I thought it would be nice for us to review this documentary; to learn and discuss it's history. This comes from a more historical/scholarly perspective.
Reposting here again as I posted this as a top-level post in the previous thread but it seems to be shadow banned. Is that a thing on .win sites?
Chris Pinto from Adullam Films has done a brilliant 3 part (so far) documentary where he gives compelling evidence to show that after the KJV was published, the Vatican launched the counter-reformation and using the Jesuits, forged the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as a way to undermine the authority of the bible, since the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the two former manuscripts are claimed to be older and therefore more authoritive, and the motto from the reformation was "Sola Scriptura", undermining the authority of the Pope.
Chris Pinto has allowed the above videos to stay up on youtube but original DVDs can be purchased from his web site at Adullam films if you want to support him. I am not affiliated with his site but I just think that these documentaries are groundbreaking and awesome.
Would a BBC documentary be the authoritative source for how the translation was done? I would think they would omit the important bits, like how they censored the real stuff, and provide som cover story.
Feel free to dig up a version that suits your needs and discuss it further. This post does not claim this video to be a definitive source, but a source that you can watch, learn, and discuss any differences you might find here.
Also be sure to bookmark the Bible Hub site. https://biblehub.com/
They also have an app. Every Bible tool, including the original Greek and Hebrew, Strong’s, Dictionaries, maps, commentaries, etc. This is a library that used to only be available to very few, yet we have it all at our fingertips.
Yes biblehub is a pretty handy source. However, be wary of the Hebrew because it is a recreated written language of 1000 AD. It is not from the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew); the ancient written Hebrew that was lost in history about a thousand years before. By the 3rd Century BC, Paleo-Hebrew was dying out. There was great trepidation among Israelite priests and scholars that the paleo-Hebrew written language would soon be lost in antiquity. In 285 BC, 72 scribes translated the written Hebrew language of the Old Testament in Alexandria, Egypt into Koine Greek because they knew the writings would soon be indecipherable and lost. If the written language of the Bible hadn't been translated into the Koine Greek in 285 BC in Alexandria, to which 72 scribes were gathered, much of it would have perished altogether.
The results of their work became known as the Greek Septuagint and is the basis of all Old Testament versions today. The oldest Bible (OT) in existence is the Septuagint (285 BC). All original Bibles (OT+NT) are copies of earlier versions. The earliest versions are written in Koine Greek. These include the Uncials, papyrii, Syraic, etc. Greek was the international language spoken throughout the Levant, Egypt, and Turkey and served as the best means of preserving the Bible (OT).
So, what about the Hebrew today?
The written Hebrew today is a poorly reconstructed language referred to as 'Neo-Hebrew'. The Masoretes were Talmudic scribes that recreated a written form of 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other sources in 1000 AD. It is not the same written language of the ancient Israelites. The written Hebrew of the Israelites is lost in antiquity and the reason why the Greek Septuagint was written.
I just find it fascinating that Hebrew as we know it is only 1k years old (at most) and we're just guessing about so called ancient hebrew.
Fomenko contends that history is very wrong, that we only actually have 1000 years of recorded history and everything beyond that are repeated echos of more recent events. Yes, even Egypt and every story in the Bible is very recent. He presents spectacular evidence to make the case that Jesus was actually from the year 1185ad.
Of course, AD by our current flawed measurement.
At first it sounds lunatic. And I wish I didn't take him seriously, but then he parades thousands of pages of pretty firm and convincing evidence at you.
He doesn't get kooky. No mud floods or aliens. Very scholarly.
I'd be happy to tell you more. Anything you read about him that pretends to debunk him doesn't even delve below the surface and gets everything wrong. I'd kill for a proper debunking, because I honestly want him to be wrong.
I used to love the KJV until I found out how many translation errors it has (changing "thou shalt not murder" to "thou shalt not kill") comes to mind. There's also the political agenda behind the translation, King James basically created his Bible to get rid of the Geneva Bible which he felt undermined his political authority.
One thing I've learned is that many translations (especially ones in those days) were political.
I don't think anyone is going to get what they want unless they read Koine Greek, and even then people would still fight about different perspectives just as they did back then.
The best English translation is the Recovery Version Study Bible (not related to 12 step program) put out by Living Stream Publishers. I do word studies and I haven't yet found a mistake. Even the prepositions are right on. It doesn't confuse "in" (en) and "into" (eis). No politics involved in its production.
