Reminder that you're not a true Christian until you've read the Septuagint in it's original Greek

But the NT is evidence in favor of the Septuagint being divinely inspired. See:

based

That doesn't include the New Testament in it.

So if he says there is only one body of scripture and if that body doesn't include the New Testament, then it means he doesn't believe in the New Testament.

I've only read the NT, fight me

Tigga, you realize you're on >>>Zig Forums right? The fact that the NT is divinely inspired is already implied here lmao. It's the OT + 'apocrypha" that's up for debate here.

Your current (Hexaplan) "Septuagint" dates from NO EARLIER THAN 200 AD, wicked idolator OP. Your Hexaplan Septuagint has EDITED Old Testament verses, retconned with New Testament verses to make it APPEAR more authoritative than God's preserved Massorah. (2 Corinthians 11:14)

...

The sad part is where people believe the Genesis 5 timeline which states that Methuselah outlived the flood by 14 years, apparently by swimming. It's blatantly incorrect.

The Ark story is allegorical anyway so I don't think it matters much

Oh they don't believe in that part of the Bible anyway.

By who, Gnostics?

Attached: Christchan22.png (640x863, 207.68K)

Romans 15:4
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Now go buy yourself a divinely inspired Septuagint.

The one with the bad numbers in Genesis 5?

What's wrong with the numbers?

I think he means that one yes.

The DSS match the Massoretic text almost 100%. You're making an association fallacy because there was (Second Temple Period-written) Apocrypha among the DSS, because the Essenes were a heretical group. Roman Jewish historian Josephus confirmed that there are only 39 Old Testament books.

The Greek texts of the DSS dates to being younger than all the Hebrew and Aramaic texts in it, in fact.

Noah was 600 years at the flood according to Genesis 7. But the new numbers the Septuagint has for Genesis 5 says that Methuselah lived until Noah was 614.

969 minus 167 minus 188 equals 614. The OT meanwhile has 969 minus 187 minus 182 equals 600 making him die on the same year. Methuselah also means "his death shall bring."

To instantly prove you wrong: ZERO of Mark's OT quotations match your current Septugint (dating to no earlier than 200 AD, being of Origen's "Hexapla"). Origen edited his Old Testament text to match the New Testament, not the opposite!

also based

No it isn't. Have faith in God's power and will to do all things.

You have no faith if you deny truth, but delusion.

"God's word is truth. (John 17:17)" Trust God, and you can do all things. Doubt him and be lost.

So God wrote the Bible then?
Not only that, but he wrote it as literal, historic truth?

The Masoretic Text was corrupted deliberately because Jews kept getting beaten by Christians in debates over scripture. Using a version of the Old Testament that was deliberately and knowingly edited to deny Jesus' claim to being the messiah is a no no

Sure. But then you need to admit in that "almost" part where there are differences they match up with the Septuagint not the Masoretic text. Big problem for you.

Also the deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired.

You literally said that scripture "doesn't matter much."

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. — Luke 17:26

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. — Proverbs 30:5.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. — 2 Timothy 3:16-17

None of that changes the fact that the Masoretic Text is a corrupted and unreliable text that was edited by Jews so they could beat Christians in debates over Jesus being the messiah.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (280x436, 235.89K)

People, there is clear evidence that what this poster is dealing has been tampered with to fit the New Testament. For instance, they changed both Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to wrongly say 75 persons instead of 70, in order to match Acts 7:14. But they forgot to also change Deuteronomy 10:22 where it still says 70 persons. It should say 70 in all three places, not 75 in two places and 70 in the third place.

As for the references posted already, they're all accounted for. The meme chart even knows this because it leaves out the KJV from half of them. The other half are already found in other parts of the relevant books, for instance Hebrews 1:6 is quoting Psalm 148:2. And by posting that chart this guy is attempting to legitimize modern Jewish interpretations by citing them as correct, authoritative translations.

So all those are fake. One thing that chart doesn't mention though is how all of the false versions such as the septuagint, the DRB and vulgate mistranslate Psalm 2:12 to directly remove a reference to Christ. See the correct English version of the verse.

