ESV is what I would consider the most correct modern translation. (I say most correct because there are concepts not having direct translations).
The reason why is multiple ministers in my denomination have read the original texts in the native language and concurred that this is the best modern translation. Former to the ESV, most would recommend NIV because it's phrase for phrase instead of word for word.
From what I understand, the Geneva and ESV Bible are very similar, ones was written over 500 years ago, so you may not intuitively understand everything there. The ESV was written in 2001, so much more understandable (consider those who worked on it ranged in ages 40+, so the language will be more directed at ~1970's with more modern touches, because old people aren't always up to date on new language adjustments.
That being said, slang has no place in the Bible, whether past present or future.
Considering I believe that the second word in the bible "In THE beginning" is an incorrect translation - using an indefinite article "THE" instead of the original which was the Hebrew definite article "A" or "Any", you can only imagine how much more I believe has been mistranslated, some unintentionally, some intentionally.
I couldn't read scripture again until I found out for myself that the word "eternal" is mistranslated - quite deliberately - throughout all English versions of the bible. The original Greek word was "aEONious", which should quite obviously be translated to "EON" as that is the precise translation of the word - meaning "a long and indefinite period of time".
But I understand that my opinion is not a popular one...
Suffice it to say, if you can't read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, an accurate translation is not a possibility in the English language...
I use the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) because it predates KJV, which was likely tampered with by Francis Bacon.
The 1599 Geneva version is what the Pilgrims would have had in the Americas. The footnotes on the Biblegateway site add a very anti-tyrant slant to just about everything as well, which is good for patriotic references.
4 There were [a]giants in the earth in those days: yea, and after that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they had borne them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of [b]renown.
Footnotes
a. Genesis 6:4 Or, tyrants.
b. Genesis 6:4 Which usurped authority over others, and did degenerate from that simplicity, wherein their fathers lived.
It was in recognition of Bacon's intellectual accomplishments that King James turned over to him the translators' manuscripts of what is now known as the King James Bible for the presumable purpose of checking, editing, and revising them. The documents remained in his hands for nearly a year, but no information is to be had concerning what occurred in that time. Regarding this work, William T. Smedley writes: " It will eventually be proved that the whole scheme of the Authorised Version of the Bible was Francis Bacon's." (See The Mystery of Francis Bacon.) The first edition of the King James Bible contains a cryptic Baconian headpiece. Did Bacon cryptographically conceal in the Authorized Bible that which he dared not literally reveal in the text--the secret Rosicrucian key to mystic and Masonic Christianity?
I found article, I found the article, I found the article. No author was brave enough to put his name on it. I went to their main site to see who they were and they were liars
Burgon was permitted to examine the codex for an hour and a half in 1860, consulting 16 different passages. Burgon was a defender of the Traditional Text and for him Codex Vaticanus, as well as codices Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae, were the most corrupt documents extant. He felt that each of these three codices "clearly exhibits a fabricated text – is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension." The two most widely respected of these three codices, א and B, he likens to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.
Gee one person has "feelings" that the text isn't right (like an illiterate liberal). Give me more evidence than hearsay that the text was fabricated or corrupted.
If it was "fabricated" in 300 AD I'm calling bullshit. If there is evidence it was fabricated or corrupted at another point in time (which is easily testable and verifiable through multiple scientific methods) then I'll believe it.
Also, who is Burgon? What kind of person was he? Was he playing a politicians game? His full name isn't in this source and apparently when I search there are a lot of Burgons. Why should I care what Burgon thinks? Burgon might just be full of shit.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
Compare the Bible verses he quotes with the KJV and the modern Bible of your choice.
No shit. You're telling me the King James Bible which was translated from an earlier bible and written for an English audience is going to give me different verses?
A scripture that has been lost to history and likely gone forever. I don't see a source of him quoting from a Bible and could just as well be quoting from memory and teaching.
The sole surviving work attributed to him is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, a mosaic of references to the Greek Scriptures, which, along with an account of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, forms part of the collection of writings called Apostolic Fathers. After the Acts of the Apostles, which describes the death of Stephen, the Martyrdom is considered one of the earliest genuine accounts of a Christian martyrdom.[2] Charles E. Hill argues extensively that the teachings Irenaeus ascribes to a certain apostolic "presbyter" throughout his writings represent lost teachings of Polycarp, his teacher.[7]
That's exactly what I wrote above... 😒 There is no bible scripture from that time period that has survived to this day as far as we know.
Edit: Okay I digress, he was likely quoting from a scripture in his letter but a Bible from that time period hasn't been discovered and perserved to this day.
The sole surviving work attributed to him is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, a mosaic of references to the Greek Scriptures, which, along with an account of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, forms part of the collection of writings called Apostolic Fathers. After the Acts of the Apostles, which describes the death of Stephen, the Martyrdom is considered one of the earliest genuine accounts of a Christian martyrdom.[2] Charles E. Hill argues extensively that the teachings Irenaeus ascribes to a certain apostolic "presbyter" throughout his writings represent lost teachings of Polycarp, his teacher.
Edit: Okay I digress, he was likely quoting from a scripture in his letter but a Bible from that time period hasn't been discovered and perserved to this day
They were never lost. They were carried from church to church and copied. There's over 50,000 copies of them, and they all were faithfully reproduced, almost zero errors
How can you know that if there's not an original from that time period? You can't.
The hearts of men contain evil and imperfections and you can't convince me or many people that every person who copied that Bible through the centuries didn't make slight changes here nor there for political purposes or just due to a mistranslation game of Telephone.
You have to have a Bible made from that time period of 1st-2nd century AD to back up this claim and there isn't one that we know of. God gave you a brain and logic, use it.
The Dead Sea scrolls are in fragments. Those fragments verify the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Koine Greek New Testaments used by the translators of the Geneva Bible, King James, and Young's Literal Translations.
