KING JAMES VERSION OR BUST, BABY!

The original King James contained the Apocrypha…

...

I’ve seen one of those. Mid 19th C. print

i still can't find the part of scripture that said we should wait 1,500 years after Christ for the king james authorized bible in ye kinge's englishe to be saved

strawman

the KJV is not the word of God, the word of God was given to us through translations throughout history. ergo, we must choose the earliest translations and listen to the interpretations of the earliest Church teachings for the truth

Ok, but this is a separate argument. I guess you're conceding that you presented a strawman.
No. The word (not meaning Christ) was given to us in the original languages. However early a translation arrived, or a doctrine was articulated, is entirely irrelevant to it's potential accuracy.

How is it a straw-man? You choose to read scripture literally, and there is no part of scripture recognizing a later english translation as "the word of God".

This is a strawman
There is not a KJV supporter who claims the gospel in the KJV has exclusive salvific authority. A "strawman" is when you set up and knock down an argument that your opponent isn't making.

This is also a strawman, and a completely unrelated argument
Nobody claims that scripture has to validate a later translation (literally what)
This does not follow from using a "literal" hermeneutic

If this is bait it's 7/10

LOL, perhaps they were just larpers then. If it the KJV does not have salvific authority (obviously), then there is no reason to regard the KJV any more than as a nice Bible translation.

Then you yourself must acknowledge there's no reason to give even one hoot for the KJV. Anderson would throw you out of his church by now.

agreed anderson is a retard
no, the KJV is a good translation

oh ok. yeah I'm saying anderson is dumb. let's shake hands.

Steven Anderson

no, he doesn't

Yes he does. Watch his interview with James White–the full interview. He flat out says that he questions the salvation of anyone who doesn't read the KJV. He says he doesn't think they're saved.

It's not belief. I could show you dozens of Christological texts deliberately ruined by Masoretes, but were retained in the Septuagint. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls finally were revealed and showed the underling Hebrew that supported the LXX, Samaritan, etc..

It's just textual criticism. Not "belief". The only belief is silly Evangelicals who think Jews hold the power of magical woo-woo and must be held up at all times.

As for the New Testament, that's even easier. Alexandria was full of every heresy known to the Church, and suddenly we're going to trust two manuscripts over 2000 years of Church tradition?

And even then, translations like the NASB are inconsistent themselves. They make arbritrary decisions when to follow these texts themselves. They don't completely follow them to a T - because they know there's something wrong too. The difference is that they don't recognize to how much extent. They've lost connection with the Church's historical teaching on these passages, unlike the KJV. They live in their own redneck 20th century bubble, and reinvent the wheel on the matter.

Speaking of the NASB, one of the main Lockman founders/project leaders renounced it, funnily.

good thing the faith isn't reliant on whether or not english translations are accurate

It can be. If you were raised without traditional Christological readings of the OT or followed Rabbinic scholars on your translations, you'll be dragged into hell eventually.. where Jesus was not born of a virgin, and barely existed in prophecy. This is what they are trying to lead the younger church into. A world without the standard teachings of the historical church, with nothing but vapid contemporary confusion and skepticism as a replacement.

Look around you. You'd have to be one of these lost ones yourself to not see it happening.. how this confusion has led to worse and worse ideas. It starts first with getting away from God's Word… or even raising the question of "what" God's Word is. It used to be clear what it was.

I'm not a KJV only-ist btw. Needed to get that out there. I'm Orthodox, and simply hold up traditional/accepted readings and would only hold up the LXX as the route the church needs to follow closer than others. And in this case, the KJV lives up closer to it than others in English.. because they still lived in the 15/1600s, which was relatively un-pozzed compared to now. They may have been from the West, but still were part of the Anglican and Catholic tradition, and learned scholars of all that came before them. They're the equivalent of St. Jerome in his day for Latin, who didn't fully follow the Jewish corruption either.

Both of these had a better handle on what was actually traditional church teaching. Their text reflects this knowledge.

