/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23507166]

What's the best Bible translation for a beginner? I've heard the KJV is difficult to read but newer translations paraphrase too much.

[Anonymous No.23507201]

>>23507166
>I've heard the KJV is difficult to read
It's really not. It's a 6th or 7th grade reading level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZs9PegP1YA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeMODJO_PUY

Don't fall for publi$her talking points like that, they just want to sell their copyrighted bibles which are all full of errors and contradictions unlike the KJB which has no errors and no contradictions. Some of these modern bibles even try to "fix" what they think is an error, but they end up adding an error to their bible because they didn't study it enough in the first place to know it wasn't an error and that the KJB got it right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ytCE-QdCA

>but newer translations paraphrase too much.
It's not only that they paraphrase (or that they have to change at least 10% for their copyright and love of money), they're usually translating the wrong book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5HY22JBzDU

[Anonymous No.23507205]

Keep a secondary translation at hand to refer to if you don't understand something. It can help just to have it worded differently.

[Anonymous No.23507208]

>>23507166
for Catholic:
>cutting edge hi-tech, basically the most advanced translation without being "progressive" uses original sources; published AD 1985
New Jerusalem Bible
>state-of-the-art yet Old Testament translated from Latin Vulgate instead of Hebrew originals; published AD 1968
Jerusalem Bible
>the ORIGINAL Catholic Bible in English, translated entirely from the Latin Vulgate; published AD 1610
Douay–Rheims

if you are a protestant just stick to the KJV, no use selling yourself short
even Catholics read KJV in their free time

[Anonymous No.23507213]

It's not clear why you want to read the Christian Bible
Your motivation will influence which translation is best for you

[Anonymous No.23507214]

KJV for pleasure, NIV for elucidation, and picrel for a purely scholarly take.

[Anonymous No.23507215]

>>23507213
that's like saying "the reason for going out in the middle of the field in a rainstorm will influence the lightning bolt"

[Anonymous No.23507220]

>>23507214
>revised
>ecumenical
>fully lesbian gay and tranny compatible
maybe OP should just wait for the MOTT thread every Saturday and get the Study Edition of the New Jerusalem Bible included in a downloadable pack there

[Anonymous No.23507225]

>>23507213
Is a motivation necessary to determine which version OP should read? Shouldn't the motivation be to understand Jesus' life and teachings?

[Anonymous No.23507263]

>>23507166
KJV

[Anonymous No.23507293]

>>23507166
You can start with the New International Reader's Version if you have to.

Here is a comparison of a passage from the First Letter to Timothy in the New King James Version, the New International Version, and the New International Reader's Version:

NKJV
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16, NKJV)

NIV
"Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

NIrV
"There is no doubt that true godliness comes from this great mystery. Jesus came as a human being. The Holy Spirit proved that he was the Son of God. He was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations. People in the world believed in him. He was taken up to heaven in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16, NIrV)

[Anonymous No.23507347]

>>23507293
>comparing all the shitty versions
aren't you ashamed of yourself?
are you doing this for money?
is you wife's child starving?

[Anonymous No.23507442]

>>23507166
KHV

[Anonymous No.23507453]

>>23507166
I'm reading the kjv and am finding the old testament rather dense and dry, apparently esv is good but I've next to no experience with others

[Anonymous No.23507593]

>>23507214
the "scholarly" take bibles i think are a waste of time for someone trying to understand the theology. that bible, for instance, is constantly skeptical and has a chapter dedicated to "q" source which is entirely made up and unfounded. not to mention the nrsv is terrible for the alterations and "modernizing" of the language it treats as living. you shouldn't read the bible with a modern lens and should instead contextualize everything for the time period.

[Anonymous No.23507654]

>>23507166
>but newer translations paraphrase too much.
I have never seen this before
If you ever want to study the Bible seriously, every translation is garbage. Better start learning Hebrew and Koine Greek.

[Anonymous No.23507679]

>>23507166
get an Orthodox Study Bible. It has the benefit of being a complete Bible, instead of a hack job by lesser sectarians.

[Anonymous No.23507708]

>>23507166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaFSuyDuOM0
not the KJV, I dunno why English speakers turned that one into an idol

[Anonymous No.23507719]

>>23507708
>batman shirt
I don't trust a manchild on serious topics.

[Anonymous No.23507739]

>>23507719
not an argument

[Anonymous No.23507942]

>>23507739
>clumsy and awkward
>outdated
>people who think they understand actually don't
he makes assertions than shills the "scholarly" nsrv.

[Anonymous No.23507992]

>>23507739
even his example of jude doesn't change things theologically if you read the passages around it. if you read the kjv line of "make a difference" as being impactful in someone's life, it should be clear in the very next line that you are to make a distinction by saving others with fear rather than compassion. this guy is a turd.

[Anonymous No.23507995]

[Anonymous No.23508032]

>>23507995
>removes messianic reference in genesis 49:10
>adds in an allusion to a massive cock between judah's legs and virility
bravo

[Anonymous No.23509326]

>>23507593
>you shouldn't read the bible with a modern lens and should instead contextualize everything for the time period
That's exactly what that Bible aims to do though?

[Anonymous No.23509344]

>>23507166
Anyone who says KJV is hard to read isn't worth listening to.

[Anonymous No.23509345]

>>23507166
As a beginner, just read whichever version appeals to you the most and is easiest to read. The Bible is long. If you get one that you don't like to read, you're never going to sit there and read the whole thing. At the end of the day, you're going to be reading a translation anyways and some meaning is going to be lost in translation, so don't worry about it too much.

[Anonymous No.23509356]

>>23507214
Author: Satan

[Anonymous No.23509363]

>>23509326
when you see the term slave in the OT, chattel variety is what would inevitably pop into your mind but that would be incorrect. if you don't know what was going on in the roman empire at the time of jesus, and specifically paul in his letter to philemon, you'd walk away with an awful interpretation of what they both said. secondly, to understand theological significance and really "get it", you'd be better off hearing it from a more evangelical source, not some smarmy skeptics treating theory as fact(q, dates of the gospels, authorship of the gospels, etc). early church father homilies and writings are 1000% better than any of the essays you'd get in the noab nrsv pile of shit.

[Anonymous No.23509382]

>>23509326
enjoy reading about how Paul demanded they appoint tranny priests and execute homophobes

[Anonymous No.23509383]

>>23507208
>Hebrew originals

[Anonymous No.23509389]

>>23509382
or how jesus used eunuchs to reference trans people when talking about marriage.

[Anonymous No.23509402]

>>23507201
>It's really not. It's a 6th or 7th grade reading level.
Isn't reading level measured by things like word length? More relevant is that it has words that aren't used anymore or, worse, are used but with a different sense, which is liable to lead to misunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.23509412]

>>23507593
>"modernizing" of the language it treats as living. you shouldn't read the bible with a modern lens and should instead contextualize everything for the time period.
The language of the KJV is nearly as far from the period when the original texts were composed.

[Anonymous No.23509418]

>>23507166
If you want to approach as close you can to a text in a language you don't speak, you'd do well to compare multiple translations, and read annotated translations that give context and explain translation choices with reference to the original text.

[Anonymous No.23509429]

>>23509412
yea so let's take kjv, remove thee/though/ye singular and plural distinctions and make it gay and women friendly.

[Anonymous No.23509451]

>>23509418
You could compare 12 bad Protestant liberal Satanic tranny moderncuck translations of the same verse and come out without understanding it, or misinterpreting it. Or you could read 1 good translation - Douay Rheims- along with a good Catholic commentary and understand it just fine.

[Anonymous No.23509458]

>>23509412
No hablas Ingles?

[Anonymous No.23509925]

So from what anons have said, I should read the KJV but if I don't understand something then I should reference another version like the ESV?

Also, I'm attending a Catholic church, so do I have to read a 'Catholic version'?

[Anonymous No.23509976]

>>23509925
If you don't understand a verse, reading it from the other English translation isn't gonna help you understand it.
Pray for G-d before you read and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.23509977]

>>23507593
>not to mention the nrsv is terrible for the alterations and "modernizing" of the language it treats as living
This is what every bible translated in the past 500 years has done. It's a dumb argument to make anyway since we aren't using the language it was originally in, any translation by nature will follow the modern form of the language it is translated into.

[Anonymous No.23509980]

>>23509382
>>23509389
>>23509429
>>23509451
Why are you so rent free about things that nobody does?