You can get a free New Testament (below), if you want to check it out. I bought the version with both Old and New Testaments. It is excellent. It is in modern English. Here's an example of what I mentioned about the prepositions. John 3:16 reads in KJV, "...that whosoever believeth IN Him...." The Greek word that they translate as "in" is "eis," which means movement into some place. In should read, "whosoever believeth into Him..."It may seem awkward, so the KJV translators changed it because it didn't make sense to them. However, the Apostle Paul speaks of being "in" Christ.. The word for "in" in Greek is "en." 2 Cor. 5:17, "if anyone is in (en) Christ..." How do you get in Christ. You believe into Him, and then you are in Him. Noah got into the ark by walking into it, we get into Christ by believing into Him. To change the preposition, you miss the whole significance of that.
Free NT: https://biblesforamerica.org/free-bible/
Both editions you mention are superior to all other English translations due to being the earliest. And KGV and Geneva are 90% the same word-for-word.
But the problem is translation itself, and also the slippery, shifting meaning of words over great periods of time. A quick review of many words in Strong's Concordonce reveals there can literally be DOZENS of definitions for a single word at times. This fact alone allows for infinite interpretations on the spectrum of today's "literal by today's mainstream definition" supporters to "allegorical. mystical and mysterious" by those who recognize the deeper layers embedded in scripture.
I find the second word of the bible in ALL English translations to be plainly inaccurate -> "in THE beginning". The use of a "definite article" (the) is grammatically incorrect in relation to the Hebrew word used, which is an "indefinite article" and would thusly be correctly translated in English to either: "In A beginning" or "In ANY beginning".
Even such a tiny little change from a single definite to indefinite article RADICALLY changes how one perceives and relates to the scripture itself, begging the question; "Was there this one and only "beginning", or are there an infinite and eternal number of "beginnings"?
Also, the Greek word "aEONious" being translated hundreds of times to "Eternal" when the correct word "EON" is right there and plainly obvious in the Greek word itself. The choice to make this change implies undeniable deceptive intent and a willful desire to defraud. There is no other possible explanation.
Nonetheless, I still enjoy much of the power and beauty of scripture. I feel blessed that I have learned to see through many of the deceptions due to the hand of man, which are inevitable and unavoidable.
New International Version
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
English Standard Version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
NASB 1995
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
King James BibleAnd without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
God manifested in the flesh versus "he." Do you deny the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ?
1 John 5:7
New International Version
For there are three that testify:
English Standard Version
For there are three that testify:
NASB 1995
For there are three that testify:
King James BibleFor there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I speak 4 languages and there is NEVER a perfect translation because each language is set in its historical and cultural context. And even then, take Spanish...Dominican vs Columbian vs Spaniard vs Argentinian...very similar but very different. Bicho is insect in Spain, but penis in Puerto Rico.
Sky in Spanish is Cielo which is heaven, there are so many subtleties in language, and even 2 people speaking the same language will have different background knowledge and connotations to words.
You can't express the truth of totality in words which by nature are limited in scope.
However, there are perfect originals to base a translation off of.
In the case of the Bible, we have 2 choices.
We either have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, which was codified long before the Khazarians converted to Judaism, and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek NT, which is what the Geneva Bible, King James Version, and Young's Literal Translation are based upon,
OR,
we have the translations based on Alexandrian Greek manuscripts such as the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
I'm not King James Only, but I am Textus Receptus only.
The God that I worship is more powerful than the God that you worship. My God is able to give us his Word, infallible and without error, so that we may do it.
Where are you seeing anger? Those were honest questions.
As far as the Greek goes, I know what this system of yours is all about. satan set it up, he created 30 perverted versions of the Bible, none of them agree with each other so we have to consult another final authority instead of the Words of God Himself. Keep in mind, God gave us His Word in 1611 and all satan can do is imitate it. Just like everything else satan does. You are studying imitations because you have no faith.
--King James Version or Authorized Version was first published 1611. This translation was the result of 47 men working at the appointment of King James I.
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 King James himself, but only called authorized because it was authorized to be printed.
