NAB-RE versus RSV-SCE

NAB-RE versus RSV-SCE

Which one is better, and why?

Attached: types-of-bible-translations.jpg (781x444, 58.95K)

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/christian/res/771010.html
usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition#RSV_Second_Catholic_Edition_(RSV-2CE)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Ignatius Bible - RSV2CE (the one with the non feminist English). Actually a Bible with traditional commentaries and notes.

Nabre is Vatican approved dynamicized stuff.
Would you prefer a dynamicized translation of Harry Potter or Tolkien if you needed it, or a more literal one?

>inb4 the muh Bible is better no muh Bible is better poohflinging starts

Attached: girl-pop-that-bible-memes.jpg (736x736, 77.42K)

There are a host of translations that are good for reading.
Personally, I often use the RSV-SCE, ESV, NKJV, and the Geneva Bible.
In my opinion, I think the more word-for-word a translation is the better. Paraphrases are trash across the board, and thought-for-thought translations are inconsistent in quality.

NAB is best.

No it's pretty much just one group of people saying you can't use different versions that remove verses and then everyone who doesn't care just tries to ignore it and memes about things they can't actually answer.

I mean, I love to be proven wrong when it comes to threads like this please prove me wrong but from my experience threads like these don't end well.

Ok well look at the other thread that OP likely had to make this new thread in order to avoid.

8ch.net/christian/res/771010.html

In it you will see that there is basically one advocate for the Bible being one, eternal, word of God to us. And then all the people on the other side are saying you can use all kinds of different disagreeing versions together at once. But not agreeing with each other.

So in that sense it's pretty much just one group of people saying you can't use different versions, reprimanding other people who just don't care what you use and keep on talking about how they use five different conflicting versions and pressuring people to do the same while hoping nobody notices and corrects them.

Well, it depends on what you mean. If "ending well" means nobody comes and tries to stand for the truth then no this won't end well.

But it's not like there are two equal sides in this, there's just one side rebuking the other, which tries to ignore it and get back to misinforming people as quickly as possible. So it's not really an equal discussion or argument as you had implied.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Whatever just check out the interlinear if you are in doubt

Translation wars are not useful

Didn't see that one when I made this thread, and the reason I am asking about which version people prefer is that the NAB-RE and the RSV-SCE are the two contemporary Bibles approved by the USCCB.
KJV Onlyism is retarded, Contemporary English words don't even have the same meanings in all cases, Jesus didn't speak English


I'm not interested in a translation war. I'm curious as to the specific differences between those two bibles in particular, which people prefer, and why.

Why not the D-R version? Just curious

Attached: 415QlH-ATWL.jpg (304x380, 31.67K)

I haven't given the NAB-RE a try, but the RSV2CE is my go-to Bible now. My only complaints are
Otherwise, it's pretty a pretty solid Catholic translation with good notes. I'd like to pick up the Ignatius Study Bible once that's completed.

Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's inconsistent. But even more than that, why were none of the changes found there before 1881 when the so-called "critical text" was first published? Should I go on to show the major doctrinal changes such as removing the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24? That's objective, there's no translational difference they just removed the words whole stock.

Good thing we can use a Bible written in a better, and well-documented standard than contemporary English then. And postmodern relativism, which is what you're proclaiming in this statement, is made of cancerous lies. Words have definite meaning, there is objective truth.

Seriously, what part of my post warranted this statement? Did I say this? Seriously, did I say this?

Why is it one false attack after another, why do people keep coming on here promoting falsehood when it comes to Bible translations?

You probably mean the doxology which comes right after. "For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Stop assuming I already understand what you're talking about. Establish premises, draw a conclusion, make an argument. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to here, exactly, aside from a general sense of disapproval for contemporary bibles.
Screw you, I am not proclaiming postmodern relativism. It is objectively true that languages change over time. I don't speak Old English and neither do you. Middle English (KJV English) is much closer to modern English but it isn't the same. Hence the need for a bible in modern parlance.
The KJV is a translation and translations are going to have linguistic imperfections, period. You can argue that the KJV is the least flawed English translation but to argue that it is LIDERALY PERFECT BIBEL :DDD is foolish silliness.

I'm afraid not; see pic related.

