And yet the Vulgate, and therefore in the English tradition the Douay-Rheims, proved instrumental in preserving several authentic readings from the original Greek that had been mutilated by the textus receptus Greek text that was the standard for 2-3 centuries. For example, the Latin, not the TR, preserved the correct reading of Matt 19:17 when there were only 6 Greek manuscripts that attested to the reading by the end of the 19th century versus countless others which insisted Matt 19:17 read identical to its parallel verses in Mark and Luke. Until the RV, there was not a single English NT from the Greek which had the correct reading. The correct reading wasn't in the KJV, it wasn't in the Geneva; it was in the Rheims and scholarship today attests to this.
To be clear, I'm not that poster and I don't advocate for Douay-Onlyism (because I have my own problems with the commonly printed DRB text, starting with typos that haven't been fixed since 1899, and then in general with the translation a few too-literal renderings into English that, imo, make the text unnecessarily clunky like Matt 1:18). I do contend that the Vulgate is an authoritative witness to the true Greek text in many places and that the Vulgate's variants with the common Greek text should not be handily dismissed, because doing so in the 18th century led to numerous botches in scholarship that the 19th had to go back and correct.
>I do contend that the Vulgate is an authoritative witness to the true Greek text in many places
Well, if it's anything less than 100% that doesn't really say much. The alexandrian codices remove about 7% of the text. Even 1% corruption is more than enough to ruin it. >because doing so in the 18th century led to numerous botches in scholarship that the 19th had to go back and correct.
Are you talking about Griesbach?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Even 1% corruption is more than enough to ruin it.
1 John 5:7.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Belongs in the TR. Along with Revelation 21:24 and Revelation 22:19.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was a Latin scribal note.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Whoever told you that doesn't know what they're talking about. It has its source from the original Greek form of 1 John, just like the rest of the book.
As for 1 John 5:7, none of the compilers of the received text, such as Robert Estienne, Beza and Elzevir, although they had their differences, none even doubted that verse or put any mark of doubt on it, demonstrating that it has robust original language support.
Detractors of the Bible have invented myths about this verse surrounding Erasmus and his supposed motivations for inserting this verse, but his choices aren't really relevant to the discussion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay, Wettstein.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, so like I said, even 1% of corruption is too much. The Vulgate changes John 3:5 from "born" to "born again" (renatus) which was used to support a false interpretation. The Vulgate also changed Matthew 6:11 from "daily bread" to "supersubstantial bread," which was another change not supported in any received manuscript of the Greek New Testament.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The Vulgate changes >The Vulgate also changed
The Vulgate didn't change anything. It's merely a transcription of the original autographs. The KJV is translated largely from medieval Catholic forgeries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The Vulgate didn't change anything. It's merely a transcription of the original autographs.
The Vetus Latina was originally a much better translation into Latin and significantly predates the Sixtine and Clementine Vulgate. >The KJV is translated largely from medieval Catholic forgeries.
Except there's not a single place from Genesis to Revelation, that anyone can point to where this is true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Except there's not a single place from Genesis to Revelation, that anyone can point to where this is true.
The reading in 1 John 5:7 exists in the GNT entirely because the Vatican threatened to arrest Erasmus if he didn't include it based on their forged manuscript. And later GNT editors kept it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion."
— Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Metzger
I don't care what atheists have to say.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He was a conservative evangelical and one of the foremost experts on the textual history of the NT.
Thank you God for the King James Version Bible. I also don’t mind the Scofield Study Bible system. I hardly ever use mine but when I do, the verse pointers do actually help a little. However, verse connections have to come from God, and there are infinite ones once you begin to spiritually follow God and digest every word.
The King James Onlyism is an attempt to label Christian’s that only use the KJV as being incapable of using a different translation/version. But we can. Just like Jesus gave us the capability to do all things. Go watch Bible Black hentai you mother frickers who are trying to create a Bible war.
Not a strictly literal translation of the vulgate
The vulgate is not in the running for most accurate or most literal
Further, there are many manuscript discrepancies of the text of the vulgate anyway
I wouldn't say either is an accurate description but it's definitely not censorship. OP's pic is KJV-onlyist propaganda, it's designed to make you think that there is some conspiracy going on with the modern bible translations trying to "delete" seemingly random texts of scripture, as if though textual criticism occurs at the translational level, or that the KJV's readings are automatically the original. No knowledge of New Testament textual criticism is necessary to see that it's false, because if you simply take the complete list of what is supposedly "deleted" and compare them with parallel passages you will find there is absolutely no pattern one way or the other to the supposed "deletions" because what is actually happening is standard textual criticism which is something that bible believing Christians have practiced since the early church. For instance they will take some verse from the gospels, usually one which teaches some fundamental doctrine like the divinity of Christ, and show how modern translations omit it and say "see, they're trying to cover up the deity of Christ!" while ignoring the places in the other gospels where that exact same passage is found. Of course what actually happened is at some time probably in the early middle ages or late Roman empire some scribe was copying the bible by hand and was getting tired after a long day of work, so when he came to a passage he was well familiar with from a famous parallel passage in another gospel he without thinking copies it as it appears in the other gospel. Such minor corruptions are relatively extraordinary, and as such generally represent a small minority of the textual tradition and are easily identified and excised in the modern time.
>and compare them with parallel passages
The vast majority of Scripture passages have no parallels, and among the few parallel passages, there actually are twin removals. For instance, the words "to repentance" are removed in both Matthew 9:13 and its parallel Mark 2:17. The close parallel of the removed Matthew 18:11 is also taken out through the removal of Luke 9:55b-56a. The place where Luke says "Joseph and his mother," is inaccurately changed to "his Father and his mother" in the same way in both Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43.
>what is actually happening is standard textual criticism
The modern translations are mixed-source though. They combine received text readings with selected variants or corruptions from the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B) among others.
You couldn't be more wrong on this and it seems like you just made this up from wishful thinking when the facts tell a completely different story. The fact is that 7% of the total New Testament is deleted or changed. This affects 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. Whole verses deleted are just one small portion of the total alterations. The vast majority of these alterations have no parallels. The few that do have parallels have a good chance of having their parallel removed too.
I'm sure that if the parallels were all removed together, then one of you switch tactics and start arguing that was somehow a good thing as well. But the strange thing is, you are ignoring about 97% of the changes in books outside of the Gospels or in unique passages which have no parallel at all. For instance, the thief on the cross has one line only in Luke 23:42, and the Alexandrian text changes his words in that place. There is no parallel in the other Gospels. How does your explanation deal with that?
Also, there is a pattern of removals that demote the divinity of Christ and obscure the Trinity. And I've seen multiple-version-onlyists in the past arguing that was a good thing too.
>The vast majority of Scripture passages have no parallels
Now of course I was not merely speaking of the moments in the gospels where multiple evangelists record the same thing, but I was talking of any doctrinal parallels. Because every teaching that KJV onlyists allege is removed in the modern translations can be absolutely found in the modern translations. For example open any modern bible to John 1 and tell me it isn't teaching the deity of Christ. That is in fact an example of modern versions of the bible have an even stronger and more explicit teaching of this doctrine than the KJV/TR, for example if you open a modern translation to John 1:18 where the KJV reads "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" several modern translations read "the only God, who is at the Father's side". >and among the few parallel passages, there actually are twin removals. For instance, the words "to repentance" are removed in both Matthew 9:13 and its parallel Mark 2:17.
Now this is an example that proves what I said, not only because this is not a doctrinal variant as the teaching is unchanged (nobody reading the text in good faith will fail to see that repentance is implied by the statement itself), but the words "to repentance" are preserved in the parallel in Luke 5:32.
>That is in fact an example of modern versions of the bible have an even stronger and more explicit teaching of this doctrine than the KJV/TR, for example if you open a modern translation to John 1:18 where the KJV reads "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" several modern translations read "the only God, who is at the Father's side".
The version of John 1:18 you just mentioned is found in gnostic corruptions of the Bible, and this has been known for a long time. They don't like the idea of monogenēs meaning "only begotten". >Because every teaching that KJV onlyists allege is removed in the modern translations
I don't know what KJV onlyists say, but it says in Matthew 4:4 that, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." So if you remove even one teaching that's too many.
Paul also says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If all of it is profitable, that means none of it is replaceable.
>they are formed formed from more than one manuscript in the textual tradition.
