Favorite Bible Translation?

I mostly use The Jerusalem Bible or the NOAB RSV (bear in mind the new editions use NRSV, but it's not too hard to pick up older editions with RSV) when I'm at home.

I have a couple "pocket" bibles that are KJV, RSV-CE, and NASB that I carry with me, especially to church.

I use the original Rheims dissected and reassembled by a Python program, replacing the old English with modern English that conveys the same message intended at the times and even replaces some phrases with literal Greek translations. All because I'm too edgy to read a Bible affected even the slightest by pilpul.

archive.fo/6Wine biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7&version=CSB
john 7:8-10 CSB
Here Jesus says he is not going up to the festival, and then goes up anyways. Either the translators speaking by the spirit of prophecy because of testifieing of Jesus due to revelation 19:10 and 2 peter 1:21 are liars and false prophets or God is a liar against titus 1:2. But God can not lie so the translators are liars instead.

Personally I use the KJV as it is the only version that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true, which it is true. Sage because this thread is probably bait.

The KJV is universally recognized as a shitty translation because the limited number of manuscripts they had available. Modern translations are much more accurate because they use older sources and cross reference across many more sources when there are conflicts between manuscripts

You mean like in how the modern CSB posted above would literally make God a liar if it were true, which it is not true? You could go take your accuracy and be a liar but christians must worship God in spirit and in truth john 4:24. Just because the KJV is so called "less accurate" doesn't make it any more, or less, truthful. But rather ye shall know them by their fruits matthew 7:15-20.

I really like the language of the KJV, however it's not a very accurate translation and even worse is a protestant one.

So I use mainly the RSVCE, it leans toward a more literal translation, it follows in the literary tradition of the KJV, it's Catholic, it's a more modern translation so it's breddy accurate.

The Ignatius Bible is my favorite bible. Very readable and seems to have few errors while adhering to proper tradition and not the corrupted masoretic text (Isaiah 7 mentioning a virgin, not a "young woman")

Plus I think the design of the cover is very nice, it definitely feels like a Holy book and not a tacky modern paperback

Attached: Ignatius.jpg (400x400, 27.1K)

Is that just the RSV or is the Ignatius Bible something else?

It's a Catholic version of the RSV. Called the RSV 2CE (2nd Catholic Edition). The copyright is owned by Ignatius Press so it's just called the Ignatius bible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

Right on brother. I too am a man of culture, a man who owns and reads an Ignatius Bible.

Attached: DP6vuRwUIAAfMHe.jpg large.jpg (521x629, 64.73K)

The Douay-Rheims is the only valid version, every other version is fraudulent and ripe with heresy. The Douay-Rheims is the only true Bible.

Attached: Douay-RheimsHaydockBible-500x500.jpg (500x500, 71.22K)

How did you come to this conclusion? Would you share it, as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20-21. Also john 7:8-10 Douay-Rheims drbo.org/chapter/50007.htm archive.fo/cmkZ3
Either the translators speaking by the spirit of prophecy/revelation 19:10 are liars and false prophets or God is a liar for this version. Since God can't lie titus 1:2 the translators are false prophets and liars thereof.

i used to think i liked the rsv2ce but now i've gone to the douay rheims. i just like it a lot more so far.

If you like the DR you should look into getting this edition published by Baronius Press. It has the Vulgate printed alongside it so you can read it in Latin too

Attached: 3150-DR-Vulgate.jpg (948x1192, 288.66K)

I assume this is BS, but on the offchance it's not…

Link?

What's the most trustworthy translation from the original Greek? I don't trust the Masoretic text anymore. Is there a good Interlinear that uses the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text?

Attached: Low_quality_Pepe.jpg (474x266, 12.31K)

Good man. That corrupted garbage has led more Christians astray than even the Schofield Study Bible

Attached: lxx_vs_mt3.jpg (769x993, 265.81K)

This is what I'm reading. Up to 1st Samuel so far. Would recommend.

The KJV says the same thing

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7&version=KJV&interface=amp

Am I missing something?

Alright somebody better answer my question before I become mildly upset.