[Anonymous No.23509989]

>>23507166
ESV is extremely accurate, accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike, and easy to read without dumbing it down. I personally suggest getting the ESV-CE since it includes the deuterocanon.

[Anonymous No.23509995]

>>23509977
The thing is that English as used in the KJV is well-defined. We know what Greek it corresponds to and it is the standard meaning and understanding of English words for centuries. It was the only translation really in use during the time when the first great English dictionaries were written in the 18th century.

Translations made today tend to bend and modify the definitions of things, that is, they operate using flimsy, poorly defined uses of English words that don't correspond to something you would find in a historical and well-established dictionary. This is in addition to their use of the modern "critical text," which is missing about 7% of the New Testament in total, which is another fatal problem with these modern versions like the NIV and ESV.

[Anonymous No.23510007]

>>23507166
NKJV is the way to go—the beauty of KJV and accuracy of modern translation/research.

[Anonymous No.23510061]

>>23507215
No it isn’t, that’s a very bad analogy

[Anonymous No.23510072]

>>23507166
>newer translations paraphrase too much
There’s two types of translation, dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Dynamic is more paraphrased, or “thought for thought,” while formal is more literal, “word for word.”
An example of this is in the letters of Paul, he often compares and contrasts “the spirit” with “the flesh.” In the NIV, they translated flesh as “sinful nature.” Most theologies would say that that is what he’s saying, but it’s not a literal translation, and people who subscribe to different theologies reject the NIV for that reason. Many who even agree with the meaning, and say that “flesh” in Paul’s letters refers to our sinful nature, dislike it for removing the poetry of what he’s saying, as it is an inaccurate translation of what was originally written.
Most translations will tell you what they are if you just look them up, and every single translation needs to balance a bit of both. There are some paraphrase Bibles that still bill themselves as translations, such as The Message or The Living Bible, but those are an extreme minority.

[Anonymous No.23510075]

>>23507166
NAB if you want something that's just easily readable. RSV/RSVCE is my personal go-to; it brings about the best of the KJV (main Protestant Bible) and DR (most "traditional" Catholic Bible) together and also makes it more readable.

tbqh if you just want to read the text to understand the gist of it most of the mainstream translations aren't "bad," per se. At the level you're expressing interest in debating about translations of the Bible is basically console wars shit.

[Anonymous No.23510079]

>>23507166
NKJV for pleasure and the poetry and wisdom literature (ie. proverbs, song of songs, ecclesiastes, etc.)
ESV if you want to study.

[Anonymous No.23510082]

>>23507442
Kingdom Hearts Version?

[Anonymous No.23510095]

>>23510072
(Same anon) here’s an example of dynamic equivalence in the King James: St Paul frequently says a very strong emphatic no in his letters, right after asking himself a rhetorical question. Example “should we continue to sin so that Grace will abound? Absolutely not.” A lot of translations say “certainly not” or something along those lines. The King James uses the strongest term for “no” that was around in English at the time, “God forbid.” The Douay-Rheims uses the same term. The original verse does not say “God forbid,” and doesn’t mention God in that context. Nor does the Latin vulgate.
People who negatively compare the NKJV to the KJV will often say the NKJV removes a ton of references to God, and these make up the bulk of those references.

[Anonymous No.23510104]

>>23509925
I'm Catholic and I like the KJV's prose more than the DR's. The KJV feels grand and reverent whereas the old-timeyness of the DR goes a bit too far for my taste; something about it ends up feeling stilted and feline.

I haven't looked into a good edition of the KJV that includes the deuterocanon. All of them either exclude it or passive-aggressively smear it as "apocrypha" which somehow feels even more irksome.

[Anonymous No.23510107]

>1 In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present to God, and the Logos was god; 2 this one was present to God in the origin. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him came to be not a single thing that has come to be. 4 In him was life, and this life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not conquer it. 6 There came a man, sent by god, whose name was John; 7 this man came in witness, that he might testify about the light, so that through him all might have faith—8 but only that he might testify about the light; he was not that light. 9 It was the true light, which illuminates everyone, that was coming into the cosmos. 10 He was in the cosmos, and through him the cosmos came to be, and the cosmos did not recognize him. 11 He came to those things that were his own, and they who were his own did not accept him. 12 But as many as did accept him, to them he gave the power to become god’s children—to those having faith in his name, 13 those born neither from bloods,b nor from the flesh’s desire nor from a man’s desire, but of god. 14 And the Logos became flesh and pitched a tent among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the Father’s only one, full of grace and truth.
Check out David Bentley Hart's translation (2nd edition, 2023). Been reading it along with the original Greek (learning atm) and Castellio's Ciceronian Latin translation. It is faithful to the Greek, so much so that the literary polish of KJV had to be sacrificed. Also preserves the some of the original meanings of the words without later theological interpretation, e.g. διάβολος translated not as Satan but as the original meaning "the accuser" or "the slanderer"

[Anonymous No.23510117]

>>23507166
KJV is the only translation worth reading

[Anonymous No.23510157]

Is NKJV actually the same as KJV? Did they really not change anything besides removing obsolete grammatical forms?
Also, how accurate is Complete Jewish Bible? Its description sounds promising.

[Anonymous No.23510161]

>>23507166
RSV is very good RSVCE is better
you are going to need a "commentary" book too

[Anonymous No.23510162]

>>23507208
>if you are a protestant just stick to the KJV, no use selling yourself short
>even Catholics read KJV in their free time
you want pre vat 2 stuff faggot

[Anonymous No.23510171]

>>23510107
Thanks! As someone who prefers literal translations, I'll have to check this out. I don't care if people think something sounds "wooden," I want to get at the heart of what is said.

[Anonymous No.23510256]

>>23509344
Anyone that says KJV isn't unnecessarily obtuse and hard to read is trying to sell you something, namely their ego. What a load of shit.

[Anonymous No.23510257]

>>23510157
The NKJV is a completely different translation.

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
–Matthew 7:14 (KJV)

"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
–NKJV ("narrow" changed to "difficult")

"For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."
–Matthew 21:32 (KJV)

"For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him."
–NKJV ("repent" changed to "relent")

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
–John 5:39 KJV

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
–NKJV (imperative mood "Search the scriptures" changed to indicative mood)

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."
–Hebrews 3:16 KJV

"For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?"
–NKJV ("NOT all who came out of Egypt" changed to "was it not all who came out of Egypt?"; opposite meaning and point being made)

You can also find places where the NKJV actually apparently follows the critical text in the New Testament, despite claiming not to do this. This might be accidental, as the NKJV tends to follow a lot of changes that other modern versions have and might have copied them from there inadvertently. This is the case in places like Revelation 6:11 ("white robes" plural changed to "a white robe"), Jude 1:3 ("the common salvation" changed to "our common salvation"), and 2 John v. 7 ("are entered" changed to "have gone out").

In the Old Testament, the NKJV has outright contradictions in it, such as where the NKJV writers reversed the meaning of 2 Kings 23:29 to say the opposite of what the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 35:20 says. The NKJV also introduce interpretive changes that are suspect in the Old Testament, such as changing "thy seed" and "his enemies" (singular) into "your descendants" and "their enemies" (plural) in Genesis 22:17, even though this goes directly against Paul's teaching on this prophecy in Galatians 3:16; as well as changing the phrase "he made his grave" to the phrase "they made his grave" in Isaiah 53:9. The NKJV is clearly a completely different translation because of this.

There are many more things I could get into. One example is where the NKJV changed "vinegar" into "sour wine" in Mattew 27:34, even though this would seem to contradict the prophecy that was just given in Matthew 26:29 about Jesus never drinking of the fruit of the vine again until he drinks it new with them in His Father's kingdom.

[Anonymous No.23510273]

Why do people just keep saying the KJV is somehow more accurate or faithful than other versions? I've never actually seen anybody prove this other than comparing it to other translations as if that matters at all.

[Anonymous No.23510293]

>>23510257
vinegar is sour wine you dunce

[Anonymous No.23510310]

>>23510293
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar

[Anonymous No.23510348]

>>23507166
I'm reading the Bible cover to cover for the first time right now. I chose the CSB, what >>23509345 said, in addition to advice from your Priest/Pastor, is best.

[Anonymous No.23510408]

>>23510293
>>23510310
The English term "sour wine" refers to a different compound. This makes its substitution deliberately inaccurate and misleading.

