the Slavonic translation say καὶ πέντε. I think the former has the greater weight of authority.
You forgot to mention, how many leave it out entirely? That's an important figure I would think, especially since you just made a point about being very explicit and clear about the counts of things.
>with the ending of Mark where they say "some manuscripts contain this longer ending" when it's actually the vast majority.
It's literally everything except two manuscripts and a third damaged one that would normally be irrelevant to the discussion. And the two manuscripts happen to be Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In Vaticanus there is also a large and noticable lacuna that doesn't exist at the end of any of the other Gospels. Almost as if to say that the scribe knows about its existence but something is preventing him from writing it. And there are unusual properties about the pages surrounding the ending of Mark in Sinaiticus as well. Not a totally comparable situation.

But if there were an undisputed DSS fragment of any of these three verses in the Old Testament that said 75, that would change somewhat the point being made here. But it wouldn't change the fact that Stephen in Acts 7:14 is clearly talking about a group that is slightly different than the group of 70 people listed in Genesis 46, so it doesn't make sense to force them to match, and it makes perfect sense that these would be slightly different numbers. Specifically, Minus 6: Jacob (mentioned separately by Stephen), Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Hezron and Hamul who weren't born yet. And Plus 11: Joseph's brothers' wives, whom Joseph also invited to Egypt, but weren't included in the count of Jacob's house according to Genesis 46:26.

If you want we can get into other issues as well such as the inclusion of Cainan in Genesis 11 that was also meant to harmonize the text with Luke 3.

>>23399372
The RV 1865 was probably the best historical revision of this translation, which to my knowledge is a good translation. But several groups are working on making further updates to the RV now, so we'll see. Here's a couple of minor reasons why I might not use the 1960.

2 Reyes 10:25 en este verso, la RV1960 dice que el altar de Baal (un dios falso) es "santo",
Comparar:
2 Reyes 10:25 (RV 1960): "Y fueron hasta el lugar santo del templo de Baal," (!!)
2 Reyes 10:25 (RV 1909): "y fueron hasta la ciudad del templo de Baal."

Comparar:
Jeremias 5:17 (RV 1960): "Y comerá tu mies y tu pan, comerá a tus hijos y a tus hijas" (!)
Jeremias 5:17 (RV 1909): "Y comerá tu mies y tu pan, que habían de comer tus hijos y tus hijas"

>>23399397
>You forgot to mention, how many leave it out entirely? That's an important figure I would think,
I pulled it up in the Holmes Septuagint since it was available in the public domain, but I'll try to find it in the Gottingen Septuagint if possible to get an answer.

>>23399397
>Not a totally comparable situation.
The reason I brought them up is because Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are not just NT manuscripts but contain the Septuagint OT as well. Vaticanus was used for the 1587 Roman Septuagint which became the received text of the Septuagint for the next several centuries. It isn't a comparison, the same sources for the CT are the sources of the LXX.

>>23399397
>Not a totally comparable situation.
The reason I brought them up is because Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are not just NT manuscripts but contain the Septuagint OT as well. Vaticanus was used for the 1587 Roman Septuagint which became the received text of the Septuagint for the next several centuries. It isn't a comparison, the sources for the CT are literally the same sources of the current LXX, and if they're unreliable for the NT, it should suggest the same of their OT content. For example, almost the entire book of Genesis in Vaticanus was damaged at some point and rewritten by a scribe in a different hand whose transcription may or may not be reliable. You can see it on the Vatican website:
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

>>23399397
>The RV 1865 was probably the best historical revision of this translation, which to my knowledge is a good translation. But several groups are working on making further updates to the RV now, so we'll see. Here's a couple of minor reasons why I might not use the 1960
Recently the Spanish branch of the Trinitarian Bible Society released their revision, and it agrees with your quotation from the RV1909. It's available here:
https://www.reinavalera.online/

>>23399544
Fair enough then, if you want to say it isn't a comparison. To me, it seems crucially important to be able to say that we have always had the Scripture in its unchanged state because of what Scripture says on this matter. To say otherwise would be to deny what Scripture itself says, which seems to be contradictory because if you think that's the case, why even bother with this issue in the first place. So we've had it in unchanged form, as well as in various translations that have been made along the way. Some translations can be deemed faithful and accurate to the unchanged Scripture. And I think for English we started to converge toward a very good translation starting with the efforts of Tyndale and finishing with the KJV in 1611. The KJV was subsequently revised for spelling standards in 1762/1769, and had a few minor corrections up to around 1900. What's interesting is that, even though the NIV became the best seller at some point, the "most read" translation continues to be the Authorized Bible Version of 1611.

>>23399590
I've been busy studying the New Testament the last year plus, so I have been meaning to look at these releases from TBS. Thanks, anon.

>>23399465
Bumping this thread so it doesn't die overnight. I found a copy of the Gottingen Septuagint and have to tally the sources in the apparatus.