Although different languages and translations may subtly alter what some Bible passages say/mean, it is the totality of Holy Scripture that matters, and can be summed up as follows:
God made the universe, Earth, man, and all living things
Man rebelled against God and sin entered the world
Man became so sinful that God destroyed all but a handful of humans who went on to re-populate the Earth
God created Jews as a special set of humans, with specific laws to follow
Jews could not achieve "righteousness" through those laws and a savior, Jesus, God in human form, was born into the world
Jesus taught his disciples, lessons now for us all, that love is the ultimate commandment
Jews rejected Jesus, but Jesus died so that ALL humans could be made righteous through FAITH in His sacrifice and payment for their sins
Jesus' disciples, including Paul, the former Jewish persecutor of Christians, further expanded on Jesus' teaching and provided additional instructions for how Christians should live.
All humans, Jew and Gentile, have the ability to decide whether to accept the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus
Its an 11 years old documentary. Pre-WW3. It has SOME credibility.
I dont trust it for modern news, but this documentary provides some balanced insight on the making of the KJV.
I'm sure you cant fit the entire story of the KJV in an hour. Therefore this is a discussion to discuss the documentary, since American GAW had a lively discussion about KJV today.
That said, James I of England was Elizabeth's I's heir. She had his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded. Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father, broke from the Church to marry Anne Boleyn BUT he never broke completely. In fact, Henry still thought of himself as a Catholic even though he was head of The Church of England. He persecuted people of "the new faith" - of course, he had people of all faiths killed. He was a monster. On Henry's death bed, he had a priest hear his confession. Before his death, he was considering arresting Catherine, his last wife because she was a Protestant.
Elizabeth, after her father's death, went to live with his last wife, Catherine Parr. She influenced Elizabeth who was head of the church when she became queen. James was raised by members of the Scottish court who were almost fanatical Calvinists. He had the KJV translated to fit The Church of England's theology. It's why a lot of the book doesn't jive with some of what had come before in the Bible.
I was a History major in college with a specialization in Renaissance and Reformation. There's tons more but this is the jist.
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order employed Guy Fawkes to blow up King James and the entire English parliament as part of the Counter Reformation and to prevent this Bible from being published and released to the public.
This is the famous failed Gunpowder Plot which led to Guy Fawkes Day becoming a national holiday in England, where they burned effigies of the Pope for many years.
King James employed the absolute best scholars available to translate the Bible into English and spared no expense.
Not saying James did not use leading scholars. Was posting why some parts of KJV doesn't mesh with what had been written previously.
I'm aware of Guy Fawkes. Catholics were persecuted by a corrupt gov't. with a 2 tiered justice system and tried to take action. Hmmm, almost seems relevant today.
Chris Pinto from Adullam Films has done a brilliant 3 part (so far) documentary where he gives compelling evidence to show that after the KJV was published, the Vatican launched the counter-reformation and using the Jesuits, forged the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as a way to undermine the authority of the bible, since the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the two former manuscripts are claimed to be older and therefore more authoritive, and the motto from the reformation was "Sola Scriptura", undermining the authority of the Pope.
Chris Pinto has allowed the above videos to stay up on youtube for free but original DVDs can be purchased from his web site at Adullam films if you want to support him. I am not affiliated with his site but I just think that these documentaries are groundbreaking and awesome.
When I was younger and had more concentration I would read all the versions and look for the differences. Used a concordance. These days online is easier. The kjv will have its bonuses for interpretation and help with Spiritual critical thinking. In my opinion.
You can't express anything except in words. Since we don't know what "totality" is, except as a vague concept, we can't express it at all. Don't fault language for being finite in capability. It's either language or being mute and deaf.
Music and art can inspire feelings, but feelings are not an expression in the sense of intellectual communication. There are words that can move you in ways that graphic or musical art cannot (such as the Bible). The Bible is a message in language, because it is an expression of conceptual information. Everything is limited, so to say that language is limited is only a truism and a refutation of nothing. If there were no language, there would be no Bible, and thus no Word of God. However limited the language may be, the Word of God transcends the limitations.
Who selected what books are included in the Bible? Were the Gospels not written by the disciples in the name? The Gospel is witness accounts of parts of the life of Jesus as proofs, not, per se, the infallible ultimate word of God, though he is quoted frequently and his word is preserved in the context of which it was spoken.
Mauro biglino official channel youtube English subtitles. He was the interlinear translator for the Vatican publishers until he uncovered too much and they couldn't print his findings.
Mauro is an Italian..a Catholic..was...and an expert in old hebrew Greek Latin and other languages. He says the Vatican is aware that the elohim..not God or gods but aliens invaded this planet 6000 years ago. Yahweh was the governor only of tribe of Jacob and gave out 613 commandments..some about the wine he liked..his wife asherah maybe drank some of the six litres per day.
