Did you read his post? Let me quote it again for you:
Implicit here is the presumption that the word of God said "God was manifest in the flesh". Perhaps Paul actually wrote "which was manifested in the flesh" (DR) and the KJV changes it.
As former follower of Pastor Anderson and now a Papist; I read and love the KJV, the language, majesty...
Anthony Ortiz
Blake Murphy
You have to admit my issue is bigger than a mere mistaken definition. My complaint is that your version removes God and Christ in these places.
Jackson Fisher
And by the way, I could bring those up as well, but then you would be the one belittling it as nothing. So why don't you explain the direct removals in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable. Only one can be right, that needs to be admitted upfront before any discussion continues.
Carter Reed
How on Earth does the kjv go against Catholicism? Sure it's missing a few books but as long as you're not a king-james-onlyist then what's the big deal? It was extremely enjoyable to read.
Connor Wilson
Personally, I'd use whichever version your local conference uses during mass.
America: NABRE*
Canada: NRSVCE
Ireland: TJB
Australia: TJB
Scotland: TJB
Eng and Wales: RSVCE (I think)
At the same time, I wouldn't recommend exclusively using any of them, as they all have pros and cons. Like any translation, none are perfect.
You have to admit my issue is bigger than a mere mistaken definition. My complaint is that the KJV erroneously adds God and Christ in these places.
So why don't you explain the direct additions in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable.
They both could be wrong, actually.
Liam Garcia
it's definitely not approved for liturgy. a lot of tradcaths get hung up on people reading KJV because of the old religious wars. personally I use the Ignatius bible (RSVCE) for studying. say what you want about the jesuits but they're top-tier academics when it comes to that stuff.
James Hughes
Sure, I will gladly. Because God actually was manifest in the flesh, the word of God makes sure to say this in 1 Timothy 3:16. The Word is God. So then this isn't erroneous.
I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full deletion of words from scripture by certain men. The important thing is that due to these changes, the two translations are not comparable. They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.
If you're an unbeliever you might say they are both "wrong." I say one is right and the other is a corruption.
It is important to recognize that, purporting to be the same inspired scripture, they cannot both be right. One of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace. Maybe if you had any respect for God you would care more about what his word says instead of acting intentionally snarky and pretending like it doesn't matter.
Nathan Williams
The word of God is what the inspired authors wrote. So the issue is not necessarily what is the most detailed or accurate description of what happened, but what is the proper translation of the inspired Greek. If Paul wrote "which was manifested in the flesh", then switching it to God was manifest in the flesh" would be an erroneous addition to of scripture, even if it is true.
I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full addition of words to scripture by certain men.
The two translations are not comparable.
Why not?
They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.
Sure, but you still haven't proven one is right. You've just assumed one is right. Both could be wrong.
Which translation do you think is right: The NIV or the ESV?
I assume you are a KJV only kinda guy, which means you'll say only the KJV is right and both the NIV and the ESV are wrong. I'm not a KJV only guy. In fact, I'm not a "one-translation-only" kinda guy at all. So you first have to prove the KJV to be a perfect representation of the inspired biblical text before you can begin using it as a standard of comparison. So I will quote >>61142 again: why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should [the KJV] be a standard?
It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong.
clearly? deletes? compared to what? You have not proven the KJV should be our standard of comparison, and therefore I reject using it as such. Thus, it is not in any way clear that one deleted or added a word. I will admit they are different. I am not convinced there is a substantive difference, but we can move on to that after we've reached an agreement on whether either text (or both) is an accurate translation of the inspired words.
Why are you being so rude? I merely used your words as a mirror to expose the issue presented. You didn't address at all the questions presented in the post you responded to or when I reiterated them.
Robert Ortiz
Then why would you flat out say they are "wrong?" You're being intellectually dishonest. You know all the way back in my original post what I mean, yet you have tried to derail this whole thread by pretending I don't understand that "only one is right" means the same as "both cannot be right," but you seized on the semantics to make a huge, pointless sidetrack about how both could be "wrong" as you put it and in the process of doing that you called the word of God outright wrong. Yet now you are also pretending not to understand that I call one right and the other a corruption. I don't call it "wrong" persay, and to "call both wrong" is something I would never say unless they were factually wrong. Rather, one is a corruption. I made myself clear before. And that's what I have been saying here, my explanation is clear and obvious, and you are deliberately pretending that it isn't. As I said before and you apparently missed, they cannot both be right; or in other words one of them must be corrupted; or in other words only one can be right. You deliberately fail to understand these things however that so you can redirect the whole conversation into this pointless subject of trying to explain the most basic logic and continue to pretend every step of the way that precisely what I've said from the beginning cannot be understood. Hence, you are being intellectually dishonest and I refuse to allow you to keep changing the subject to basic logic that we all already understand when I've spoken clearly from the beginning. I'm glad that settles this.
The OP in this thread is trying to compare the Authorized KJB with the DRB, and that is who I was originally addressing my post to, before you even came here.
It is only your intellectual dishonesty that makes you think I haven't implicitly recognized this from the beginning, although I would say corrupted, not WRONG. Because it may only have some words changed, it might mean something that's true still so I wouldn't outright say it's wrong. But since only some of us has any respect for the Lord, only some of us take any consideration not to blaspheme the word of God. Even indirectly.
But for you, when I say "God was manifest in the flesh" you can blithely dismiss that as "wrong."
So finally, after all of the sidetracking, you acknowledge my point actually. It had to be buried this deep, though.
Yes I did. His complaint was that a word definition was off. That is all you apparently have to complain about. But my issue that I'm bringing to the table about why the DRB should never be used is that entire deletions of the word God and Christ have occurred. Since the OP wanted to know whether to switch from Authorized KJB to some other non-authorized version, I therefore told him why he should not switch to that version. And then the mockers who belittle what God's word has to say showed up, making empty contradictions to all of these things and scoffing at them. But let me tell you that one word in 1 Timothy 3:16 has more meaning and value than my own life.
Connor Sanchez
Thanks for the recommendations, definitely will check it out the RSVCE for reading, and when I listen to audio books I'll try to find a good DR one.
I already read the KJV so I'm not missing out on the book that shaped English language, as well as mine; as one girl puts it when I talk to her
Even though I'm a papist now, we should all appreciate it
theguardian.com