>>23399609
>What's interesting is that, even though the NIV became the best seller at some point, the "most read" translation continues to be the Authorized Bible Version of 1611.
I never really understood the NIV's popularity, it's neither literal nor colloquial and its textual base is all over the place, and they went woke with gender-neutrality in 2011.

>>23396348
The Marcion of Sinope bible.

>>23396952
>we're not jews, now worship this jew and reads these jews talking about this jew
Nice try, but how about not being a pawn, hm?

>>23400200
you have a misunderstanding between ethnic jews and modern judaism, ie pharisees. christianity is ot abrahamic religion seen to its conclusion as being for jew and gentile alike.

>>23396348
outrage marketing
the place is probably ran by jews

>>23399397
>>23399465
I'm back here are the results:

Gottingen reading is a frankentext constructed from Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ambrosiano A 147, Coislinianus, Vaticanus gr. 2106, Papyrus Fouad 266, Origenic group (12 mss), Catena group (22 mss), b (5 mss), d (4 mss), f (5 mss), n (6 mss), s (8 mss), t (6 mss), z (8 mss) groups, others where extant / Palestinian Syriac transalation

82 core mss

readings with kai pente or pente:

kai pente - Origenic subgroup I (4 mss), 83 (from the z group)

5 mss total

pente - Alexandrinus, Ambrosiano A 147, Vaticanus gr. 2106, 376 (from the Origenic group), Origenic subgroup II (4 mss), as a correction in 131 (from the Catena group), group f (5 mss), 127 and 458 (from group n), group s (8 mss), 121 and 392 (from group y), 18 68' (2 mss) 120 and as a correction in 669 (from group z), 28, 55, 59, 407, marginal reading in 646 / Latin codex 100, Bohairic Coptic translation

36 mss total excl. translations

I checked Papyrus Fouad 266 in "Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy" because of its age (1st century BC to 1st century AD), but it only contained the second half of the verse so it isn't a witness to the Vaticanus reading.

Most Septuagint editions incl. Holmes appear to use Vaticanus as their base text.

41 / 81, though others may support the Vaticanus reading, overall support probably somewhere in the 40% range, but still substantial enough for there to be a debate on which is authentic (scribes may have been inclined to correct to the Hebrew as well, this is present in later LXX manuscripts where there is correction to the Hebrew and Latin Vulgate in places such as the height of Goliath as 1Sa 9:2: older LXX mss in agreement with Josephus say 4 cubits, later ones 6)

>But if there were an undisputed DSS fragment of any of these three verses in the Old Testament that said 75, that would change somewhat the point being made here. But it wouldn't change the fact that Stephen in Acts 7:14 is clearly talking about a group that is slightly different than the group of 70 people listed in Genesis 46, so it doesn't make sense to force them to match.
It may have never been forced to match in the first place though, 75 could have been the original translation (correct or incorrect, unless you believe in LXX inerrancy like the Greek Orthodox due to the legend about the translators from the Letter of Aristeas). The LXX has different numbers in an assortment of places, such as the height of Goliath previously mentioned and the ages of the patriarchs after the flood in Gen 11. This was noticed by Christians at least as far back as Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome in the 4th century. Eusebius produced a comparison of the ages of the patriarchs between the traditions in his Chronicon to reckon the age of the earth, which is available here:
https://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius5.html

>>23399397
>>23399465
I'm back with the results:

Gottingen reading is a frankentext constructed from Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ambrosiano A 147, Coislinianus, Vaticanus gr. 2106, Papyrus Fouad 266, Origenic group (12 mss), Catena group (22 mss), b (5 mss), d (4 mss), f (5 mss), n (6 mss), s (8 mss), t (6 mss), z (8 mss) groups, others where extant / Palestinian Syriac transalation

82 core mss

readings with kai pente or pente:

kai pente - Origenic subgroup I (4 mss), 83 (from the z group)

5 mss total

pente - Alexandrinus, Ambrosiano A 147, Vaticanus gr. 2106, 376 (from the Origenic group), Origenic subgroup II (4 mss), as a correction in 131 (from the Catena group), group f (5 mss), 127 and 458 (from group n), group s (8 mss), 121 and 392 (from group y), 18 68' (2 mss) 120 and as a correction in 669 (from group z), 28, 55, 59, 407, marginal reading in 646 / Latin codex 100, Bohairic Coptic translation

36 mss total excl. translations

I checked Papyrus Fouad 266 in "Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy" because of its age (1st century BC to 1st century AD), but it only contained the second half of the verse so it isn't a witness to the Vaticanus reading.

Most Septuagint editions incl. Holmes appear to use Vaticanus as their base text.

