Greetings, Zig Forums

Then how come your precious KJV translates 1 Corinthians 1:18 so poorly? It says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

The verb "σῴζω" [I save] here is the present-passive participle in the dative plural form as
"σῳζομένοις", meaning this verse should be translated as, "but to us who are BEING SAVED" because the present-passive participle indicates it's still taking place, but instead for some reason the KJV translators have it here in the aorist form which is wrong. Your precious KJV is winnie the poohed up and a shitty translation. It also has Jewish scriptures instead of the inspired Septuagint.

Attached: 20RIAN_01016828.LR_.ru_.jpg (599x349, 113.12K)

Attached: 1508499846046.png (1000x1000, 241.6K)

...

I can't speak to your translation argument since I don't speak greek and I doubt you do either, at least compared to over 54 of the top scholars in all of Europe who worked on the KJV for 7 years.

Actually I can read Koine Greek and have read almost the entire New Testament purely in Greek. Also, you're making an argument for authority. You do know that they had their own biases right? King James even instructed them to translate the KJV in such a way as to support the doctrine of the Church of England.

Pretty sure you just watched some james white vids and think you're a bible scholar now

Why would I watch videos by a heretical Protestant?

Also, once again, you have no argument. The only thing you can do now it attack my credibility instead of actually making an argument.

Because I don't speak greek idiot, your argument is going to come from why they got it wrong. Their translation team was obviously the best in the world and the process included many checks from different teams over several years. Maybe start with how the coe doctrines made salvation an act if they did.

Rule 2.

Also, that's why I'm telling you about this, so you know that their translation was winnie the poohed up.

Once again, you're making an argument from authority. You're not taking into account their biases. They were translating on command of King James I & VI trying to stay in line with the standard Protestant theology in Britain at the time.

They were also using other older English Bibles for reference which had also wrongly translated this verse like Tyndale's shitty translation which 90% of the KJV is based off of (I'm not exaggerating see my source below), and it's been estimated that 1/3 of the KJV is the same as Tyndale's word for word. The RSV translators even noted:

"It [the KJV] kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale"

Scholars Brian Moynahan also notes:

""A complete analysis of the Authorised Version, known down the generations as "the AV" or "the King James" was made in 1998. It shows that Tyndale's words account for 84% of the New Testament and for 75.8% of the Old Testament books that he translated."

Scholar Joan Bridgman also notes,

"He [Tyndale] is the mainly unrecognised translator of the most influential book in the world. Although the Authorised King James Version is ostensibly the production of a learned committee of churchmen, it is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking of his translation."

Your precious KJV is basically just a plagiarized version from another shitty version from William Tyndale.

Their personal biases were already taken into account by their specific verification teams that were checked by people who didn't translate the same part originally. And now you're making an argument from authority from the RSV translators!

You Baptists are beyond anti-intellectual. Did you literally not read what I wrote?

No I'm not, I'm using it as a source out of many sources as evidence. I'm actually quoting it as evidence. Your argument is from authority because it doesn't actually have evidence just the assertion that because this person is a scholar they must be correct, but you don't provide actual evidence for their translation policy while I did.

I'm not a baptist

I read what you wrote, and no personal bias would make the translation incorrect. Unless you can tell me why the coe would want it changed you have no substance.
I'm not asserting that "because this person is a scholar they must be correct" at all, it's about the specific translation process they used to remove personal bias with verification from teams.

54 scholars were appointed in 1604, and a few overseers were also present, who went from group to group. In time through death the number of translators diminished to 47. They were given three locations to work: Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. And two groups worked at each location, making a total of six groups. The Bible was also divided up into six sections. Each group took one section, working on one book at a time.

First, each translator made his own translation of the book, which was reviewed by each other member of the group. Then the whole group reviewed the book. When they all agreed on the translation, they sent it to the other five groups for evaluation. Those groups then returned it to the original committee, marking anything they disagreed with. The original group would then go over the book again.

When all six committees finished with the book, it was sent, with any differences that were left, to a special committee made up of one leader from each of the six groups. They solved any remaining problems, and the book was sent to the printers.

But they did not work in secret, as did the "Revisers" in 1871 - 1881. At any time, the translators could ask an outside scholar for his understanding, and anyone could find out about the progress. The churches were kept informed at all times1.