[Anonymous No.23510421]

> The 30 Years War Study Bible (King James)
> The Conspiracy Theorist's Study Bible (King James)
> The Volkisch Study Bible (King James)
> The Platonist/Aristotelian's Study Bible (King James)
> The Madoka Magica Study Bible (King James)
> The Tabletop Gamer's Study Bible (King James)
> The Fictionalist's Study Bible (King James)
> The 2000s New Atheism Study Bible (King James)
> The German Idealist Study Bible (King James)
> The International Jew and Protocols Study Bible (King James)
> The Pokemon Study Bible (King James)
> The Reformation to Revolution Study Bible (King James)

Which one would you read or write if you had all the time in the world?

[Anonymous No.23510435]

>>23510421
>The 30 Years War Study Bible
One of the worst Bibles ever made was the Swedish translation of 1618, named the "Gustav II Adolf Bible." Because it actually marks four books of the New Testament as "apocrypha," moving them to a separate section at the end of the book.

[Anonymous No.23510509]

>>23510408
Allow me to delineate the concern with this passage here since you've given me a chance now:

"Wine" without any modifiers refers specifically to the fermented juice of grapes. In English, putting an adjective in front of it, like "sour" would refer to wine that tastes that way. According to the dictionary, we wouldn't refer to literal vinegar, even if it was from grapes, in that way.

"Vegetable acid; an acid liquor obtained from wine, cider, beer or other liquors, by the second or acetous fermentation. vinegar may differ indefinitely in the degree of its acidity. When highly concentrated, it is called radical vinegar."
(Webster 1828 Dictionary)

To further add to the problems of that translation choice, the New Testament word "ὄξος" was used of the cheap drink that the Romans made. The main ingredients included vinegar from an unspecified source, not necessarily grapes, mixed with water. Sometimes there would be other herbs or other things added to it, because it wasn't drinkable without being watered down first. It was basically like a cheap grog or swill that was given to criminals, hence why it was there at the crucifixion. It is definitely not what we would call wine, although it is possible (not necessary) that it had grape-based ingredients in it. Same thing with the word "vinegar" in English; we do not confuse it with wine, even if the word's etymology has "vine" in it. Looking at it conceptually, it isn't even a drink or a beverage on its own, and it doesn't even have to be composed of grapes. It can be from something completely different as well, so long as it has sugar in it.

There are plenty of other examples where you get inaccurate translations if you try to translate or substitute a word in one language for the meanings of its constituent parts in another language, even if it is the root language. You shouldn't need me to tell you this on the literature board. One example I point out is the English word Lucifer. In English, this word means "Shining one" and it is a proper name. The English word Lucifer does not have the same meaning as the word "lucifer" in Latin, at least not exactly. It corresponds instead to the meaning of the Hebrew הֵילֵל as found in Isaiah (for that, see pic). And the English word cannot rightly be substituted for the Latin definition of the word either, as many modern translations do in their translation of Isaiah 14:12 (although the NKJV is not guilty of this). Hopefully that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.23510512]

>>23510509
Forgot to attach pic, of course.

[Anonymous No.23510579]

>>23507166
KJV translators went into it trying as best as can be negotiated in English to recapitulate the typology/multivalence of the Greek & Hebrew. The biblical 'scholarship' swindle belies the fact that most of all these variant manuscripts uncovered were dross thrown out in their own time as being errant copying errors or of dubious provenance superseded by what they knew they had in hand. It's about copyright and having special snowflake particular readings to support theological positions, hardly ever the integrity of the text.

Get a KJV and a Greek Interlinear.

[Anonymous No.23510583]

>>23510107
>Castellio

Is his French one equivalent to KJV in France, or is there an other?

[Anonymous No.23510721]

I had no problem with the KJV gospels but holy shit did I ever get filtered when I went back and tried to read the book of Job. it could just be me being retarded but I honestly wish I went with a more straightforward translation

[Anonymous No.23510820]

>>23510721
It's a bit naive to expect to fully understand everything in the Bible in your first reading, don't you think?

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

[Anonymous No.23510963]

>>23510107
i don't really understand why this guy went with "psychics" and "pneumatics" when translating jude. his foot note doesn't make sense in the context of the verse. they "psychical" men were apostates and not simply a lower class of church members.

[Anonymous No.23511057]

>>23510583
Castellio was French but translated into Latin. If you want the literary KJV French, Louis Segond is what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.23511063]

>>23510820
Is it in the bible somewhere why some Children are born with AIDS and cancer? Is it a test for them to live for only 4 years? Also, if you die as a 99 year old, how old will you be in heaven? What about if you die as a 9 week old?

[Anonymous No.23511072]

not literature

[Anonymous No.23511075]

>>23511063
Job

[Anonymous No.23511174]

>>23511063
>god can't exist because i can't rationalize x thing in MY mind

[Anonymous No.23511208]

>>23511174
>>23511075
Just answer the question: if you die as a 99 year old or 99 day old, how old will you be in heaven?

[Anonymous No.23511237]

>>23511208
21 if you're male and 15 if you're female

[Anonymous No.23511242]

>>23511208
>what happens to the physical body in my metaphysical hypothetical?
there is no answer sufficient enough for you to begin with. what if you are simply born again?

[Anonymous No.23511263]

>>23511242
The thing is, you are driven by hormones, produced by your brain, the physical. To hypothesize what would happen without the physical is pointless, even if it were real, it just isn't imaginable. For all you know, heaven could be everlasting torture but with no mouth to speak. Y*hweh's eternal slave, for eternity, as he gapes you, the pain never ceasing.

>what if you are simply born again?
Heresy, but the point is that the bible was written by man, and they have the same deficiencies as you and I. They cannot imagine what a "heaven" would even look like or feel like. They can't imagine eternity.

[Anonymous No.23511270]

>>23507708
That guy is a Jew

[Anonymous No.23511279]

>>23511263
>To hypothesize what would happen without the physical is pointless, even if it were real, it just isn't imaginable.
The Bible says the resurrection is physical though

[Anonymous No.23511286]

>>23511279
>The Bible says the resurrection is physical though
So what?

[Anonymous No.23511356]

>>23511286
So it's imaginable

[Anonymous No.23511739]

>>23511263
>jesus was the most selfless and loving human ever but he lied about what his kingdom is like
>i assert that god cannot work through fallible man

[Anonymous No.23511755]

>>23507166
A beginner should read a "Study Bible". Otherwise you won't understand a bunch of things.

The best one in English for the New Testament (taking in consideration cost-benefit) is the Ignatius Study Bible. They will release the Old Testament too.

If you are very rich and also have a lot of physical space, get the Navarre Study Bible.

[Anonymous No.23511767]

The Gospel of Thomas. The synoptic gospels are a marketing campaign.

[Anonymous No.23511771]

>>23510157
>Is NKJV actually the same as KJV?
No, they also include a lot of footnotes that only cast doubt on the Word of God by citing the textual critic camp's talking points and narratives to defend using inferior and erroneous texts as the basis for their bibles.

[Anonymous No.23511967]

>I inherit my crazy KJV-only "pray til you're healthier" great grandma's bible
>it's NKJV
>she'd go on literal hours-long rants about how the KJV was the only translation approved by God
>mfw

[Anonymous No.23511979]

>>23510007
>(((modern translation/research)))

[Anonymous No.23512233]

>>23509429
>make it gay and women friendly
Can you name a specific example of this?

[Anonymous No.23512249]

>>23510171
A word-for-word translation doesn't necessary carry the meaning of the original, both because languages are different and because cultural context is different. To give a simple example, if a Japanese person says, in Japanese, "Ah, that may be a little difficult..." what they really mean is "Sorry, no can do." If you translate what they said literally to English, you're liable to mislead your listener.

[Anonymous No.23512268]

>>23512233
1 corinthians 6:9 is changed from gay sex or homosexual acts to "illicit sex" and softened to sodomy elsewhere in timothy. the women friendly is just a general more inclusive language to no longer say brethran or man, but to broaden it to female counterparts. fishers of people, for instance. there's also "Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, …" rather than "husband of only one wife" in 1 tim 3:2 which opens up the idea that women can be bishops. just a few instances of defiling the word.

[Anonymous No.23512272]

>>23510257
>imperative mood "Search the scriptures" changed to indicative mood
The original Greek has ἐραυνᾶτε, which is indicative, so in this case it's more accurate.