Multiple different conflicting bodies of manuscripts are mixed together in eclectic translations. >Again you say it was "changed" and you've been saying things were "removed", as if the readings found in the KJV were automatically correct and the standard by which we are to make our bibles.
I never said that, I've only said the received text represents the originals and translations need to be based on that. It's not that complicated unless you are trying to make it be.
>If the apostle wrote father, isn't that what you want your bible to say?
Not in that verse they didn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>found in gnostic corruptions of the Bible
Gnostic? The divinity of Jesus Christ is "gnostic" now? Where are these Gnostic bibles that teach that God became flesh and dwelt among us? And if this is a corruption of scripture, what makes it "Gnostic"? >They don't like the idea of monogenēs meaning "only begotten"
The important part here is the use of the word "God" instead of "Son", brother. >So if you remove even one teaching that's too many.
Of course my point was that not even one was removed, and it is not about "removing" scriptures either. The content of scripture is fundamentally defined by what was written, not what appeared in a printed text a millennium and a half later. >Multiple different conflicting bodies of manuscripts are mixed together
Of course, because it isn't about a singular manuscript or even a singular manuscript tradition (as in, the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" tradition), but about reconstructing the exact text of the autographs, which God has preserved down through the ages by means of manifold manuscripts which are far too numerous for the original readings to ever be lost.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And if this is a corruption of scripture, what makes it "Gnostic"?
The fact that they don't like the idea of the only begotten Son and they don't like the idea of Christ coming in the flesh. The same mistranslation is applied in writings of the docetists on this subject. Just as you see modern arians like the JWs mess with John 1:1-2, you see gnostics altering (or trying to alter) John 1:18. It's the same exact thing, to be blunt. >Of course my point was that not even one was removed
But you already agreed here
that there is a real difference. You said "It's more accurate to say that the name Joseph was added to these verses than removed." So then in this statement you already admit there is a difference. Then it has to be at some point someone has violated the commandment of not changing it. So why not be upfront about this, instead of behaving like some kind of relativist and misleadingly giving everyone the false impression that there is no difference, or downplaying it to the point that you act like you think there is no difference. That's very misleading and confusing to others when you know that there's a difference and that it's substantive but yet irresponsibly pretend that it's not there, basically hiding from the truth, or hiding it from others.
>The content of scripture is fundamentally defined by what was written, not what appeared in a printed text a millennium and a half later.
So then why do you have such a big problem with what was written that you have to come here, and for what, to try to argue for relativism? >but about reconstructing the exact text of the autographs,
Every single person on these projects, ever since Westcott and Hort, admit that what they're doing is imperfect. They even admit it, but then try to argue the preserved text is no different from them when it is. And the writers at the time knew this at the time, that's why they called it the "received text" in the front of the Elzevir 1633 edition TR.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The fact that they don't like the idea of the only begotten Son and they don't like the idea of Christ coming in the flesh.
Okay I don't know how you could walk away with this conclusion from "the only God who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known". Especially because it's not a verse that talks about the incarnation in any version. >that there is a real difference
A difference between words in certain verses, not between teachings in any particular book of scripture. >Then it has to be at some point someone has violated the commandment of not changing it.
Why? I described to you a scenario whereby the text could be corrupted entirely on accident, you don't need anything more than a sleepy scribe to end up with a variant. >So why not be upfront about this, instead of behaving like some kind of relativist and misleadingly giving everyone the false impression that there is no difference, or downplaying it to the point that you act like you think there is no difference.
Brother I have told you this whole time that if you read the KJV or a modern translation you will end up with the exact same Christian theology. >Every single person on these projects, ever since Westcott and Hort, admit that what they're doing is imperfect
Since well before that brother, the likes of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza admitted likewise; that's why they produced multiple editions. Of course the work is imperfect, we are mere men. God never promised us that He would come out of heaven to point out to us which textual variants to use, He promised us only that we would always have His word to guide us, and we most certainly do. >And the writers at the time knew this at the time, that's why they called it the "received text"
Again they called it that for marketing
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I described to you a scenario whereby the text could be corrupted entirely on accident, you don't need anything more than a sleepy scribe to end up with a variant.
I'm not talking about typos and misspellings. If you think all of the changes to the various parallel passages are just coincidentally the same, I'm not sure what to think.
There is clearly a completely different version that someone created that became the source of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus somewhere along the line. I mean, back during Westcott and Hort's day, they were arguing vehemently against the received text for this reason— one of them even called it "vile."
It makes no sense historically to now proclaim that they are the same, because if that were true then Westcott and Hort would have had nothing to really complain about. Can't have it both ways.
>occasionally copied the work of previous English translators (most notably William Tyndale) and even deferred to the Latin,
For translational purposes - but it has to be noted, not for textual-critical purposes. The Bible translators didn't reinvent the wheel every time when it came to how to properly translate words from Greek to English, often times concurring with other existing translations when there were no problems with it. That doesn't mean the translators of our Bible used anything other than the most accurate source texts for building their underlying original language text for the Bible, though. >the reading of "Lucifer" in Isaiah is based entirely on the Latin tradition and has nothing to do with the Greek.
Technically, it's the translation of a Hebrew proper name into English, so it has nothing directly to do with Greek or Latin. But Latin as a language has influenced English, so there is an indirect connection. That doesn't necessarily mean that the English word is exactly the same as the Latin word though. That would be a hasty assumption. It might have differences: in this case for example, being a proper name.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I'm not talking about typos and misspellings
Neither am I >For translational purposes - but it has to be noted, not for textual-critical purposes
Duh. They were translators, not textual critics. >Technically, it's the translation of a Hebrew proper name into English
Right I meant Hebrew not Greek, but it isn't a proper name the underlying Hebrew is "shining star", which Jerome translated in the Vulgate as lucifer (light-bearer). It was rendered this way in the KJV for tradition's sake. >That doesn't necessarily mean that the English word is exactly the same as the Latin word though. That would be a hasty assumption. It might have differences: in this case for example, being a proper name.
Lucifer from changed from a word for the morning star to a name for Satan principally because of over a thousand years of the Latin Vulgate being the exclusively used bible in all of western Europe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the Latin Vulgate being the exclusively used bible in all of western Europe.
Not true. The Wessex Gospels were translated from the Greek and have more accurate readings.
>The close parallel of the removed Matthew 18:11 is also taken out through the removal of Luke 9:55b-56a
This is not a parallel except doctrinally, and brother if you say that the teaching of Jesus as savior is not found in a modern bible you are just bearing false witness. >The place where Luke says "Joseph and his mother," is inaccurately changed to "his Father and his mother" in the same way in both Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43.
Now I think a Christian should care what the apostles wrote more than what was in a 17th century English translation. Again you say it was "changed" and you've been saying things were "removed", as if the readings found in the KJV were automatically correct and the standard by which we are to make our bibles. It's more accurate to say that the name Joseph was added to these verses than removed. If the apostle wrote father, isn't that what you want your bible to say? Is it false that Joseph was Jesus's father in any way? Did he not raise Him? The only way one could interpret this as meaning that Joseph is His biological father is if they treat the text dishonestly, because just one chapter earlier they were told it was a virgin birth. >The modern translations are mixed-source though
Well generally not the translations themselves, but the Greek texts they are translated from certainly are, as all textual critical editions of all books are mixed source, meaning they are formed formed from more than one manuscript in the textual tradition.
>They combine received text readings
Neither modern translations nor the texts they are translated from utilize in any way the 16th century printed texts known as the Textus Receptus. The fact is there are relatively few textual variants in the tradition, and very few variants of any doctrinal significance (which is why the differences the KJV onlyists bring up are typically inconsequential). This means in most places the Textus Receptus has an accurate Greek text. It's not these modern versions that are using it, it's it that is in agreement with the modern versions. >with selected variants or corruptions from the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)
These manuscripts are not a significant influence on modern Greek New Testaments. Their value is mainly historical. By far the most influential manuscripts are the papyrus texts which are centuries older than these two. >How does your explanation deal with that?
By recognizing that Jesus Christ did not sit down and write the King James bible in English before He ascended into heaven. Again, these are not "deletions" or "changes" because neither the KJV nor the TR are the standard that defines the content of the New Testament, but the body of the manuscript tradition is. You should know that 7% is a small fraction of scripture to be different, and yet what a small percentage of that percentage actually has doctrinal significance. This is why a Christian who reads and believed a KJV bible ends up with the exact same theology as a Christian who reads and believes an ESV bible.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>neither the KJV nor the TR are the standard that defines the content of the New Testament, but the body of the manuscript tradition is.