Attached: 0225190008a.jpg (3264x1836, 2.16M)

Yeah I saw afterward that you were talking about the Luke version, it is an the abbreviated version of the prayer though.

Ok in my first post, I said that people (such as that council) who recommend that you read conflicting Bibles are self-contradictory, because they are implying scripture can go more than one way. Notice I said conflicting Bibles, because it so happens that I can find these major doctrinal differences where entire words and phrases, even sometimes verses are wholly removed in one but not the other. Yet, even then, they pretend like there's no difference. And once again, like clockwork, whether intentionally or not, perpetuate the age-old misconception that they say the same thing. Thus they are leading people astray by putting a stumbling-block in front of them, in the form of a corrupted version of scripture that they recommended you to read. Not only this but they are implying generally that there is a lack of certainty when it comes to language as well, just adding more fuel to the postmodern relativist fire and spreading it even further.

Is that close enough?

It's also objectively true that standard English doesn't have to conform to regional dialects and just plain lazy English. And that's true for any language. The point being you don't even pretend like we are forced into this relativist box where there is no way to know what words mean, because of the fact we aren't forced to use contemporary English if there are better-standardized and defined forms of English available for us to use, as will be the case in the facts I am about to unfold below.

Ok first off, Middle English was gone by the 1400's. The Wycliffe translation would have been in it.

Second, the KJV in 1611 was written in "early" Modern English. In fact, one major reason it's called this is because all English literature that came after it was deeply influenced by it. And buckle yourself because there's more. In 1755 Samuel Johnson came out with his Dictionary of the English Language and guess where he pulled a vast amount of word definitions from? The Authorized version. Which was the only translation in use, and would remain so for even longer. And then Webster's (American) English Dictionary in 1833 pulled all its word definitions from it as well.

So you see, it's not possible for it to be wrong in any of those cases when it comes to word choice, since the English language itself has now defined itself on those terms. It is the lexicon of English. And lastly, the 1769 version of the KJV took these standardized spellings into account, making it the standard of precision for Modern English even until this very day, where it is still preserving cases like ye/you and thee/thou (plural and singular).

The English in common use has never been as precise in conserving word tense and so on as the Bible is, but this is honestly to be expected. That's a lot of work to put into saying things precisely a certain way. Also, the English that is in use today isn't even called Modern English, it's called contemporary English.

Modern parlance is generally inferior because it lacks the precision we would want for a serious stury. But again, the foremost problem with modern versions is actually all the actual deletions of entire words from the critical text that always gets conveniently ignored. You can't even argue they "say the same thing" when the entire thing is deleted in the new version.

How do you define imperfections? If the KJV is wrong on something then you're also saying the dictionary is wrong because that was its source. At that point, how have you not devolved to relativism? where you're saying the dictionaries are wrong?

Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't aware Luke had a different version of it.

Are you unable to read foot notes and/or appendixes? Because all major changes/differences between each of the nonenglish versions of the bible are noted. The core translation is just base on the earliest available manuscripts, unless there is a lack of clarity in that particular version (hence you'll see notes like "Meaning of Heb uncertain"). You're wall of text in your follow up is just redundant.

That doesn't mean it can't though. There's this amazing literary device called synonyms. And buckle you're seat belt Dorothy, because astoundingly there are words that can be similar if not identical in definition.
Ok, I'm gonna start writing all of papers for school in Early Modern English, including conventions such as the elimination of certain letters, f in place of a long s, etc. and I'll see how well I do even in academic circles. You Get that English isn't even its own language right? It's a barbaric pidgin of Latin, Early French and Germanic dialects that formed out of Anglicans and Saxons occupying the same Island. In fact, that's where a ton of synonyms come from.

Ok, so the first paragraph of what you was a series of "I'm very smart" esque historic notes thrown together as though it means anything in a modern context where, regardless of all the info you spat out, English has still evolved to the point where an uneducated audience may still struggle to comprehend the meaning of early modern English terminology.
So, one major English dictionary did it, and so the whole of English MUST be based around the same principles? That's incredibly idiotic, and also completely biased towards american English. Earlier you said conforming to regional dialects was pointless, and yet you even noted that it was strictly american English. Also, Leaving the states, Chaucer and Shakespear had as much if not more of an influence on the understanding of historical English than the KJV did… In fact, Chaucer arguably influenced the KJV.