My God is more powerful than your god is. You just told me this. My God, the One True, Holy and Righteous Creator of all things in the Heaven and the Earth, has enough POWER to give us His Word of salvation. He came as a man and SPOKE these same Words to us and you think He is a weakling, at the mercy of man?
You are right that man is evil. God gave us brains and discernment, yes. The information about the Bible and it's origins is so much more effed up then our election fraud, it is biblical. People have fashioned stories on how the Bible isn't real, those who've done there research know this is false. You think political things are the only things censored on the left's internet? The Bible has been preserved since the writings of Moses. They were kept on all sorts of written different methods, depending on the age in which they were written. What is true, and not necessarily thought about as often as it should be, is that Christianity (and Judaism pre-Christ) has been on the hairy edge of being wisped out.
If there was no God and no Jesus, there would be no need for the religion. People have attacked it so much throughout human history that it should have been destroyed.
The devil picked up on this trick, look at 1. Jews and 2. Muslims. Before Jesus, there were not groups of people worshiping the same god going in and out of near extinction. Now, we have 2 major groups, Jews, seen by the world as the sufferers, and if you attack Jews, you get attacked yourself, because they are viewed as "remnant people." Then you have Muslims, if you attack them, the world seems to attack you instead. There are a few exception to this, but in the majority.
Attacking Christians, who by in large, ought to have the most tolerant of all religious views, does not make any logical sense. A Christian's view is believe in Jesus as your Savior or you face eternal wrath, but there's no physical harm (while on earth that was "threatened") whereas the muslims say convert or die and Jews say, we will kill for the promised land.
This is what sets the Christian religion apart. Now if the God who is able to keep a religion like this alive, how is he not able to keep His written Word available, more importantly, if you are a Christian yourself, how could you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, but not believe he could / would have a written word to his people after he left. The Bible self proclaims, if what it says isn't true, then you are a fool to even believe any of what it says.
Final point: Cherry picking from the Bible, PET PEEVE of mine. Context, context, context. I know a lot of people (who claim Christianity) who've attacked by opinions on the Bible using 1 isolated verse with no relation (contextually) to the topic. [Example: "Minister" friend of mine says Jesus did not condemn the women whoring around with many men, therefore, LGBTQAIIP+ agenda should be embraced, Jesus never accepted her sins, he died to pay for them, but she ought to live a life of gratitude and live in accordance of God's word / law
I wanted to find certain parts of the original bible text (as in the original language it was written in) because I heard about certain parts of the bible being mistranslated and the original meaning being distorted as a result, and I wanted to verify this myself.
If that's your motivation, I'd also suggest learning about the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, where some powerful men got together to unify Christian doctrine. Meaning they were appointed to decide which parts of the then-current diversity of Christian peoples' beliefs were to be retained and which were suddenly judged to not be Christian anymore.
As you might be able to tell, I don't trust those guys mucking around in it, at what to us is the dawn of the Church. Everything cascaded from there
There is no "original text" anymore. All of the versions have been translated from the "Great uncial codices" and or the "Textus Receptus". Hopefully thats what youre looking for.
Not all versions came from the Textus Receptus. Most of the modern versions, like the ESV, NIV & NASB, came from the Alexandrian texts.
Interesting fact; Erasmus, who translated the Syrian texts into the Textus Receptus, was a catholic when he started the work and was converted to a Protestant by the time he finished.
The oldest Bible (OT) in existence is the Septuagint (285 BC). All original Bibles (OT+NT) are copies of earlier versions. The earliest manuscripts is your earliest source to which the Bible is based on. These include the Uncials, papyrii, Syraic, etc. All Protestant bibles are based on the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Talmudic scribes that recreated a written 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other sources. The written Hebrew of the Israelites is lost in antiquity and the reason why the Greek Septuagint was written. If you are looking for an 'original bible', it doesn't really exist. If you are looking for early bibles translated to English, the process of translation is affected by many things, but most importantly by the theological and political bias of the translator. All of the English translations have a few problems in common. First, none of them are based upon an accurate source text. Also, most were made before the time of modern textual discovery and contain hundreds of interpolations and textual inaccuracies. All except Brenton's and Thomson's translations of the Septuagint are based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Latin Vulgate. Secondly, all the translations are the result of theological bias on the part of the translators. They incorporate theological euphemisms and archaic language that do not represent the true meaning of the original languages.
Early Protestant bibles:
-- Wyche's Bible. First version was 1384 AD. Translated from the Latin Vulgate.Second version was completed by John Purvey in 1397.
-- Coverdale's Bible. First complete printed edition of the English Bible, published in 1535. However, like its predecessors, the manuscripts from which it was based were far from the original. In fact, it was a translation of the Luther Bible and was based on the Pharasaic written Masoretic Text.
-- Matthew's Bible. This translation was made in 1537 by John Rogers, an assistant of Tyndale under the alias of Thomas Matthew. It was based entirely on the work of Tyndale and Coverdale and printed under the King's License, as the third edition of Coverdale's Bible had been.
-- Taverner's Bible. This was an unimportant revision of the Matthew's Bible appearing in 1539. the work of Richard Taverner.
-- The Great Bible. This appeared in 1539 and underwent seven versions. It was made mandatory that all parish churches own a copy.It was essentially a revision of the Coverdale's bible based upon the Matthew's Bible and therefore, was still not based on the original manuscripts.
-- Cromwell's Bible. This was the name given to the 1539 edition of the Great bible as it was produced under the direction of Thomas Cromwell.
-- Cranmer's Bible. This was the name given to the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. It contained a prologue by Cranmer.
--Geneva Bible. This Bible was first published in 1560, the work of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson. It provided nothing new in terms of an accurate translation as it was based upon the Great Bible and Mathew's Bible. However, it was the first to be divided into verses following the model of Robert Stephen's Greek-Latin Testament of 1537. It was also known as Breeches Bible, Goose Bible, and Place-Maker's Bible, because of mistakes in various editions. It became popular because of the notes published with it.
