I tend to shitpost here against KJVgays because I find them annoying. But to be honest, I think the King James Version is a great translation.
The translators went out of their way to specify singular and plural "you"s. Most Bibles don't do this.
The translators went out of their way to specify clearly where in the text the name YHWH is used ("LORD"). In 1 Samuel, where the euphemism "Adonai" is used instead, they put "Lord" in lowercase. Elohim is "God". Most Bibles just use "God", "Lord", etc. interchangeably.
The translators italicized the words and expressions they added to improve comprehension so that you know they were not present in the original text.
They didn't make shit up in the Old Testament to support Christcuck theology. Compare Genesis 49:10 in KJV and NIV:
>The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be (KJV)
>The scepter will not depart from Judah, /nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, / until he to whom it belongs [LMAO] shall come / and the obedience of the nations shall be his. (NIV)
They made mistakes, like mixing up Sheol/Hades/Gehenna all under the "hell" umbrella (which is just untrue), and using moronic manuscripts, but their intention to stay true to the original is impressive.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
In the KJV, they intentionally translated the sentences in such a way that they had a cadence to them and were metrically balanced. They could do this by word choice or by something as simple as using equivalent words such as thy = thine and my = mine. Samuel Johnson wrote in his dictionary about 20 rules of "prosody" which is something the King James translation frequently uses. The reason for this is stated on the title page of the original, "appointed to be read in churches."
Many of the word choices are correct by default in the King James translation since the 1755 Johnson English Dictionary (and 1828 Webster American English) cite it as authority for word definitions very often, thus giving it a unique place in the language. This isn't true of any other translation.
The KJV also uses transliterated words in the New Testament specifically. When the New Testament says Jeremias, or where it says Esaias, it doesn't take the translational step of changing that to the direct Hebrew transliteration of the names. This helps with accuracy as there are a few times where there is a real difference. For instance, compare John 1:38 and John 20:16. In the first case, the word "rabbi" has to be interpreted because it is presumably spoken in another language, but in John chapter 20, it isn't interpreted because it is the Greek form of the same word, which implies the speaker was using Greek language. Similar slight differences occur with other proper names as well, such as Matthew 2:17 + 27:9 compared with Matthew 16:14.
This is something that is completely ignored by most people today.
>Sheol/Hades/Gehenna all under the "hell" umbrella (which is just untrue)
Except it's true.
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."
- Revelation 20:13
With this in mind compare Acts 2:24 and Ps. 116:3. Comp. Luke 16:23 (hades) with Mark 9:43 (gehenna).
'Thy', 'my' vs. 'thine', mine is the same as 'a', 'an'. The fact that you don't know this and think that alternating one syllable words affects meter makes me think you are ignorant.
"They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage."
- Psalm 94:5
>Bible contains both the phrase "thy hand" and "thine hand"
It took me about 20 seconds to find this out.
Cringe
The Bible never referenced unicorns. KJV has issues.
Rhinocerous.
nope, jackass, it's a mistranslation
It's a great translation all native English speakers should read
The best edition is the new Cambridge paragraph bible
Why are Protties so obsessed with scholarship and biblical data? Religion should be experienced, not studied.
to be fair I had a whole Sunday school session on why we used the KJV.
bump
It’s language is too antiquated and difficult to understand so I don’t like it. If I wanted to never read or understand the Bible, I’d just become a Catholic.
Inb4 brainlet take because KJV sounds fancy and old.
Language changes and it’s a slog to parse the old bullshit language of the 16th century. I’d rather read it and get a solid grasp on its meaning without having to look at other sources.
It's not that difficult, someone failed english class.. I'll admit there's a few cases where rendering might be unfamiliar, my KJV has modern spellings at the footnotes.
Good. Treasure the KJV and the tradition of it. Often it can be a family heirloom. If you don't like the text, simply go for an ESV, NASB, or LSB. NRSV is too liberal
>I’d rather read it and get a solid grasp on its meaning without having to look at other sources.
Not possible, even with the most brainlet of translations. It's the Bible dude.
Indeed, Yahweh acts in mysterious ways. No human can truly perfectly grasp the holy scriptures.
>Yahweh
That is not a word found anywhere in the Bible.
Jehovah is a corrupted rendering/translation of the combination your image cites, involving the substitute "Adonai". God's name is Yahweh, "I Am Who I Am." It's based on the scholarly reconstruction of the tetragrammaton.
>Jehovah is a corrupted rendering/translation of the combination your image cites, involving the substitute "Adonai".
False.
>God's name is Yahweh
These people worship a false god that was made up by some scholar in the last century or two; It's not the God of the Bible.
Are you a JW?
You're a Jehovah's Witness?