If it's a BBC documentary then they have an agenda and you know they are in any case just the propaganda arm of the government...they should all be jailed for their part in the hysteria and deaths when it was known a virus..soapy substance produced by the cells can't even exist outside the body let alone infect anyone.to say the Nuremberg codes were all broken is a fact. They class the 24/7 hysteria and fear as torture which it certainly was.
I bet they never told anyone that the printers are now churning out bibles for the public kJV Jerusalem Bible and about ten others showing elohim as singular when it is plural. The elohim who invaded were 240 ..some say more strong. They are called in all the bibles kings judges malachim lord arch angels god etc when it all is just elohim and some are th job titles of the elohim
This is not an error..bibles for scholars show Elohim as plural so it's a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I bet kJV still talks of eternity when there was no such word in old hebrew...olam does not mean eternity ..just an indefinite period of time....
KJV Fun Facts
The word “Christ” appears in every New Testament Book except for “3 John”
“Christ” appears 555 times
“in Christ” appears 77 times
“church” appears 77 times (not counting the 3 in the colophons)
“baptiz*” (words beginning with “baptiz”) appears 77 times
“spirit” (all lowercase) appears 333 times
“Son” (initial caps) appears 297 times (33 x 9)
“mystery” appears 22 times
Longest word: “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” in Isaiah 8:1
“Jesus Christ”appears 196 times(49x4=7x7x4)
“Son of man”appears 196 times(49x4=7x7x4)
“Word of God” appears 49 times (7 x 7)
“Most High” appears 49 times (7 x 7)
Daniel, the 27th book of the Old Testament is “sealed”. Revelation, the 27th book of the New Testament is “unsealed”.
Revelation 13:18 says “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Chapter 666 of the Bible is Ecclesiastes 7. And Ecclesiastes 7:27 says “Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:”
The KJV is the only English version that is completely pure. Anyone can debate it how they like, but the maths doesn’t lie.
If you believe there are errors in every Bible, then:
A. You don’t believe God purifies his words and preserves his Word for all generations.
Psalm 12:6-7 KJV [6] The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
B. You don’t believe it was God, not the will of men, who wrote that Bible.
2 Peter 1:21 KJV [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
C. You don’t believe God can direct steps, change hearts, and prevent men from not preserving his Word for every generation.
Romans 9:18-20 KJV [18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Proverbs 16:9 KJV [9] A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.
Exodus 7:3,13 KJV [3] And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. [13] And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.
When you question Gods ability to preserve his Word perfectly for every generation, over man’s ability to corrupt it, you lack faith in God’s Word that he can do just as he promised.
Matthew 19:26 KJV [26] But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
This is not to say anyone using a corrupt Bible is going to hell. This next scripture is telling you the foundation is Christ, faith that Christ can save. You will still be saved, even if you build upon it wrong doctrine, for no man knew all interpretation of the scriptures perfectly, but you will suffer loss in this world due to incorrect doctrine but still be saved because of your faith in Christ. Imagine the amount of Christians deceived by false doctrines today, but still have their faith in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 KJV [10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. [11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Gods Will, fate, these are things you may come to terms with in this life or not. I get synchronicity everyday, it took me a long time to realize how little we are in control of our lives, and how much God is in control.
Did you choose who you were born to, where you were born, and what purpose you were born for?
Does he not raise kings and nations, and destroy them?
Read about Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 and learn nothing was gotten by his own hand or will.
Did Trump choose his purpose or did God?
Dates and Stuff Donald Trump D.O.B: 14/06/1946 Donald Trump First Day of Presidency:21/01/2017 Day Israel became a Nation:14/05/1948 Donald Trump electors who voted for him:304 (with 2 defectors) Hillary Clinton electors who votes for her:227 (with 5 defectors)
Donald Trump Sevens
1.Donald Trump was born 700 days before Israel was a nation again
2.Which would mean when Israel was 77 days old, Trump would have been 777 days old.
3.Which would also mean Israel’s 70th Birthday will come 700 days after Trumps 70th Birthday.
4.Trump won by 304 electors, Hillary lost with 227 electors. 304 – 227 = 77
5.Also 3+0+4 = 7
6.Trump will be 70 Years, 7 Months, and 7 days old on his first day of presidency.
7.Trump will become president in the Hebrew Year of 5777 (which started on December 30th 2016).