The received text is the body of manuscript tradition though. That's the whole point, you get what I'm saying now, anon? >You should know that 7% is a small fraction of scripture to be different,
If I take a book and change a mere 1% of the words on each page, how much do you want to think that will be able to change the entire work if there was a goal to deceive in place? What if satan were put in charge of making the changes? You can be sure it would be a very devious alteration that disguises itself as being innocuous, which is exactly what happened. See Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:17. >Neither modern translations nor the texts they are translated from utilize in any way the 16th century printed texts known as the Textus Receptus.
If they didn't then they would have to contain the variant in this picture in Matthew 27, as well as a lot of other errors. They'd have to change "Galilee" to "Judea" in Mark 1:28 and Luke 1:26. They would have to change Luke 7:35 to say "works" instead of "children," similar to how they already do in the parallel passage Matthew 11:19.
Also by the way, what about all of the non-parallel passages that I mentioned earlier? By the way some newer translations such as the NAB also remove "to repentance" from Luke 5 as well.
>the differences the KJV onlyists bring up are typically inconsequential
Maybe not to someone who doesn't place faith in Christ. To me, it is consequential that Christ really did possess equality with God (not that he never tried to "grasp" it) in Philippians 2:6 and that God was manifest in the flesh according to 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 4:3. These aren't minor things to me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The received text is the body of manuscript tradition though.
As I said, the "received text" is a printed text. It is not even part of the manuscript tradition. >If they didn't then they would have to contain the variant in this picture in Matthew 27, as well as a lot of other errors. They'd have to change "Galilee" to "Judea" in Mark 1:28 and Luke 1:26. They would have to change Luke 7:35 to say "works" instead of "children," similar to how they already do in the parallel passage Matthew 11:19.
Well I assume these are all variants found in particular in sinaiticus and vaticanus, which modern Greek texts are not slavish copies of. >By the way some newer translations such as the NAB also remove "to repentance" from Luke 5 as well.
I have never heard of the NAB. I think it is noteworthy that now all of the famous modern translations have ceased to exist and we run off to the "NAB", which when I look it up is a papist translation to begin with. What happened to the conspiracy of Satan creating the likes of the ESV or the NASB to destroy the text of scripture? Are these no longer corrupt, deliberately false translations? >that Christ really did possess equality with God (not that he never tried to "grasp" it) in Philippians 2:6
Now the KJV is clearly incorrect here as is clear from how out of flow it is with the following verse. What Paul is saying here is that, yes, the Son was equal with God "being in the form of God", but that He did not count that equality a thing to be grasped that is, held onto at all costs, but set it aside "making Himself of no reputation" by becoming a man like us.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What Paul is saying here is that, yes, the Son was equal with God "being in the form of God", but that He did not count that equality a thing to be grasped that is, held onto at all costs,
Paul said the Son didn't think it was robbery to be equal with God, meaning, it wasn't something to be flaunted - as though it had been obtained by robbery. It doesn't mean He never grasped it!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Paul said the Son didn't think it was robbery to be equal with God, meaning, it wasn't something to be flaunted - as though it had been obtained by robbery.
And now this proves the point I was making before that whatever translation of the bible you read you get the exact same teaching.
I'm not saying Erasmus did a bad job, but it still had some improvement to be brought in from the original Greek manuscripts, and both Estienne (Stephanus) and Beza had access to these, with which they used to bring the TR into alignment with it. Nobody was relying on Erasmus for anything. They independently compiled the Greek manuscripts and made sure everything was accurate, correcting where Erasmus' editions were necessary. The KJV also used these later TR editions, they weren't reliant on anything Erasmus did.
>He insisted that if he a single manuscript could be found in favor of it he would add it. One of his rivals then forged a false manuscript which contained it,
See [...]
>I think it is noteworthy that now all of the famous modern translations have ceased to exist and we run off to the "NAB"
The more years go by, the more corrupt the modern versions get. What the NASB 1995 didn't remove, the NASB 2020 does. They are all copying each other's changes. For instance, compare Psalm 12:7 between the NASB 1971, the ESV 2001, and the CSB 2017. Notice how they progressively change and build on each other, getting farther away from the original Psalm 12:7 with each successive version. This pattern exists throughout the modern versions. The new ones are building on each other and getting more and more deviant over time with each new edition.
All of the popular modern versions today, in turn, go way farther in their removals than the 1881 RV or 1901 ASV did, for instance in Mark 10:24, Acts 9:29, Matthew 27:24, etc.
>That's truly Irrelevant because our Bibles aren't based on that
It's really not because it says something about the process of this work, not to mention the underlying manuscripts. By the way it's not as though the KJV translators just dutifully translated the work of Stephanus and Beza everywhere, they used multiple editions including one of Erasmus, occasionally copied the work of previous English translators (most notably William Tyndale) and even deferred to the Latin, for example the reading of "Lucifer" in Isaiah is based entirely on the Latin tradition and has nothing to do with the Greek.
>what is actually happening is standard textual criticism
What's happening only started with Westcott and Hort and it's a rejection of the Gospel in favor of a gnostic substitute text which they selectively dabble in to replace true readings, and play translation games to get things to say what they want, and without even a hint of compunction about doing so.
That is not the legacy of the Bible translators, the real translators. That's never what they believed, and it's never what they did.
If you're interested in learning more about New Testament textual criticism I recommend looking into the work of Dr. James White on the topic, who is a Christian theologian and expert in New Testament textual criticism who practices such textual criticism from a bible believing worldview.
"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;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"
- 2 Peter 2:6-9
In one passage in Deuteronomy 23, the sodomite and the dog are directly equated in Scripture. Later in the book of Revelation, it lists "dogs" as being part of those who have a part in the lake of fire.
There's an absolutely garbage documentary titled "1946" from a "conservative evangelical gay man" which tries to claim the word "homosexual" did not exist in the text until the RSV and thus the anti-LGBTABCDEFG++ stuff is not in the Bible. This, of course, ignores two things: (1) There were plenty of non-English translations, such as a Chinese translation, which DID have the word "homosexual" in the text long before the RSV and (2) we can literally look at the LXX Greek in Leviticus and see that Paul literally created the word (ἀρσενοκοῖται) he used from two Greek words used in Leviticus (ἄρσενος κοίτην and ἄρσενος κοιμηθήσῃ), and nobody denies that Leviticus is talking about gay sexual relations.
If Jesus doesn’t mention something it’s fine. So for example, Jesus never said “you can’t put your pre-pubescent children on hormone blockers and turn them into trannies”, which means it’s allowed. Paul said that so frick him.
No, because it's based on the Greek NT of Erasmus which was embarrassingly put together in several places. Reading 19th-century writings of biblical commentators and theologians on the eve of the Revised Version NT of 1881 make it clear how embarrassing it became when they discovered Erasmus's translation materials and realized he'd several times been copying the 12th-century theologian Andreas of Caesarea's annotations into the text of Revelation by mistake, thinking they were part of the text. Not to mention retranslating Rev. 22:16-21 from the Latin back to Greek because they were missing in this one and only Greek manuscript he had for Revelation. This isn't even getting into the whole words that Erasmus omitted and added, which then made their way into the KJV.
>No, because it's based on the Greek NT of Erasmus
No, actually it's based on the Greek NT of Stephanus and Beza, which corrected Erasmus in the places where he had mistakes. Every time this misconception is repeated I will continue to refute it.
>Reading 19th-century writings of biblical commentators and theologians on the eve of the Revised Version NT of 1881 make it clear how embarrassing it became when they discovered Erasmus's translation materials
What writings exactly?
>Not to mention retranslating Rev. 22:16-21 from the Latin back to Greek
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and they are the ones which the KJV translators used. >This isn't even getting into the whole words that Erasmus omitted and added, which then made their way into the KJV.
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and their TR are the ones which the KJV translators used.
James White doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about... And if he does know, and is knowingly lying regarding Erasmus and the KJV, and willfully spreading misconceptions, that's even worse.