I'm the one asking you that question
Why are you asking? Is that what you are, anon?
Shoo shoo JWgay.
You think the King James translators were Jehovah's Witnesses when JWs didn't even exist in the 1600s? That's pretty strange, anon. That's pretty bizarre. You must not be the brightest person, huh?
Scholarship can evolve. I don't necessarily agree with all positions taken by modern Bible scholars but having said that it seems the evidence is clear that Jehovah is an improper rendering of YHWH used by early translations erroneously.
Alternatively it might indicate that J was pronounced the same in English at the time as it now is in all the other Germanic languages, if this is the case an Anglican priest reading from the Authorized Version in 1611 would have read the divine name as "Yehovah" or "Yehowah"
That doesn't answer the question I asked. Do you think they were JW back in the 1600s? And if so doesn't that make you one, anon? I'm asking because I never said anything about that group until you suddenly brought it up as a way to not answer my earlier posts.
>it seems the evidence is clear
No, it's just a bunch of garbage. Some random guy came up with that conclusion not too long ago. It's basically fake, that's my point here. See the evidence already posted showing the early date of the vowel points. That's real evidence.
>Do you think they were JW back in the 1600s? And if so doesn't that make you one, anon?
The JWs don't even think there were JWs in the 1600s
Ok so why bring them up then? What relevance does that have to anything being discussed?
Because you are similarly autistic about a highly anglicized form of the divine name
ITT I posted the Hebrew spelling.
In this thread I have never once written the word Jehovah except in response to your accusation of me. I simply said the word "Yahweh" is wrong and that has been my point. That's what I've been arguing if you actually read my posts. So, what possible basis do you have to accuse me of using an Anglicized form of anything?
I'm not the guy you've been arguing with, it's just obvious what's happening. You are utterly sold out to the human tradition of KJVonlyism and this is part of that. By the way, do you realize that all of those names starting with J are merely rendered that way in English, and are actually pronounced with a Y sound in Hebrew?
>it's just obvious what's happening. You are utterly sold out to the human tradition of KJVonlyism and this is part of that.
Before you were trying to say I'm a JW. You knew all along I wasn't one?
>By the way, do you realize that all of those names starting with J are merely rendered that way in English, and are actually pronounced with a Y sound in Hebrew?
That's not my point in this thread. Well, it looks like the actual evidence all points to my original point, and nobody is able to defend the word that some people invented from wholecloth in the 19th century that had never been heard of before then. I'm Glad we had this discussion. Amen.
>That's not my point
This is called capitulation
I'm glad you agree that you can't defend the word "Yahweh," and so my original point stands.
I'm glad you agree that you can't defend the word "Jehovah," and so my original point stands.
See
See
My point in this thread has nothing to do with the letter J, like I said before. What you posted is not relevant to the Hebrew spelling, like I said here
and pointed out this
post as evidence of the English spelling not being relevant here.
lmao, anon, you aren't even showing the correct hebrew pronunciation. that's how it appears in the english translation. all of those begin with a yod, a "y" sound, not j. joseph is yoseph. the "jeho" names begin with "yeho". also, the shortened form yeho is not neccisarily going to be the correct way to pronounce the fuller יהוה. when the name appears as a suffix in a name, like eliyah (elijah) you can see the correct vowel. "Yah" weh.
Jehovah is a misunderstanding of a german guess that יהוה was yehovah, the j is pronounced y. we now know better with new extrabiblical evidence.
>יהוה.
Ah, but anon, like I already said here (
) the word יְהוָה with full vowel points appears in the original. So, because of that, it's not even a question of what to substitute at all.
anon, the article you cited is not even talking about the vowels, it's talking about the accent system of the Masoretic i.e. how you emphasize words and say a verse in oral recitation at liturgies.
We see the entire "Tiberian system" including all diacritics, which includes but is not limited to the accents, actually existed at a time long before it is usually given credit for. It might actually be called "proto-Tiberian" as it clearly doesn't originate from there but from something far earlier.
shut the frick up you pastor anderson homosexual. Get his fricking nuts out of your mouth. You are pretending so hard to make this argument look like your own, even though all your information comes from this moronic lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qyM5R1Ueu4
Once again, "yahweh" wasnt a term made up by scholars from the 20th century. Yahweh has been around for hundreds, if not, thousands of years. How do we know this? The term Hallelujah, literally "Let us worship Yah"
Its so easy to tell which posts are by you pastor anderson cultists. The most recent thing your shills are doing is spreading a heretical interpretation of the holy trinity.
How will Jehovahgay ever recover from this post. lol
Hallelujah means “praise yah” not let us worship. Subtle diff.