-- The Bishop's Bible. This Bible, which appeared in 1568, was merely a revision of the Great Bible made in order to combat the popularity of the Geneva Bible.
-- The Douai Bible. Also known as the Rheims and Douai Version, this was a translation of the Vulgate made by English Roman Catholics. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1583 and the Old Testament in 1609 at Douai.
--King James Version or Authorized Version. First published 1611. This translation was the result of 47 men working at the appointment of King James I. King James. By the constraints issued for the construction of the Bible, it was based largely on the Bishop's Bible, although Tyndale's Matthew's Coverdale's and the Geneva Bible were consulted. Since the Talmudic Masoretic Hebrew was used as the authority of the Old Testament (and not the Latin as before) many of the Old Testament translators, who made up the bulk of the team, were trained in Talmudic Jewish synagogues in preparation for the work, At the time of the translations, of the few manuscripts available to them, none were older than 1000 AD (with the exception of the very corrupt Besae uncial). In many parts, no Greek manuscripts were available for the New Testament, such as in Revelations, where the Latin was translated back from the Greek and then into English. This was not the first bible to be authorized by the throne of England, and it was never even accepted by homosexual King James himself, but only called authorized because it was authorized to be printed.
These are the earliest English versions of bibles. The Revered Version, as it was named, appeared in 1881 for the NT and 185 for the OT. It was a revision of the Authorized Version (King Jame's). The rest of the bibles are 20th Century versions.
I have an Anointed Standard Version New Testament that is an excellent Bible. It is no longer in publication and on Amazon is going for about a $1000 these days.
I wish yo well on your endeavor. Use Lexicons like Liddell-Scott, Thayer's or even Strong's for understanding the Geek meaning. Be wary of the Hebrew because it is a recreated written language of 1000 AD. The ancient written Hebrew was lost in history about a thousand years before. In 285 BC, 72 scribes translated the dying written Hebrew language in Alexandria, Egypt into Koine Greek because they knew the language would soon be lost.
The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (/ˈsɛptjuədʒɪnt/,[1] US also /sɛpˈtjuːədʒɪnt/;[2] from the Latin: septuaginta, lit. 'seventy'; often abbreviated 70; in Roman numerals, LXX), is the earliest extant Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible.
The full title (Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical[dubious – discuss] translations.[citation needed]
I did not know about this, this is interesting. Regardless it doesn't include the New Testament since it is before Christ.
It's an important part of the Bible. This is why I also provided information on on early English translations. I also have a pre-1964 Jerusalem Bible that provides good insight to reading. The best thing anyone can do is use a lexicon to research the Greek. One must understand that it is the Greek that is oldest oldest and best source. The Neo-Hebrew that was invented in 900 AD is not the written ancient Hebrew of the Israelites. Even the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls) agree to the authenticity of the Septuagint and shows the errors of the Masoretic Text.
Thanks, I didn't know that! That is really cool! Here's some more info I found on the Septuagint page. It looks like there are some slight differences in the writing and there are 5 known ancient variants of Hebrew Bible texts. Overall though I did learn something and it is interesting there is an 8th century BC or earlier Hebrew Bible out there.
The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the texts associated with the Hebrew Bible (including the Septuagint).[62] Emanuel Tov, editor of the translated scrolls,[63] identifies five broad variants of DSS texts:
Proto-Masoretic: A stable text and numerous, distinct agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60 percent of the Biblical scrolls (including 1QIsa-b) are in this category.
Pre-Septuagint: Manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. About five percent of the Biblical scrolls, they include 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, 4QJer-b, and 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share similarities with the Septuagint but do not fall into this category.
The Qumran "Living Bible": Manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice": distinctive, long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. They make up about 20 percent of the Biblical corpus, including the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a).
Pre-Samaritan: DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form of the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (such as God's holy mountain at Shechem, rather than Jerusalem). These manuscripts, characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch, are about five percent of the Biblical scrolls and include 4QpaleoExod-m.
Non-aligned: No consistent alignment with any of the other four text types. About 10 percent of the Biblical scrolls, they include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.
The textual sources present a variety of readings; Bastiaan Van Elderen compares three variations of Deuteronomy 32:43, the Song of Moses:[63]
Edwin Yamauchi, "Bastiaan Van Elderen, 1924– 2004", SBL Forum Accessed 26 March 2011.
Add Wycliffe and Tyndale (the most important ones) to the list above^^ and scratch all the nonsense about the King James homo bible and you're still wrong.
Thanks I misspelled the Wycliffe Bible. The misspell was "Wyche's". And yes add the Tyndale Bible. That was chiefly a NT work, which was only part of the Bible he completed in 1525. Tyndale drew upon both the Greek and Latin, especially employing the work of the Textus Receptus. In 1534, a translation of the OT up to the end of the Chronicles was published, and the work was later incorporated into the Matthew's Bible.
History cannot be scratched as "nonsense". In "A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects" (I actually had to leave out a part of the title since long titles were really popular back then) a guy who calls himself Tom Tell-Troath gives one of many accounts about the King's predilection for handsome young men. Still, this doesn’t mean his relationships with his favorites weren't seen as strange from the man who came to be called Queen James.
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esmé to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.”
—Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611
Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)
—Skip Church
King Jamesʼ favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham.
—Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible
Jamesʼs sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
—Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
“James, aged thirteen, was completely starstruck by these new arrivals. After being brought up by dour Presbyterians and a rough-hewn bunch of nobles, he suddenly appeared from the schoolroom to find a group of charming, well-traveled, well-educated and attractive men. He was fascinated by them, welcoming his release from the Reformist nobilityʼs stranglehold. The attraction of these personable and worldly courtiers was a breath of fresh air, and they quickly played on his sensibilities. These new ‘favorites’ were the key to free him from the shackles of the Kirk and his schoolroom. Within a month of Esméʼs arrival, James had agreed to leave Stirling and to take his place at Holyrood, where Esmé reorganized the Court and his household on the French model.