Trump with all his genius did not control his date of birth, Israel’s rebirth, and when the presidential elections were going to be. But God aligned them up all perfectly.
Gods Will, fate, is still in effect today as it ever was.
If you don’t believe he can preserve his Word without error, then study and pray.
The devil can’t outsmart God, the deep state can’t, and definitely any man cannot.
So to think there is not a perfect Bible in existence today because evil men corrupted it by their own will, rather than believe in Gods promise and power that he can purify and preserve it for every generation, is a lack of understanding.
The only reason we are getting our world back at this time is because God put all the pieces into place as he always has. If God willed we should be destroyed, no one can stop it. He raises and destroy nations for his will.
Isaiah 14:27 KJV [27] For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it ? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
Stop listening to man, but listen to God, humble yourselves, study, and pray. God bless.
Romans 3:4 KJV [4] God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Job 15:15 KJV [15] Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )
The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )
The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.
The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.
There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.
The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.
The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.
Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.
Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.
Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.
A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.
None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.
There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.
These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.
What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.
The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.
Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?
Vatican and Sinai omit/change tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16. It is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh".
Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote:
“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.
Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.
Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.
The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.
For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Received Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.
Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.
This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:
Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
Who owns the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctrine is impossible in the Received Text. )
Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidence that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the received text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS!"
Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.
Thank you. :) I'm not especially insightful, I've just spent a lot of time trying to dig into this issue in the past. The information that I found made a noticeable difference in my and my family's life, and I believe the minority text has led to a lot of the problems of the modern western churches.
Agreed! This is really well presented and researched. You can tell that there is 20+ years of knowledge being dropped here. And everything easily verifiable. Loads of facts that really win the argument.
I would like to add that several of the newer versions have already been revised, for instance nasb 77 was followed by nasb 95. What did they change? The uproar was so great that had to revert back to KJV reading in about 33% of the verses.
Another point (a rousing success at the seminary withstanding lol) is that the KJV is preferred over all of the other versions COMBINED by 82% to 18%. Yes, people will reach for the KJV 82% more than they will for any other version.
I originally started getting into KJV because I noticed that the newer versions were always changing. I wanted a fixed, reasonable foundation that wasn't going to be changed out from under me. After 400 years, there is pretty good information about whatever weak points the KJV has, and I can adjust for that. With something produced last year, I have no idea how many mistakes are there, and how much time will go by before someone finds them.
Also, memorizing verses becomes an issue with modern bibles. If I would have memorized a bunch of NIV verses, should I then re-memorize them for ESV? What about in a couple of years when whatever new hot translation comes out? KJV isn't going anywhere. There's too much crusty, grumpy people like me who enjoy something in the style of Shakespeare.
Also, if I am quoting a verse or reading KJV out loud, I can adjust the words / grammar for my audience if it is needed.
Another fun freebie is that English made a distinction between 2nd person singular "you" vs 2nd person plural "you guys / y'all" in 1611. Back then, if the 2nd person pronoun starts with a "th", it is singular, like thee and thou. If it starts with a "y", like you, then it is 2nd person plural. This allows a grammatical distinction of the original Hebrew and Greek to be visible in English. This isn't possible in any modern version.
A fun example is Luke 22:31: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat"
In this verse, Satan is desired to sift 2nd person PLURAL "you guys / y'all" as wheat. Modern English readers probably interpret this verse as Satan just desiring to "sift" Peter as wheat.
Matthew 7:15-20, “you will recognize them by their fruits.” In reading some of these KJV threads, I think we should remember the Lord’s words that take precedence for assessing truth of a person over their preferred Bible translation.
I've read the Gnostic texts and they're so blatantly fake it's hilarious. In fact I just read the secret gospel of John today. And lo and behold it's bullshit.
"hey Jesus told this one person (changes depending on version) the REAL TRUTH and made them keep it a secret so they immediately wrote it down."
The Gnostics preached false teachings that contradicted real teachings of Christ and wrote them in a pseudoepigraphical way so they could trick people into joining their cult.
The Gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt also edited the Koine Greek scriptures and reproduced them in classical Greek. They produced the manuscripts the modern Bibles are based upon today.
I can't exactly source Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus, but those are the manuscripts in question.
They are indeed written in classical Greek, the university English of its time.
Meanwhile, the apostles spoke Koine Greek, or the language of the streets in the Roman Empire, as a second language. They were not classically educated.