No, it's completely moronic. Rendering תַּחַשׁ as "badger" in context of the Tabernacle, (Numbers 4:6, Exodus 25:5, for just two examples) is completely wrong. Nevermind that it clearly can't be a badger because of the injunction to use "clean" (edible within the dietary laws of the Mosaitic covenant) animal products for it; the 'etymology' of
>Well, תַּחַשׁ would transliterate to something like "Ta-Chash" and that sort of sounds like the Latin "Taxus", so it must mean badger, right? Hebrew is totally derived from Latin!
is insane and stupid. And I bring this up not because there's any theological significance I'm aware of for this instance of poor translation. There isn't. But it goes to show the poor level of linguistic sophistication the KJV had in actually translating this stuff. These are people who did not know their Greek and Hebrew, and they made a bad translation, not because they had some malign intent, but because they just had no idea what the frick they were doing.
"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, israelites and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
- Acts 2:7-11
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"
- Revelation 14:6
"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."
- Revelation 10:11
You can't even begin to comprehend how limited and erroneous your understanding of God, His Commandments, and spirituality in general is. You not only can never be aware of the extremely important subtleties lost to English translations (yes, including KJV), but you also belong to the brainwashed who not only trust the "new testament" for truth and guidance, but also have the audacity of equating it to, or even worse yet, claim it has rendered the Tanakh obsolete. Your ignorance is laughable; you're a spiritual baby, and so is your favorite KJV-only preacher.
>the received text represents the originals and translations need to be based on that
The textus receptus (which is only called that because of an advertisement which called it that for marketing purposes) represents nothing more than the limited number of manuscripts which were available to the men who produced it (really, produced them as there are multiple "received texts"), and sometimes not even that. For instance if you were to get your hands on a 1st edition Erasmus you would not find the comma johaneum in 1 John 5:7. He was attacked for this, by the very same Romanists who would attack the gospel of grace preached by Martin Luther a few years later, who alleged that he was removing the holy trinity from scripture. Erasmus protested that not a single Greek manuscript he had found contained it (and by the way, that is still the case). He insisted that if he a single manuscript could be found in favor of it he would add it. One of his rivals then forged a false manuscript which contained it, and he was forced to add it to subsequent editions or else be burned at the stake.
>if you were to get your hands on a 1st edition Erasmus...
That's truly Irrelevant because our Bibles aren't based on that, and it was to speak candidly a rushed job. Erasmus wanted to publish before the Complutensian Polyglot which came out just a year after him. Beza and Stephanus corrected the mistakes that were contained in a limited number of places in Erasmus' text.
I'm not saying Erasmus did a bad job, but it still had some improvement to be brought in from the original Greek manuscripts, and both Estienne (Stephanus) and Beza had access to these, with which they used to bring the TR into alignment with it. Nobody was relying on Erasmus for anything. They independently compiled the Greek manuscripts and made sure everything was accurate, correcting where Erasmus' editions were necessary. The KJV also used these later TR editions, they weren't reliant on anything Erasmus did.
>He insisted that if he a single manuscript could be found in favor of it he would add it. One of his rivals then forged a false manuscript which contained it,
See
>No, because it's based on the Greek NT of Erasmus
No, actually it's based on the Greek NT of Stephanus and Beza, which corrected Erasmus in the places where he had mistakes. Every time this misconception is repeated I will continue to refute it.
>Reading 19th-century writings of biblical commentators and theologians on the eve of the Revised Version NT of 1881 make it clear how embarrassing it became when they discovered Erasmus's translation materials
What writings exactly?
>Not to mention retranslating Rev. 22:16-21 from the Latin back to Greek
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and they are the ones which the KJV translators used. >This isn't even getting into the whole words that Erasmus omitted and added, which then made their way into the KJV.
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and their TR are the ones which the KJV translators used.
James White doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about... And if he does know, and is knowingly lying regarding Erasmus and the KJV, and willfully spreading misconceptions, that's even worse.
>I think it is noteworthy that now all of the famous modern translations have ceased to exist and we run off to the "NAB"
The more years go by, the more corrupt the modern versions get. What the NASB 1995 didn't remove, the NASB 2020 does. They are all copying each other's changes. For instance, compare Psalm 12:7 between the NASB 1971, the ESV 2001, and the CSB 2017. Notice how they progressively change and build on each other, getting farther away from the original Psalm 12:7 with each successive version. This pattern exists throughout the modern versions. The new ones are building on each other and getting more and more deviant over time with each new edition.
All of the popular modern versions today, in turn, go way farther in their removals than the 1881 RV or 1901 ASV did, for instance in Mark 10:24, Acts 9:29, Matthew 27:24, etc.
I'm not a Biblical scholar but I've seen what men like James White have to say about this issue and I find their perspective compelling. King James Onlyism is divisive, if well intentioned, and largely based on outright nonsense (Gail Riplinger).
King James Onlyism and the reactionary tradcath Douay-Rheims Onlyism borne in response to it are both nonsensical, and in fact the latter wasn't even supported by the Catholics at the time. Tradcaths read the Council of Trent's declaration on "free from error in faith and morals" and assume it means more than it does re: the Vulgate. All the Council said about the Vulgate, if you read the contemporary accounts of those at the Council, basically was "Look, nobody now (in the 1500s) actually knows 100% for sure what the original Greek said because we haven't yet discovered the ancient manuscripts we will discover in a few hundred years, but we're pretty sure the TR Greek commonly used now isn't it and contains additions and subtractions, so we're going to stick with the Latin for the time being because it's been used in the Church for 1000 years by the most learned and respected men, as well as in the Mass, and there hasn't been any question or controversy about its credibility. However, if we do eventually find more ancient and accurate Greek manuscripts, those will obviously take priority over the Latin, but the Latin will have to do for now, after we've revised it according to the ancient Latin manuscripts we have to purify it of scribal errors and typos."
So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it". And then there has always been another school of thought that holds to the Biblical position which, as given by Jesus Christ is:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
- Luke 16:17
And also:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
- Matthew 24:35
These two schools of thought have been in opposition for as long as the Bible has been around. Those who believe that the word of God is lost and can only ever be known inaccurately (or are crypto-relativists who secretly think there is no such thing to begin with) always try to act like those who differ from them and believe the pure word of God are a "new" idea that has all of these straw man traits. Today for instance, believing in God's providence in preserving His word, in the form of the received text that we have always had, gets you labeled as a KJV-onlyist and a Ruckmanite. That's just the way it is.
>So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it"
This is not the perspective of bible-believing Christian scholarship.
>So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it".
No, because we never lost the Vulgate.
The fact is that there are people who think we have lost God's word and that there is only an imperfect remnant of it, not the truly inspired originals. They like this idea primarily because, at least in their minds, it means it is open to change. It means they can change it. But the fact is that the original language Bible manuscripts, as well as some pretty good translations like the Vetus Latina and Wessex Gospels were made along the way. We never lost any of this. All this notwithstanding the attempts to corrupt the Bible by Marcionites, Catholicism or anyone else. They would have you believe the originals were lost, or only known "imperfectly," which is the same thing - and this is what opens the door to all of their versions, as well as the critical text versions that are constantly being cranked out, in order to keep their copyrights current, today.
(You)
Okay. >King James Onlyism and the reactionary tradcath Douay-Rheims Onlyism borne in response to it are both nonsensical.
Understood. You believe your position is nonsensical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Understood. You believe your position is nonsensical.
I never said I was King James onlyist though. That's another strawman.
KJV is based on the vulgate plus the so-called masoretic scripture given to them by israelites and derived from the pharisee Tanakh dating back to 1000 years ago. Bacially the KJV is partially sourced from works written by the enemies and murderers of Jesus.
The oldest bibles are the Greek Septuagints. These are not israeli/pharisee works, they are church-sanctioned canonical books and contain the New Testament. Almost 800 years before the schism. And also almost 800 years older than the pharisee shit used for the KJV (and other Protestant trash). Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls are supposedly older but the DSSs have almost no NT scripture. Some of the DSS are not even biblical like fake treasure maps. But the DSS gave a reliability problem. A known Zionist hoaxer, who killed himself, once tried to pass off some scrolls made from similar paper “found” near the same place. These were determined to be forgeries along with all the other fraudulent artifacts he tried to pass off. Zionist israelites have said that it’s worth considering that his scrolls were genuine since they match the DSS. Yeah how about no, how about the opposite? The opposite is more likely the truth: the DSS are fake. That’s why they have more in common with the Tanakh than Septuagint while israelites from that era like Josephus and Philo quoted the Septuagint.
In conclusion, the KJV is a Shakespearian English translation of a mostly israeli work that wasn’t younger than what the Vulgate was sourced from. It’s trash. The end
No it's subversive. Douay-Rheims is the correct English translation. All others are illegitimate and Satanic.