Psalm 2:12

What does the new Septuagint say?

But the people who translated the KJV used the Septuagint for the verses that were clearly altered. The KJV really isn't a great translation in the first place, it contains many factual translation errors but even the people who did it knew that the MT was untrustworthy in many places. From the wiki page

There was another thread on this but it made me wonder if some differences could be attributed to misinterpretations by Greek translators or perhaps that the vowel pointing system developed afterward altered the way the words were read.

900 A.D.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

I see now, but I don't understand how you can trash the entire thing because of one detail when the rest of it so well agrees with the NT.

So is the Brenton translation good or should I look for another as I seek to buy this? amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442

The "wiki" page and the yids are wrong in translating Psalm 22:16. It actually does say pierced in the Hebrew there. The yids are wrong in translation the original Isaiah 7:14, it actually does say virgin in the Hebrew there.

I'm surprised you'd think the wikipedia mafia wouldn't matter-of-factly side with the yids and presuppose their position in any theological history matters. So that makes you, the yids, wikipedia and that chart all as legitimizing an incorrect interpretation of words. It doesn't make the words wrong in this case, only the interpreters of them into English who currently trust modern "Hebrew scholars" to tell them what it means and who cite the Jewish Bible as an authoritative translation of the Hebrew.

You probably also mistake Psalm 2:12 as well. Well the fact is that Psalm 2:12 is a prophecy about the Son, and don't be messing it up.

Ok here's the thing on that. Like someone else pointed out, they changed the numbers in the early part of Genesis, but it goes far beyond that. You will observe that the number of 70 was changed to 75 in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, yet it remains 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22 in the New LXX. This is because they wanted to make those places in the Old Testament fit the number what Stephen said in Acts 7:14, but there was a problem because they just forgot the third place (Deut. 10:22) it was mentioned. There is other evidence as well, like when they took Cainan out of Luke 3 and inserted his name to the genealogy at Genesis 11:12-13.

The point being that this was an attempt to harmonize the Old Testament (being translated to Greek) with New Testament (in Greek) quotes already in hand. But how is that legitimate? I wouldn't believe the author of some fake book of Enoch just because they ripped the legitimate quotation from the book of Jude and pretended like Jude took it from htere.

So then, when we also consider that non-yiddish, historical translations of the ancient Hebrew are already correct in those places, the whole premise of the chart is defeated on both sides. And then beyond that we can add the fact that the new Septuagint messes up the prophetic mention of Christ at Psalm 2:12. Whereas the KJV, its translation and its sources don't remove it. So it has it all. The only thing it doesn't have is attempts to go back to the OT and harmonize it with the NT artificially.

are you gatekeeping Christianity ? now that's a new one

Does it ever get exhausting to do these mental gymnastics to justify your KJV onlyism? It's a fact that the Septuagint is the version of the OT which was used by the apostles. The Masoretic Text is corrupted, that's fact. It's not "translation" error, the MT straight up cuts pieces out to deny Christs divinity.

You mean the Dead Sea Scrolls which almost universally support the Septuagint and NOT the Masoretic Text?

The KJV is a shitty and unreliable translation so why trust it?

If your NT is conflicting with your OT then you have a huge problem because it's supposed to be divinely inspired without error.

And Stephen says 75 in Acts and he was privy to the uncorrupted original scriptures, as was Luke who wrote Acts. You're in trouble when you're claiming the author of a gospel was mistaken.

How can the Septuagint be an artificial attempt to harmonize the OT with the NT when it was written centuries before the birth of Christ?

Who said I was KJV only? I'm pointing out problems with other versions, sure. Why do you keep assigning all these false ideas to people?

Keep repeating these things simply because you really really want it to be so, that won't change reality nor will it serve as proof of anything. And you can't find a single thing wrong so you start talking in generalities.

No but yours is actually. The New Septuagint included an artificial attempt to harmonize, but it actually hurt itself in the process and made itself contradictory with the NT. So yes it is a huge problem for people who promote that here actually.