By this logic you can argue for the other four possibilities (no one mentioned the possibilities of yahuva/yehuva/yo ah here yet for some reason). Yehova is evidenced in theophoric names like yehoshua (Joshua) and yehoshafat. Yahuva in names like yesha’ayahu (Isaiah) and Hizkiyahu (hezekiah). yehuva in names like Jehu and Judah. yovah in names like yonatan.
>yesha’ayahu (Isaiah)
wtf
He’s right you know
No to mention that the supposed “yah” is possibly actually pronounced “yo”, depending on your position. Also “yah” appears as a name on its own throughout the Old Testament. Why go the Hallelujah? Sounds like this guy doesn’t know much about what he’s talking, and is just regurgitating hearsay.
>Hallelujah means “praise yah”
Yes. Yah, as in Yahweh
>the possibilities of yahuva/yehuva/yo ah her
no you idiot. once again, get pastor andersons dick out of your mouth. You literally just admitted the word is Yah, now your trying to change it to Ye and Yo
>“yah” is possibly actually pronounced “yo”
You are such a disingenuous shill its unreal. Your original argument was that the term "Yahweh" was invented by scholars from the 20th century. An argument you copied word for word from the moron anderson in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qyM5R1Ueu4
(btw, why do you keep hiding that youre an anderson shill?)
All I am proposing is that that people have been using "Yahweh" for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If they, the people from hundreds of years ago, are wrong is another debate. The fact is "Yahweh" was not a term invented less than 100 years ago.
> doesn’t know much about what he’s talking,
about? ESL detected
This was my first post in the thread.
I don’t know who pastor Anderson is or to what beliefs he subscribes.
I never claimed it was invented 100 years ago.
I was only adding my perspective on the debate regarding the name.
I’m American. I’m a native English speaker. The word about is there because I don’t like ending sentences with a proposition, due to propoganda I was bombarded with in highschool.
Why are you frothing at the mouth?
lmao got his ass, wreck that heretic preacher and his peons
>KJV
King James Vivle?
when i quote the bible in english i use kjv even though im catholic because i feel like it sounds cooler
My uncle just gave me a kj when I wanted a niv
why would you want the NIV (Non Inspired Version)
prolly cuz it sucks like all books of religions do
None of this argument over the holy name would've happened if the israelites hadn't been so excessively legalistic as to completely forget the original vocalization.
Not to diminish the points already made above but we know that the correct translation of the tetragrammaton is "Lord" as that's how it was placed infallibly in the Greek New Testament. That's why most often, you see Christians refer to God that way. Since the Greek text quoted the original Hebrew text that way, we see it equally appropriate.
Isn't LORD a substitution that uses "Adonai" (Lord in Heb) in place of the tetragrammaton? Afaik God's personal name is still YHWH.
Yes, LORD in capitals is meant to be a substitution for the Tetragrammaton, but as mentioned before the vowel points actually are there nonetheless.
I should add while we're on the subject that the following is also true: Once Saved Always Saved, the baptist tradition originates with John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, 1 John 5:7 was written by the Apostle John in the original letter, and the King James Authorized version is the inspired word of God, the very words of God in English without error.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)
"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16)
>The anderson cultist is too scared to reply to my post here
[...]
[...]
shut the frick up you pastor anderson homosexual. Get his fricking nuts out of your mouth. You are pretending so hard to make this argument look like your own, even though all your information comes from this moronic lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qyM5R1Ueu4
Once again, "yahweh" wasnt a term made up by scholars from the 20th century. Yahweh has been around for hundreds, if not, thousands of years. How do we know this? The term Hallelujah, literally "Let us worship Yah"
Its so easy to tell which posts are by you pastor anderson cultists. The most recent thing your shills are doing is spreading a heretical interpretation of the holy trinity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Its so easy to expose you cultists.
>Once Saved Always Saved
this is heretical btw
I couldn't care less what you have to say, anon. It's clear you should be reading, not writing ITT
>Nobody knows if israelites really believed the Sheol was a real place
It doesn't matter what they believed. They believed all kinds of things I'm sure. Many of them worshipped false gods. The only thing that matters is what God's word said, because that's the part that came from God.
I'm not sure why but people seem to have some kind of allergic reaction to the name of Jesus, so they keep wanting to change it to various things it seems like, just anything but what the King James version says.
>The only thing that matters is what God's word said, because that's the part that came from God.
Not him, but yes this is true. And God's word talks about Hades. Even the paradise there, abraham's bosom. The rich man poor man story with Lazarus is about hades. The entire church for the first few centuries had no qualms about this understanding either. Justin Martyr, Ireneus, and all of them understood this. It's what the Bible says.