Ok cathoBlack person.
The DR is not a translation of the same text though, it's a translation of a translation
And yet the Vulgate, and therefore in the English tradition the Douay-Rheims, proved instrumental in preserving several authentic readings from the original Greek that had been mutilated by the textus receptus Greek text that was the standard for 2-3 centuries. For example, the Latin, not the TR, preserved the correct reading of Matt 19:17 when there were only 6 Greek manuscripts that attested to the reading by the end of the 19th century versus countless others which insisted Matt 19:17 read identical to its parallel verses in Mark and Luke. Until the RV, there was not a single English NT from the Greek which had the correct reading. The correct reading wasn't in the KJV, it wasn't in the Geneva; it was in the Rheims and scholarship today attests to this.
To be clear, I'm not that poster and I don't advocate for Douay-Onlyism (because I have my own problems with the commonly printed DRB text, starting with typos that haven't been fixed since 1899, and then in general with the translation a few too-literal renderings into English that, imo, make the text unnecessarily clunky like Matt 1:18). I do contend that the Vulgate is an authoritative witness to the true Greek text in many places and that the Vulgate's variants with the common Greek text should not be handily dismissed, because doing so in the 18th century led to numerous botches in scholarship that the 19th had to go back and correct.
>I do contend that the Vulgate is an authoritative witness to the true Greek text in many places
Well, if it's anything less than 100% that doesn't really say much. The alexandrian codices remove about 7% of the text. Even 1% corruption is more than enough to ruin it.
>because doing so in the 18th century led to numerous botches in scholarship that the 19th had to go back and correct.
Are you talking about Griesbach?
>Even 1% corruption is more than enough to ruin it.
1 John 5:7.
Belongs in the TR. Along with Revelation 21:24 and Revelation 22:19.
It was a Latin scribal note.
Whoever told you that doesn't know what they're talking about. It has its source from the original Greek form of 1 John, just like the rest of the book.
As for 1 John 5:7, none of the compilers of the received text, such as Robert Estienne, Beza and Elzevir, although they had their differences, none even doubted that verse or put any mark of doubt on it, demonstrating that it has robust original language support.
Detractors of the Bible have invented myths about this verse surrounding Erasmus and his supposed motivations for inserting this verse, but his choices aren't really relevant to the discussion.
Okay, Wettstein.
Yes, so like I said, even 1% of corruption is too much. The Vulgate changes John 3:5 from "born" to "born again" (renatus) which was used to support a false interpretation. The Vulgate also changed Matthew 6:11 from "daily bread" to "supersubstantial bread," which was another change not supported in any received manuscript of the Greek New Testament.
>The Vulgate changes
>The Vulgate also changed
The Vulgate didn't change anything. It's merely a transcription of the original autographs. The KJV is translated largely from medieval Catholic forgeries.
>The Vulgate didn't change anything. It's merely a transcription of the original autographs.
The Vetus Latina was originally a much better translation into Latin and significantly predates the Sixtine and Clementine Vulgate.
>The KJV is translated largely from medieval Catholic forgeries.
Except there's not a single place from Genesis to Revelation, that anyone can point to where this is true.
>Except there's not a single place from Genesis to Revelation, that anyone can point to where this is true.
The reading in 1 John 5:7 exists in the GNT entirely because the Vatican threatened to arrest Erasmus if he didn't include it based on their forged manuscript. And later GNT editors kept it.
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion."
— Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
>Metzger
I don't care what atheists have to say.
He was a conservative evangelical and one of the foremost experts on the textual history of the NT.
God thank you for Dirk.
Thank you God for the King James Version Bible. I also don’t mind the Scofield Study Bible system. I hardly ever use mine but when I do, the verse pointers do actually help a little. However, verse connections have to come from God, and there are infinite ones once you begin to spiritually follow God and digest every word.
The King James Onlyism is an attempt to label Christian’s that only use the KJV as being incapable of using a different translation/version. But we can. Just like Jesus gave us the capability to do all things. Go watch Bible Black hentai you mother frickers who are trying to create a Bible war.
Literal translation of the most accurate literal translation of all compiled canons.
Not a strictly literal translation of the vulgate
The vulgate is not in the running for most accurate or most literal
Further, there are many manuscript discrepancies of the text of the vulgate anyway
fpbp
"Best" in what way?
Is this actual censorship or are these fan-fiction verses?
I wouldn't say either is an accurate description but it's definitely not censorship. OP's pic is KJV-onlyist propaganda, it's designed to make you think that there is some conspiracy going on with the modern bible translations trying to "delete" seemingly random texts of scripture, as if though textual criticism occurs at the translational level, or that the KJV's readings are automatically the original. No knowledge of New Testament textual criticism is necessary to see that it's false, because if you simply take the complete list of what is supposedly "deleted" and compare them with parallel passages you will find there is absolutely no pattern one way or the other to the supposed "deletions" because what is actually happening is standard textual criticism which is something that bible believing Christians have practiced since the early church. For instance they will take some verse from the gospels, usually one which teaches some fundamental doctrine like the divinity of Christ, and show how modern translations omit it and say "see, they're trying to cover up the deity of Christ!" while ignoring the places in the other gospels where that exact same passage is found. Of course what actually happened is at some time probably in the early middle ages or late Roman empire some scribe was copying the bible by hand and was getting tired after a long day of work, so when he came to a passage he was well familiar with from a famous parallel passage in another gospel he without thinking copies it as it appears in the other gospel. Such minor corruptions are relatively extraordinary, and as such generally represent a small minority of the textual tradition and are easily identified and excised in the modern time.
>and compare them with parallel passages
The vast majority of Scripture passages have no parallels, and among the few parallel passages, there actually are twin removals. For instance, the words "to repentance" are removed in both Matthew 9:13 and its parallel Mark 2:17. The close parallel of the removed Matthew 18:11 is also taken out through the removal of Luke 9:55b-56a. The place where Luke says "Joseph and his mother," is inaccurately changed to "his Father and his mother" in the same way in both Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43.
>what is actually happening is standard textual criticism
The modern translations are mixed-source though. They combine received text readings with selected variants or corruptions from the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B) among others.
You couldn't be more wrong on this and it seems like you just made this up from wishful thinking when the facts tell a completely different story. The fact is that 7% of the total New Testament is deleted or changed. This affects 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. Whole verses deleted are just one small portion of the total alterations. The vast majority of these alterations have no parallels. The few that do have parallels have a good chance of having their parallel removed too.
I'm sure that if the parallels were all removed together, then one of you switch tactics and start arguing that was somehow a good thing as well. But the strange thing is, you are ignoring about 97% of the changes in books outside of the Gospels or in unique passages which have no parallel at all. For instance, the thief on the cross has one line only in Luke 23:42, and the Alexandrian text changes his words in that place. There is no parallel in the other Gospels. How does your explanation deal with that?
Also, there is a pattern of removals that demote the divinity of Christ and obscure the Trinity. And I've seen multiple-version-onlyists in the past arguing that was a good thing too.
>The vast majority of Scripture passages have no parallels
Now of course I was not merely speaking of the moments in the gospels where multiple evangelists record the same thing, but I was talking of any doctrinal parallels. Because every teaching that KJV onlyists allege is removed in the modern translations can be absolutely found in the modern translations. For example open any modern bible to John 1 and tell me it isn't teaching the deity of Christ. That is in fact an example of modern versions of the bible have an even stronger and more explicit teaching of this doctrine than the KJV/TR, for example if you open a modern translation to John 1:18 where the KJV reads "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" several modern translations read "the only God, who is at the Father's side".
>and among the few parallel passages, there actually are twin removals. For instance, the words "to repentance" are removed in both Matthew 9:13 and its parallel Mark 2:17.
Now this is an example that proves what I said, not only because this is not a doctrinal variant as the teaching is unchanged (nobody reading the text in good faith will fail to see that repentance is implied by the statement itself), but the words "to repentance" are preserved in the parallel in Luke 5:32.
>That is in fact an example of modern versions of the bible have an even stronger and more explicit teaching of this doctrine than the KJV/TR, for example if you open a modern translation to John 1:18 where the KJV reads "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" several modern translations read "the only God, who is at the Father's side".
The version of John 1:18 you just mentioned is found in gnostic corruptions of the Bible, and this has been known for a long time. They don't like the idea of monogenēs meaning "only begotten".