[Anonymous No.23512274]

>>23507166
KJV and ESV, with deuterocanonical books if you can. ESV isn't perfect, but good enough. If you're Catholic, RSV2CE is actually better, but similar.

[Anonymous No.23512275]

also, to follow up with a comment earlier, progressive "pastors" have run with matthew 19:12's use of eunuch to make it about trans people.

[Anonymous No.23512279]

>>23510435
Are there not, in fact, some epistles whose Pauline authorship is seriously questioned?

[Anonymous No.23512286]

>>23512279
just one that i know of is ephesians which is disputed because it "seems not pauline" like. these scholars won't mention that he was in jail at this time and this could be, and likely is, a scribe issue.

[Anonymous No.23512304]

>>23512268
>1 corinthians 6:9 is changed from gay sex or homosexual acts to "illicit sex"
Every translation I'm finding of that verse has "homosexuals" or some synonym. (Not that the verse is completely unambiguous; the word used, ἀρσενοκοῖται, only appears there and in one other place, nowhere else in Greek literature, and even before the modern push for gay acceptance, it wasn't universally agreed on what it means, with Luther for instance rendering it as Knabenschänder, which means men who molest boys, not men who have consensual sex with adult men. And Greek had plenty of much less ambiguous words he could have used.)
>the women friendly is just a general more inclusive language to no longer say brethran or man, but to broaden it to female counterparts
What's wrong with that? Is God's salvation not meant for all humans regardless of gender?
>fishers of people, for instance
The original Greek is ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, with ἄνθρωπος meaning any human being, not a specifically male one.

[Anonymous No.23512309]

>>23512286
Wouldn't a scribe's job have been to transcribe verbatim what was dictated to them? And it's not like the manuscripts we have from those days have any punctuation, so the words is all we have to go by.

[Anonymous No.23512353]

>>23512304
>Every translation I'm finding...
nrsvue has illicit sex. point is, anything softening the language to not "seem" so intolerant should be an alarm.
>only appears there and in one other place, nowhere else in Greek literature,
read timothy 1:10. you just claimed something radical.
>>the women friendly
yea but that's not the point, especially when you think about repercussions of maintaining a church tradition, like i mentioned. it just seems like a petty battle to fight; losing sight of what really matters when studying or preaching the word.

[Anonymous No.23512357]

>>23512309
would you then assert that paul didn't write it because it doesn't "seem pauline" in syntax when you know he was jailed?

[Anonymous No.23512362]

>>23512353
>read timothy 1:10
Yes, that's the one other place.
>it just seems like a petty battle to fight; losing sight of what really matters when studying or preaching the word.
Are women not just as important as men in the struggle to ensure the safety of everyone's soul?
>>23512357
Would a scribe not have transcribed what he said verbatim?

[Anonymous No.23512364]

>>23512272
The word is actually imperative, see: https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?search=E%29RAUNA%3DTE&lang=el

[Anonymous No.23512371]

Throughout the history of Christianity, the standard for English has been the King James Version, so definitely go with that one. If you're finding it difficult to read, though, then go with the New Revised Standard Version as it is the one most academics use. Do not read the New International Version (NIV) as it contains serious errors and many injections of English text that the original language texts do not have.

[Anonymous No.23512383]

>>23512304
>Not that the verse is completely unambiguous
it's not unambiguous. it's paul's word crafted with the words "men" + "bedders". the same words in the septuagint's leviticus.

[Anonymous No.23512402]

>>23512371
NRSV/RSV/ESV are all in that academic category (that is, they all come from the RSV). It's still the Tyndale tradition of the KJV, in a sense. NRSV just appeals to mainline denominations and more academics because the Gender Inclusiveness, which is almost as intrusive as the stuff you point out about the NIV. Not quite.

[Anonymous No.23512405]

>>23512383
As I said, there are plenty of existing Greek words he could have used, and even pre-modern translators didn't all agree on its meaning. The Leviticus verse is also disputed.

[Anonymous No.23512418]

>>23512371
>If you're finding it difficult to read, though, then go with the New Revised Standard Version as it is the one most academics use.
I don't know why they would use it, it has terrible errors in it just like the NIV.

In Acts 20:28, for example, the NRSV put the phrase "the blood of His own Son" instead of "his own blood." This even though there is no mention of the word "son" in this verse. They just don't like the idea of God paying for the church with his own blood, because of the direct implications that Jesus is God. It's their bias creeping into the translation of the book of Acts.

Here's the KJV render of the verse:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

[Anonymous No.23512443]

>>23512383
>>23512405
My understanding is that Paul chose to use a novel word because he wasn't thinking of sodomites in that passage, but more like people who are prostitutes. For example, someone who might allow themselves to be abused for money. This would be more in line with the other sins listed next to it in 1 Corinthians 6 and especially 1 Timothy 1:10.

Paul already gives a resounding condemnation of sodomy elsewhere in Romans chapter 1 through the first two verses of chapter 2, and there it's very unambiguous. You also have condemnations of it directly in Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6, and yet indirectly as well, where the New Testament refers to them as "dogs" in more passages. This is a conscious reference to Deuteronomy 23:17-18, which most New Testament readers would be aware of, where the sodomite is equated to a dog.

[Anonymous No.23512465]

>>23512402
>It's still the Tyndale tradition of the KJV, in a sense.
Well, it's not based on the received text, so that's a major departure.

It's also the reason why some people stopped using the KJV originally. Not because the KJV needed a language update, but because they had constructed a different Greek text of the New Testament in the late 19th century, and they thought the Received text was wrong and had to be rejected.

The different Greek text that modern versions like the RSV, NRSV and ESV use is about 7% shorter in the New Testament, and it is missing several entire verses. That's kind of a big deal and I would consider it a rather definitive and resounding break from the Received text tradition.

The Westcott and Hort text, for example, has been compared to the Received text that was in use before it. Their text omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. Overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added in that edition. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. These changes affect the majority of verses in the New Testament in some way. I would say that's very significant, whether you want to argue they were right or not to do so.

[Anonymous No.23512479]

CSB is underrated for a beginner.
If a passage really interests you and you want to look deeper into it, NET has extensive notes and AMP is an interesting read.

[Anonymous No.23512494]

>>23512443
>Paul already gives a resounding condemnation of sodomy elsewhere in Romans chapter 1 through the first two verses of chapter 2, and there it's very unambiguous.
Is it? It says the men ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους but it doesn't say the women did anything εἰς ἀλλήλας but only that they μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν. Therefore it seems plausible to read it as referring to anal sex (heterosexual or homosexual), rather than homosexuality per se.
>Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6
It seems strange to interpret the sin of Sodom as being merely homosexuality when they tried specifically to rape the strangers, and Ezekiel 16:49 says the sin of Sodom was cruelty to the poor.
>This is a conscious reference to Deuteronomy 23:17-18, which most New Testament readers would be aware of, where the sodomite is equated to a dog.
Didn't "dog" refer to male temple prostitutes in ancient Hebrew?

[Anonymous No.23512501]

>>23512465
I don't mean the textual basis. Just the language and flow of Tyndale's translation. The bible can be translated a few different ways, even literally, but what we've become used to through the KJV is the Tyndale tradition. The RSV/NRSV/ESV stand in that long line. They're all revisions of revisions of revisions that first started with Tyndale. Not completely fresh and imaginative like NLT/NIV/NEB/Jerusalem Bible/etc..
From a literary point of view, I also think it's a good idea to start with a translation in that vein.

[Anonymous No.23512506]

>>23512418
I'll never go out of my way to defend the NRSV, but I don't really see a serious issue with the way Acts 20 is translated as they capitalized the words God, Holy Spirit, and Son in this verse.

[Anonymous No.23512508]

>>23510421
>The Madoka Magica Study Bible
Kek, someone else who can appreciate the New Testament allegory of Madoka

[Anonymous No.23512513]

>>23512508
No, no, Madoka is obviously a bodhisattva.

[Anonymous No.23512548]

>>23512494
>Is it? It says the men ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους but it doesn't say the women did anything εἰς ἀλλήλας but only that they μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν.
ὁμοίως means likewise, so it was the same category.

>It seems strange to interpret the sin of Sodom as being merely homosexuality when they tried specifically to rape the strangers, and Ezekiel 16:49 says the sin of Sodom was cruelty to the poor.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
(Jude 1:7)

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"
(2 Peter 2:6)

>Didn't "dog" refer to male temple prostitutes in ancient Hebrew?
It refers to the "unbelieving," "fearful," and "abominable" according to the book of Revelation, when you contrast Revelation 21:8 and Revelation 22:15. According to Leviticus 18:22, a sodomite is an abomination, so it lines up quite exactly.