Attached: 1530918962696.gif (291x244, 1.88M)

CSB may be the only English translation to use BHS5 (OT) and NA28/UBS5 (NT). Basically, it's the newest out of the popular translations. Does newest mean better? I dunno, maybe. Though Holman is a Southern Baptist org, I hear claims of bias but have yet to see any specifics (Ex: 1 Tim 3:15). Lurking this thread because I'm openly curious if any knows of any.

Who says this?

Why are you quoting the Jewish Bible in this image? Is it because you already know the Authorized version has it right?

It uses gender neutral language. So that there amounts to thousands of instances where they add what isn't there to scripture. I haven't even bothered checking where else they draw corruptions from their particular critical text. The critical text is always changing.

People who hold that the vulgate is true.

They say nobody should read the RSV or NRSV and that it is ripe with heresy?

I don't trust them because they might be corrupt.

The RSV was avoided by conservatives because of one verse: Is 7:14 following MT "young woman" as opposed to LXX's "virgin". Because of this ONE verse, it was shunned as being "too liberal". Ironically, it's the much favored version of "conservative" Catholics and is used commonly by Catholic apologists.

NRSV is excessively gender-inclusive (see Ps 1:1), though is commonly used in seminaries, liturgy, and with progressive mainline Protestants. It is probably the most ecumenical of the modern versions.

Is this enough to label these versions as heretical?

I have that. It's way too big to casually read.

Attached: KJV080_1--front.jpg (540x300 420.49 KB, 149.11K)

Is there anything blaringly wrong with the NASB? I understand it to be a literal translation that doesn't use gender neutral language like the NIV or ESV. Plus it still retains some of the poetic nature of the KJV.

Attached: 34745523_1014330348730658_9009727749232787456_n.jpg (540x492, 34.39K)

The NASB is supposedly the most faithful translation to the original Greek/Hebrew and is used by scholars. The flipside is that the language is often a bit stilted because they're trying to fit the square peg of English into the round hole of Greek grammar.

It says virgin there too. Only Jewish translations distort this word's lexicography. So I guess whoever made that decision must have been influenced by them.
If they distort Isaiah 7:14 then yes that's more than enough. But my question arises because the RCC teaches that these are officially good translations and equally on par with the ones you promoted. Well, in English my church only uses the Authorized KJV, and it does not promote non-equivalent translations to those. That's why I asked. But yes, I agree that the RSV and NRSV are very bad.

Yes unfortunately. There are way too many differences to list, but here are a few you should definitely check and be aware of the differences present.

The problem here is that you're assuming the KJV is the gold standard and any deviations from its translation are errors on the part of modern translation. In fact the KJV was based off comparatively few manuscripts compared to what we have today, so it's silly to claim that the KJV is the standard by which all other translations are measured because it has glaring faults itself.

The language of the KJV is nice but don't let that fool you into thinking it's a reliable translation, it isn't. It's the work of medieval scholars who didn't have the resources they needed and made errors because of that and most of what you've listed there is actually errors in the KJV, not the modern translations which fixed them

HWP is the infallable word of God.

You mean resources nobody in the entire world had because they were lost until around 1860. If you think the word of God was only rediscovered after being lost for that long then you don't believe the prophecies which the word of God itself contains, about how his word shall never pass away, and that his words shall not depart out of the prophet's mouth, nor out of the mouth of his seed, nor out of the mouth of his seed's seed from henceforth and for ever. What you've presented fundamentally disbelieves these things, yet these things are found in the Bible.

And one other thing, your supposed "best manuscripts" were lost for a reason. Because nobody used them. So yeah bottom line you're wrong. The modern versions are translations of the wrong document. And worse still, only partial, because each one takes different bits and pieces from the codex sinaiticus and vaticanus. They are not even mutually consistent. And it seems like they don't care which one you pick, as long as you doubt the veracity of Scripture you are ok in their book. It's only people saying the scripture cannot be broken, and that it says one thing, that they attack.

Apostolic Bible Polyglot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Bible_Polyglot
biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/genesis/1.htm

Can DL free or buy here: apostolicbible.com/text.htm

>I go not up yet

So what version do you recomend that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true? The only version on earth that I am aware of is the KJV, of which no one has yet to show me a place where it would make God a liar if it were true, which it is true, in said version.