>we know that the correct translation of the tetragrammaton is "Lord" as that's how it was placed infallibly in the Greek New Testament
That is not a translation it's an example of the israeli legalism Anon was referring to, originally the divine name was transliterated in the Septuagint but then this israeli autism started and they stopped copying it and replaced it with kyrios (lord), the New Testament renders it that we because it quotes from the Septuagint since they are both in Greek
The divine name itself is etymologically derived from ehyeh and acts as a summarized form of ehyeh asher ehyeh, the most accurate translation if you wanted to translate it for some reason would probably be "He who is".
It’s unclear if it’s really derived from eheyeh or if that’s a biblical neologism like the Bible’s claim that babel is called so because god mixed (balal) the nations there. (Real meaning is Bab-ilu or gate of the gods)
>Bible’s claim that babel is called so because god mixed (balal) the nations there. (Real meaning is Bab-ilu or gate of the gods)
You know he's just making a pun, right?
The Bible or the guy I responded to? Either way it went over my head
Moses. He is saying "Therefore it is fitting we should call it Babel, for there they were balal"
Hmm. Maybe it is intended as poetic license but look at something like Moses’s naming. The Bible claims it’s because he was pulled out from the water (כי מן המים משיתיהו) but we know it’s actually an Egyptian theophoric name
what is the difference between sheol/hades/gehenna? i thought sheol was the hebrew name and hades the greek name for the same place. guess that doesn't explain gehenna. and what of tartarus?
Sheol is something like the underworld where all people go after they die. Nobody knows if israelites really believed the Sheol was a real place or it's just literally "the soil" where they bury your body.
Hades is a translation of Sheol.
Gehenna was equivalent to what we understand as "hell" and le Yisus uses that term like twenty times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Hinnom_(Gehenna))
Tartarus was a place where GODS went after being punished. If I remember correctly, the only mention of Tartarus in the Bible is in Peter concerning the "sons of God" that fricked human women and were punished by God.
Nay, only 1611 KJV saves. Only 1611 KJV only. Iew Iohn the Baptist and Iew Iesus Christ
It's a great translation, for sure. The translators were great, humble men who even included a preface explaining how they had to pick and choose what they "best" thought a translation meant. That it wasn't perfect. The problem came when the KJV onlyist idolaters deleted this humble preface and decided to worship these translators as infallible. This was only done because these people were so arrogant to insist their own dogma was perfect, thus any argument against it was wrong. And for there dogma to be perfect, then they needed to make the KJV perfect as part of that dogma. Total arrogance.
>The problem came when the KJV onlyist idolaters deleted this humble preface and decided to worship these translators as infallible.
Anon, I don't even think Ruckmanites do that. With this kind of straw man against the conventional view, people are clearly lashing out at the conventional position from an NIV era "multiple-version-onlyist" perspective. All I have to do is argue that the Holy Bible has always been around and it has never once changed, and I get accused of being KJV onlyist and an idolater.
By the way, if I had nothing to do with the writing of the KJV, why would asserting that it represents God's word in English be considered me promoting my own doctrine? That doesn't make any sense.
The only KJV onlyists I've talked to say the KJV is more accurate than the original koine greek. If you aren't that, then you simply aren't who I'm referring to.
Oh ok, because I get accused of that constantly just because I show how it's more accurate to the original Koine Greek than the more modern versions, which depart from it drastically – about 7% of the base text of the New Testament is either removed or altered in newer versions like the NASB or NIV. If I point this out, I immediately get called a KJV onlyist.
Yes the NIV is a mess. It is less a translation and more of an editorialized opinion piece to make a certain theology look more accurate. Same thing the Jehovah Witnesses did with their translation.
I have investigated the TR and found it conforming to the KJV according to the various Greek-English lexicons that can be acquired. There are some older translations that were pretty close to it, but as far as accuracy and regularity of format I would always use this translation. In fact, everyone in the English-speaking world used this translation until someone in the later 19th century started making the case that the received text is false. That was the original reason why people argued for changing translations, because nobody had a problem with it as a translation of the received text for hundreds of years. Noah Webster quoted it verbatim in his dictionary.
Of course, now that people have adopted the MVO position, they come up with arguments why they think the KJV was a bad translation. But the original reason for switching away from it was that they thought the received text itself was bad, and they wanted to remove things like the verse Acts 8:37 or 1 John 5:7. Not that it was a poor or inaccurate translation, because nobody said it. They're saying it now, but that's because they've already switched to other translations so they want to justify their already-made decision. They also want, I think, to minimize the fact that the translations they're working with come from a completely different text. They don't want the average consumer to know that they changed about 7% of the Greek New Testament text from the KJV. They want to pretend like it has everything to do with making the language more readable or something. It's a sales strategy but it's very dishonest.
Forgot pic.
Septuagint and Vulgate only chad here AMA