How is this not a double standard to you? Also, you continue to talk like it defined all of English, when you're actually openly admitting that it had to be adapted to a later form of English. You are claiming victory in defeat.

It's never going to be 100% accurate even in your version because English =/= Hebrew/Aramaic. That's just the nature of translation, regardless of time period or language.

See Above

UNICORNS That is all I have to say to this terrible, fallacious "point". I could delve further into how idiotic this remark is, but I'll leave it at that.

The RSV2CE has not been approved by the USCCB.
usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

It's not on that list, but it has imprimatur. Going by that list alone, the DRV would be unapproved so…

It's more of a recommendations list than a comprehensive list of translations granted imprimatur.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition#RSV_Second_Catholic_Edition_(RSV-2CE)

…which is in line with what I said. The list provided on the site is more like a list of recommendations than a definitive list of Bibles given imprimatur.

My deacon and catechist reads the NT in ancient Greek for his personal studied (and he always brings up the Greek during Bible Study) and he told me that RSV is closest to the Greek in full english.

No, those core sources weren't found until 1881. Nobody had it before then. And no Bible on earth had it before then. And nobody believed it before then. It's not early.

I get that people would like this to be the case. Suffice it to say, it's not. Let's not degrade other people's ability to grasp words here. Especially when we've been asking them to understand the context of Greek words many times. You can't suddenly pretend this is somehow hard.

I also mentioned Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary which was British English, and also where the 1769 KJV got its standard spellings from. These two influenced all the others. Please remember that I said the 1755 British dictionary as well.

Let's assume this is true. Does that change any of the other facts? It wouldn't change the fact that the Authorized version was the basis for all the word definitions in the 1755 and 1833 English dictionaries, so that doesn't affect my point in the slightest, regardless of whether or not this is true. I'm not sure why you mentioned this, as if to say it did.

No, just the spellings. I'd still consider it the same exact translation but in a different format. Heard of the term orthography before? Also the main reason I brought it up is because I know people like to complain about the long S and stuff like you already did. I guess there's just no satisfying you then.

Unless it's ten different conflicting translations all used at once with the same relativist philosophy as you.

You're now defeating yourself. Because earlier you've implied that you weren't being relativist, now you're redefining things left and right just like all the others.

So, you are implying with this response… that the removal of entire words isn't a problem because we're using a translation? We can completely remove Acts 8:37 for instance and there's no problem from a translational standpoint? Is this for real?

So we could make it say whatever we want then? Add things, remove things, it will never be up to your standards so it doesn't matter?

You've only shown how relativism leads to complete apathy. Once you accept that there is no absolute, then you just start to think like this. Nothing really matters anyway. Who cares, we can't understand words anyway… Right? That's the apathetic guy who gave up because someone who looked scholarly told them it's all relative.

Took me five seconds. Look.

U'NICORN, noun [Latin unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

KJV: >Isaiah 34:7 †unicorns: Or, rhinocerots

Follow-on point


And yes, it says "gay" in the old sense of the word. We don't all have to accept the new definition of "gay" now, which is essentially your position. You're letting these people confuse you.

You guys got your scriptures from Pharisaic Jews. Ignoring the implications of that, even they have adopted later translations and compilations of the scriptures.

Have you ever interacted with American school students, let alone the impoverished and uneducated? I can assure you a more vernacular translation is necessary.

Noted.

I can assure you it's true. His works predate the KJV by over 200 years.
Because you exaggerated the KJV's importance to the English language as an appeal to authority, which my response was intended to dismiss.

That doesn't make it a meaningless change. Again, the way you spoke about it was as though the text had never been updated in any capacity.

The church officially only uses 2, and both were translated from the same text's with significant oversight by church officials by scholars on par with the kinds of people who would have translated the KJV. The RSVCE is more so used in academics because it's more literal than the NAB(RE) or Jerusalem translations (which are more geared towards a general audience, in order for all people to be able to get a clear understanding of the liturgy).

I mentioned it because I was pointing out that English as a whole evolved from something else over time.

You completely ignored my point about footnotes and appendixes, which contain the differences from each version of the scriptures… How was that not clear? I said See Above because your "point" here was redundant.