There was more to Jamesʼs relationship with these favorites than kicking against his religious upbringing. Their charisma provided a sensual stimulus for him that he was not to enjoy with his interfering and insensitive wife, Anne of Denmark, when they married in 1589. They provided the glamour that he lacked, and there can be little doubt that his homosexuality stemmed from his early attraction to the androgynous Esmé. Well experienced in Court circles in France, Esmé took advantage of the sexual overtures of this vulnerable adolescent, twenty-four years his junior. James would openly clasp him in his arms to kiss him, shocking the Reformist clergy, who saw that Esmé ‘went about to draw the King to carnal lust’, while James showered him with offices and presents. By March 1580, the English ambassador, Bowes, was telling Elizabeth that Esmé was ‘called to be one of the secret counsel, and carryeth the sway in court’. By September ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’.
—Esmé Stuart, 1st Duke Of Lennox
This is a partial run down of evidence of how well it was known.
Moses sinned in anger against God, are we to call into question the Mosaic Law because of it?
Paul killed Christians before he was converted, can we trust his words?
I have no idea if KJ was fag or not and I don't really even care. The Word of God is something that you can verify yourself, as I have. I carried the NIV for 30 years as a lost methodist. When my friend turned me on to the KJV, I was no longer lost. This is something you should know without doubt and it won't be found reading the lies of men.
"Moses sinned in anger against God, are we to call into question the Mosaic Law because of it?"
King James being a sodomist has nothing to do with Moses. The Creator views each individual by their heart and intentions. What is required for forgiving of any sin? It requires complete repentance.
"I have no idea if KJ was fag or not and I don't really even care."
To not know history and not "care" is to be easily misled through 'Pharmakeia'. Blindness saves no one. Aloofness to evil is its acceptance. The irony of King James never accepting the Authorized Version tells us perhaps King James was not repentant. It is only called 'authorized' because it was authorized to be printed. Nothing more. It doesn't mean its a bad version. Every Version has its criticism. It is our duty to ferret them out and through our God-given cognition to research and discern the interpretation.
I'm glad for you that your friend turned you on to the KJV. I have a copy myself I often reference. With me, it's only the starting point though and I won't rely on it solely. Good tidings in your research.
To not know history and not "care" is to be easily misled through 'Pharmakeia'.
History is a reliance on man being truthful. The Bible is a reliance on God being truthful. In fact, when I see people that lean on the sexual mores of some king in their choice of Bible, it throws red flags up. I seek truth in the Holy Spirit, man can say what ever they want, it gets a fraction of the consideration given to God.
Here is how; compare key verses in the KJV against either the nasb, niv or esv. Focus only on those concerning the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Or the Trinity. See which ones affirm and which ones deny.
The Authorized Version is not disqualified because of the fact King James was a sodomite. It really should not bear his name though. It's a complete misnomer to call the 'Authorized Version', the King James Bible because King James never accepted it. Because this well known fact seems to upset you, it doesn't mean the preponderance of evidence that "Queen" James was a sodomite is whisked away. The homosexuality of King James is well known and taught in theological academics. Again in theological study, it is well documented the 'Authorized Version' was never accepted by King James himself, but it was only called 'authorized' because it was authorized to be printed. Hence, the more truthful name should be 'Authorized Version'.
There are none. But I like the King James with a few different types of concordance. Strongs, Youngs, a Greek over English help see where words were added by the English translators and whether the translation voids the meaning.
I also recommend a class if you can find one in your area called Walking in God's Power...
The original manuscripts of the Bible are called the Syrian texts. Because they all came from this region. If you know your Bible and the book of Acts, then you would know that is where the church was located when it was first called Christian.
The Diatessaron (Syriac: ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ, romanized: Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê; c. 160–175 AD) is the most prominent early gospel harmony, and was created by Tatian, an Assyrian early Christian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death. However, and in contradistinction to most later gospel harmonists, Tatian appears not to have been motivated by any aspiration to validate the four separate canonical gospel accounts; or to demonstrate that, as they stood, they could each be shown as being without inconsistency or error.
Although widely used by early Syriac Christians, the original text has not survived, but was reconstructed in 1881 by Theodor Zahn from translations and commentaries.[2]
My guess is that the originals are buried within the vatican. Maybe burnt to a crisp by now. They most certainly will not share them, this I know. Not good for bizness.
THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF DUMBFUCK. Get your head out of your ass.
There is no Syrian Bible from the 1st-2nd century that we have available. Quit making shit up to support your theories and provide some actual proof and sources.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came out of Alexandria, Egypt.
Egypt was full of woke Gnostic scholars who edited the original manuscripts like they did the works of Homer, and made many changes, something the book of Revelation commands us not to do.
The reason those documents are the "oldest" is because nobody read them.
The early Church fathers such as Tertullian and Iraneus quoted the Bible in their writings. Those quotes verify the Byzantine type text as authentic.
Edit - u/CoolaAsACucumber can only downvote because he will lose any real debate.
If you don't have a Bible from the 1st-2nd Century AD you cannot compare the differences/similarities of it to one that is made now. Unless early Church fathers quoted the full Biblical text, you cannot know if there were any changes that were in texts that weren't quoted. This is logic that a 5 year old can understand.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came out of Alexandria, Egypt.
There is no proof of that, just suggestions because of its similarity to Papyrus 75.
I can compare the Old Testament texts with the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and I have.
I've also found quotes from early Church fathers and compared them as well.
If I discover missing verses such as Acts 8:37 quoted by the early Church fathers, I conclude the modern Bibles are forgeries. The fact Vaticanus wasn't copied multiple times until it wore out and was lost to history only provides further confirmation.
If you can't understand why the age of a text has nothing to do with its authenticity, I'm not sure you'll ever understand why the authenticity is better determined by the number of copies in existence that agree with each other in the case of physical manuscripts, especially when believers consider the texts in question to be the Word of God.
Zenodotus was the father of the Alexandrine grammarians, and they continued in his traditions for centuries. As you can see, the Alexandrian scholars were known for literary criticism, which included altering lines.