In all, every single verse of the Bible was carefully examined and decided upon a total of fourteen times, by as many as 50 or more people! This made it impossible for any one translator to impose his personal viewpoint on a passage. He had to have logical reasons for a translation that were good enough to persuade every other scholar before it could be written into the text. There was no "private interpretation" here!
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

© 2001 by David W. Daniels
chick.com/ask/articles/translate.asp

BEING SAVED from what?
being saved from the lake of fire
every waking moment from the time you get SAVED until you die is BEING SAVED. there is no difference, “us which are saved” is the most biblically consistent rendering, you foul-mouthed degenerate.

I used to think that to be the most literal translation until I came across Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, there's substantial difference between the first and second editions of that.
Now I think the Darby Bible is probably the best of those lesser used literal translations.

I used to think that to be the most literal translation until I came across Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, there's substantial difference between the first and later editions of that.
Now I think the Darby Bible is probably the best of those lesser used literal translations

Yes, and they heavily used Tyndale's Bible (as well as the Bishops' Bible) for reference. As said, 33% of the KJV is word for word Tyndale's Bible and 80-90% of it is based off of Tyndale's.

(The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today, By David Norton)

Yes there is. "Being saved" indicates salvation is still happening, "are saved" indicates it already happened in the past.

But they didn't as I just showed you.

To me, there is no difference.
I'm already going to die, but since in this life I accepted Christ as my savior, then I have both BEEN saved and am going to BE saved. It's his promise.
Ephesians 1
It's the only way the bible makes consistent sense. And hallelujah to God that I can know that I have eternal life:
1 John 5:13

Yes, they did. You are not smarter than the over 50 people who translated the KJV and verified each verse with each other 14 times. If you really think your knowledge is better than every one of them, that's laughable.

The Greek verb σωζομενοις is the present passive participle, which is an ongoing passive action. In English, an ongoing passive act can be expressed as either “are being + (past participle)” or “are + (past participle)”.

For example, the declaration "The eggs are stored in the fridge" is equivalent to the declaration "The eggs are being stored in the fridge." In both cases, the eggs are within the fridge in the current moment. You can replace the eggs and fridge and the verb with anything else, this is just an example.

It must be noted however, in specific the phrase "are being saved" is needlessly wordy since "are saved" denotes the same meaning. Furthermore, "are being saved" has an unintended connotation of an ongoing but incomplete process. This connotation is not found in the original.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 2:47 (KJV)
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Other translations apply this shift in English inconsistently. They don't do it according to any grammatical standard, but they just apply “are being” haphazardly just wherever they decided to.

To give a few examples, the NKJV changes the tense to “are being” in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Acts 2:47, and Hebrews 10:14, but does not do so in Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24.
The MEV changes the tense in 1 Cor. 1:18, Acts 2:47, and Luke 13:23, but the publishers elected not to do so in 2 Cor. 2:15 or Hebrews 10:14.
Meanwhile, the WEB only changes Acts 2:47 and Hebrews 10:14, and leaves all the others alone.

Most modern “critical text” versions tend to change all of them, but only some change Luke 13:23 or Hebrews 10:14. For instance, the NASB does change Luke 13:23 to “are being saved” but not Hebrews 10:14, while the ESV changes Hebrews 10:14 to “are being sanctified” but NOT Luke 13:23.

This shows that all modern translations are applying this grammatical change in English haphazardly, not according to any sort of rule or grammatical understanding; but the Authorized version uses English consistently as described, in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and in all the other places. “Are saved” and not “are being saved.” Every time. They are actually consistent in translation on this.

So which is it… Did the 4 teams of 50 translators make changes according to their bias or did they all copy someone else's translation work? Which one are we supposed to be character attacking here?

You must be misinterpreting the figures you were given. Tyndale didn't have time to translate more than about 40% of the Bible until he was executed. The rest was done purely by other men; that remaining 60% has zero influence from him.

Another thing you want to keep in mind is that English in its formative stage took its definitions from the KJV. Webster's 1828 and before him Johnson's 1755 dictionary of the English language all took definitions from the authorized Bible. So English as we know it, proper English, the language we speak is actually defined by that book. You can say it's wrong but by what standard then?

By what standard is it wrong, I ask? It's right by Webster's 1828 and Johnson's 1755 English dictionaries.

Nice copy pasta you got going there, I know exactly where you got that from.

"The eggs are being stored in the fridge" and "The eggs are stored in the fridge" are not equivalent. Both are present passive but the former is the simple present passive whereas the latter is not. Theoretically it could be translated that way and work but if the two had to be picked the latter would be more ideal because it expresses the original idea in Greek much better.

Well they used Tyndale's which is bias.

Yes I understand this but the New Testament was completed which the KJV was heavily influenced from.

*the latter is simple present passive whereas the former is not
*the former would be more ideal

Sorry

...