>Because every teaching that KJV onlyists allege is removed in the modern translations
I don't know what KJV onlyists say, but it says in Matthew 4:4 that, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." So if you remove even one teaching that's too many.
Paul also says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If all of it is profitable, that means none of it is replaceable.
>they are formed formed from more than one manuscript in the textual tradition.
Multiple different conflicting bodies of manuscripts are mixed together in eclectic translations.
>Again you say it was "changed" and you've been saying things were "removed", as if the readings found in the KJV were automatically correct and the standard by which we are to make our bibles.
I never said that, I've only said the received text represents the originals and translations need to be based on that. It's not that complicated unless you are trying to make it be.
>If the apostle wrote father, isn't that what you want your bible to say?
Not in that verse they didn't.
>found in gnostic corruptions of the Bible
Gnostic? The divinity of Jesus Christ is "gnostic" now? Where are these Gnostic bibles that teach that God became flesh and dwelt among us? And if this is a corruption of scripture, what makes it "Gnostic"?
>They don't like the idea of monogenēs meaning "only begotten"
The important part here is the use of the word "God" instead of "Son", brother.
>So if you remove even one teaching that's too many.
Of course my point was that not even one was removed, and it is not about "removing" scriptures either. The content of scripture is fundamentally defined by what was written, not what appeared in a printed text a millennium and a half later.
>Multiple different conflicting bodies of manuscripts are mixed together
Of course, because it isn't about a singular manuscript or even a singular manuscript tradition (as in, the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" tradition), but about reconstructing the exact text of the autographs, which God has preserved down through the ages by means of manifold manuscripts which are far too numerous for the original readings to ever be lost.
>And if this is a corruption of scripture, what makes it "Gnostic"?
The fact that they don't like the idea of the only begotten Son and they don't like the idea of Christ coming in the flesh. The same mistranslation is applied in writings of the docetists on this subject. Just as you see modern arians like the JWs mess with John 1:1-2, you see gnostics altering (or trying to alter) John 1:18. It's the same exact thing, to be blunt.
>Of course my point was that not even one was removed
But you already agreed here
that there is a real difference. You said "It's more accurate to say that the name Joseph was added to these verses than removed." So then in this statement you already admit there is a difference. Then it has to be at some point someone has violated the commandment of not changing it. So why not be upfront about this, instead of behaving like some kind of relativist and misleadingly giving everyone the false impression that there is no difference, or downplaying it to the point that you act like you think there is no difference. That's very misleading and confusing to others when you know that there's a difference and that it's substantive but yet irresponsibly pretend that it's not there, basically hiding from the truth, or hiding it from others.
>The content of scripture is fundamentally defined by what was written, not what appeared in a printed text a millennium and a half later.
So then why do you have such a big problem with what was written that you have to come here, and for what, to try to argue for relativism?
>but about reconstructing the exact text of the autographs,
Every single person on these projects, ever since Westcott and Hort, admit that what they're doing is imperfect. They even admit it, but then try to argue the preserved text is no different from them when it is. And the writers at the time knew this at the time, that's why they called it the "received text" in the front of the Elzevir 1633 edition TR.
>The fact that they don't like the idea of the only begotten Son and they don't like the idea of Christ coming in the flesh.
Okay I don't know how you could walk away with this conclusion from "the only God who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known". Especially because it's not a verse that talks about the incarnation in any version.
>that there is a real difference
A difference between words in certain verses, not between teachings in any particular book of scripture.
>Then it has to be at some point someone has violated the commandment of not changing it.
Why? I described to you a scenario whereby the text could be corrupted entirely on accident, you don't need anything more than a sleepy scribe to end up with a variant.
>So why not be upfront about this, instead of behaving like some kind of relativist and misleadingly giving everyone the false impression that there is no difference, or downplaying it to the point that you act like you think there is no difference.
Brother I have told you this whole time that if you read the KJV or a modern translation you will end up with the exact same Christian theology.
>Every single person on these projects, ever since Westcott and Hort, admit that what they're doing is imperfect
Since well before that brother, the likes of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza admitted likewise; that's why they produced multiple editions. Of course the work is imperfect, we are mere men. God never promised us that He would come out of heaven to point out to us which textual variants to use, He promised us only that we would always have His word to guide us, and we most certainly do.
>And the writers at the time knew this at the time, that's why they called it the "received text"
Again they called it that for marketing
>I described to you a scenario whereby the text could be corrupted entirely on accident, you don't need anything more than a sleepy scribe to end up with a variant.
I'm not talking about typos and misspellings. If you think all of the changes to the various parallel passages are just coincidentally the same, I'm not sure what to think.
There is clearly a completely different version that someone created that became the source of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus somewhere along the line. I mean, back during Westcott and Hort's day, they were arguing vehemently against the received text for this reason— one of them even called it "vile."
It makes no sense historically to now proclaim that they are the same, because if that were true then Westcott and Hort would have had nothing to really complain about. Can't have it both ways.
>occasionally copied the work of previous English translators (most notably William Tyndale) and even deferred to the Latin,
For translational purposes - but it has to be noted, not for textual-critical purposes. The Bible translators didn't reinvent the wheel every time when it came to how to properly translate words from Greek to English, often times concurring with other existing translations when there were no problems with it. That doesn't mean the translators of our Bible used anything other than the most accurate source texts for building their underlying original language text for the Bible, though.
>the reading of "Lucifer" in Isaiah is based entirely on the Latin tradition and has nothing to do with the Greek.
Technically, it's the translation of a Hebrew proper name into English, so it has nothing directly to do with Greek or Latin. But Latin as a language has influenced English, so there is an indirect connection. That doesn't necessarily mean that the English word is exactly the same as the Latin word though. That would be a hasty assumption. It might have differences: in this case for example, being a proper name.
>I'm not talking about typos and misspellings
Neither am I
>For translational purposes - but it has to be noted, not for textual-critical purposes
Duh. They were translators, not textual critics.
>Technically, it's the translation of a Hebrew proper name into English
Right I meant Hebrew not Greek, but it isn't a proper name the underlying Hebrew is "shining star", which Jerome translated in the Vulgate as lucifer (light-bearer). It was rendered this way in the KJV for tradition's sake.
>That doesn't necessarily mean that the English word is exactly the same as the Latin word though. That would be a hasty assumption. It might have differences: in this case for example, being a proper name.
Lucifer from changed from a word for the morning star to a name for Satan principally because of over a thousand years of the Latin Vulgate being the exclusively used bible in all of western Europe.
>the Latin Vulgate being the exclusively used bible in all of western Europe.
Not true. The Wessex Gospels were translated from the Greek and have more accurate readings.
>The close parallel of the removed Matthew 18:11 is also taken out through the removal of Luke 9:55b-56a
This is not a parallel except doctrinally, and brother if you say that the teaching of Jesus as savior is not found in a modern bible you are just bearing false witness.
>The place where Luke says "Joseph and his mother," is inaccurately changed to "his Father and his mother" in the same way in both Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43.
Now I think a Christian should care what the apostles wrote more than what was in a 17th century English translation. Again you say it was "changed" and you've been saying things were "removed", as if the readings found in the KJV were automatically correct and the standard by which we are to make our bibles. It's more accurate to say that the name Joseph was added to these verses than removed. If the apostle wrote father, isn't that what you want your bible to say? Is it false that Joseph was Jesus's father in any way? Did he not raise Him? The only way one could interpret this as meaning that Joseph is His biological father is if they treat the text dishonestly, because just one chapter earlier they were told it was a virgin birth.
>The modern translations are mixed-source though
Well generally not the translations themselves, but the Greek texts they are translated from certainly are, as all textual critical editions of all books are mixed source, meaning they are formed formed from more than one manuscript in the textual tradition.
>They combine received text readings
Neither modern translations nor the texts they are translated from utilize in any way the 16th century printed texts known as the Textus Receptus. The fact is there are relatively few textual variants in the tradition, and very few variants of any doctrinal significance (which is why the differences the KJV onlyists bring up are typically inconsequential). This means in most places the Textus Receptus has an accurate Greek text. It's not these modern versions that are using it, it's it that is in agreement with the modern versions.
>with selected variants or corruptions from the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)
These manuscripts are not a significant influence on modern Greek New Testaments. Their value is mainly historical. By far the most influential manuscripts are the papyrus texts which are centuries older than these two.