>>23512506
>I don't really see a serious issue with the way Acts 20 is translated as they capitalized the words God, Holy Spirit, and Son in this verse.
You seem to have missed the point here - they added the word "Son" to change the meaning of the verse when that word is not in the Greek text there. Whether or not it's capitalized is not the point here.

[Anonymous No.23512558]

>>23512513
I always did say that Mahayana is the closest non-Abrahamic religion to Catholicism

[Anonymous No.23512579]

>>23512548
Yeah I just checked and the Greek in Acts 20 is transliterated as 'with the blood of His own'. In this case the referent is Jesus, and it can be translated this way for clarity. The more traditional way to translate it is also correct. The NIV also has this alternative translation as a footnote, so I really don't see a problem here.

[Anonymous No.23512645]

>>23512579
>Yeah I just checked and the Greek in Acts 20 is transliterated as 'with the blood of His own'. In this case the referent is Jesus,
Well, the nearest singular masculine antecedent in the following quotation is unquestionably "God."

προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος

>In this case the referent is Jesus, and it can be translated this way for clarity.
There is no need. Jesus is God, so there's no need to distinguish.

This is where the bias of NRSV translators comes into play, because they want to deny that Jesus is God, so they feel obliged to make an arbitrary choice like this, in order to express their personal bias. It's poor scholarship done in service of an anti-Christian bias that is clearly put on public display in this verse. And that's why I don't see why someone would choose to use it.

If you want to see more examples, what about 2 Peter 1:21, Luke 24:6 or John 7:39 in the NRSV. We also have the arbitrary removal of the words "by faith" in Romans 5:2 of the RSV and NRSV, and the omission of the words "for us" in Romans 8:26 of the NRSV and NAB (but not the RSV). There's also the fact that they admit an error into the text in Acts 12:25 ("from Jerusalem" changed to "to Jerusalem" when Saul and Barnabas were sent out of the church at Antioch, not out of Jerusalem!)

I could select any of these, among others, and spend several more hours showing how the NRSV is inaccurate in those places if I had the time to do so. Hopefully now the point is coming across clearly about problems with it being on par with translations with terrible errors like the NIV has, which is another subject entirely.

[Anonymous No.23512673]

>i am he
do KJVcucks really?

[Anonymous No.23512683]

>>23507166
For a beginner ESV but if you really want to study it get NRSV/NRSVUE. I've always read the KJV and do love it but find it distracting, obscures the meaning and I often realise I'm reading it like I would poetry and appreciating the writing more than the content. I like the NRSVUE.

[Anonymous No.23512687]

>>23512673
English was different then.

[Anonymous No.23512692]

>>23512687
not so different that "I am he" has the same meaning as the great "I am"
KJVcucks btfo

[Anonymous No.23512693]

>>23510721
KJV Old Testament is a hard read

[Anonymous No.23512696]

>>23512673
I am he and you are me and we are all together.

[Anonymous No.23512701]

>>23512692
What verses are these and how does the original read?

[Anonymous No.23512702]

>>23512696
>doesn't even know
>posting in a translation thread

[Anonymous No.23512713]

>>23512693
Robert Alter (who isn't Christian, but Jewish himself) had a good comment on it's prose.
>The King James translators, by following the syntactic contours of the Hebrew, achieved a new kind of compelling effect, at once lofty and almost stark. The antithetical strategy of modern translations of the Bible by sundry scholarly-ecclesiastical committees has been to repackage the syntax of the original in order to convey a sense that it might have been written in the twentieth century. What is lost in eloquence is palpable.
>Compare, for example, “And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters,” with the rendering of the Revised English Bible: “The ark floated on the surface of the swollen waters as they increased over the earth.”
>The modern version is clear – the pursuit of perfect clarity being one of the great fallacies among modern translators of the Bible – and has a certain succinct tidiness, but it loses all the high solemnity of the King James Version.

[Anonymous No.23512715]

>>23512701
here you go chief
the KJV butthurt is so strong they even added the [he] where it doesn't belong here, too.
https://biblehub.com/text/john/18-6.htm

[Anonymous No.23512722]

>>23512702
I'm just quoting the Beatles for fun. Sorry it ruined your thread. This is also my post, if you want to talk about translation: >>23512713

[Anonymous No.23512724]

>We must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear, but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity, the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame, or struck dumb with terror, or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations. C.S Lewis

[Anonymous No.23512728]

>>23512722
please do not quote the beatles at me. nothing about england is "fun"

[Anonymous No.23512744]

>>23512268
>>23512353
>men who engage in illicit sex
>6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain
It's pretty obvious what that implies, whether they chose not to translate it to be politically correct I don't know, it definitely seems like it.

[Anonymous No.23512766]

>>23512744
There's no exact word for homosexual, but it is clear what he's saying. It's two men he's calling out actually. Malakoi and arsenakoi. Which boil down to penetrators and effeminate (a bottom). Both sodomites, in a sense, but one giver and receiver.

[Anonymous No.23512769]

>>23512715
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." - KJV John 8:58

[Anonymous No.23512771]

>>23512766
>arse-nakoi

[Anonymous No.23512772]

>>23512766
arsenokotai*

[Anonymous No.23512775]

>>23512766
See >>23512443 if you haven't read it already.

[Anonymous No.23512776]

>>23512771
Dude, give me a break. Gotta crucify me before I corrected the post myself. You're cruel, man! :(

[Anonymous No.23512779]

>>23512713
>the pursuit of perfect clarity being one of the great fallacies among modern translators of the Bible
What a load of tosh

[Anonymous No.23512803]

>>23512779
Clarity sans artistry might as well be a children's book.

[Anonymous No.23512815]

>>23512803
>Here is the word of God
>No don't try to understand it, just appreciate its beauty

[Anonymous No.23512822]

>>23512815
You can do both. And a children's book may, in fact, be the best thing for a.... child. But there'a a time to grow up.
>When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.-1 Cor 13:11

[Anonymous No.23512828]

>>23512822
Yep that's true.

[Anonymous No.23512833]

>>23512822
>When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. NRSV
Wow you're right, other translations completely ruin it.

[Anonymous No.23512836]

>>23512769
not "before abraham was, I am he"
cool translation kjvcucks

[Anonymous No.23512853]

>>23512833
It's obviously not going to apply to every passage. And I'm not even against all modern translations. The most "childish" would be the ones intentionally with limited vocabulary and dynamically translated. The more formal the better. They don't necessary need an extensive vocabulary (the KJV doesn't itself), but not a childish level either.
But what Altman was pointing out about the KJV specifically is its prose follows a lot of the Hebrew syntax (he goes further in the same article and criticizes its poetry more).

[Anonymous No.23512859]

>>23512853
Alter* not Altman

[Anonymous No.23512864]

>>23512853
No I know, I love the KJV, it's beautiful, and I feel that no other translation can capture that beauty. However I personally want to truly understand the text and feel that the KJV obfuscates the meaning somewhat, whether that's due to the archaic language, the accuracy, or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23512899]

>>23512864
I'll just say again to stick with a formal translation (RSV/NRSV/ESV/NKJV/NASB... quite a few) and keep a KJV around for devotional and educational purposes.
I'd also recommend Logos Bible software to anyone who wants to go in depth with language tools and commentaries. It gets pricey, but the free beginner version still comes with some tools and lexicons to dig deeper in the Hebrew and Greek.

https://www.logos.com/

[Anonymous No.23512918]

>>23512899
That's what I do, I go between KJV and NRSVUE. I go to my local cathedral for Evensong regularly and that's Book of Common Prayer stuff though they seem to use the NRSV for readings. I don't have a study Bible, I should get one.

[Anonymous No.23512922]

>>23512899
that's a waste. the better idea is to read what early church fathers thought about the passage you are reading in the kjv. put a chrysostom or augustine homily or relevant writing along side whatever passage you are reading. this isn't complicated anymore with the internet. most online resources actually point to early church father references for each verse.

[Anonymous No.23512926]

>>23512864
The KJV is the best if you want to read the Received text. For the English language it has pretty much been uncontested for its accuracy to that.