So I'm not saying the KJV is the end all be all. The same faithfulness can be redone again.. and in clearer words.. and even improved upon (because it doesn't always follow the LXX as close as it should). But there isn't a will for it yet apparently.

Which is a result created by Protestant's disregard of the previous 1,500 years of Church tradition and teaching they had around. Too often I'm bombarded with this argument and all I can do is shrug, this is the bad fruit of the decision to break away from the Church.

As apostolics, we can definitely agree on this.

There never will be. You cannot break away from the Church and expect to have the fullness of God's Law or Word. In a sad way, the KJV does fulfill a void, but it is in itself a trap.

You know the KJV uses the Masoretic text as its principle OT basis, right?

That's a funny way of saying Alexandria had no Christians. Also, it does not prove the texts themselves are heretical or the product of a heretical sect that existed at the time.

Nope. We're going to trust +5000 we have now over the 6 used by the KJV.

Translation is an art. There will always be some fuzziness to it. Translators have to make decisions about how to best convey what is said. There is no objective way to translate from one language to another.

lol You sound like a Catholic.

Did you skip everything I said?

They departed from it and deliberately made a point to hold up church tradition/readings in their own guidelines. That was like the whole gist of my posts here, and you decided to just have a brainfart or something. And scoff about Catholics. I'm not a Catholic. I plainly said I was Orthodox. Get out more and know the difference.

KJV Translators' Principle 4: "When a word hath diverse significations, that to be kept which hath the most commonly used by the most Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the Analogy of Faith."

If they had straightway followed the Masoretic, they would have fallen short here. Lets take Psalm 22 for example:

"They have pierced my hands and feet."

This is historically the Church's reading of verse 17. The whole psalm is clearly prophetic of Christ, and he quoted it himself on the cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). But this line about pierced hands is nowhere in the Hebrew. It was mangled into a nonsensical phrase that "looks" similar by a few alterations of characters. The Hebrew reads: "Like a lion at my hands and feet." Even the NASB follows "tradition" here and moves away from a straight MT reading.

Read a real Masoretic translation and you'll see this. For example, the Jewish Publican Society's Tanakh. Or the NRSV (although the NRSV does a copout and adds the footnote: "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain.").

It's not uncertain. It was altered by Rabbis (one of many passages altered by then). Scholars eventually blamed the Christians for altering things and sided with Jews. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls came out and boom… there it is in the underlying Hebrew behind the Septuagint: "They have pierced my hands and feet."

But no one had to wait until 1950 to discover it in the DSS. They simply had to trust the Church instead of Rabbis. The KJV translators lived in a time when they used to do just this. Yes, they used the Hebrew as a base, but they had centuries of faithfulness and Church tradition to rely on to get over the pitfalls.

If we are not accurate, then we will be deceived. You must be retarded.

Apologies, that verse above is actually Psalm 22:16 (not 17) in Prot bibles.

The NASB thankfully is still conservative enough to catch some of these. Because, like I said, they at least have some connection to tradition. The difference with the KJV is they were even more connected and made less of these goofs.

And even the NASB still puts in a footnote: "Another reading is 'like a lion, my..'" The ESV does this footnote thing too. This is what the "best" of modern conservatism is now. Where they still give Jews the time of day, as if that reading is worth ANY consideration. The difference with the KJV is they came from a time when they laughed at people who would think this and would never give them the time of day.

I have the Church and Her Traditions to know what is true, you are a willow in the wind, and are at the mercy of your favorite translation.

>based on the (((MT))) and Textus Receptus
Choose one.

The NLT uses the proper translation

I have God. I don't rely on people. Fool.

I literally copied and pasted your first sentence.

Who is "they"?

Blah blah blah

I didn't say you were. Seems like you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

He means tradition, don't call one a fool when you don't understand their words.

Tradition is not above Scripture. Tradition is fallible, as is man, and the leadership and laity of the church. "Fool" was perhaps overkill, but it is indeed foolish to trust in something else before God.

2 Timothy 3:12-17

I don't think you understand how one values tradition. Yes, it was beyond overkill as you're not an authority over another mans faith, and that is indeed a bible quote.