>How does your explanation deal with that?
By recognizing that Jesus Christ did not sit down and write the King James bible in English before He ascended into heaven. Again, these are not "deletions" or "changes" because neither the KJV nor the TR are the standard that defines the content of the New Testament, but the body of the manuscript tradition is. You should know that 7% is a small fraction of scripture to be different, and yet what a small percentage of that percentage actually has doctrinal significance. This is why a Christian who reads and believed a KJV bible ends up with the exact same theology as a Christian who reads and believes an ESV bible.
>neither the KJV nor the TR are the standard that defines the content of the New Testament, but the body of the manuscript tradition is.
The received text is the body of manuscript tradition though. That's the whole point, you get what I'm saying now, anon?
>You should know that 7% is a small fraction of scripture to be different,
If I take a book and change a mere 1% of the words on each page, how much do you want to think that will be able to change the entire work if there was a goal to deceive in place? What if satan were put in charge of making the changes? You can be sure it would be a very devious alteration that disguises itself as being innocuous, which is exactly what happened. See Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:17.
>Neither modern translations nor the texts they are translated from utilize in any way the 16th century printed texts known as the Textus Receptus.
If they didn't then they would have to contain the variant in this picture in Matthew 27, as well as a lot of other errors. They'd have to change "Galilee" to "Judea" in Mark 1:28 and Luke 1:26. They would have to change Luke 7:35 to say "works" instead of "children," similar to how they already do in the parallel passage Matthew 11:19.
Also by the way, what about all of the non-parallel passages that I mentioned earlier? By the way some newer translations such as the NAB also remove "to repentance" from Luke 5 as well.
>the differences the KJV onlyists bring up are typically inconsequential
Maybe not to someone who doesn't place faith in Christ. To me, it is consequential that Christ really did possess equality with God (not that he never tried to "grasp" it) in Philippians 2:6 and that God was manifest in the flesh according to 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 4:3. These aren't minor things to me.
>The received text is the body of manuscript tradition though.
As I said, the "received text" is a printed text. It is not even part of the manuscript tradition.
>If they didn't then they would have to contain the variant in this picture in Matthew 27, as well as a lot of other errors. They'd have to change "Galilee" to "Judea" in Mark 1:28 and Luke 1:26. They would have to change Luke 7:35 to say "works" instead of "children," similar to how they already do in the parallel passage Matthew 11:19.
Well I assume these are all variants found in particular in sinaiticus and vaticanus, which modern Greek texts are not slavish copies of.
>By the way some newer translations such as the NAB also remove "to repentance" from Luke 5 as well.
I have never heard of the NAB. I think it is noteworthy that now all of the famous modern translations have ceased to exist and we run off to the "NAB", which when I look it up is a papist translation to begin with. What happened to the conspiracy of Satan creating the likes of the ESV or the NASB to destroy the text of scripture? Are these no longer corrupt, deliberately false translations?
>that Christ really did possess equality with God (not that he never tried to "grasp" it) in Philippians 2:6
Now the KJV is clearly incorrect here as is clear from how out of flow it is with the following verse. What Paul is saying here is that, yes, the Son was equal with God "being in the form of God", but that He did not count that equality a thing to be grasped that is, held onto at all costs, but set it aside "making Himself of no reputation" by becoming a man like us.
>What Paul is saying here is that, yes, the Son was equal with God "being in the form of God", but that He did not count that equality a thing to be grasped that is, held onto at all costs,
Paul said the Son didn't think it was robbery to be equal with God, meaning, it wasn't something to be flaunted - as though it had been obtained by robbery. It doesn't mean He never grasped it!
>Paul said the Son didn't think it was robbery to be equal with God, meaning, it wasn't something to be flaunted - as though it had been obtained by robbery.
And now this proves the point I was making before that whatever translation of the bible you read you get the exact same teaching.
>That's truly Irrelevant because our Bibles aren't based on that
It's really not because it says something about the process of this work, not to mention the underlying manuscripts. By the way it's not as though the KJV translators just dutifully translated the work of Stephanus and Beza everywhere, they used multiple editions including one of Erasmus, occasionally copied the work of previous English translators (most notably William Tyndale) and even deferred to the Latin, for example the reading of "Lucifer" in Isaiah is based entirely on the Latin tradition and has nothing to do with the Greek.
>what is actually happening is standard textual criticism
What's happening only started with Westcott and Hort and it's a rejection of the Gospel in favor of a gnostic substitute text which they selectively dabble in to replace true readings, and play translation games to get things to say what they want, and without even a hint of compunction about doing so.
That is not the legacy of the Bible translators, the real translators. That's never what they believed, and it's never what they did.
If you're interested in learning more about New Testament textual criticism I recommend looking into the work of Dr. James White on the topic, who is a Christian theologian and expert in New Testament textual criticism who practices such textual criticism from a bible believing worldview.
The verses are absent from all of the older manuscripts.
They were present in the original, which are by default also the oldest manuscripts.
No they weren't, or we would have older textual witnesses to those passages.
Nah, my original Scroll under my Hele Stone inside my Ark of my Covenant is.
Daily reminder that Smithsonian hid the giants from us and created the dinosaurs to cover up large bones found in archeology.
all birds are dinosaurs bro
How do woke Christian’s explain this?
"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;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"
- 2 Peter 2:6-9
In one passage in Deuteronomy 23, the sodomite and the dog are directly equated in Scripture. Later in the book of Revelation, it lists "dogs" as being part of those who have a part in the lake of fire.
They all believe "just believe in Jesus bro" and that absolves you of everything
There's an absolutely garbage documentary titled "1946" from a "conservative evangelical gay man" which tries to claim the word "homosexual" did not exist in the text until the RSV and thus the anti-LGBTABCDEFG++ stuff is not in the Bible. This, of course, ignores two things: (1) There were plenty of non-English translations, such as a Chinese translation, which DID have the word "homosexual" in the text long before the RSV and (2) we can literally look at the LXX Greek in Leviticus and see that Paul literally created the word (ἀρσενοκοῖται) he used from two Greek words used in Leviticus (ἄρσενος κοίτην and ἄρσενος κοιμηθήσῃ), and nobody denies that Leviticus is talking about gay sexual relations.
>verbally abusive people
the frick
It's supposed to say "revilers"
Don't blame Paul for this one. The HCSB 2004 is a poor translation and working with a corrupted text.
If Jesus doesn’t mention something it’s fine. So for example, Jesus never said “you can’t put your pre-pubescent children on hormone blockers and turn them into trannies”, which means it’s allowed. Paul said that so frick him.
Why are all these modern translations so souless? It's meant to be a holy book. Put some feeling into it.
No, because it's based on the Greek NT of Erasmus which was embarrassingly put together in several places. Reading 19th-century writings of biblical commentators and theologians on the eve of the Revised Version NT of 1881 make it clear how embarrassing it became when they discovered Erasmus's translation materials and realized he'd several times been copying the 12th-century theologian Andreas of Caesarea's annotations into the text of Revelation by mistake, thinking they were part of the text. Not to mention retranslating Rev. 22:16-21 from the Latin back to Greek because they were missing in this one and only Greek manuscript he had for Revelation. This isn't even getting into the whole words that Erasmus omitted and added, which then made their way into the KJV.
>No, because it's based on the Greek NT of Erasmus
No, actually it's based on the Greek NT of Stephanus and Beza, which corrected Erasmus in the places where he had mistakes. Every time this misconception is repeated I will continue to refute it.
>Reading 19th-century writings of biblical commentators and theologians on the eve of the Revised Version NT of 1881 make it clear how embarrassing it became when they discovered Erasmus's translation materials
What writings exactly?
>Not to mention retranslating Rev. 22:16-21 from the Latin back to Greek
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and they are the ones which the KJV translators used.
>This isn't even getting into the whole words that Erasmus omitted and added, which then made their way into the KJV.
Doesn't matter because Stephanus and Beza didn't and their TR are the ones which the KJV translators used.
James White doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about... And if he does know, and is knowingly lying regarding Erasmus and the KJV, and willfully spreading misconceptions, that's even worse.