All of them since the passage you're so hung up about doesn't "make God a liar" if it's interpreted in a slightly different way than the KJV. Jesus says he's not going down YET, then goes down later. There is no issue you're just being autistic because you need to find a way for the KJV to be the bestest and most great translation EVAR even though everyone knows it's riddled with flaws. Here's a little activity for you

biblehub.com/john/3-36.htm

Read these and tell me which one is the odd one out. One of those translations is not like the others, one of those translations does not belong…

The vast majority of the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have today belong to the Byzantine family of manuscripts, which largely align with Textus Receptus Bibles like the KJV more closely than they do to modern Alexandrian based Bibles.

The NASB is generally considered the most accurate and faithful English translation available today and it conflicts with the KJV in many verses

...

No, they couldn't because the original Greek clearly means "Those who do not OBEY". Translating it is "Those who do not believe" was an obvious screw up, but not the only one the KJV makes.

You can be as accurate as you want, and a liar that won't have a word out of their mouths believed. 2 samuel 21:19 NASB biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Samuel 21&version=NASB archive.fo/rpLPH
Who killed goliath the gittite in this version? David in 1 samuel 17:51 or Elhanan? Or in that same battle did Elhanan kill goliath's brother in 1 chronicles 20:5? Only one can be true, which would make the other false and you a, very accurate, liar thereof.

More information on the Greek and why the KJV makes a poor translation here:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/king-james-translation-john-336/

That's not a translation error, that's a problem with the original texts

Are you forgetting 2 peter 1:20 so readily?
Tell me how you came to the conclusion, based on what manuscript, and based on what concordence, that those words mean what you say. Or recomend a version I might see you by your fruits for as you keep calling others liars without proof.

But these aren't the original texts as they are copies of copies of copies of toilet paper and scraps. The original comes straight from God being the word of God as stated in 2 peter 1:21

That is unless it is scripture i.e 2 timothy 3:16, which the KJV is scripture inspired by God, if it is scripture.

Huh that is a pretty good rebuttal of Protestantism and people who think they can interpret scripture themselves. I recommend you join a proper Church with apostolic authority.

Indeed as our understanding of scripture is supposed to come from proverbs 3:5-7
Hence why 1 corinthians 3:3-7 exists
Hence again why Paul, and we by extension, need to give glory to God for understanding like in galatians 1:11-12

Seems more like you are misunderstanding the original Greek than anything.

No actually it's not. The sentence structure in that verse in Hebrew implies "brother of." The word appearing right before Goliath's name in that verse means "among." Modern translations that miss this (which is only some of them) were simply done poorly. Not surprising considering what poor work they were in general.

Nope. Read this:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/king-james-translation-john-336/

If John wanted to it to read the way the KJV does then he would've written ὁ ἀπιστέων as the opposite of ὁ πιστεύων as "atheist" is the opposite of "theist". He didn't though, he used a different word that is properly translated as "obey", not "believe", meaning the KJV is incorrect and most modern translations correct that mistake as can be seen here: biblehub.com/john/3-36.htm

You still haven't told us how you came to this conclusion, what manuscript and family are you looking at for this? There are a huge variety of famliles and manuscripts for this verse that all say different things. This still doesn't change that "obey" or "believe" could have either as true and not make God a liar if it were true for that verse.

Stephanus Greek New Testament of 1550, biblehub.com/tr/john/3.htm
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ' ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ' αὐτόν

The word used in the TR is ἀπειθῶν, which does not mean "those who do not believe" as rendered in the KJV.

Where does that word occur anywhere in Scripture?

To me the RSV and ESV look similar.
Wikipedia ESV history

What I saw the NASB do was translate equivalent verses like in the synoptics identically whereas in the original they might be slightly different. Maybe this is where the claims of it being literal come from.

The main problem I have with the NASB is the fact it uses corrupt sources (and calls them "the most reliable") to get entirely new readings that no one had until sometime after 1860 with the first discovery and publication of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

But even beyond the crucial fact that it is a translation of a different/wrong document, the NASB isn't even that great when it comes to translation methodology. For instance, as an example they just blatantly inserted the word "merely" into 1 Peter 3:3 to "soften it up" a bit.