>

Really, what should actually be said about the "scriptural tradition" I'm talking about starts with the New Testament first. Not just Patristics. It's the ultimate witness of how the Old Testament should read. When people question it's witness and quote the Masoretic rendering instead, they're setting themselves above Christ and the Apostles themselves, as if the Lord himself was too "stupid" to know the scriptures as well as modern scholars.

The KJV has a couple duds itself that it missed. For example, Jesus clearly quotes something closer to the Septuagint when he says in the synagogue:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed"

This actually isn't in the Masoretic version of Isaiah 61 in the same way. It complete deletes the last part.."recovery of the sight of the blind".

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
Because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners"

People like Anderson are so stubborn and hold the KJV so high in regard that they won't admit it sometimes has these faults, and stupidly think the LXX is inferior. They're going against the Lord's OWN quotation when they say stupid things like this. This is one of the rare instances where the KJV followed the MT in favor of the NT, and failed. But as a rule, they usually didn't make a poor choice like this. They "followed tradition" instead and held up Christ. My criticism of modern translations is that they make this mistake even more.

What should actually be said about the "scriptural tradition" I'm referring to about starts with the New Testament first. Not just Patristics. It's the ultimate witness of how the Old Testament should read. When people question it's witness and quote the Masoretic rendering instead, they're setting themselves above Christ and the Apostles themselves, as if the Lord himself was too simple to know the scriptures as well as modern scholars. It's the other way around.

The KJV has a couple duds itself that it missed. For example, Jesus clearly quotes something closer to the Septuagint when he says in the synagogue:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." -Luke 4:18,19

This actually isn't in the Masoretic version of Isaiah 61 in the same way. Notably, it deletes the last part.."recovery of sight of the blind".

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" -Isa 61:1,2

People like Anderson are so stubborn and hold the KJV in so high regard that they won't admit it sometimes has these faults. They're going against the Lord's OWN quotation when they say silly things like this. This is one of the rare instances where the KJV failed and didn't trust the superior witness of the NT. But as a rule, they usually didn't make a poor choices like this. That's all my point was. It isn't perfect, but it's better than usual. They "followed tradition" often. My criticism of modern translations is that they make this mistake even more.

Attached: 5d5269ab362e6362fe8fd5a98a5e963645ab58546cb7af150f8f27f2475cff96.png (588x531, 337.97K)

tradition of man is fallible, not the tradition of the apostles and the church Christ started, which is guided by the holy spirit.

if you haven't found Christ's church then be dubious about your interpretations or whatever your "DENOMINATION" is telling you.

Attached: 1544431835628.jpg (443x455, 95.72K)

You have it exactly backwards
The NASB is such a superior translation because it decisively does NOT lend to outside interpretation, it only looks to the source texts and the most accurate translation. The KJV likewise takes this approach.
Any translation that deviates from "formal equivalence" adds the interpretation of those translators, conservative or not.

No. The NLT is a dumbed down paraphrase for the unmotivated.

Attached: versions.jpeg (781x444, 59.08K)

were the apostles men?

And my point is that the source texts are poor. And translation needs to be more electic in selecting how it renders things. The KJV was more eclectic and leaned on historically Christian renderings or looked to the LXX a little more (and even then, it failed sometimes). How many times do I have to say this?

They both use the same literal/formal methodology. That's all good. But that's only as good as the tradition and sources you lean on.

It has an accurate translation of the psalm in question, don't tell me "no".

The "New Living Translation" more properly called a dynamic translation now. The former Living Bible is the even more terrible paraphrase.

Not that dynamic translations are that helpful either.. but it is better.

Honest question, why do people push for KJV instead of Douay Rheims?
It's a better translation period.

kjv is a huge meme and missing a few books, but the dr was reworked by bishop challoner using the kjv as a base (the original dr had too many latinisms)

I mean, if it's a blending it shouldn't really matter.