LOL. I know what unicorn technically means… but you know they weren't thinking of a rhinoceros.They had seen Rhinos in India by that time. Besides, Rhinos can have more than one horn dependent on the species which a quick google search would have told you They were thinking of a horse with a conical horn on its head, as that term had meant for hundreds of years by that point. This isn't like Moses in the Vulgate where there literally wasn't a word for shining so Jerome had to improvise and it created a lack of clarity, this is blatant mythology seeping into scripture.

Attached: 800px-Rhino_size_comparison.jpg (800x1224, 144.03K)

Also, for the record, Jerome's use of horned was referring to a corona of light beams dispersing off of Moses' face, since light dispersion seemingly spikes off of surfaces in a similar manner to horns. Just thought I'd clarify that for prots who like to throw that out like it invalidates the Vulgate/DRV.

What does this statement have to do with what I was just saying? Are you bringing up a new subject because you can't answer the fact that no Bible in the earth contained a Mark 10:24 that removes "for them that trust in riches," and no single person in the entire planet believed in or heard about that Mark 10:24, until 1881?

Because I'd like to restate my point for the record that no person in the entire history of the planet believed in that version of Mark 10:24, until 1881.

As you all haven't responded to this, I can only presuppose that you all agree.

Now I'll answer this. It doesn't matter what Pharisaic "Jews" do. They should be coming to us to learn the Old Testament.

We all need instruction in the way of righteousness. This comes from a study in a Bible that is based on the proper language. It doesn't come from using progressively changed language that has all occurred in the last 40-50 years. If you struggle with understanding the old sense of the word "gay," that doesn't mean we are hurtling through a nihilistic world where nobody knows what up and down is anymore, it means that you need instruction in English. And we have that available. But clearly, some people have a big pride problem when they want to redefine words to suit their fancy instead of learn facts regardless of how they suit your personal fancy. The "new" definitions of these words are coming from progressives and if you are here parroting their lines about modern vernacular then I feel bad for you for respecting them.

How does this change the fact that these dictionaries took all their word definitions from it? As far as I can see, this is still established as true. Are you trying to distract away from this by not answering this but bringing up tangentially related but irrelevant points? I'm sure there were many sources both written and unwritten that had provided context to English up til that point. That's not the point. The point is if this one authorized publication of the Bible then became part of the definitions in both Britain and US as the language was being documented, defined and standardized as a written language with spellings then what exact part of my point is wrong?

So then, this is part of the definition of what the English language is, and to object to these things is what modern progressives and relativists are all doing. It's clear then that you respect these same people. I should add the same ones currently advocating sodomy and many other things, all under the guise of this morass that they've created. Don't be part of the problem.

It makes it easier to read, yes. So that answers your point about the long S's and the swapping of U and V and such things. And yet at the same time, it's still the same words in every place. So that answers your point about it ever changing the translation; the words are all the same and it would be read aloud the same. You can try to find a counterexample, but the worst you'll find is typos. I've looked.

What church? I've seen people arguing for using the Vulgate-based versions at the same time as the modern ones. And those differ on Mark 10:24 and elsewhere. Some delete the words "for them that trust in riches" and some don't.

You said English isn't a language and then implied all these earlier languages were. So basically what you said was that there are "real" languages and that English isn't one, but this is basically redefining what a language is because nobody else maintains that. But you, to sustain some transient point for your argument, decided to "un-language" English.

And I already mentioned how Middle English and earlier existed and they are technically earlier forms of what we have now. I already mentioned how the KJV was the start of "early" Modern English and how that's much more well-defined and standardised from a literary contextual and lexicographical perspective than either contemporary or earlier forms of English. In fact you'd have to argue that all words are ultimately all meaningless and carry no absolute context to them to turn against the very well-documented and precise foundations I've pointed out and to call them all "wrong."

That's removing it. Because nobody is supposed to take these marginal notes as inspired, you've removed it. Also, sometimes they decide not to put any marginal note at all.

For instance, in Ephesians 3:14, the RSV removes the words "of our Lord Jesus Christ" but it leaves no footnote of this. Meanwhile, the NRSV leaves a footnote. How can you even fathom the implications of this wickedness of what they have done. How do you think God feels about what these people did to his words and then publishing a corrupted bible and then spreading it and then arguing against people who point it out and spreading false accusations against them.