Although he has been reproached with arbitrariness and insufficient knowledge of Greek, his recension undoubtedly laid a sound foundation for future criticism. Having collated the different manuscripts in the library, he expunged or obelized doubtful verses, transposed or altered lines, and introduced new readings. It is probable that he was responsible for the division of the Homeric poems into twenty-four books each, and possibly was the author of the calculation of the days of the Iliad in the Tabula Iliaca.
You didn't answer my other point and now you're trying to roll around it.
You said:
Egypt was full of woke Gnostic scholars who edited the original manuscripts like they did the works of Homer, and made many changes, something the book of Revelation commands us not to do.
Then you gave me the book Against Heresies as a reference.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
So I'm to believe that any bible from that time period (and supposedly made in Egypt) is heretical except your source says the Churches planted in Egypt and many other places around the world all hand down the same knowledge and teach the same faith.
If you can't understand why the age of a text has nothing to do with its authenticity, I'm not sure you'll ever understand why the authenticity is better determined by the number of copies in existence that agree with each other in the case of physical manuscripts, especially when believers consider the text to be the Word of God.
This is just like the bullshit we have with Covid. Just because groupthink tells me this is the Bible most people read, it doesn't mean this was the original words or the words intended. Going back to the earliest Bibles found can give a clearer picture of the Bible as it was originally written. More time passed from the original Bible gives more room for corruption and changes in the wording. If a Pope decrees everyone read the corrupted version, the less corrupted version becomes less used and forgotten.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
Can you read Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic?
ESV is what I would consider the most correct modern translation. (I say most correct because there are concepts not having direct translations).
The reason why is multiple ministers in my denomination have read the original texts in the native language and concurred that this is the best modern translation. Former to the ESV, most would recommend NIV because it's phrase for phrase instead of word for word.
From what I understand, the Geneva and ESV Bible are very similar, ones was written over 500 years ago, so you may not intuitively understand everything there. The ESV was written in 2001, so much more understandable (consider those who worked on it ranged in ages 40+, so the language will be more directed at ~1970's with more modern touches, because old people aren't always up to date on new language adjustments.
That being said, slang has no place in the Bible, whether past present or future.
Considering I believe that the second word in the bible "In THE beginning" is an incorrect translation - using an indefinite article "THE" instead of the original which was the Hebrew definite article "A" or "Any", you can only imagine how much more I believe has been mistranslated, some unintentionally, some intentionally.
I couldn't read scripture again until I found out for myself that the word "eternal" is mistranslated - quite deliberately - throughout all English versions of the bible. The original Greek word was "aEONious", which should quite obviously be translated to "EON" as that is the precise translation of the word - meaning "a long and indefinite period of time".
But I understand that my opinion is not a popular one...
Suffice it to say, if you can't read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, an accurate translation is not a possibility in the English language...
No serious believer uses the esv. Just do an honest study on what they've changed from the KJV and try justifying it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=GNV
I use the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) because it predates KJV, which was likely tampered with by Francis Bacon.
The 1599 Geneva version is what the Pilgrims would have had in the Americas. The footnotes on the Biblegateway site add a very anti-tyrant slant to just about everything as well, which is good for patriotic references.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206%3A4&version=GNV
4 There were [a]giants in the earth in those days: yea, and after that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they had borne them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of [b]renown.
Footnotes
a. Genesis 6:4 Or, tyrants.
b. Genesis 6:4 Which usurped authority over others, and did degenerate from that simplicity, wherein their fathers lived.
I use the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) because it predates KJV, which was likely tampered with by Francis Bacon.
Sauce?
Click Francis Bacon.
Read the whole thing.
Why don't you just give me the link so I can go see which catholic wrote this?
I did...
I did give you the link...
looks around
What?
Click "Francis Bacon"
Do it.
I've not held anything back.
The article is unattributed. But if you go to the main site you find this
The contents of the New Testament were formalized by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE, and finally canonized in 382 CE
Which is a lie. And shows an agenda.
Do what?!
You've lost me.
Here's the link, again...
Francis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis BaconFrancis Bacon
I found article, I found the article, I found the article. No author was brave enough to put his name on it. I went to their main site to see who they were and they were liars
The Oldest Known Bible in Existence (Dated 300-325 AD) (Written in Greek)
Codex Vaticanus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
https://www.primidi.com/codex_vaticanus/in_the_vatican_library/editions_of_text_of_the_codex
Gee one person has "feelings" that the text isn't right (like an illiterate liberal). Give me more evidence than hearsay that the text was fabricated or corrupted.
If it was "fabricated" in 300 AD I'm calling bullshit. If there is evidence it was fabricated or corrupted at another point in time (which is easily testable and verifiable through multiple scientific methods) then I'll believe it.
Also, who is Burgon? What kind of person was he? Was he playing a politicians game? His full name isn't in this source and apparently when I search there are a lot of Burgons. Why should I care what Burgon thinks? Burgon might just be full of shit.
Proverbs 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Then please explain and show some good sources.
Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
Compare the Bible verses he quotes with the KJV and the modern Bible of your choice.
Make up your own mind.
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
No shit. You're telling me the King James Bible which was translated from an earlier bible and written for an English audience is going to give me different verses?
You didn't link to a Bible verse Irenaeus quoted. Why not?
Plenty of them in Chapter 3-
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm
So what was Polycarp quoting from in 127 AD?
A scripture that has been lost to history and likely gone forever. I don't see a source of him quoting from a Bible and could just as well be quoting from memory and teaching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
Here's one example
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html
He had something that was written, and he was referencing it as he wrote
That's exactly what I wrote above... 😒 There is no bible scripture from that time period that has survived to this day as far as we know.
Edit: Okay I digress, he was likely quoting from a scripture in his letter but a Bible from that time period hasn't been discovered and perserved to this day.