41 / 81, though others may support the Vaticanus reading, overall support probably somewhere in the 40% range, but still substantial enough for there to be a debate on which is authentic (scribes may have been inclined to correct to the Hebrew as well, this is present in later (medieval) LXX manuscripts where corrections to the Hebrew and Latin Vulgate occur in places such as the height of Goliath as 1Sa 9:2: older LXX mss in agreement with Josephus say 4 cubits, later ones 6 (which is the MT / Vulgate reading))

>But if there were an undisputed DSS fragment of any of these three verses in the Old Testament that said 75, that would change somewhat the point being made here. But it wouldn't change the fact that Stephen in Acts 7:14 is clearly talking about a group that is slightly different than the group of 70 people listed in Genesis 46, so it doesn't make sense to force them to match.
It may have never been forced to match in the first place though, 75 could have been the original translation (correct or incorrect, unless you believe in LXX inerrancy like the Greek Orthodox due to the legend about the translators from the Letter of Aristeas). The LXX has different numbers in an assortment of places, such as the height of Goliath previously mentioned and the ages of the patriarchs after the flood in Gen 11. This was noticed by Christians at least as far back as Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome in the 4th century. Eusebius produced a comparison of the ages of the patriarchs between the traditions in his Chronicon to reckon the age of the earth, which is available here:
https://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius5.html

Least jewed English version of Anne Frank

Serf for Jews.

>>23402135
>""""OSB""""

>>23396932
Idiot philistine. Bibles translations are discerned by their literary quality.

>>23396348
i'm interested in the opposite, what's the kikest version? i assume it's the Scofield Reference Bible, which is just a KJV with some extra-kikery

How is pic related in terms of the physical construction? I have a feeling it's going to be glued and ultra thin paper but just how bad is it?

>>23396348
>>23396709
why was jesus upset about the way the jews were running their temple?

>>23403787
Because he was the head of a rival political faction attempting to seize power in Judaea

>>23403787
it's pretty straight forward. it happened on two occasions in the gospel, both of them after his visits to jerusalem.

> And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
>When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[a]

people were charging for the convenience of the currency exchange and also gouging with birds that were used for sacrifices.

>>23403819
yup
>>23403853
why did he refer to their god as his father?

>>23403941
john 5:30
>“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
jesus is god as a man and as man, his power is limited. the incarnate son is dependent on the father.

philippians 2:6-8
>“Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”

in humbling himself to become man, the Son sets aside His independent authority and heavenly glory.

>>23399203
The Authorized KJV doesnt. 1611 is the original, Authorized is the modern spelling version.
Boltzman Pew Bibles have zero foot notes, and the introductions are purely patristic.

>>23404045
>The Authorized KJV doesnt. 1611 is the original, Authorized is the modern spelling version
Anon you are wrong and have never actually seen the KJV 1611. You're reading the Blayney 1769 revision lol:
https://archive.org/details/1611theauthorizedkingjamesbible_202001/mode/1up

>>23404045
>The Authorized KJV doesnt. 1611 is the original, Authorized is the modern spelling version
And if you have ever seen the original KJV 1611 you would know that it has footnotes. You're probably reading the Blayney 1769 revision lol:
https://archive.org/details/1611theauthorizedkingjamesbible_202001/mode/1up

>>23404016
So the jews were worshipping jehovah incorrectly and he came down to fix that?

>>23404482
jews were meant to spread the word of god to their surrounding nations. they become too insular and rigid with the mosaic laws. their belief system became a bureaucracy and as jesus points out, they became extremely hypocritical. jesus came to tend to his lost sheep, the israelites, and make god's grace available to all, as it was intended. the irony is that their torah perfect describes him as the messiah even down to the town he would be born in.

>>23404587
So Jews are correct when they say they are god's chosen, because according to (You) the Old Testament, known as Tanakh, is where it's mentioned that Jehovah will always love them as their chosen. Emphasis on the always.

>>23396348
Versions before 1900 usually don't shill the Jews. You need to wit for Scofield and his ilk to have weirdo zionism included in the text itself.
Ronald Knox is from 1949, doesn't shill the Jews and is overall the best English translation anyway.

>>23404617
they were god's chosen people to produce the messiah.
deuteronomy 14:2
>For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

god does love everyone, always, but jesus changed the old testament paradigm with the new covenant. the parable of the tenants summarizes the history of it all perfectly to the israelites that do not accept christ with the new israel being the church built upon jesus christ.

>>23404617
the Hebrew national god (Yahweh) is not identical with God, the Supreme Being, as already observed by Marcion and many others.

>>23404656
NTA btw

>>23404648
what you quoted is only the chosen people part, which everyone already knew
>>23404656
it sure sounded like it was when (You) said he came down to cleanse the temple

>>23404682
>it sure sounded like it was when (You) said he came down to cleanse the temple
i'm not the person that you argued with before

>>23404682
i feared you were trying to be sneaky about israel and the chosen while ignoring everything else. what is your genuine point in this line of questioning? regardless of jesus being the messiah, jews rejecting jesus are still in god's good graces? i feel like the answer is pretty straight forward. the tanakh points to jesus vividly. he comes to tend to the "lost sheep" of israel and become a path to grace for all.

>>23404697
dead kike on a stick

>>23404971
what i expected.

>>23405446

>>23404971
>>23405498
Oh look we have rogue npc here.

>>23405498
>pic
No, real enemy is normalfags and jews, not some book.
Vaxxies and faggots are not christian.