Some people pretend to know everything. I don't. I'm being more careful not to bring up things I can't prove.

The Vulgate changes Matthew 6:11 to say "supersubstantial bread" where the Vetus Latina and others had said "daily bread" and it changes John 3:5 to say "born again" when it should be "born" (see for example Codex Brixianus or Usserianus Primus). It also deviates from its alleged sources (Greek LXX) such as the geneaology in Genesis 5 giving different ages for the patriarchs.

No person in history believed Rev 22:19 read "book of life" until Erasmus made it up, and that's in the KJV to this day. No greek New Testament in the world reads like the KJV there. No person in history before 1516 believed that. In order to be logically consistent, you now have to reject the KJV, because the KJV relies on a knowingly, indisputably corrupt source.

How about Rev 16:5? Again, no Greek manuscript in the world reads like the KJV does because of Beza's corruption. No person in the world believed that 1598. In order to be logically consistent, you have to reject the KJV.

What? I was mentioning it because the people you got the OT from even adopted later scriptures, and if you guys were so keen on using their standard text in the 1600s, why not now?

Except for maybe the ancient church that you guys are always so keen on invoking. The document without that version of Mark 10:24 is older than the one used in the KJV. That's the reason it became a side note included in the text rather than withing the core body of the text. It's still in the book though.

So why did you guys go to them to learn the old testament instead of the Vulgate or Septuagint? The Masoretic Text was their version of the OT, compiled way afterwords… But this is gonna open up a whole new can of worms.

Or you could just use synonyms. Even when explaining the meaning of the word in that context, that's effectively what you're going to end up doing.

No, I just you exaggerated the KJV's importance to the English language as an appeal to authority, which my response was intended to dismiss. It's relevant because you were acting like the fact that the KJV was the basis for a dictionary had anything to do with it's historical validity or readability. If anything your point is irrelevant because even if it fits the standards of English 400 years ago thing have changed to the point that it's no longer in line with even formal English. Which is the same case with Chaucer and Shakespeare, the former of which has even had his work updated in some publications to fit a more modern lexicon. Being the standard and setting certain grammatical conventions in the past means nothing NOW. You criticize this as a "Nihilist spiral of relativism" when in reality this is just how language and history have worked for centuries. This isn't some modern convention meant to corrupt the world, this is just how the world has worked from the get-go.

Because you'er so vehemently opposed to revision n any regard that this stance is contradictory. How updating it to modern standards of English not the exact same thing I was talking about? This barely even has to do with biblical translation at this point so much as it has to do with this incredibly broken and biased logic.

It was not "the start" of early modern English. Maybe an early written recording of it, but the language and it's mechanics existed before your bible translation did. Otherwise, how would anyone have understood it? Again, you're overstating it's importance as an appeal to authority. If it didn't exist, the mechanics of English still could have been defined based off of other documents. The use of your bible is pure coincidence, likely chosen purely for its length, word variety, and easy access rather than because it was the magnum opus of the English language that you keep trying to paint it as.

No it isn't. Like, there's nothing else to say on the matter.

That's you're interpretation of it, not the actual facts at hand. If you weren't supposed to take it into account to some degree, why even leave it in in any capacity?

You're assumption is that you're documents which are based off of newer sources aren't the corrupted ones… which kind of goes against the mechanics of time itself. Hence why only your sect of Christianity is so adamant on this topic. You're openly historic revisionists. No matter what source tells you, even if it's archaeology form the holy land itself, you don't care. The Orthodox are more open to new information than you people, and that's saying something.

Except that we know they knew what rhinos were, rhinos can have more than one horn, and the term Unicorn predates the KJV by several centuries… These are all things that can be proven, but again you don't care.

And it's also an incomplete biblical scrap… which was the whole point of making the Vulgate in the first place.

Both of those are later additions of the Latin bible made centuries after Jerome complied the Vulgate… Hence they aren't used by the church.