Edit: Okay I digress, he was likely quoting from a scripture in his letter but a Bible from that time period hasn't been discovered and perserved to this day
They were never lost. They were carried from church to church and copied. There's over 50,000 copies of them, and they all were faithfully reproduced, almost zero errors
How can you know that if there's not an original from that time period? You can't.
The hearts of men contain evil and imperfections and you can't convince me or many people that every person who copied that Bible through the centuries didn't make slight changes here nor there for political purposes or just due to a mistranslation game of Telephone.
You have to have a Bible made from that time period of 1st-2nd century AD to back up this claim and there isn't one that we know of. God gave you a brain and logic, use it.
The Dead Sea scrolls are in fragments. Those fragments verify the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Koine Greek New Testaments used by the translators of the Geneva Bible, King James, and Young's Literal Translations.
My God is more powerful than your god is. You just told me this. My God, the One True, Holy and Righteous Creator of all things in the Heaven and the Earth, has enough POWER to give us His Word of salvation. He came as a man and SPOKE these same Words to us and you think He is a weakling, at the mercy of man?
You are right that man is evil. God gave us brains and discernment, yes. The information about the Bible and it's origins is so much more effed up then our election fraud, it is biblical. People have fashioned stories on how the Bible isn't real, those who've done there research know this is false. You think political things are the only things censored on the left's internet? The Bible has been preserved since the writings of Moses. They were kept on all sorts of written different methods, depending on the age in which they were written. What is true, and not necessarily thought about as often as it should be, is that Christianity (and Judaism pre-Christ) has been on the hairy edge of being wisped out.
If there was no God and no Jesus, there would be no need for the religion. People have attacked it so much throughout human history that it should have been destroyed.
The devil picked up on this trick, look at 1. Jews and 2. Muslims. Before Jesus, there were not groups of people worshiping the same god going in and out of near extinction. Now, we have 2 major groups, Jews, seen by the world as the sufferers, and if you attack Jews, you get attacked yourself, because they are viewed as "remnant people." Then you have Muslims, if you attack them, the world seems to attack you instead. There are a few exception to this, but in the majority.
Attacking Christians, who by in large, ought to have the most tolerant of all religious views, does not make any logical sense. A Christian's view is believe in Jesus as your Savior or you face eternal wrath, but there's no physical harm (while on earth that was "threatened") whereas the muslims say convert or die and Jews say, we will kill for the promised land.
This is what sets the Christian religion apart. Now if the God who is able to keep a religion like this alive, how is he not able to keep His written Word available, more importantly, if you are a Christian yourself, how could you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, but not believe he could / would have a written word to his people after he left. The Bible self proclaims, if what it says isn't true, then you are a fool to even believe any of what it says.
Final point: Cherry picking from the Bible, PET PEEVE of mine. Context, context, context. I know a lot of people (who claim Christianity) who've attacked by opinions on the Bible using 1 isolated verse with no relation (contextually) to the topic. [Example: "Minister" friend of mine says Jesus did not condemn the women whoring around with many men, therefore, LGBTQAIIP+ agenda should be embraced, Jesus never accepted her sins, he died to pay for them, but she ought to live a life of gratitude and live in accordance of God's word / law
In what language? Never trust a translation.
(source: am translator)
I wanted to find certain parts of the original bible text (as in the original language it was written in) because I heard about certain parts of the bible being mistranslated and the original meaning being distorted as a result, and I wanted to verify this myself.
Excellent reason to look into it!
If that's your motivation, I'd also suggest learning about the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, where some powerful men got together to unify Christian doctrine. Meaning they were appointed to decide which parts of the then-current diversity of Christian peoples' beliefs were to be retained and which were suddenly judged to not be Christian anymore.
As you might be able to tell, I don't trust those guys mucking around in it, at what to us is the dawn of the Church. Everything cascaded from there
There is no "original text" anymore. All of the versions have been translated from the "Great uncial codices" and or the "Textus Receptus". Hopefully thats what youre looking for.
Not all versions came from the Textus Receptus. Most of the modern versions, like the ESV, NIV & NASB, came from the Alexandrian texts.
Interesting fact; Erasmus, who translated the Syrian texts into the Textus Receptus, was a catholic when he started the work and was converted to a Protestant by the time he finished.
Great uncial codices = Alexandrian texts
The oldest Bible (OT) in existence is the Septuagint (285 BC). All original Bibles (OT+NT) are copies of earlier versions. The earliest manuscripts is your earliest source to which the Bible is based on. These include the Uncials, papyrii, Syraic, etc. All Protestant bibles are based on the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Talmudic scribes that recreated a written 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other sources. The written Hebrew of the Israelites is lost in antiquity and the reason why the Greek Septuagint was written. If you are looking for an 'original bible', it doesn't really exist. If you are looking for early bibles translated to English, the process of translation is affected by many things, but most importantly by the theological and political bias of the translator. All of the English translations have a few problems in common. First, none of them are based upon an accurate source text. Also, most were made before the time of modern textual discovery and contain hundreds of interpolations and textual inaccuracies. All except Brenton's and Thomson's translations of the Septuagint are based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Latin Vulgate. Secondly, all the translations are the result of theological bias on the part of the translators. They incorporate theological euphemisms and archaic language that do not represent the true meaning of the original languages.
Early Protestant bibles: -- Wyche's Bible. First version was 1384 AD. Translated from the Latin Vulgate.Second version was completed by John Purvey in 1397.
-- Coverdale's Bible. First complete printed edition of the English Bible, published in 1535. However, like its predecessors, the manuscripts from which it was based were far from the original. In fact, it was a translation of the Luther Bible and was based on the Pharasaic written Masoretic Text.
-- Matthew's Bible. This translation was made in 1537 by John Rogers, an assistant of Tyndale under the alias of Thomas Matthew. It was based entirely on the work of Tyndale and Coverdale and printed under the King's License, as the third edition of Coverdale's Bible had been.
-- Taverner's Bible. This was an unimportant revision of the Matthew's Bible appearing in 1539. the work of Richard Taverner.