Have you read the original? It's pretty awful. The one widely used now is the Challoner version.. and he was a convert, who had experience with the KJV. He adapted much of it's language to read as smoothly as in Douay we have now.

But I do like some phrases more. I especially dislike Jesus' "verily, verily" statements. There's no excuse why most Protestant translations don't use the "Amen, amen". The gospel writers put there for a reason, much like they transliterated "Maranatha", "Abba", and other Aramaic statements. It's suppose to capture the Jesus as he was, and brought the Greek readers (and all of us) closer to the experience.

>>

Attached: 1407254510357.gif (250x255, 2.84M)

The best version still does (New Cambridge Paragraph Bible).

KJV and if you dont understand get a NKJV

This is dubious like every other schmuck claiming things for a possible pay by an "undisclosed backer".
A pitiful tactic if you ask me.
blog.drwile.com/dr-frank-logsdon-and-the-nasb-another-christian-myth/

I suggest anyone who is in their teens to not take stupid tube things seriously and avoid being duped into a bunch of dubious theories as I was when I went through a conspiracy theory phase myself.

NKJV is embarassing.

I'm the user who posted that. I appreciate you pointing this out. I only thought it was funny. I could take it or leave it. It still doesn't change the NASB itself. It uses a pozzed Alexandrian NT and isn't eclectic enough on the OT sources. This isn't conspiracy. I simply side with 2000 years of readings. Not readings developed outside the church.

Why?

Anderson turns down all invitations to debate this and other topics. Well "debate" is in a list of sins, according to the KJV:

Romans 1:29
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers…"

But the Greek word translated as "debate" 500 years actually means "strife" in modern English. But see, when you use such a Bible as your sole standard, you get to deliberately remove words from their historical semantics and context, and it gives you all sorts of wiggle room to invent strange doctrines and rules.

I'm reading the KJV right now, just finished Genesis. I've never really read the entire bible before. I've been putting it off for too long and since I now found my faith again I've finally decided on reading all of it, as long as it is the correct version and from what I understand the KJV is the best one in English. Eventually I plan to read the original in Greek or Aramaic in the future since I'm also into learning languages which will be very fun for me, I wanna get as close to the source as possible

Men guided by God
2Thes 2:15, 'Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our Epistle'

Could an apostle give a wrong teaching?

Their teachings came from God. So your real question is, 'Would God give his apostles a wrong teaching?' and the answer is 'No.'

Here's where you're wrong, bucko

And assuming for some reason the Apostles were wrong somehow, why would you continue to read the books and epistles that they wrote? It makes even less sense when you learn that New Testament was originally a reading list compiled by Saint Athanasius, who wasn't an Apostle. The NT canon didn't exist for centuries after Christ and the Apostles had already left. Do you believe that the early church Christians were lost because they didn't have The Bible like you do and were completely incapable of following Sola Scriptura?

Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians 2

But he corrected himself afterwards, showing the necessity for the councils.

So an apostle can give a wrong teaching

Peter didn't give any teaching here. Paul rebuked him because Peter was still stuck in his old Jewish ways.. the idea of God welcoming Gentiles hadn't fully settled in him. He was warming up and eating with Gentiles, but when some Jerusalem group with James came around, Peter acted like a poser and removed himself from the Gentiles. So Paul got on his case. So Peter didn't exactly teach anything. He simply didn't live up to his own prior teaching (remember, it was to Peter that God first revealed that he should baptize the Gentiles.. by giving him the vision of all kinds of "unclean" animals and telling him to eat.. and then leading him to the Roman centurion Cornelius, who wanted to be baptized).

Peter didn't teach anything, he was acting out-of-line

Plenty of parts of the KJV are beautiful but just using one version to attempt to find out exactly what God wants from is utterly stupid considering the OT and NT are in two completely different languages from English.
Sure for simplicity sake each church should use one version to keep with consistency and so people can follow along with the preaching, but for actual in depth study you should really be looking at the original greek/hebrew and how it has been translated.