The book of Genesis wasn't translated from Greek… none of the Torah was translated from Greek. It was translated from the Hebrew scriptures available at the time… That was the whole controversy that surrounded the Vulgate back in the days of the church fathers. Augustine and all of them wanted Jerome to use the Septuagint (since all of them being upper class Romans knew Greek fluently) but he proposed a direct translation from Hebrew, which initially generated some backlash, but once it was finally finished the Fathers were pleased with it. This whole segment makes it very clear you don't know much about the early post-Nicene church. Honestly this whole section of you "correcting" the Vulgate is embarrassing.

Gosh my grammar is terrible. Apologies, the laptop I'm using has a smaller keyboard than I'm used to, and when I write in a flurry I slip-up a lot. I hate being dyslexic.

That's equivalent to saying that every Bible in the history of the world was wrong for centuries. Do you claim this happened?

I could end it there. But to get more specific, Erasmus was not the final authority on anything. He was just the first guy who rushed out an early draft of the Greek NT to be published.

Later (real) scholars dialed in the correct Greek whereever Erasmus was incorrect. And there were more than one of them. Stephanus, Beza, Elzivir and the later apparatus of Mill. They all agreed in essence on the same sources saying the same things, but there was variation between these later versions for the most part in spelling. This is because the form of Greek it's written in was a lot like 1611 English in that where words may have been spelled multiple ways in different copies, yet they meant exactly the same thing and would be therefore translated the same. For instance the movable nu might be different, but this is strictly a spelling choice. If you spelled Jesus with the sigma, the nu or neither at the end it would translate the same because it's the same word. This type of difference is in fact the cause of the vast majority of variants that Mill collated.

However, the KJV translators in particular didn't rely on any one of these scholars' work, they had access to all the original sources themselves, including the earlier examples of earlier English Bibles and other languages to help with lexicographical context of words, and all the Greek sources so they could start from the right words. They certainly didn't rely on just one copy of some guy's TR, they did all the work from scratch from original sources.

In particular though if you're interested in these two examples. Beza and Stephanus both corrected Erasmus' early mistakes in Revelation and we can see now that they, independently from modern scholarship (obviously), brought many of these verses in line with the Greek sources.

For example in Revelation 22:19, the Erasmus 1516 version wrongly had "καὶ εἴτις" but this was corrected by 1550 to "καὶ ἐάν τις" which also matches up with the currently held Greek copies. The whole work is filled with these kinds of corrections. So Stephanus clearly had access to them if he was able to make such corrections to Erasmus. And this give us every reason to believe that the later TR and KJV translators had access to the Greek sources that said "book" in Revelation 22:19 which is why they each independently copied it. Finally, there is no guarantee that all of the sources available then are available now. To object would only undermine the case for using copied manuscripts in the first place and you would then have to demand autographs to remain consistent.

You ever heard of nomina sacra? This is a case of that. "He that is, was and is to come" is a nomen sacrum. Modern versions fail to understand this and therefore mistranslate it.


Because I never did. So yeah, not sure what this is about.

Key word "became." Because nobody on earth believed it was or was even aware it exists until Tischendorf, and then Westcott and Hort came up with a critical text. So it was a presence of zero until then and everyone has to admit it no matter how much they want to move the conversation away from it. It came into being at that time, not sooner.

Why exactly? As the indestructible church collectively we already knew what the OT was; we never lost it (a false premise); and there was no need for anyone at any time to rely on any source except for the providence of God to preserve his word in its exact form. It's that way with each person individually as well.

I'm glad we've got that clear. It is.

"Scholars" are orchestrating a progressively more mind-altering, thought-terminating newspeak all the time. That doesn't mean I have to accept it or that it's the "only option." Making up pretend grievances about how proper English is so hard to read while expecting people to learn the context of Greek, Syriac-Aramaic and Hebrew words, is quite a contrast. I guess as long as you aren't pinned down doing both then nobody usually notices the inconsistency there.

Why not read the sentences right after the one you quoted? Oh I get it, it's like when those reporters only quote part of what you said and then make insinuations. The words are all the same, it would be read aloud the same. As I said. It's not like the word of God must only be communicated by written page and we can't read it out loud or something. I never said that if that's what you assumed (for some reason) I was thinking.

Is the fact that the world exists all pure coincidence as well. Or did God will it to be for some reason, some purpose.