The edits are self-evident when compared to the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and the Textus Receptus Greek NT and all involve removing the divinity of Christ.
Edit- Here's a source on Origen, one of the Alexandrian translators, from Encyclopaedia Britannica (vol 16) - 1768
From the article on Origen (page 901, which equates to page 1039 of 1157 on archive.org)
Outline of Origen’s View of the Universe and of Life
The system of Origen was formulated in opposition to the Greek philosophers on the one hand, and the Christian Gnostics on the others. But the science of faith, as expounded by him, bears unmistakably the stamp both of Neo-Platonism and of Gnosticism.
As a theologian, in fact, Origen is not merely an orthodox traditionalist and believing exegete, but a speculative philosopher of Neo-Platonic tendencies. He is, moreover, a judicious critic. The union of these four elements gives character to his theology, and in a certain degree to all subsequent theology. It is this combination which has determined the peculiar and varying relations in which theology and the faith of the church have stood to each other since the time of Origen. That relation depends on the predominance of one or other of the four factors embraced in his theology.
As an orthodox traditionalist Origen holds that Christianity is a practical and religious saving principle, that it has unfolded itself in an historical series of revealing facts, that'*the church has accurately embodied the substance of her faith in the regula fidei, and that simple faith is sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man.
As a philosophical idealist, however, he transmutes the whole contents of the faith of the church into ideas which bear the mark of Neo-Platonism, and were accordingly recognized by the later Neo-Platonists as Hellenic*. In Origen, however, the mystic and ecstatic element is held in abeyance. The ethico- religious ideal is the sorrowless condition, the state of superiority to all evils, the state of order and of rest. In this condition man enters into likeness to God and blessedness; and it is reached through contemplative isolation and self-knowledge, which is divine wisdom.
As a means to the realization of this ideal, Origen introduces the whole ethics of Stoicism. But the link that connects him with churchly realism, as well as with the Neo-Platonic mysticism, is the conviction that complete and certain knowledge rests wholly on divine revelation, i,e., on oracles. Consequently his theology is cosmological speculation and ethical reflection based on the sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures, however, are treated by Origen on the basis of a matured theory of inspiration in such a way that all their facts appear as the vehicles of ideas, and have their highest value only in this aspect.
That is to say, his gnosis neutralizes all that is empirical and historical, if not always as to its actuality, at least absolutely in respect of its value. The most convincing proof of this is that Origen (i) takes the idea of the immutability of God as the regulating idea of his system, and (2) deprives the historical “Word made flesh” of all significance for the true Gnostic. To him Christ appears simply as the Logos who is with the Father from eternity, and works from all eternity, to whom alone the Instructed Christian directs his thoughts, requiring nothing more than a perfect — i.e,, divine — teacher. In such propositions historical Christianity is stripped off as a mere husk. The objects of religious knowledge are beyond the plane of history, or rather belong to a supra-mundane history.
On this view contact with the faith of the church could only be maintained by distinguishing an exoteric and an esoteric form of Christianity. This distinction was already current in the catechetical school of Alexandria, but Origen gave it its boldest expression, and justified it on the ground of the incapacity of the Chris- tian masses to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, or unravel the difficulties of exegesis. On the other hand, in dealing with the problem of bringing his heterodox system into conformity with the regula fidei he evinced a high degree of technical skill. An external conformity was possible, inasmuch as speculation, proceeding from the higher to the lower, could keep by the stages of the regula fidei, which had been developed into a history of salvation. The system itself aims in principle at being thoroughly monistic; but, since matter, although created by God out of nothing, was regarded merely as the sphere in which souls are punished and purified, the system is pervaded by a strongly dualistic element. The immutability of God requires the eternity of the Logos and of the world. At this point Origen succeeded in avoiding the heretical Gnostic idea of God by assigning to the Godhead the attributes of goodness and righteousness.
The pre-existence of souls is another inference from the immutability of God, although Origen also deduced it from the nature of the soul, which as a spiritual potency must be eternal. From this follows the necessity for the created spirit, after apostasy, error and sin, to return always to its origin in God.
The actual sinfulness of all men Origen was able to explain by the theological hypothesis of pre-existence and the premundane fall of each individual soul. He holds that freedom is the inalienable prerogative of the finite spirit; and this is the second point that distinguishes his theology from the heretical Gnosticism.
