KJV-onlyism

I use RSVCE2 actually, but it's a good online reference.

the LXX is a greek translation tho

catholicism is the par opposite of post modernism

Is there a direct English translation from the LXX?

Brenton's Septuagint, OSB.

"You should read the KJV over other translations" isn't the same as KJV-onlyism, which usually includes the belief that other translations are straight up wrong and harmful. I'm not a KJV-onlyist but I do like the KJV a lot.
Someone had posed a question like this: did the world have access to the word of God between 500 and 1870 or whenever someone dug up some manuscripts from a basement or a tomb, or did it not? If the general answer to this question is "yes", there's no reason to keep fiddling with the text worrying about critical translations: a translation with the texts available in 1611 is sufficient.
One of my own is that Scripture deserves uniquely formal language to set it apart from secular writing. However there's no reason you couldn't dress up the RSV with thee's and thou's.

You will never have to argue that "sexual immorality" includes "fornication" with the KJV.

You only have to argue this if you're a literalist, and then you have many other issues on top of that.

The Wycliffe bible translates the Vulgate the most literally I've seen and versions of it to early modern and contemporary renderings of English from the original middle English have been made. Unfortunately the church had to declare him a heretic but the translation is said to have continued being used by Catholics and that it has also influenced the DR translation.

There are Catholic approved bibles (NRSVCE, I know) that just say "favored one" instead of "full of grace" or "highly favored" like the KJV. More on this here: catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored
Also the KJV says "hail" which people make a big deal of on this board while the NRSVCE just says "greetings".

Sure, but just try convincing some teenager not to commit fornication with his girlfriend using the text of the NIV.

The sins of the flesh are obvious; you should accept that the teenager isn't raising a valid theological objection and simply wants to sin.

And he came in/went in/entered toward her and said Joy/Rejoice, graced one, the Lord with thee. Well spoken/Eulogized art thou in women.

Wonder if that would be of satisfaction to more.

I was watching a Defenders lecture from William Lane Craig where he makes a side note slamming the KJV because the Byzantine manuscripts are one of the most corrupted by copyist errors and called it not fit for real Biblical study. (~22:21)

what if someone doesnt speak english?

It says dumb ass in the KJV Bible.

Then they don’t use an English Bible, lamebrain

yeah use the kjv in that language

Umm but the original NT language is Greek so the Latin tradition is irrelevant.
That’s like saying Plato’s tradition is more complete in English than Greek, therefore when we translate Plato to Spanish we should use the English tradition. Very silly.

I only mean Greek was ALWAYS the better choice.

Well,

It could be better if the OT was Septuagint though….

Well, translating from the Hebrew only makes sense, since it is closest to what the original language would have said, linguistically speaking, but a textual critic/translator still needs to be mindful of textual variations between different OT scriptures such as the Old Greek (or "Septuagint"), Syriac Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, NT quotations, etc. Textual criticism/translation of the OT is a much, much more complicated endeavor than doing so of the NT.

One thing that is mainly in dispute, though, concerning either the favoritism or rejection of the KJV (or the NKJV for that matter) is whether or not the Byzantine Majority Text is preferable over the critical texts underlying newer translations which, to the best of my humble knowledge, prioritize Alexandrian manuscripts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). I understand that the Textus Receptus has some significant differences with the Majority Text, but it is relatively close.

I am not that interested in the theological arguments for KJV-onlyism like those which are propagated by the likes of Peter Ruckman, Kent Hovind, and His All Holiness Patriarch Stefanos Andersoniki of Tempe (pbuh). They are trash.

Maybe there are better places to ask such questions than the backwaters of internet Christendom that is Zig Forums…

...

I was on that sub for a while when I was just starting in my faith. I saw some very strange secular claims from people there, and not much in the way of actual Christian arguments from Christians. I showed something from there to my friend / mentor in the Faith, and he just told me to stop going there. Really be wary of what you hear from there.

I don't suggest it's the most remarkable place on the net, there probably isn't one tbh but you could probably get more discourse in the direction of what user was looking for and at a more continual rate.

Attached: 1444669608782.gif (333x286, 175.75K)

It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean reading different translations of the received text as laid down by the line of textual critics that were around at the time where widespread publication of books of that scale were possible, then there are fairly good reasons why the KJV is considered best among English translations of the received original language Old and New Testaments.

But, if you mean to compare it with modern "critical text" versions that began to appear around 1880 with the publication of Westcott-Hort, then there is every reason not to use those. They change substantially what the New Testament says in, according to what I've seen, at least one hundred doctrinally important places. Here is but one example:

Matthew 5:22

Notice how the critical text versions removed the words "without a cause."

There is no equivocating between these. Either Jesus said those words at that specific place and time, or he didn't speak those words at that place and time. Only one reflects the facts. Therefore we have on our hands two translations which, logically, cannot both be true. This is not how the promoters of the modern versions frame the issue. They frame their version as "updated language" and "bringing it into modern terms." Because they don't think you need to know.