Look I'm just telling you facts. To run up against it is to say that we can't have dictionaries or context to words at all. It is to say that there is no definition of things possible, and therefore your personal definitions are just as good as anyone else's. This is what most people have been led to think, leading to many things today.
Sure it is. Because if you ask someone if that's what the Gospel of Mark said, they will say no and they will say that's why it's moved down to the margins.

Otherwise they don't even believe in that Bible, which raises the question of why they're using it. And further, to use multiple versions would raise the question of why they are even pretending to believe in any single one of them. In objectively defined, absolute terms they aren't. Meanwhile, at the same time they aren't, I am doing so.

Ok this is a good question for once. The reason they leave it in is to get people to question whether we really know what the Bible says in the first place.
All you're doing is showing how the two terms overlap but aren't synonymous. At this point you're just trying to pretend like you didn't bring up something completely within the bounds of what I was already talking about.
So does the term hell which comes from scandinavian roots. But according to the definition now, it means what the Bible means when it says hell in those places. And if you want to learn what it means and what its context is, just read the Bible, that's where the definition came from.

And no, not the modern versions, those change it.

No because the definition comes from the foundation of the English language that I already quoted for you. It didn't take much work to prove what the word actually means. Now you might say it means something slightly or even completely different in another language, but that's what it is, a foreign language. I wouldn't randomly use the foreign definition of a word that happened to have the same letters just because I felt like it. I'd go with the definition.

It is now, but the fact you think it always was says a lot. This poster is probably one of those people who believes the remains of what we have today, is all that anyone ever had, and that no copies have ever been damaged or destroyed. Which is quite a strange and arbitrary assumption to make. Yet, I hear people all the time who make statements which imply they know every copy of Scripture that ever existed. It's more like they're just making sweeping statements that they can't possibly back up unless they assume (strangely) that exactly what we have today is all that ever existed.

How they compartmentalize this logic with the fact they don't have autographs is an interesting question.

Glad to see you finally agree on some minor point. However the problem is you think this translation was anything like the Old Latin copies that existed back then. You also talk like the Vulgate was a single fixed copy. The fact is that it wasn't considered final by anyone until the Sixtine and Clementine came out 1100 years later. And the ironic thing is how quickly they had to change it, just to let you know it was very pliable and subject to change. There is no single standard for that "text family". After all you've got the Sixtine and the Clementine Vulgates which are different. But with that said, I'll accept that you don't believe these.

THE MESSAGE
YES YES YES

No. It is saying that the KJV relied on demonstrably corrupt sources. In case you didn't know, the Greek NT wasn't written by Erasmus. Erasmus and Beza introduced new readings into it, unfound anywhere else before them. That is not saying every NT before them was corrupt. It's saying THEIR NT was corrupt. And it is this corrupt NT that the KJV relies on for its unique readings.

So you think that no greek NT existed before Erasmus?

The KJV translators did NOT have access to the original autographs. That's ridiculous.

They relied on six copies. Not exactly a representative sample compared to what we have access to now.

Perhaps, but that doesn't give us a reason to believe John wrote "book" in Revelation 22:19. If John didn't write "book" there, and the available evidence substantially shows he did not, then the KJV relied on corrupt sources and should be rejected. You have the burden of proof to show that literally every other greek NT was wrong and that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc got it correct in the 1500s.

That doesn't really matter, if they only relied on six manuscripts when we have +5000 now.

I do demand that we translate the words John actually wrote, not what Beza thought he wrote. I do not need the autographs to know what John wrote though, because there are copies available. Copies that were not used in the translation of the KJV.

It's not a mistranslation if the Greek literally doesn't say that. No Greek manuscript in the world reads like the TR and the KJV there. It's demonstrably wrong. "Oh Holy One" is not the same as "and is to come".

You don't know that. You do not have every copy of every manuscript ever written. Stop pretending that you do, immediately.

No.
This was not said.
You don't know what all they had access to. The "six copies" figure is certainly wrong.
Don't beg the question. You can't assume something and then use that to prove the thing you just assumed. This whole sentence is invalidated.
You do not have literally every copy of every greek NT manuscript that was ever made. You have just claimed that you do in order to make this ridiculous argument.

Are you talking about copies that have the nomen sacrum in them? Because those are correct too.

See this is what happens when someone gets into something without a clear understanding. They mistranslate nomina sacra without even understanding what it is they're reading.