Please tell us where I said this. This is so badly reasoned that it barely even deserves a response. Please tell me where I said this?

The seventy in Genesis 46, in Exodus 1 and in Deuteronomy 10 are the seventy people of Jacob's house who went into Egypt. It includes Joseph and his two sons according to Genesis 46:27.

The 75 people in Acts is correct because it's the 75 people who Joseph called out of Egypt. It doesn't include Joseph and his sons, but it does include the wives of the other patriarchs who weren't born into Jacob's house, but nevertheless were invited by Joseph.

Someone who didn't understand this tried to make Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 match the number given in Acts. What they didn't realize is that Joseph didn't call himself or his two sons into Egypt, they were already there. Acts 7:14 is talking about 75 people other than Joseph himself whom Joseph called, whereas Genesis 46:27 is talking about 70 people with Joseph and his two sons included. They're two different counts of people so they give two different totals.

So to add insult to injury, after introducing this error and contradiction into the Septuagint (Joseph didn't call himself or his sons into Egypt in Acts 7:14), it then failed to change all three places, it only changed Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, while leaving Deuteronomy 10:22 which still (correctly) says 70.

So the Septuagint is in error in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but thankfully it left Deuteronomy 10:22 behind as evidence of this artificial change by the translators. Because the seventy people of Jacob's house isn't the same as the seventy-five people whom Joseph called into Egypt. The true OT reference says 70 in all three places and the true NT reference says 75 because its' two different counts of people: one including Joseph and two sons, one including the patriarchs' wives instead. Septuagine messed it up while trying to "fix" the numbers and forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22.

Mine is infallible as you gave me the chance to explain. Thanks. I appreciate the response.

See

John 3:36
KJV: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

What it actually says:
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

The KJV has hundreds of these errors and omissions that change the meaning of the text. Protestants think John 3:36 supports sola fide when it does the exact opposite by stating he who does not OBEY the Son will not see life, it doesn't mention believing there at all and it's because the people who translated the KJV didn't understand the Greek properly and translated apeitheó as "believeth not" instead of it's proper meaning to disobey.

biblehub.com/greek/544.htm

Mental gymnastics. Stephen was directly quoting the Septuagint, he wasn't referencing something different. He knew 75 was correct because thats what the Hebrew said before it was corrupted into the Masoretic Text

The Jews altered the Masoretic Text to omit references of Christ though. You can't blame the Septuagint because we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know that the DSS back up the Septuagints account, as does the Samaritan Pentateuch. To claim that only the Masoretic Text was preserved correctly when it conflicts with the Septuagint, DSS and the Samritan Pentateuch is absolutely absurd, especially since we know many verses were altered to expunge references to Christ

Also:
I assumed because there is no good reason to trust the MT unless you're ideologically precommitted to using a translation based off the MT like KJV onlyists are. They need to engage in this kind of apologetics because if the authority of the MT is questioned then it also hurts the credibility of all translations based off it, including the KJV (ignoring the fact that the KJV translators used the Septuagint for the parts where the MT corrupted of course).

The Septuagint was used by the apostles, it's quoted by the gospels word for word, it's quoted by Jesus word for word, Paul quotes the Septuagint word for word. When references are made they always support the Septuagint version and not the MT (Such as Stephen saying 75 because he was directly citing the Septuagint).

This is further reinforced when we found out the DSS support the Septuagint and conclusively prove that the MT has been altered to remove the references to Jesus.

Remember that the MT also doesn't have the deuterocanonicals which are also inspired words in the canon

Ok so now you want to talk about the New Testament? Sure, let me say one thing though. What does that have to do with your claim that the OT prophecies are corrupted yet you can't find one?

Now about John 3:36. You simply don't have a good enough grasp of English if you mean to say the translation is wrong here. You've probably been taught a bad definition of the word "believe" in English.