But this completely changes its intended meaning and turns it into a green light to do those things, as long as they aren't merely doing them only. Even the other modern translations don't do this in 1 Peter 3:3, only the NASB (and NKJV) do. This is just blatant corruption by the translators.

>NASB: Your adornment must not be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

Yeah it's a predicament. I feel like compiling a translation based on a modernized KJ translation that doesn't deviate as much as the NKJV with deuterocanon added.

Let me know if you find one. I've seen several that try, but they still manage to somehow insert some corruptions. For example the WEB still removes the word "diligently" from Hebrews 11:6, it still cuts off part of Jesus' statement in Revelation 1:11, and it changes Acts 2:47 to say "being saved" instead of "be saved" and has other random changes too, like changing the angel to an eagle in Revelation 8:13.

And another one, the MEV, has its own problems. The MEV reverses the meaning of Philippians 2:6 from the KJV, and it tells you that being divisive is bad in Titus 3:10, yet see what Jesus said in Luke 12:51. And I could still go on about various word choices it makes that exculpate sodomites in Jude 1:7, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Kings 15:12, or word choices that blur the connection to prophecy like in Genesis 22:17 saying "their" enemies instead of what it should say "his" enemies (see Galatians 3:16), or where the MEV says "being saved" instead of "are saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18. The list of major differences here is still long, if you really want to get into it. So I'd like to see a translation that doesn't change these major doctrines which the Authorized Bible consistently depicts in very clear language. From looking closely at these translations, the difference is not a matter of merely changed grammar, as far as I'm concerned. Oh and of course, the NKJV is yet worse than the ones I just mentioned, if such things can be quantified.

From what I see a version called the King James Clarified and the American King James seem to be the most faithful to the original KJ wording.

The verb in Acts 2:47 appears to be a present or passive participle though rather than an infinitive "to be" or imperative.

The RSV 2nd edition (aka Ignatius Bible) fixes Isaiah 7:14 and doesn't use gender neutral language.

I'm willing to bet that most of the things from my list are still removed from the RSVCE. Like "without a cause" removed from Matthew 5:22, "through his blood" removed from Colossians 1:14, and "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" removed from Ephesians 3:14, and "Christ is come in the flesh" removed from 1 John 4:3. And in the footnotes it will be casting doubt on various verses, to make sure you don't place any certainty on the translation.

I don't want a translation that tells you it was "probably" right in some place. The translator and printer of the RSVCE should just pack up their bags and find another job if they aren't sure. And they should STOP spreading false bibles.

The Wycliffe Bible is great, amazing accuracy for the time.
Matt. 1:18
But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.

Thangs mayne

That version is altered from the Septuagint in Genesis 5:25. The Septuagint actuallysays Methuselah was 167 years of age when he begat Lamech (thus he outlived the flood according to Septuagint), but this is an altered translation that says he was 187.

biblehub.com/sep/genesis/5.htm

So do you admit the Septuagint was wrong to say 167 years in Genesis 5:25? And so you just changed it to 187 in this version?

Also, your version here agrees with the KJV and goes opposite of the DRB in 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 4:3 and John 4:42. So do you agree with these then and realize the DRB was wrong? Honest question.

I swear, KJV only-ists are by far the most autistic group of Christians in the world.

Hey fellas

Attached: msgbibletranslaton.jpg (317x474, 28.22K)

personally I read the esv and the orthodox study bible.

one of the guys I work with speaks like this, accent makes him sound like his IQ is 65

I imagine it sounding like a cross between a Caribbean accent and Groundskeeper Willie with a touch of French.

I read ESV last year and am reading OSV this year. ESV was pretty close to NKJV in my opinion.

Attached: OSB.jpg (671x1024 38.34 KB, 98.16K)

the septuigent(besides Gen-Due) was written after the NT

Also this

LXX: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)
MAS: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27

LXX: Meth. 167 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)
MAS: Meth. 187 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

LXX: Lamech 188 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)
MAS: Lamech 182 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

LXX: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)
MAS: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

LXX: 167+188+600=955 years old when flood began
MAS: 187+182+600=969 years old when flood began

ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/genesis/gen_005.htm
Thus, according to the LXX, Methuselah lived another 14 years after the flood began.