Once again, even the KJV is superior in this respect. You don't need much education to dig behind it's translation because it's been aided with extra materials for the laity built up over centuries. Things like Strong's numbers and multiple dictionaries have made it easy to dig into the original languages, if the average person desires. It's a much more limited endeavor with other translations. Some have adapted Strong's numbers, but they still don't have 90% of the other reference books the KJV can use.

Every recent Bible seemingly wants to call itself the "standard" version, but the KJV actually lives up to it. You could call the KJV a whole corpus of literature on it's own that extends beyond the translation itself. It's not some translation that lives in it's own little world, like most others. Multiple references, multiple supplemental materials, multiple commentaries from all spectrums of belief.

Besides that, the critical NT most of those others are based on are crap anyways. It doesn't matter if you read the original or not.

I'm glad many modern translations have also changed hell to hades but I wish they'd go further with other Hellenisms like tartaros and Gehenna.
There are many words that have entered the English corpus since the early modern period which could be craftily employed to translate concepts in the Bible.

One would be eulogize for εὐλογέω "blessed".

But lots of brainlets would probably whine and demand for things to be made easy as they do already.

They're not brainlets. They simply don't wish to relativize Hell with misleading cultural definitions. The only brainlets are Protestants like you who wish to reinvent the wheel and are ignorant of 2000 years of readings and church interpretation. Not even the Greek speaking Patristic writers treated "Hades" this way. They knew it meant Hell, in the full punitive sense that Christianity teaches.

Just like "Logos" is not a Hellenism. It's another stupid modern notion. It's borrowed from the Aramaic Memra (the Word), which would be the text read alongside Hebrew scrolls. It's specifically used as the creative agent of the Lord. St. John was a Jewish FISHERMAN. He had no interest in projecting some Heraclitian concept into the story of Jesus. He was using the language of his own synagogues, the best he could, translated into Greek.

king james only is just another version of bible idolatry. The bible is not the complete and infallible word of God and the people that made up that rule had no authority to declare canon in the first place. None of the ecumenical councils had the slightest legitimacy

2 Tim 3:16
Matt 4:4

This shouldn't be a problem with adequate instruction if the goal is to portray the truth. It is indeed brainlets who are too cowardly to learn anything because it may be too much for their little minds.

Does this mean Greek church fathers spoke English? Who knew.

Also
t. crypto-turk larping as orthodox

Another popular strawman which few Bibles actually use

I actually prefer the KJV to anything post vat II, but a Bible commissioned by a king is to take with some care.

You provide an excellent example of why bible idolatry is sin. When you place the bible in the position of God, you are afraid to actually study the word for fear that you'll find an error and ruin your faith. That's why you can quote vrses like Matt 4:4 while having no idea what it actually says-

EVERY word. EVERY. Not just the words that an ecumenical council 300 years later decided to be scripture. The book of Enoch was considered by Jesus and the apostles to be Scripture. The book of Enoch was quoted or alluded to hundreds of times in the bible. Were those ecumenical councils greater than the apostles or the prophets? Some appointees of a pagan emperor overthrew thousands of years of wisdom and you fell for it.

And again you quote the bible without understanding what it says. ALL SCRIPTURE. Not just the scripture approved by a catholic ecumenical council working at the command of a pagan emporer.

And here is the heart of the matter- the bible idolatry has divided the body of Christ into a 1000 opposed factions arguing over the letter. The bible says the letter brings death, it also says-
Mark 3:5 "If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

You can see the church dying. Christians are being genocided around the planet and the synagogue of satan has launched its final push to wipe out Christianity forever. Jesus says that a house divided against itself will not stand, Paul says clearly that the letter brings death and here you are dying and divided by the letter and yet still you refuse to see because your devotion to your idol is so great. You're under a spell, the victim of roman witchcraft

one of the verses that makes me suspect paul's conversion. He was a pharisee, which means he was a preist of Babylonian witchcraft, and that religion veils itself in other religions. Jesus whole complaint with the jews was that they placed the traditions of men above the commandments of God and yet here's paul telling men to honor traditions, just as the pharisees have always done.

I believe the King James version was made with the same purpose other translations were, to improve the existing ones.