Ok there's a number of issues here. First of all, you are falsely assigning the name of the original OT source the KJV translators used. Secondly, it doesn't matter what a non-original language source says when it comes to readings, those are only useful for reference on how to translate words between languages. So there goes most of your sources. Lastly, it doesn't matter what non-preserved sources say because we know God preserved his word to all generations. So the DSS are out. Can't use them for any arguments.

Not that I think you should because I've heard they conform to the true type and not the (Hexaplar) LXX type.

You are really poorly informed when it comes to the original language sources the KJV used. I can almost guarantee you're looking at the wrong sources.

Haven't brought a single example. Meanwhile I'm pointing you to Psalm 2:12 where the corrupted versions remove the Son. That's a hard nut to swallow if you use a corrupted version.

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. — 2 Corinthians 2:17

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

no true scotsman fallacy.

You're not a KJV onlyist but you sure seem slavishly devoted to defending the honor of a translation that is almost universally considered poor.

I use the Septuagint though, the preserved word of God. Not the Masoretic Text which is indisputably corrupted and altered.

...

I'm only interested in translations that keep God's word accurate. It's not limited only to English.

Universally considered poor by pro-sodomites? I take that as another grain of evidence.

The one that removes the Son from Psalm 2:12. Got it.

Since everyone's talking about the validity of the Masoretic text, I think this should be noted:
nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-sea-scrolls-bible.html?emc=edit_th_20160922&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=29085162&_r=0
It's the first two chapters of Leviticus in Hebrew; the sequences of letters matches the Masoretic equivalent.
Now granted, this doesn't prove the Masoretic text is reliable in toto (at least compared to the Septuagint).
It's interesting, though.
KJV-onlyism is silly, too.

Shame on you.

Lol. How convenient, eh? A Hebrew source from ~200BC that shows that the Hebrew originally said exactly what the Septuagint used can't be used because you've decided that God didn't preserve it. This is stupid, you've just arbitrarily decided that the MT is the one and only true text and you're just denying all evidence to the contrary with these ridiculous cop outs. If God preserved his word so well in the MT then why does every ancient source we uncover show that it says something completely different to what the original Hebrew said that was preserved in the Septuagint?

Do you believe the KJV is the only accurate English translation, yes or no.

Thats a bit misleading. 95% of the DSS agree with the MT, that's not being disputed. After all most of the DSS are indeed hebrew scriptures you'd expect the Great Scroll of Isaiah to read almost the same as what we have now. The problem is that when the Septuagint and the MT are in disagreement over a fact, such as whether 70 or 75 people entered into Egypt the DSS almost always come down on the side of the Septuagint which indicates that the Septuagint did in fact translate it correctly but it was later changed in the MT.

Oh no, I totally prefer the Septuagint over the MT, I'm not foolish.
I was just trying to provide some information that might have been helpful.

Luke 4, KJV:

>And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 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

Isaiah 61, KJV:

Isaiah 61, Septuagint:

So who is wrong here? Was it Jesus who quoted a line that isn't in the MT? Why would Jesus quote the Septuagint if it wasn't correct? Or why is the verse that Jesus quotes incorrectly preserved in the MT and conflicts with what he said? Interesting conundrum for our KJV onlyist friend.

Attached: Thinking_Face_Emoji_grande.png (600x600, 143.37K)

It's more like there are degenerates and/or yids who are doing all of your investigating for you, and its being processed through a long game of telephone to you where you are told by various "authorities" that it says something which you then take as fact, but you can't really point us to anything concrete, because it's not there.

Do you also consider the Nag Hammadi manuscripts accurate? Because the cult that was living at Qumran at the time was no better, they were found with altered Isaiah fragments (altered by them) in addition to the regular ones. Just saying.

I believe that this translation accurately reflects the original language sources in the English language, and if you bring me another version I will likely find something altered due to it using a corrupt source. However, if you went to the older English Bibles like the Geneva or Bishop's Bible, they were also good translations. Far superior to modern ones. One difference there is they were written in slightly earlier forms of English, and more importantly, there wasn't as much time and resources put into them. If they had had the same amount of resources time and scholarship available to them those translations would have been just as good as the Authorized version became.