No, it's completely moronic. Rendering תַּחַשׁ as "badger" in context of the Tabernacle, (Numbers 4:6, Exodus 25:5, for just two examples) is completely wrong. Nevermind that it clearly can't be a badger because of the injunction to use "clean" (edible within the dietary laws of the Mosaitic covenant) animal products for it; the 'etymology' of
>Well, תַּחַשׁ would transliterate to something like "Ta-Chash" and that sort of sounds like the Latin "Taxus", so it must mean badger, right? Hebrew is totally derived from Latin!
is insane and stupid. And I bring this up not because there's any theological significance I'm aware of for this instance of poor translation. There isn't. But it goes to show the poor level of linguistic sophistication the KJV had in actually translating this stuff. These are people who did not know their Greek and Hebrew, and they made a bad translation, not because they had some malign intent, but because they just had no idea what the frick they were doing.
There is a different definition of badger you probably aren't considering.
>he thinks translations will ever give the same meaning and nuance as the original
ngmi
"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, israelites and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
- Acts 2:7-11
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"
- Revelation 14:6
"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."
- Revelation 10:11
You can't even begin to comprehend how limited and erroneous your understanding of God, His Commandments, and spirituality in general is. You not only can never be aware of the extremely important subtleties lost to English translations (yes, including KJV), but you also belong to the brainwashed who not only trust the "new testament" for truth and guidance, but also have the audacity of equating it to, or even worse yet, claim it has rendered the Tanakh obsolete. Your ignorance is laughable; you're a spiritual baby, and so is your favorite KJV-only preacher.
>the received text represents the originals and translations need to be based on that
The textus receptus (which is only called that because of an advertisement which called it that for marketing purposes) represents nothing more than the limited number of manuscripts which were available to the men who produced it (really, produced them as there are multiple "received texts"), and sometimes not even that. For instance if you were to get your hands on a 1st edition Erasmus you would not find the comma johaneum in 1 John 5:7. He was attacked for this, by the very same Romanists who would attack the gospel of grace preached by Martin Luther a few years later, who alleged that he was removing the holy trinity from scripture. Erasmus protested that not a single Greek manuscript he had found contained it (and by the way, that is still the case). He insisted that if he a single manuscript could be found in favor of it he would add it. One of his rivals then forged a false manuscript which contained it, and he was forced to add it to subsequent editions or else be burned at the stake.
>if you were to get your hands on a 1st edition Erasmus...
That's truly Irrelevant because our Bibles aren't based on that, and it was to speak candidly a rushed job. Erasmus wanted to publish before the Complutensian Polyglot which came out just a year after him. Beza and Stephanus corrected the mistakes that were contained in a limited number of places in Erasmus' text.
I'm not saying Erasmus did a bad job, but it still had some improvement to be brought in from the original Greek manuscripts, and both Estienne (Stephanus) and Beza had access to these, with which they used to bring the TR into alignment with it. Nobody was relying on Erasmus for anything. They independently compiled the Greek manuscripts and made sure everything was accurate, correcting where Erasmus' editions were necessary. The KJV also used these later TR editions, they weren't reliant on anything Erasmus did.
>He insisted that if he a single manuscript could be found in favor of it he would add it. One of his rivals then forged a false manuscript which contained it,
See
>I think it is noteworthy that now all of the famous modern translations have ceased to exist and we run off to the "NAB"
The more years go by, the more corrupt the modern versions get. What the NASB 1995 didn't remove, the NASB 2020 does. They are all copying each other's changes. For instance, compare Psalm 12:7 between the NASB 1971, the ESV 2001, and the CSB 2017. Notice how they progressively change and build on each other, getting farther away from the original Psalm 12:7 with each successive version. This pattern exists throughout the modern versions. The new ones are building on each other and getting more and more deviant over time with each new edition.
All of the popular modern versions today, in turn, go way farther in their removals than the 1881 RV or 1901 ASV did, for instance in Mark 10:24, Acts 9:29, Matthew 27:24, etc.
I'm not a Biblical scholar but I've seen what men like James White have to say about this issue and I find their perspective compelling. King James Onlyism is divisive, if well intentioned, and largely based on outright nonsense (Gail Riplinger).
King James Onlyism and the reactionary tradcath Douay-Rheims Onlyism borne in response to it are both nonsensical, and in fact the latter wasn't even supported by the Catholics at the time. Tradcaths read the Council of Trent's declaration on "free from error in faith and morals" and assume it means more than it does re: the Vulgate. All the Council said about the Vulgate, if you read the contemporary accounts of those at the Council, basically was "Look, nobody now (in the 1500s) actually knows 100% for sure what the original Greek said because we haven't yet discovered the ancient manuscripts we will discover in a few hundred years, but we're pretty sure the TR Greek commonly used now isn't it and contains additions and subtractions, so we're going to stick with the Latin for the time being because it's been used in the Church for 1000 years by the most learned and respected men, as well as in the Mass, and there hasn't been any question or controversy about its credibility. However, if we do eventually find more ancient and accurate Greek manuscripts, those will obviously take priority over the Latin, but the Latin will have to do for now, after we've revised it according to the ancient Latin manuscripts we have to purify it of scribal errors and typos."
So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it". And then there has always been another school of thought that holds to the Biblical position which, as given by Jesus Christ is:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
- Luke 16:17
And also:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
- Matthew 24:35
These two schools of thought have been in opposition for as long as the Bible has been around. Those who believe that the word of God is lost and can only ever be known inaccurately (or are crypto-relativists who secretly think there is no such thing to begin with) always try to act like those who differ from them and believe the pure word of God are a "new" idea that has all of these straw man traits. Today for instance, believing in God's providence in preserving His word, in the form of the received text that we have always had, gets you labeled as a KJV-onlyist and a Ruckmanite. That's just the way it is.
>So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it"
This is not the perspective of bible-believing Christian scholarship.
>So basically there has always been one school of thought that says "God's word has been lost to us, and it's been lost to the entire world, but one day we'll 'recover' it".
No, because we never lost the Vulgate.
See
The fact is that there are people who think we have lost God's word and that there is only an imperfect remnant of it, not the truly inspired originals. They like this idea primarily because, at least in their minds, it means it is open to change. It means they can change it. But the fact is that the original language Bible manuscripts, as well as some pretty good translations like the Vetus Latina and Wessex Gospels were made along the way. We never lost any of this. All this notwithstanding the attempts to corrupt the Bible by Marcionites, Catholicism or anyone else. They would have you believe the originals were lost, or only known "imperfectly," which is the same thing - and this is what opens the door to all of their versions, as well as the critical text versions that are constantly being cranked out, in order to keep their copyrights current, today.
>
No, because we never lost the Vulgate. (You)
>See
(You)
Okay.
>King James Onlyism and the reactionary tradcath Douay-Rheims Onlyism borne in response to it are both nonsensical.
Understood. You believe your position is nonsensical.
>Understood. You believe your position is nonsensical.
I never said I was King James onlyist though. That's another strawman.
>All verses from "new testament" books
Oh so some "bibles" are missing ficticious verses of their ficticious books. Interesting and relevant, somehow.
Not an atheist, moron. What I was implying is the entire "new testament" (and by extension christianity) is a complete fabrication, unlike the Tanakh.
Oh I'm sorry my mistake.
no, it's full of mistranslations like all non-greek bibles.
>t. greek
haha Gnosticism goes brrrr
I see you've finally run out of things to say, well good that's good with me.
KJV is based on the vulgate plus the so-called masoretic scripture given to them by israelites and derived from the pharisee Tanakh dating back to 1000 years ago. Bacially the KJV is partially sourced from works written by the enemies and murderers of Jesus.
The oldest bibles are the Greek Septuagints. These are not israeli/pharisee works, they are church-sanctioned canonical books and contain the New Testament. Almost 800 years before the schism. And also almost 800 years older than the pharisee shit used for the KJV (and other Protestant trash). Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls are supposedly older but the DSSs have almost no NT scripture. Some of the DSS are not even biblical like fake treasure maps. But the DSS gave a reliability problem. A known Zionist hoaxer, who killed himself, once tried to pass off some scrolls made from similar paper “found” near the same place. These were determined to be forgeries along with all the other fraudulent artifacts he tried to pass off. Zionist israelites have said that it’s worth considering that his scrolls were genuine since they match the DSS. Yeah how about no, how about the opposite? The opposite is more likely the truth: the DSS are fake. That’s why they have more in common with the Tanakh than Septuagint while israelites from that era like Josephus and Philo quoted the Septuagint.
In conclusion, the KJV is a Shakespearian English translation of a mostly israeli work that wasn’t younger than what the Vulgate was sourced from. It’s trash. The end