-- The Great Bible. This appeared in 1539 and underwent seven versions. It was made mandatory that all parish churches own a copy.It was essentially a revision of the Coverdale's bible based upon the Matthew's Bible and therefore, was still not based on the original manuscripts.
-- Cromwell's Bible. This was the name given to the 1539 edition of the Great bible as it was produced under the direction of Thomas Cromwell.
-- Cranmer's Bible. This was the name given to the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. It contained a prologue by Cranmer.
--Geneva Bible. This Bible was first published in 1560, the work of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson. It provided nothing new in terms of an accurate translation as it was based upon the Great Bible and Mathew's Bible. However, it was the first to be divided into verses following the model of Robert Stephen's Greek-Latin Testament of 1537. It was also known as Breeches Bible, Goose Bible, and Place-Maker's Bible, because of mistakes in various editions. It became popular because of the notes published with it.
-- The Bishop's Bible. This Bible, which appeared in 1568, was merely a revision of the Great Bible made in order to combat the popularity of the Geneva Bible.
-- The Douai Bible. Also known as the Rheims and Douai Version, this was a translation of the Vulgate made by English Roman Catholics. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1583 and the Old Testament in 1609 at Douai.
--King James Version or Authorized Version. First published 1611. This translation was the result of 47 men working at the appointment of King James I. King James. By the constraints issued for the construction of the Bible, it was based largely on the Bishop's Bible, although Tyndale's Matthew's Coverdale's and the Geneva Bible were consulted. Since the Talmudic Masoretic Hebrew was used as the authority of the Old Testament (and not the Latin as before) many of the Old Testament translators, who made up the bulk of the team, were trained in Talmudic Jewish synagogues in preparation for the work, At the time of the translations, of the few manuscripts available to them, none were older than 1000 AD (with the exception of the very corrupt Besae uncial). In many parts, no Greek manuscripts were available for the New Testament, such as in Revelations, where the Latin was translated back from the Greek and then into English. This was not the first bible to be authorized by the throne of England, and it was never even accepted by homosexual King James himself, but only called authorized because it was authorized to be printed.
These are the earliest English versions of bibles. The Revered Version, as it was named, appeared in 1881 for the NT and 185 for the OT. It was a revision of the Authorized Version (King Jame's). The rest of the bibles are 20th Century versions.
I have an Anointed Standard Version New Testament that is an excellent Bible. It is no longer in publication and on Amazon is going for about a $1000 these days.
I wish yo well on your endeavor. Use Lexicons like Liddell-Scott, Thayer's or even Strong's for understanding the Geek meaning. Be wary of the Hebrew because it is a recreated written language of 1000 AD. The ancient written Hebrew was lost in history about a thousand years before. In 285 BC, 72 scribes translated the dying written Hebrew language in Alexandria, Egypt into Koine Greek because they knew the language would soon be lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
I did not know about this, this is interesting. Regardless it doesn't include the New Testament since it is before Christ.
It's an important part of the Bible. This is why I also provided information on on early English translations. I also have a pre-1964 Jerusalem Bible that provides good insight to reading. The best thing anyone can do is use a lexicon to research the Greek. One must understand that it is the Greek that is oldest oldest and best source. The Neo-Hebrew that was invented in 900 AD is not the written ancient Hebrew of the Israelites. Even the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls) agree to the authenticity of the Septuagint and shows the errors of the Masoretic Text.
Thanks, I didn't know that! That is really cool! Here's some more info I found on the Septuagint page. It looks like there are some slight differences in the writing and there are 5 known ancient variants of Hebrew Bible texts. Overall though I did learn something and it is interesting there is an 8th century BC or earlier Hebrew Bible out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls
http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=356
Add Wycliffe and Tyndale (the most important ones) to the list above^^ and scratch all the nonsense about the King James homo bible and you're still wrong.
Start here -
http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0003_Antioch_and_Alexandria.html
Thanks I misspelled the Wycliffe Bible. The misspell was "Wyche's". And yes add the Tyndale Bible. That was chiefly a NT work, which was only part of the Bible he completed in 1525. Tyndale drew upon both the Greek and Latin, especially employing the work of the Textus Receptus. In 1534, a translation of the OT up to the end of the Chronicles was published, and the work was later incorporated into the Matthew's Bible.
History cannot be scratched as "nonsense". In "A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects" (I actually had to leave out a part of the title since long titles were really popular back then) a guy who calls himself Tom Tell-Troath gives one of many accounts about the King's predilection for handsome young men. Still, this doesn’t mean his relationships with his favorites weren't seen as strange from the man who came to be called Queen James.
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esmé to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.” —Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611
Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991) —Skip Church
King Jamesʼ favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham. —Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible
Jamesʼs sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.” —Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
“James, aged thirteen, was completely starstruck by these new arrivals. After being brought up by dour Presbyterians and a rough-hewn bunch of nobles, he suddenly appeared from the schoolroom to find a group of charming, well-traveled, well-educated and attractive men. He was fascinated by them, welcoming his release from the Reformist nobilityʼs stranglehold. The attraction of these personable and worldly courtiers was a breath of fresh air, and they quickly played on his sensibilities. These new ‘favorites’ were the key to free him from the shackles of the Kirk and his schoolroom. Within a month of Esméʼs arrival, James had agreed to leave Stirling and to take his place at Holyrood, where Esmé reorganized the Court and his household on the French model.
There was more to Jamesʼs relationship with these favorites than kicking against his religious upbringing. Their charisma provided a sensual stimulus for him that he was not to enjoy with his interfering and insensitive wife, Anne of Denmark, when they married in 1589. They provided the glamour that he lacked, and there can be little doubt that his homosexuality stemmed from his early attraction to the androgynous Esmé. Well experienced in Court circles in France, Esmé took advantage of the sexual overtures of this vulnerable adolescent, twenty-four years his junior. James would openly clasp him in his arms to kiss him, shocking the Reformist clergy, who saw that Esmé ‘went about to draw the King to carnal lust’, while James showered him with offices and presents. By March 1580, the English ambassador, Bowes, was telling Elizabeth that Esmé was ‘called to be one of the secret counsel, and carryeth the sway in court’. By September ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’.