Yes we do. Not a single copy exists with those unique readings.
I don't need it if all the extant ones don't support your corruptions. You don't have a single one to support yours. I go where the evidence takes me.
Stop pretending that every Bible before erasmus was corrupt. Produce one authentic manuscript before the 1500s that supports your reading, and I'll convert.

Erasmus' Greek NT relied on six manuscripts. That is a fact. W. W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45.

Like how you assume the KJV is perfect and then use the KJV to support your belief that other translations "remove" things from the text?

I don't need every copy. This argument doesnt help you because you also don't have every copy ever and therefore can't say that your reading is perfectly accurate. You're still arguing from absence. You're arguing: "B-b-but I could be right b-b-because you don't have everything ever! Therefore even t-though I have no evidence I am right!"

there is no existing manuscript with Beza's reading. Therefore, I see no reason to believe he got it right. If even one Greek NT with his reading existed, I'd say you've taken a reasonable position. But alas, I cannot.

You do need every single copy to claim this. Not just the extant ones, Every single copy. Otherwise you don't know. It would be intellectually dishonest to make such a statement without this information.

Ok now I've proved that you didn't read my post. I already said that the KJV translators didn't rely on a copy of a TR, especially not Erasmu's early drafts.

See
Did you see where I said that? Why did you not read my posts first then? Why imply the KJV translators = Erasmus after I said this?

Are you just here to trash up this thread? Are you just pasting text from a blog? What's going on here where you forgot what was already said and revert to preconceptions?

You don't understand nomina sacra then. But that's okay, we'll allow this fault as an inability to understand or else a copy-pasted sentence from above.

You do if you're going to make a statement like that. I haven't made any statements like you have wherein I imply that I know what every single copy in existence ever said.

You said: "You have the burden of proof to show that literally every other greek NT was wrong"

The implication is that you know that literally every other Greek NT manuscript didn't say that. But you only have some, not all of them. Some, certainly, have been lost, both suddenly and gradually over time; therefore the whole premise is false. Since, after all, you don't know that. I've already shown how Stephanus and others were able to correct Erasmus' early drafts using the manuscript evidence available to them. They were copying from the evidence. To say that everything they had needs to be available to you in order for their work to be validated is to say that the early copyists' sources have to be produced as well, because they're just more links farther back in the chain of transmission to today.

But what's the other alternative? It is to believe that scripture was lost until 1860's when Tischendorf (maybe, kind of) found a slightly "better" version of the Bible, one that nobody in the world had ever seen. Requiring all bibles up to that point to be updated. But then, that implies that there could be further "discoveries" in the future which make highly unpredictable changes. Something which has never actually happened even once, since there's always been a precedent.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. — Matthew 24:35

There is no substantial difference between this and a person demanding an autograph be produced. They could challenge any reading not preceded with something from before [choose time X] whenever the earliest source for that thing is still known. You simply chose a different time than them, and it can shift at will to exclude whatever things you don't like.

This is ultimately led by a preference to "keep everything relative" so that each may choose from among cafeteria bible versions. There is no belief that the word is actually preserved, because after all "scholars" accept that it had to be unburied and reassembled in 1881 after being completely lost. That's where the New Mark 10:24 came from, after all. This means further changes are basically inevitable and anything goes is tolerated, except for a belief that it has been preserved to all generations, which is seen as intolerant and problematic.

Speaking of this, which combination would you like among these "equivalent" translations?

Matthew 17:21—


John 1:18—

>ASV: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
>NASB: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
>NIV: No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
>NLT: No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

>ESV: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Galatians 4:7—
ASV: …and if a son, then an heir through God.
>NASB: …and if a son, then an heir through God.
>NIV: …since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.
>NLT: …since you are his child, God has made you his heir.
>ESV: …and if a son, then an heir through God.

—1 Peter 3:3 "merely" added (NASB and NKJV only)
—2 Peter 3:10: "burned up" changed to "exposed" (ESV, NIV, and NLT)
—1 John 3:5: "our" removed (ESV, NASB, NET)
—1 John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" removed (all)
—Revelation 1:11 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," removed (all)

Attached: 09357ba4d.jpg (2560x1600, 959.52K)