The thing is, there are people who would rather use the critical text, which is largely based on the Alexandrian manuscripts and is more modern. That is the real reason and cause for the disparity, because all of those other versions are based on it. They are really not even a translation of the same thing as the KJV is. They only seem like it from the POV of someone who doesn't really care that much about the details of the Bible and doesn't notice. As before, see >>23512465 this post.

[Anonymous No.23512937]

>>23512922
You can do that with Logos too. It's just a suggestion. Whatever software that makes it convenient, it's awesome. I have picrel (28 volume Ancient Commentary on Scripture) and run beside scripture texts in that setup.

[Anonymous No.23512945]

>>23512937
i've read a bit of the acs and it's pretty convenient and helpful for new people trying to get a grasp of what's being said.

[Anonymous No.23512956]

Read the entire Bible in KJV to properly appreciate its beauty and majesty.

Then choose a modern translation to reread the only parts that actually matter (Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

[Anonymous No.23512966]

>>23512945
What do you use? That Catena site? https://catenabible.com
That's the only one I know with patristic commentary. But it'd be another good suggestion. I guess I'm a little old fashioned by recommended standalone software. Back in the day, they didn't have as many cool websites like that. So I've been building up Logos books for over 10 years or something.

[Anonymous No.23513105]

>>23512966
i have the catena app for daily reading stuff, but yea that is pretty helpful for references if you're on the go and have to use mobile devices. just about every verse in my experience has references from early church fathers if you click it. biblehub.com has extensive commentary references as well if you click on the verse and then parallel commentaries. personally, i've just built up a small collection from augustine and chrysostom and read things here and there from the christian classics ethereal library
>>https://ccel.org/fathers
huge resource of ante and post nicene lit

[Anonymous No.23513410]

>>23511967
No way this is real. Doesn't she notice the missing tho, thee, thy?

[Anonymous No.23513447]

> Augustine's is corrupt!

Huh?

[Anonymous No.23513475]

>>23512956
>Then choose a modern translation to reread the only parts that actually matter
I wonder if you even realize what you just said there. I'm sure you don't, so I'll let God's Word speak for itself:

II. Timothy 3:16
>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
St. Matthew 5:17-20
>17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Isaiah 8:20
>To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It's rather funny someone like you would be promoting these modernist bibles typically translated from the wrong book.

[Anonymous No.23513516]

>>23513475 (again)
Also, in Matthew 5:20, the only righteousness is of Christ, not of our own.

Self-righteousness is folly as all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and sin is breaking God's moral law (I. John 3:4) for anyone who may not be sure of that, rather than disobeying some traditions or not attending church every week or something else silly like that.
>Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
>II. Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
>Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
>Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Not of works, lest any man should boast.
>Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
>I. John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
>James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Might as well throw this one in here too, tangential to the point but related to the above.
>Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Anonymous No.23513528]

>>23513475
>>23513516
Scripture Salad

[Anonymous No.23513612]

>>23513410
you'd think so but no

[Anonymous No.23513796]

Do you niggas actually not understand what the kjv says because it has thee and thou in it?

[Anonymous No.23513923]

Just so we are clear, this thread is self evidently full of "trad" Cath LARPers, and not a single one of them speaks ancient Greek or Hebrew. Anyone not part of the agenda and/or delusional is seeing this shit, right?

[Anonymous No.23513932]

>>23513923
all christfags are larpers. I find self-righteous protestants to be the more insufferable between the two, however.

[Anonymous No.23514065]

>>23507166
>KJV is difficult to read
In my experience this is solely said either by idiots or people who have never read it. It’s as straight forward as possible

[Anonymous No.23514084]

>>23513932
>accuses others of larping
>he larps
man such cases

[Anonymous No.23514107]

>>23514084
the only larpers in this thread are the christfags and maybe pagans if they're in here as well.

[Anonymous No.23514113]

>>23512418
In the critical apparatus of my UBS3, the 7 variant readings for 20:28 are:
>Θεοῦ (א, B, 056, 0142, 104)
>κυριου (p74, A, C*, D, E)
>κυριου και Θεοῦ (C3, P, 049, 326, 1241)
>κυριου του Θεοῦ (88, 330, 1877, Byzpt)
>κυριου Ἰησοῦ (Ambrosiaster)
>Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (itm)
>Χριστοῦ (Athanasius, Theodoret)
It’s not a mistranslation, it’s not any more or less correct than the KJV, it’s simply utilizing a different Greek source

[Anonymous No.23514119]

What are the best KJs to sate your consumerist urges?

[Anonymous No.23514125]

>>23512465
The so-called “received text” is flawed, there are places where they did not have Greek manuscripts that said what they wanted and so had to translate out of Latin. The Johannine Comma is one example, that’s 1 John 5:7. Revelation 22 had a similar problem in the last seven verses, which is why it says “book of life” instead of “tree of life.” This problem is largely constrained to English, as other Protestant Bibles do not have this issue. If you look at 1 John 5:7 or Revelation 22 in the Luther Bible in German, it doesn’t have the same issues the King James and other “received text” Bibles have, as it’s translated from proper Greek texts, not Vulgate translations from the 1500s.

[Anonymous No.23514134]

>>23514119
Render unto mammon the things that are mammon's.

[Anonymous No.23514145]

>>23512966
Based Catena appreciator. It's a really good resource.

[Anonymous No.23514162]

>>23507166
NASB
Accurate and poetic. Kjv is still kino though. Reading KJV helped me improve my reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.23514205]

What's a good italian Bible? Something I can thump through at B2 level?

[Anonymous No.23514800]

>>23514119
Cambridge Cameo KJV with Apocrypha. You will never need another.
Schuyler is great for every translation EXCEPT the KJV. Because they don't have the original translators footnotes.

[Anonymous No.23515150]

[Anonymous No.23515247]

>>23515150
protestants are such ineffable morons it makes me understand the glut of stupidity that surrounds me

[Anonymous No.23515705]

>>23512769
Amen, amen, I tell you, "I Exist", since before Avraham had even come into being.

[Anonymous No.23515733]

>>23515705
>I am he

[Anonymous No.23516015]

>>23507453
The Old Testament is sort of bland sometimes. There's also a harshness to it at times that is hard to process. For example, in Ezekiel the visions of the chariot are spectacular of course but then you get to the part where he is condemning the people for shunning the prophets and it becomes cold and repetitive, with a vindictive tone that is tiring to read.

[Anonymous No.23516467]

>>23507593
There is no Q-source because matthew and luke just plagirized mark.

[Anonymous No.23516779]

>>23515247
Why? What's erroneous about the chart?

[Anonymous No.23516798]

>>23510820
I mean, if you're talking about subtext and deeper meaning, sure, but im talking about not understanding entire sentences because the language is alien enough that it might as well not be english, even as someone who has read some older stuff like Shakespeare

the KJV gospels use plenty of older phrases and language, but I found it pretty obvious and simple to infer what it meant 99% of the time, and I never had any trouble with that. the OT is on another level though

[Anonymous No.23516819]

>>23511208
how is anyone who hasn't been to heaven supposed to answer that?

[Anonymous No.23516924]

>>23516779
I don't debate or discuss with Cletuses.

[Anonymous No.23516932]

>>23509356
https://youtu.be/z8j3HvmgpYc?si=omFfYNmT0MGfnuqb

[Anonymous No.23516938]

>>23507166
I like the Message, for more urban types
>8-9 For the third test, the Devil took him to the peak of a huge mountain. He gestured expansively, pointing out all the earth’s kingdoms, how glorious they all were. Then he said, “They’re yours—lock, stock, and barrel. Just go down on your knees and worship me, and they’re yours.”
>10 Jesus’ refusal was curt: “Beat it, Satan!” He backed his rebuke with a third quotation from Deuteronomy: “Worship the Lord your God, and only him. Serve him with absolute single-heartedness.”
>11 The Test was over. The Devil left. And in his place, angels! Angels came and took care of Jesus’ needs.

[Anonymous No.23516941]

Thinking of listening to the audiobook for this. It's only barely longer than Les Mis or W & P

[Anonymous No.23516985]

Wouldn't it be fun to write a Peter Ruckman Study KJ?

[Anonymous No.23517156]

>>23516779
Nothing, it's factual, he's just being obtuse. The Vaticanus was notoriously fished out of the pope's garbage can by a janitor, for example. Minority texts are trash and an assault on the true Word of God. Stick with the KJV or the "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible," which is a very solid attempt at taking the KJV back to it's original intent, in paragraph form, ignoring the various misspellings and printing errors that have accumulated over the years. It's my preferred reader, along with the "A Translation" that anon mentioned.

