/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20714643]

KJV or NKJV?

[Anonymous No.20714660]

[Anonymous No.20714779]

>>20714643
Read a chapter of each in Genesis and pick it doesn't matter that much

[Anonymous No.20714781]

ESV. King James was an occultist

[Anonymous No.20714784]

>>20714643
KJV, it's the only complete.

[Anonymous No.20715589]

>>20714643
King James if Bible, New King James if "bible".

[Anonymous No.20715595]

I like the NRSV

[Anonymous No.20715636]

>>20715595
But does it or doesn't it incorporate heretical Alexandrian manuscripts?

[Anonymous No.20715689]

>>20714643
niv/esv first, then king james

[Anonymous No.20715964]

>>20714643
>He doesn't read Da Good an Spesho Book

[Anonymous No.20716176]

>>20714643
NRSV.

[Lew No.20716234]

Geneva Bible:
Older, easier to read, and somehow still more literary than the King James Version.

“I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove 1thee with joy: therefore take thou pleasure in pleasant things: and behold, this also is vanity.”
GNV


“I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.”
KJV

[Anonymous No.20716433]

KJV and everything else is novelty. Why would you choose pidgin over English? KJV is and should be the only representation of the Bible in the English language. The corrected ones anyway.

[Anonymous No.20716457]

>>20715636
You've been watching Sam Gipp videos, anon.

[Anonymous No.20716535]

Geneva Bible is very good (even the pro-KJV crowd has trouble faulting it), but good luck finding a Tolle Lege print copy for less than $30.

It’s also worth having a copy of the Septuagint/LXX around, as that skews much closer to the Tanakh/Old Testament that Jesus read and quoted from (as well as the Jews of that era), as the Masoretic Text they use today (and 99% of bibles, including the KJV) wasn’t finalized and codified until ~600-900 AD, several hundred years after Jesus.

The Orthodox Study Bible follows the Septuagint, using the NKJV (Masoretic based) as the primary text, and editing it to reflect the older LXX text where it differs.

I prefer Brenton’s KJV-inspired LXX, but it’s hard to find a copy that isn’t half in Greek.

[Anonymous No.20716539]

catholic and orthodox larpers jerking off over a protestant bible

[Anonymous No.20717170]

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible?
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
4. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
5. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates.
6. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
7. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
8. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
9. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

[Anonymous No.20717172]

>>20717170
10. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
11. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
12. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate?
13. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
14. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
15. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
16. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
17. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

[Anonymous No.20717174]

>>20717172
26. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8?
27. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"?
28. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"?
29. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611?
30. What copy or translation of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? Does this mean if the Reformation is illegitimate, if they didn't have the KJV? What if the KJV is a product of the Reformation? Wouldn't that make the KJV itself illegitimate?

[Anonymous No.20717191]

KJV
> Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans

[Anonymous No.20717362]

>>20716234
Can you link this edition? Geneva version is what Shakespeare read fwiw, KJV came out late

[Anonymous No.20717425]

>>20717170
>>20717172
>>20717174
Why do people get so riled up over the KJV? I'm not even a prot, but I use it as my main English bible because it has beautiful language. No translation is inerrant, and unless you're a theologian 99% of the inaccuracies will fly right the fuck over your head anyway

[Anonymous No.20717510]

>>20715964
wish dat life stay to da max foeva ;_;

[Anonymous No.20717805]

For Most Poetic Version
>KJV

For Formal Equivalence
>NASB

For Functional Equivalence
>NLT

For Best Overall
>NIV

[Anonymous No.20717848]

>>20717805
All of this to say, the KJV is both more difficult to read and less accurate than the NASB. So, at that point, why bother?

[Anonymous No.20718370]

RSV2CE

[Anonymous No.20720060]

>>20714660

[Anonymous No.20720274]

>>20717848
Be not deceived.

[Anonymous No.20720296]

>>20717805
How is the NKJV more literal than the KJV on that scale? That makes no sense, by it's very existence the NKJV is farther from literal truth than KJV. Am I reading this wrong?

[Anonymous No.20720324]

>>20714660
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20720506]

>>20720274
I checked the NASB and it uses flatter not deceive
>But they flattered Him with their mouth
>And lied to Him with their tongue

[Anonymous No.20720687]

>>20720506
Which one? Picrel shows they're different.

[Anonymous No.20721677]

>>20720274
how is god being flattered by lies different from being deceived.
obviously the passage is telling you what the people were trying to do, but if you want to be so particular about the plainest possible reading of the sentence, the way the image does for the deceived translation, either one states that god was fooled.

[Anonymous No.20721681]

>>20720296
σε in the original language translate to literally mean "you"

Is a more faithful translation to say "you" or "thou / thee"

This illustrates the problem with the KJV bible. It takes langauge not reflective of the original and not easily understandable today.

[Anonymous No.20723038]

Douay-Rheims obviously you filthy heretics