I also find very accurate translations in other languages as well where I can't find any major changes as I do in all the alternative English translations being used today. So I see no reason not to use a translation that doesn't change sources and corrupt things.

Not really. It's in Isaiah 29:18. The real problem comes when the NT says something was physically written in a certain prophet's book when it isn't. This happens in the corrupt version of Mark 1:2 where they claim Malachi 3:1 is "written in Isaiah the prophet" when actually it's a quote of Malachi AND Isaiah, making only the received reading of Mark 1:2 factually correct and the catholic+critical texts factually incorrect in Mark 1:2. Just thought I'd jump ahead a bit because I have to leave soon.

.>>777161
Uh huh. So for all intents and purposes you're a KJV onlyist hiding behind the pretense of not being one because you endorse bibles in other languages too. Sorry dude, it's well known that the KJV has many errors and you can't defend them by claiming that people just don't understand what "belief" means (big LOL on that little attempt btw)

This is directed to the KJV advocate itt, but what was the inspired text in English before the KJV was translated?
Was it Tyndale's Bible? The Geneva Bible? Wycliffe's translation?
How about before English became recognizable?

I honestly can't believe people are aware of the relation between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text yet they still shill for the Masoretic.

ok mr pharisee

And they're all Protestants, usually people who revere the KJV as the only accurate english translation of the Bible. Really makes you think, doesn't it?

Attached: 1483025506048.gif (320x240, 2.12M)

Yes, it makes me think that you're not very bright for deploying a composition fallacy to attack fellow Christians like that.

Prots aren't my "fellow Christians". They're heretics, just like the Arians and the Marcionists.

Reminder that you're not a true Christian until you've heard and memorized the Gospels aloud, in their original Aramaic

Hey guys, it's me. I'm back. u got nothing.

Cringe

As a Catholic, totally agreed. Though I do find the use of the Masoretic Text rather amusing given who compiled it vs. the Vulgate and the Septuagint. Especially given how many Evangelical protestants shill for Zionism outside of this board.

The KJV isn't a terrible translation though, given that it was the version I initially read yet I still became Catholic based on what it said. And it did technically serve as the basis for the RSVCE. The only reason it's not got imprimatur is because it's missing books and the translation of it had no involvement of the church Since the people making it were diametrically opposed to Catholicism I just can't get behind the idea that it's the only valid translation of scripture. Especially since the people who made it and were protestant weren't even brought up on it… yet were still protestant.

Also, to Catholics, I just want to point out that you aren't forbidden from reading other translations of the Bible. You just shouldn't consider them authoritative. I see a lot of Catholics act like we aren't even allowed to even look at bibles without imprimatur, and that's simply not the case.

Psa 2:12  Kiss the Chosen,b lest He be enraged, And you perish in the way, For soon His wrath is to be kindled. Blessed are all those taking refuge in Him. Footnote: bHebrew, Nashqu ḇar. Ḇar - Chosen in Hebrew but Son in Aramaic. 

Attached: 81ABE5C9-D023-4D46-A581-9CEF3A4C82ED.png (256x256, 45.03K)

Ouch. You're a charitable one.

>people defending the masoretic text when psalm 22:16 preserved a mistake while the LXX is in accordance with the DSS
ask jew or person who follows the MT what's in their psalm 22:16

that the MT has a higher accordance with the DSS is a LIE propagated by jews. although it might be possible that some parts of the MT agree with the DSS over the LXX.

Doesn't anyone else find it rather weird that the only complete translation in English is from the 1854 or based on this translation ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#English_translations

It says on Wikipedia that, "The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) (in progress) is an extensive revision and correction of Brenton's translation which was primarily based on Codex Vaticanus. Its language and syntax have been modernized and simplified. It also includes extensive introductory material and footnotes featuring significant inter-LXX and LXX/MT variants. "

I'd really love a Septuigent based on the Codex Vaticanus without the Greek translation on half the page and in large legible modern print. That would be awesome. What is the closest I can get to that today ?