[Anonymous No.23517231]

>>23517156
You’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.23517235]

>>23517231
Even an idiot knows that KJV is best.

[Anonymous No.23517237]

>>23507166
People exaggerate the inaccessibility of the KJV.
Just get an edition with footnotes that tell you how a verse can be better understood or literally translated.

[Anonymous No.23517301]

>>23507166

>just for a beginner
No molly coddling here. You deserve only the best.

NRSVue for plain reading, best word:word translation.

Oxford for lots of interdicipline scholarship, plus Greek/Heeb Interlinear if you really want to get into the weeds of language.

KJV for the Jacobin English, mostly accurate and most literarily cohesive. This will be the one to survive to Judgement Day.

[Anonymous No.23517304]

>>23516779
It looks like an updated version of pic related that considers some of the newer information that's come out or become more widely known since this one was made.

He's just upset his fake bibles are being criticized like that Codex Vaticanus forgery. Notice how he never said anything of any substance or value. Papists have to do this though, because they can't reason from the Scripture, even their "Father" priests are told to rely on the bishops, and they're all subservient to their "Holy Father" cult leader pope.

They either act like the world since they're part of a false world religion as he did or they'll cite some "church father" or their priest (who's just citing their bishop) and relegate their thinking to someone else and I often see them copy/pasting walls of text and never considering what anyone else in reply (probably since they're not wearing some gay/fancy dress/robe and blasphemously being called "Father").

It's really not a big surprise they act no different than the unbelieving scoffers and mockers, especially with a self-righteous works-based salvation, always about them doing something to earn God's favor and going nowhere. It's pretty fun to watch them squirm when open air preachers rebuke them or their false doctrines, but it's rare that a priest would ever stand outside and contend for the faith. However, it is fairly common for campus preachers to have their biggest hecklers being Catholics, they seem to like standing in-between the preacher and crowd as a sort of ring-leader of the crowd, standing against the preacher, not minding that they'll get huge cheers and rounds of applause for the things they say from the same crowd that's been cursing God's and Christ's name for the past few hours.

I'm also not surprised there's some troll in the thread posting "KJVcucks btfo" as an epic fedora quip, oh wait, he's probably just another religious hypocrite; Hard to tell, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.23517326]

>>23511063
it's not in there bc it's irrelevant to the plot of God Re: Man.

same reason why (YOU) aren't in there.

[Anonymous No.23517342]

My mom gave me a copy of the NAB once I was old enough to read and I've been using that copy ever since

[Anonymous No.23517359]

>>23512362
In other words, you don't believe that the original NT m/s is divinely inspired.

Woman means woman, husband means husband.

>but don't you think
If you believe that the text is divine, (YOU)r thoughts on it are irrelevant.

If you don't think the text is divine, then you are reading/misreading it hoping to get authority over christians. You have a social goal, and don't mind remaking the bible in current year's image. If you had your way, trannies would become a privileged class because
>in the beginning
>male and female made He them

>But it's for every one's salvation
If you really were serious about salvation and its possible disqualifiers such as
>witches
>homosexuals
>silly women
you would be autistic about the precision of words. You would not strive to make them exclusive, but exact.

[Anonymous No.23517363]

>>23517359
>exclusive
meant inclusive.

[Anonymous No.23517635]

>>23515247
All kinds of Protestants use Alexandrian manuscripts. They used them before Catholics even. It took the 20th century for Catholics to revise their own Vulvate to use them (Nova Vulgate). You're just looking at one independent fundamentalist Baptist meme. Not even all Baptists. Let alone Protestants.

[Anonymous No.23518084]

>>23515247
I tend to feel bad for Christians in this period of relative low influence and power, and then I remember shit like this and how smugly they argue 9bvious horseshit and it becomes hard to feel bad for a people that insist on shooting off their dicks to gotcha modernity with non-gotchas.

[Anonymous No.23518098]

>>23516938
For me, it’s how it renders “get thee behind me, Satan”
>21-22 Then Jesus made it clear to his disciples that it was now necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, submit to an ordeal of suffering at the hands of the religious leaders, be killed, and then on the third day be raised up alive. Peter took him in hand, protesting, “Impossible, Master! That can never be!”
>23 But Jesus didn’t swerve. “Peter, get out of my way. Satan, get lost. You have no idea how God works.”
>24-26 Then Jesus went to work on his disciples. “Anyone who intends to come with me has to let me lead. You’re not in the driver’s seat; I am. Don’t run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I’ll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self. What kind of deal is it to get everything you want but lose yourself? What could you ever trade your soul for?
>27-28 “Don’t be in such a hurry to go into business for yourself. Before you know it the Son of Man will arrive with all the splendor of his Father, accompanied by an army of angels. You’ll get everything you have coming to you, a personal gift. This isn’t pie in the sky by and by. Some of you standing here are going to see it take place, see the Son of Man in kingdom glory.”

[Anonymous No.23518476]

>>23516938
>>23518098
i like this

[Anonymous No.23518754]

>>23517304
No seething, but this is an awful lot of cope, and why your religion is steadily losing steam. Your little pic pretending Origen was unreasonable for not beliving in eternal punishmentis silly to anyone who can read Hebrew and Greek and who would therefore be able to see why translating Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus all by Hell is a distortion unsupported by any text in the original. The need for the KJV to be defended in your manner only ever "convinces" the already convinced, and makes all else capable of even the smallest use of reason doubtful of anything else you say.

[Anonymous No.23518898]

>>23517342
Damn your mom was a pleb

[Anonymous No.23519266]

>>23518898
she was by definition not a pleb as protestantism is the religion of the lower class and uneducated

[Anonymous No.23519610]

>>23519266
good one

[Anonymous No.23519621]

>>23519610
born of the nobility of the conquistadors whereas white north american protestants were born from peasants forced overseas.

[Anonymous No.23519743]

>>23518754
"Hell" is just an English word, you liar and slanderer. You're the one who lets the papists and their harlot daughters and your Jesuit/Jewish Hollywood cartoons put a bunch of baggage on it. Why don't you actually read the Bible (KJV) instead of sperging out like this, since you clearly don't know what God said is the punishment or wages for sin.

Origen was a pathological liar and the Alexandrians perverted the text for their own desires, denying that Jesus was God in the flesh hence why they removed verses like Acts 8:37. That's the basis for your Alexandrian bibles and all you have is some retarded rant against some strawman. I'm so sick of having to baby sit retards like you. You're clearly not old enough for 4chan.

>>23515247
>>23519266
Typical hatred and hypocrisy, lies and slander, of the papists/jesuits/socialists.

James 2:1-4
1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

>>23518084
Catholics aren't Christians. Stop judging Christians by the deeds of a false church that killed millions of Christians for obeying God rather than bowing to their cult leader pope who they call "Holy Father" in blasphemy.

[Anonymous No.23519795]

>a young man asks Jesus how to be good
>Jesus tells him how to be good
>the young man asks Jesus how to be even better
>Jesus tells him how to be perfect
>Jesus further explains that salvation is possible even without perfection, because with God all things are possible
>the message is that you don't need perfection for God's grace, you only need to be "good enough"
So why do some Christian zealots act like it's a big deal if a Bible translation is only "good enough" instead of perfect?

[Anonymous No.23519814]

>>23519743
as a strictly uninvolved observer it's obvious protestants are self-righteous usurpers to an ancient lineage.
no, don't try to argue with me. the truth is I feed your posts through an AI to get the point and will likely just mock you more. animals aren't to be respected.

[Anonymous No.23519870]

>>23519743
Kek, I'm an atheist, and fags like you with your brazen lies about Hell put me on the way. Once the distinctions between Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are observed, it becomes clear that there is no eternal punishment for man, only eternal destruction, nothingness, but by all means keep pitifully and circularly insisting on the truth of the KJV, ignoring that distinctions between Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are preserved in the same underlying Greek of the NT the KJV relies on.

>Catholics aren't Christians. Stop judging Christians by the deeds of a false church that killed millions of Christians for obeying God rather than bowing to their cult leader pope who they call "Holy Father" in blasphemy.
I was talking about faggy protestants of your kind. I know plenty of good protestants, but your tribe are a bunch of contemporary scholastics just as enslaved to modernity and scientism, but too absolutely braindead to see.