At this point, I'm starting to think most of the Kjvonlyists on the board are just trolls

Too bad they're not even the hyper-intelligent but socially inept kind of autists. They're just straight-up mentally impaired.

The Anti KJV. It intentionally makes sure none of the verses are translated the same as the KJV.

youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
Watch this. The masoretic text is corrupted beyond usefulness. The LXX is the ONLY version of the Old Testament that Christians should use because the Apostles, Jesus and Paul all quote from the LXX

thou art demented.

First of all, this guy's entire theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the originals are gone and admits this at 18:43, that his favored Septuagint is not perfect, while also criticizing the so-called Masoretic. He claims the original Hebrew is lost today. But this contradicts Psalm 12:6-7, which says that the words of the LORD will be preserved by Him "from this generation for ever", and it contradicts the words of Isaiah 59:21 as well.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

At 5:23 he states that it is incorrect that the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, that it was only 215 years. Yet Galatians 3:17 clearly states that it was 430 years: therefore this video is completely mistaken from the beginning and operating on a false premise from the very start. It was 430 years in fact.

Now, the main claim that it "makes more sense" to follow the Septuagint timeline for Shem-to-Abraham is not based on any kind of impossibility argument, for instance saying that fathers dying before their sons is simply "the way of life" (9:21) is not a disproof, and arguing that 30,000 workers were needed to build Babel is a baseless assumption in itself. And life isn't necessarily made to look neat on a graph chart.

Arguing that multiple witnesses are always better is turning a qualitative argument into a quantitative one. The other witnesses being used could simply be copies of the first. So, another fallacy used repeatedly, and with obnoxious graphics.

And lastly, the chronology derived from the received sources in the real OT gives the flood at c. 2620 BC. This is because flood to Abraham's birth is 352 years, birth of Abraham to the sojourn is 290 years, the sojourn lasts exactly 430 years plus 40 years in wilderness, the return to Canaan to the first temple is 480 years, the temple construction to the captivity is 419 years, and there is 70 years from the captivity to the first year of King Cyrus (~539 BC). This gives 539+70+420+480+470+290+352 = 2620 BC. This can be considered with a precision give-or-take about 20 years due to rounding to the nearest year.

Therefore, the given date of "2350 BC" by the video, as the premise for all of this, is not accurate either.

Now, regarding the "motive" given for corrupting the Scripture in this place. I would start by directing the reader to Jeremiah 36 where it is related that the king of the Jews burned the writings of Jeremiah in his fire on the hearth, but God simply directed Jeremiah to re-write, inerrantly, from scratch, the whole book to that point.

Jeremiah 36:32

We see from this account that any efforts to corrupt the received text are entirely in God's ability to prevent, even to the point of miraculously giving Jeremiah the ability to copy down again the entire book of his prophecy until that point. Even though the original was destroyed. No Jewish effort to erase or change the original words of scripture is possible, as God does not allow it to happen.

The same can't be said for the greek translation known as Septuagint. The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the given date for the translation.

Thus, from all the sources before these, there is only attested the existence of the first five books of Moses only as having been translated to Greek: the other books of the Septuagint Old Testament being produced much later, as late as the 4th century AD. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the version of the Septuagint we have now is the same as that which was translated in pre-New Testament times. It is not the received original scripture after all, it's a translation, so it might have been altered. The version of Septuagint that we have today may have in fact been EDITED to include such things as Cainan from Luke 3, and ALL of the alleged quotations made by the New Testament writers— because the Septuagint as we know it was produced after the New Testament! Promoters of this manuscript, such as the video creator, constantly attempt to conflate the historical Pentateuch translation that was called "Septuagint" and existed for the apostles, with the post-New Testament Septuagint (from Codex Vaticanus) that we actually have. But these are certainly not the same thing, the latter has clearly been influenced by the New Testament in its translation of the Old Testament, the former consisted only of Genesis-Deuteronomy, which may have subsequently been edited to account for Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14.