This seems to be our choices in English
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations#Septuagint_translations

here is the sources used for all modern English bible translations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

Seems like a translation of the Codex Vaticanus would get us the pureset Old testement we could get in English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

Thoughts ?

So it took me some time to make this but hopefully it will help us all. Seems like the Lexham is the cheapest and best laid out. Please someone look at the translation and let us all know.

All English Septuagint translations
——————————————————-
Charles Thomson's The Holy Bible (1808) ($63.22)
I don't know how the inside looks. if someone does please let me know.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson's_Translation
amazon.com/Covenant-Commonly-Called-Testament-Vol/dp/1333116209/

Brenton's English Translation of the Septuagint (1851)($38.05)
Left side of each page in English, Right side of page in Greek
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Septuagint_version_of_the_Old_Testament_(Brenton)
amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442/

Apostolic Bible Polyglot (2003)($39.95)
One line in English with the Greek directly underneath like this.
Μια γραμμή στα αγγλικά με την ελληνική απ 'ευθείας κάτω από αυτό.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Bible_Polyglot
apostolicbible.com/

Orthodox Study Bible (2008)($41.42)
Is an eclectic text combining elements of the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text
Bottom half of pages are commentary. There is an English only version.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Study_Bible
amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/

New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007) (34.79)
Seems to be just in English on a 2 column page. (ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf)
It is however translated with the help of the Jerusalem University
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Translation_of_the_Septuagint
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757/

The Lexham English Septuagint (2007)($24.95)
Laid out like a modern Bible. One column with text. Nice layout! English only.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexham_English_Bible
lexhampress.com/products/36588/the-lexham-english-septuagint
Free download within E-Sword (www.e-sword.net/)
PDF - lexhamenglishbible.com/download/LEB.pdf

Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible (2007) (26.99)
Is based on the Greek text of the Old Testament (Septuagint / LXX) with all major Masoretic and Dead Sea Scroll variants documented in the footnotes.
All English on one page.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_/_Greek_Orthodox_Bible
amazon.com/EOB-Orthodox-Testament-Patriarchal-extensive/dp/148191765X/
PDF - yadi.sk/i/Ei0gEGDJ3E8dxN

Now that's a challenge!

It says that Methuselah outlived the flood.

You sure these translations are legit? The Old Testament has been translated before that by various people, with numerous typos.

Attached: 884.jpg (700x420, 69.77K)

To be more precise it's from the London 1630 printing run. The man who was responsible for it, Barker, ended up going to prison for it.

By 1629, Cambridge had already begun printing KJV, having obtained the rights in 1628. Their format was far superior for fixing numerous typos, going to a more legible Roman font (which the 1630 London subsequently did), removing the apocrypha, and using the letter J and fixing the more deliberately archaic style that Barker's printings had. Even for 1611, that style of spelling with switched U's and V's and blackletter font was considered archaic and pointlessly harder to read. Even the Geneva Bible of 1560 had used Roman type and used more "normal" spellings as well as being in a smaller, easier to distribute sized book.

Ah, everyone is so quick to reply. I deleted that comment quickly because it seemed like the post I was replying to already knew that.

But that's interesting to know. I didn't know anyone went to prison for it.

All the copies of the run were supposed to be destroyed. So it's extremely rare to find one on the market. I'd still have no problem destroying one if it weren't for that pesky not breaking other people's things.

Is your pic supposed to be showing those supposed typos? I'm not seeing any there, it only looks like typos because they used an older version of English there.

...

Oh, I was looking for misspelled words. Missed the forest for the trees I suppose.

Am I sure they are legit ?
I'm not even sure the KJV is "legit"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

I just bought this, but I barely know Greek. Just nice to have (Zoe Brothers LXX/Patriarchal NT combo from Greece). I wish someone would just translate directly from these.

Attached: 1f4ab6941c31e38e025fb2eae54d852b-400x600.jpg (400x600, 43.85K)

Attached: Capture _2019-03-06-11-41-30-1.png (1440x1122, 235.92K)

The Bible was revealed to Martin Luther in Latin