I've had my feet in and out over the years of really starting my journey into the words of Jesus Christ, but haven't fully accepted it. I finished watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ4NTdSK5ac] and my mind is blown. Especially the part he says towards the end that "why should god show himself to me if I won't continue banging on the door over and over?"
It's like I've been waiting for proof, but if I knock once or twice, don't get proof and give up, why should god present himself?
I encourage you all to watch this video. For those of us who were on Voat, it says a lot of what we already knew, but he provided sources, citations, photos. It's quite remarkable the work he put into this video.
Anyways, I would like to get myself a bible and I am curious what the most accurate version is?
I am also curious if the words of the bible today can be trusted? Who is to say the satanists didn't take over publication and tweak words, remove verses, etc? This is a legitimate concern of mine.
This is the most serious post I've ever made and I am genuinely looking forward to responses so I can proceed to the next step of this journey.
Here are the words of one protestant scholar "(The Septuagint) was translated from a Hebrew Old Testament text-type that is older than the Masoretic text, from which most Old Testaments are translated today. This is sad, for the apostles had access to both the Septuagint and to the proto-Masoretic text that was in existence in their time. And they chose to quote from the Septuagint, not the proto-Masoretic text."(sauce)
While this protestant concludes this historical fact to be sad, a better conclusion would be to acknowledge the Septuagint as a legitimate sacred text.
The word Septuagint means 70, it is derived from the 72 Hebrew scholars, 6 from each tribe of Israel, who were each isolated during translation, and by miraculous act of God, all 72 returned with the same translation. This ancient letter) is the evidence of the legitimacy of that story.
Another possible reason the apostles and our Lord used the Septuagint instead of the older text "that existed in their time"(ibid) was that it contained the deutorocanicals that all Bible reading Christians ascended to for the first 1600 years of Christiandom.
It was the first century AD Jews who were the first to remove those books, probably because many of their prophesies were fulfilled by our Lord. Read Wisdom 2:12-22 as one example.
That being said, the full bible was not formed until the 4th century, primarily by St Jerome, while in a cave in Bethlehem, utilizing the Septuagint, the ancient Hebrew texts, and other Hebrew scholars. (Sauce)
That original formal bibleography was then the "common" text amongst the church fathers to Christianity today (or 1960's Vatican 2), for the word vulgate means common. Those texts were all hand copied so they were primarily only in the hands of the apostolic successors (I.e bishops).
Ironically, soon after The invention of printing press, formal protesters arose based on their own interpretations of their personal copies that they were reading in their local tongues. Now there are 30,000 different groups of Protestants who all interpret scripture differently. That is not WWG1WGA