The reason why there weren't many new translations afterward is probably because it became the authorized version of the English kingdom whereas previously there had been a series of unauthorized revisions in the lead up to the KJ. Even so it's still said that edits and corrections were made to the KJ/AV text over time, which would be a reason for the insistence on the "1611" edition.

To insist on putting a stop to this evolutionary (read: developmental) process would be to go against the same principles with which the KJ and earlier translations were made, and the claim that it can't be improved or that a better translation can't be made is preposterous.

That said, I will admit that a lot of the early modern translations, even going back to the middle ages with the Wycliffe Bible, tend to render the tone of the original languages more faithfully than many translations from the 20th century have done. What modern translations have often done is introduce some token improvement while butchering or simplifying the tone of it to a larger degree.

I think it would be a privilege for humanity to take up the duty to present this important heritage to world to the fullest extent and most truthful manner possible.

the original kjv included the apocrypha between the old and new testament

It wasn't necessarily the apocrypha that I was referring to but the readings in general. The are quite a few translations that offer apocrypha.
Among the bibles not in copyright it appears to me that the best ones to offer apocrypha were Brenton's Septuagint and the Revised Version.

Really these 19th to early 20th century translations are the grail of translations in my opinion which some blame as the begining of troubles.

I'm not a prot, but as I believe it the sola scriptura belief doesn't necessarily need the physical book that is the Bible, but rather it needs the teaching of the gospel. Back then most people were illiterate anyway, so they had people teach the scripture to them, a lot of it was word of mouth until the books were composed. Thinking within that framework, it's very possible that the books chosen to be in the Bible were chosen because they conveyed the scripture, not the other way around. But maybe I'm not right, I'm no expert and I'd be happy to have someone correct me if I'm wrong.

They can't be trusted. That was the period when Neitzsche's philosophy began to be implemented, social science was being developed and the elite started to take over every institution to shape public opinion. By the time of DL Moody and Cyrus Scofield protestantism was conteolled by the freemasons. Scofield's reference bible even had a freemasonic sy7mbol of the point within a circle on the cover.

Those are all unsubstantiable ad hominems that do little to address or contribute to the debate. My appreciation for them comes from having observed actual efficacy in their rendering of readings, being more of an update to early modern era traditions than a translation from scratch. Can't blame intellectuals from Anglo domains for having inherited a vast quantity of scholarly resources during the time when near eastern archaeology was also taking off.

Tbh I think the greatest factor contributing to the of scripture alone would be the difficulty in reconciling biblical teachings with the habits and practices of the establishment church during the Reformation.
Some people would harangue reformers incessantly but you would also have to try imagine how they felt considering the huge qualms Catholics have with their leadership and clergy today.

*contributing to the conception of scripture alone

...

Indeed

Prots, man.

I have more respect for Anderson than most "Christians" nowadays.

Attached: how many things wrong with this pic.jpg (1242x1540, 1.61M)

Yes, and there is also another huge reason for this. You see, the English language went through a lot of changes during the middle ages, mainly because they were a relatively smaller population that was more subject to cultural influences and invasions that could bring great changes to the language itself, and also because the printing press hadn't been brought into widespread use. In fact, spelling in the English language wasn't standardized for a long time beyond that, which itself had an effect of allowing for the vocabulary to expand more easily.

After 1611, there was more of a trend toward standardizing things as the corpus of English literature grew. By 1755, Samuel Johnson had completed his Dictionary of the English Language. And something is very interesting about that book. It takes vast amounts of word definitions from the Authorized Version. Noah Webster's (American English) Dictionary in 1833 did the same. So what it basically amounts to is that the English Language itself took its definitions from the KJV. So then it would be backwards to suppose that the KJV somehow mistranslated something, when the English language as we know it has been formed around it.

You can't say that of any of the modern versions, they did not exert an influence on proper English as defined by its historical foundational dictionaries as the Authorized Version did. Some food for thought.

I need to pony up for one of those original Webster dictionaries. It seems that every self-respecting KJV lover has one.