[Anonymous No.23520244]

>>23514113
>It’s not a mistranslation, it’s not any more or less correct than the KJV, it’s simply utilizing a different Greek source
Anon, you obviously don't know what you are talking about here. None of those variants even have anything to do with the phrase in question, "διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος" in the first place. It says "with his own blood," not "with the blood of his son."

The word "υἱός" for Son is nowhere within the verse Acts 20:28, and it is not even in any of the variants that you just listed either. So the point stands.

[Anonymous No.23520355]

>>23514125
>The so-called “received text” is flawed
My point in that post is that it's substantially different, so you apparently agree with me on that. Great. So then, the NRSV/RSV/ESV aren't really in the same tradition as the Tyndale or KJV Bible translation at all then. That's what I was replying to in pointing out that those are all a MAJOR departure from the received text and it shouldn't be downplayed by anyone ever again.

>there are places where they did not have Greek manuscripts that said what they wanted and so had to translate out of Latin. The Johannine Comma is one example,
There are Greek manuscripts which we have even now that predate the 16th century with 1 John 5:7 on it though. And I also believe that back then, they had even more. Any other examples?

>Revelation 22 had a similar problem in the last seven verses, which is why it says “book of life” instead of “tree of life.”
It's a common anecdote that Erasmus copied the ending of Revelation 22 from a Latin version, and it's correct, he even admitted to doing it himself.

Our translations aren't based on Erasmus though. There were later scholars who made better editions of the New Testament after 1516, and they corrected Erasmus, including here in the last six verses of Revelation 22. This includes Robert Estienne and Theodore Beza among others. They had Greek manuscripts which are more accurate to the received text tradition. This enabled them to correct a number of (minor) word differences in these last six verses which Erasmus got wrong due to his back-translation in 1516.

For example, Erasmus' 1516 version of Revelation 22:18 read like this:
συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους προφητείας βιβλίου τούτου ἔιτις ἐπιτιθῆ πρὸς ταῦτα ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλΐῳ τούτῳ

But the received text (from Stephanus and Beza) actually reads:
Συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα ἐπιθήσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

Notice the addition of the definite articles before προφητείας and βιβλίου, and the substitution of ἐάν τις instead of Erasmus' ἔιτις. There are more such corrections in the following verse 19, as well, but they do not change "book of life" because that is how it read in their Greek copies, otherwise they would have corrected it.

>This problem is largely constrained to English, as other Protestant Bibles do not have this issue
You mean "these three are one" and "book of life"? Here's a bunch of screenshots I just took from several French, Spanish and German reformation translations that all have them. This is because they follow the Greek TR editions.

Luther's translation deviates from these Bibles in both Testaments due to his own emendations, such as at Romans 3:28. He used Soncino's 1494 Tanakh instead of the Bomberg edition for the Old Testament, and followed Erasmus' 2nd TR edition (1519) in most places. Hopefully that helps.

[Anonymous No.23520370]

>>23519795
>Jesus further explains that salvation is possible even without perfection
>the message is that you don't need perfection for God's grace, you only need to be "good enough"
There isn't an actual Bible passage that teaches this. That would be works salvation.

You are trying to twist actual things that the Bible says and twist it into saying the opposite.

[Anonymous No.23520399]

>>23519870
>but by all means keep pitifully and circularly insisting on the truth of the KJV, ignoring that distinctions between Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus
Gehenna is said to be a place of eternal fire and torment in Mark 9:43-44.

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
(Mark 9:43-44)

Hades is likewise said to be a place of eternal fire and torment in Luke 16:23-24.

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
(Luke 16:23-24)

Tartarus is where the angels are placed in chains and "reserved for judgement" in 2 Peter 2:4, which is the only place where it is directly mentioned in the Bible.

You are therefore blatantly lying about what the Bible says about hell. I expect to keep hearing people like you continue to repeat this lie again and again. And I will continue to post this same response every single time I see someone ignorantly parrot the same lie about the Bible yet again. Hell is indeed a place of everlasting punishment, just as Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 25:41.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
(Matthew 25:41)

[Anonymous No.23520463]

>>23511270
a compelling argument

[Anonymous No.23521051]

>>23520399
>PARABLES ARE LITERALLY TRUE WHEN I WANT THEM TO BE
Embarassing, and impious.

[Anonymous No.23521169]

>>23520399
Not all punishment for humans is eternal.
>Amen I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.-Matthew 5:26

[Anonymous No.23521283]

>>23519621
just make my empanadas, conquistador

[Anonymous No.23522027]

>>23507166
Just read KJV it has a nice flow to it

[Anonymous No.23522106]

>>23507166
any Bible in your hands is a good bible OP

[Anonymous No.23523148]

>>23521169
Been on 4chan too long- I read that as "Anon, I tell you"

[Anonymous No.23523153]

Anyone know of a paperback Bible that's printed on normal paper instead of that shit so thin you can see through it?

[Anonymous No.23523450]

>>23507166
New American Standard Version

[Anonymous No.23523472]

>>23519870
Real Ezekiel 18 and stop arguing with a strawman if you're going to reply to me, coward.

>>23522106
How very lukewarm of you.

[Anonymous No.23523527]

>>23523472
I've read Ezekiel in Hebrew and Greek, choke on your KJV, fraud.

[Anonymous No.23523534]

>>23523527
Read it in the KJV. It clearly says the soul that sins shall die. Stop arguing with a strawman if you're going to reply to me, coward.

[Anonymous No.23523951]

>>23520370
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.

That's perfection. Is it possible to be saved and to go to heaven without achieving perfection?

[Anonymous No.23524452]

>>23523951
I don't see anywhere where the Bible teaches a type of Gospel that would be described as you need to be "good enough" to be saved. That's how one would describe a works-based salvation, rather than salvation by grace through faith.

If a person is relying on their action and works to be "good enough," they should know that they are already condemned and that any one sin against God our Creator is enough to merit condemnation. The only person whose works are effective to save us are those of Jesus, not our own, so we'd better recognize what He did for us.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
– Ephesians 2:8-10

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
– James 2:10

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
– Galatians 3:22

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
– John 3:16-18

[Anonymous No.23524522]

>>23514107
Nope. No one is innocent of larping. That includes (You).

[Anonymous No.23524859]

>>23523534
"Read it in the KJV," the KJV is not more authoritative than the Hebrew, no matter what circular defense you trot out.

[Anonymous No.23526200]

>>23524452
You're avoiding the question. The Bible describes perfection as when you sell that thou hast, and give to the poor. Does salvation still come to those who do not achieve perfection? If yes, then it's good enough to be good enough. If no, then why are you not going out and achieving perfection right now?

[Anonymous No.23526213]

>>23507166
>KJV is difficult to read

[Anonymous No.23527217]

>>23524859
>the KJV is not more authoritative than the Hebrew
It's not less authoritative either as long as it's accurate, and it is.

>>23526200
>The Bible describes perfection as when you sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.
And in Matthew 19, Christ said this:

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
(Matthew 19:24-26)

The standards are impossibly high for any sinner to reach. That is the point being made, that with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. You should have known enough to make this conclusion already, since I saw it being quoted earlier. As the Bible clearly says in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

>Does salvation still come to those who do not achieve perfection?
If they are saved believers, then the righteousness of God is imputed to them. As it says in 2 Corinthians:

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
(2 Corinthians 5:21)

>If yes, then it's good enough to be good enough. If no, then why are you not going out and achieving perfection right now?
As explained above, sinners are never "good enough" to be saved, they have to be bought with a price. It is explicitly mentioned that we are bought with a price. We could say that the surprising thing here is simply that some people don't want this even though it is freely offered to all. But God isn't forcing them to accept salvation if they truly don't want it. This even though it is His stated intention for all of us to be saved by this means. As it says in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

>why are you not going out and achieving perfection right now?
It's only possible to achieve perfection if God makes a new creature in us after we are born again, and He works in us. I can't really take "credit" for that. No one can, but God. Amen.

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
(Philippians 1:6)

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
(Philippians 2:13)

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
(1 Corinthians 15:10)

[Anonymous No.23528785]

>>23527217
>It's not less authoritative either as long as it's accurate, and it is.
It's not, cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.23528858]

>>23524859
You're not even replying to anything anyone says, you're just sperging out over the KJV.

>>23528785
Contain your spaghetti, you've been spilling it nonstop.