—Esmé Stuart, 1st Duke Of Lennox
This is a partial run down of evidence of how well it was known.
Moses sinned in anger against God, are we to call into question the Mosaic Law because of it?
Paul killed Christians before he was converted, can we trust his words?
I have no idea if KJ was fag or not and I don't really even care. The Word of God is something that you can verify yourself, as I have. I carried the NIV for 30 years as a lost methodist. When my friend turned me on to the KJV, I was no longer lost. This is something you should know without doubt and it won't be found reading the lies of men.
King James being a sodomist has nothing to do with Moses. The Creator views each individual by their heart and intentions. What is required for forgiving of any sin? It requires complete repentance.
To not know history and not "care" is to be easily misled through 'Pharmakeia'. Blindness saves no one. Aloofness to evil is its acceptance. The irony of King James never accepting the Authorized Version tells us perhaps King James was not repentant. It is only called 'authorized' because it was authorized to be printed. Nothing more. It doesn't mean its a bad version. Every Version has its criticism. It is our duty to ferret them out and through our God-given cognition to research and discern the interpretation.
I'm glad for you that your friend turned you on to the KJV. I have a copy myself I often reference. With me, it's only the starting point though and I won't rely on it solely. Good tidings in your research.
To not know history and not "care" is to be easily misled through 'Pharmakeia'.
History is a reliance on man being truthful. The Bible is a reliance on God being truthful. In fact, when I see people that lean on the sexual mores of some king in their choice of Bible, it throws red flags up. I seek truth in the Holy Spirit, man can say what ever they want, it gets a fraction of the consideration given to God.
Here is how; compare key verses in the KJV against either the nasb, niv or esv. Focus only on those concerning the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Or the Trinity. See which ones affirm and which ones deny.
For example
KJV Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
NIV Ephesians 3:9
and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God,
who created all things.
Which do you believe is True?
The Authorized Version is not disqualified because of the fact King James was a sodomite. It really should not bear his name though. It's a complete misnomer to call the 'Authorized Version', the King James Bible because King James never accepted it. Because this well known fact seems to upset you, it doesn't mean the preponderance of evidence that "Queen" James was a sodomite is whisked away. The homosexuality of King James is well known and taught in theological academics. Again in theological study, it is well documented the 'Authorized Version' was never accepted by King James himself, but it was only called 'authorized' because it was authorized to be printed. Hence, the more truthful name should be 'Authorized Version'.
There are none. But I like the King James with a few different types of concordance. Strongs, Youngs, a Greek over English help see where words were added by the English translators and whether the translation voids the meaning.
I also recommend a class if you can find one in your area called Walking in God's Power...
The original manuscripts of the Bible are called the Syrian texts. Because they all came from this region. If you know your Bible and the book of Acts, then you would know that is where the church was located when it was first called Christian.
These may have been the earliest written versions of the Bible but they haven't survived :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron
My guess is that the originals are buried within the vatican. Maybe burnt to a crisp by now. They most certainly will not share them, this I know. Not good for bizness.
THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF DUMBFUCK. Get your head out of your ass.
There is no Syrian Bible from the 1st-2nd century that we have available. Quit making shit up to support your theories and provide some actual proof and sources.
Byzantine type text came from Asia Minor.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came out of Alexandria, Egypt.
Egypt was full of woke Gnostic scholars who edited the original manuscripts like they did the works of Homer, and made many changes, something the book of Revelation commands us not to do.
The reason those documents are the "oldest" is because nobody read them.
The early Church fathers such as Tertullian and Iraneus quoted the Bible in their writings. Those quotes verify the Byzantine type text as authentic.
Edit - u/CoolaAsACucumber can only downvote because he will lose any real debate.
If you don't have a Bible from the 1st-2nd Century AD you cannot compare the differences/similarities of it to one that is made now. Unless early Church fathers quoted the full Biblical text, you cannot know if there were any changes that were in texts that weren't quoted. This is logic that a 5 year old can understand.
There is no proof of that, just suggestions because of its similarity to Papyrus 75.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#Text-type
Please explain, that makes no sense.
Also if you can please show any sources that Egyptians edited the texts of Homer, I'd be interested in that as well.
I can compare the Old Testament texts with the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and I have.
I've also found quotes from early Church fathers and compared them as well.
If I discover missing verses such as Acts 8:37 quoted by the early Church fathers, I conclude the modern Bibles are forgeries. The fact Vaticanus wasn't copied multiple times until it wore out and was lost to history only provides further confirmation.
If you can't understand why the age of a text has nothing to do with its authenticity, I'm not sure you'll ever understand why the authenticity is better determined by the number of copies in existence that agree with each other in the case of physical manuscripts, especially when believers consider the texts in question to be the Word of God.
Zenodotus was the father of the Alexandrine grammarians, and they continued in his traditions for centuries. As you can see, the Alexandrian scholars were known for literary criticism, which included altering lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodotus
You didn't answer my other point and now you're trying to roll around it.
You said:
Then you gave me the book Against Heresies as a reference.
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
So I'm to believe that any bible from that time period (and supposedly made in Egypt) is heretical except your source says the Churches planted in Egypt and many other places around the world all hand down the same knowledge and teach the same faith.
This is just like the bullshit we have with Covid. Just because groupthink tells me this is the Bible most people read, it doesn't mean this was the original words or the words intended. Going back to the earliest Bibles found can give a clearer picture of the Bible as it was originally written. More time passed from the original Bible gives more room for corruption and changes in the wording. If a Pope decrees everyone read the corrupted version, the less corrupted version becomes less used and forgotten.
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
The Bible? Not sure on what your referring to.
thenks for the replies kek