Now regarding the matter of Acts 7:14, this is easily shown, firstly, to be consistent in the KJV source account. The 70 people methodically being counted up in Genesis 46:8-27 consist of "the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt," which are explicitly counted and named; namely 66 people, plus Jacob himself, plus Joseph and his two sons, which totals to 70 people OF THE SEED OF JACOB WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT. This counts Jacob, Joseph, and in the loins of Joseph, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Now read Acts 7:14. Stephen clearly states that Joseph "called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." First, you will notice Stephen counts Jacob separate. There are 75 plus Jacob himself. Yet Joseph didn't call HIMSELF into Egypt, or his two sons. This can be explained. Take the 70 people of Genesis 46:27. Remove Jacob, Joseph and his two sons. You have 66 people. Now remove from this 66 the two sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamul: Pharez himself was born in Genesis 38, if you will recall. So, he was not yet old enough to have had children. Joseph hadn't been in Egypt that long. This leaves 64 people. Now add the 11 wives of Jacob's sons. This is 75 people, plus Jacob himself who were called by Joseph into Egypt.

Now about Hezron and Hamul. They were counted in the 70 as entering Egypt in the loins of Pharez, but they were not counted in the 75 as being explicitly invited into Egypt by Joseph, because they weren't born yet, whereas the 11 wives were NOT of the seed of Jacob, they were NOT listed in the 66 people of Genesis 46:8-26 (confirmed by verse 26). But they were invited by Joseph, making that count 75.

So, the KJV is consistent. Whereas the Septuagint is not, because the editors thought to modify the supposed error in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, based on Acts 7:14. And they even added a false explanation for the extra 5 people being the grandsons of Joseph. But there's one major problem. Those grandsons weren't born yet when this happened, and they forgot Deuteronomy 10:22. All versions say 70 there. The Septuagint and the originals both say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22, so the OT account of the Septuagint is in disagreement with itself, whereas the originals say 70 in all three places.

And finally, the prophecy of recovery of sight to the blind is found in the KJV in Isaiah 28:19. It's not missing.

ah, ok so you like the Vulgate, very catholic of you

If you don't follow the Septuagint then you're not Christian, it's that simple. The Masoretic text is corrupted and so is any Bible which bases its translation on it.

He admitted at 18:43 that the septuagint isn't perfect.

I only accept the incorruptible, everlasting word of God. No substitutes. Even if they come from Alexandria and Origen.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

This is true of the gospels as well. Do you doubt that the gospels were written in the first century? The Septuagint was the version of the OT that Paul used. It was the version that the authors of the gospels use. When Jesus quotes the Old Testament he is quoted by citing the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is simply the definitive version of the Old Testament for Christian use. Period. Paul used it, the early Church fathers used it and Jesus quotes it.

theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

Read this and understand. If you read any Bible based on the masoretic text you are reading a CORRUPTED translation that was deliberately edited by the Jews to remove prophecy about Jesus.

So you accept the Septuagint and reject the corrupted Masoretic text. Good.

Actually the Septuagint was re-written to look like they quoted it. It's that simple. What you're reading was written after the NT by people in Alexandria, probably edited by Origen as well. So no, they couldn't quote something that didn't exist yet, and was later made to look like it was quoted. And lastly, we know that the original Hebrew always existed and it is directly quoted many times in the NT, whereas other times it's more of a paraphrase. Origen couldn't change the direct quotes of the real OT, so he simply edited his own Greek OT translation to match the NT quotes that weren't exact matches and then slapped the name LXX on it, thus many were deceived. I'm surprised you don't understand that.

Isn't this some dumb conspiracy theory that KJV onlyists spout to try and make their ridiculous claims look better? I assure you, you're wrong. The septuagint existed before Jesus was born and the writers of the gospels used the septuagint as their reference when quoting the Old Testament, which makes sense, they wrote in greek so they used a greek source.

lol. The KJV is a terrible translation full of errors and the only person being deceived is you my gullible Baptist friend

Also whoever edited the alexandrian version of the septuagint (the one we have) was aware of Acts 7:14. It's a giveaway, because they took the number 75 from Acts 7:14 and altered Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75 instead of 70. And their fatal error was, they forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22, where it still says 70! The number 75 came from Acts 7:14.

user did you actually buy into this nonsense? Come on now. It's "Pastor Jim buries the last surviving KJV before Constantine catches him" level memery

Attached: KJV-Only-Chart.gif (1772x2250, 218.9K)

Monster girl Encyclopedia