The system unfolds itself like a drama, of which the successive stages are as follows : the transcendental fall, the creation of the material world, inaugurating the history of punishment and redemption, the clothing of fallen souls in flesh, the dominion of sin, evil and the demons on earth, the appearing of the Logos, His union with a pure human soul, His esoteric preaching of salvation, and His death in the flesh, then the imparting of the Spirit, and the ultimate restoration of all things.
The doctrine of the restoration appeared necessary because the spirit, in spite of its inherent freedom, cannot lose its true nature, and because the final purposes of God cannot be foiled. The end, however, is only relative, for spirits are continually falling, and God remains through eternity the creator of the world. Moreover the end is not conceived as a transfiguration of the world, but as a liberation of the spirit from its unnatural union with the sensual.
The old Christian eschatology is set aside; no one has dealt such deadly blows to Chiliasm and Christian apocalypticism as Origen. It need hardly be said that he spiritualized the church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. But, while in all these doctrines he appears in the character of a Platonic philosopher, traces of rational criticism are not wanting. Where his fundamental conception admits of it, he tries to solve historical problems by historical methods. Even in the christology, where he is treating of the historical Christ, he entertains critical considerations; hence it is not altogether without reason that in after times he was suspected of “Ebionitic” views of the Person of Christ.
Although the theology of Origen exerted a considerable influence as a whole in the two following centuries, it certainly lost nothing by the circumstance that several important propositions were capable of being tom from their original setting and placed in new connections. It is in fact one of the peculiarities of this theology, which professed to be at once churchly and philosophical, that most of its formulae could be interpreted and appreciated In Utramque Partem. By arbitrary divisions and rearrangements the doctrinal statements of this "science of faith” could be made to serve the most diverse dogmatic tendencies. This is seen especially in the doctrine of the Logos. On the basis of his idea of God Origen was obliged to insist in the strongest manner on the personality, the eternity (eternal generation) and the essential divinity of the Logos.
In later times both the orthodox and the Arians appealed to his teaching, both with a certain plausibility; but the inference of Arius, that an imparted divinity must be divinity in the second degree, Origen did not draw. With respect to other doctrines also, such as those of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Christ, etc., Origen prepared the way for the later dogmas. The technical terms round which such bitter controversies raged in the 4th and 5th centuries are often found in Origen lying peacefully side by side. But this is just where his epoch-making importance lies, that all the later parties in the church learned from him. And this is true not only of the dogmatic parties; solitary monks and ambitious priests, hard-headed critical exegetes, allegorists, mystics, all found something congenial in his writings. The only man who tried to shake off the theological influence of Origen was Marcellus of Ancyra, who produced no lasting effect on theology.
The attacks on Origen, which had begun in his lifetime, did not cease for centuries, and only subsided during the time of the fierce Arian controversy. It was not so much the relation between pistis and gnosis — faith and knowledge — as defined by Origen that gave offence, but rather isolated propositions, such as his doctrines of the pre-existence of souls, of the soul and body of Christ; of the resurrection of the flesh, of the final restoration, and of the plurality of worlds.
Even in the 3rd century Origen’s view of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ was called in question, and that from various points of view. It was not till the 5th century, however, that objections of this kind became frequent. In the 4th century Pamphilus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Didymus and Rufinus were on the side of Origen against the attacks of Methodius and many others. But, when the zeal of Epiphanius was kindled against him, when Jerome, alarmed about his own reputation, and in defiance of his past attitude, turned against his once honoured teacher, and Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, found it prudent, for political reasons to condemn Origen — then his authority received a shock from which it never recovered.
There were, doubtless, in the 5th century church historians and theologians who still spoke of him with reverence, but such men became fewer and fewer. In the West Vincent of Lerins held up Origen as a warning example (Commonit. 23), showing how even the most learned and most eminent of church teachers might be- come a misleading light. In the East the exegetical school of Antioch had an aversion to Origen; the Alexandrians had utterly repudiated him. Nevertheless his writings were much read, especially in Palestine. The monophysite monks appealed to his authority, but could not prevent Justinian and the fifth oecumenical council at Constantinople (553) from anathematizing his teaching.
tl;dr Origen was strongly influenced by Gnosticism and was one of the leading classical scholars of his day.
Also, here's an interesting tidbit from the last paragraph, when compared to what it says about Antioch in the Book of Acts-
In the East the exegetical school of Antioch had an aversion to Origen.
Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
I haven’t read the Mormon books but I bet they still have something to offer. Joseph was deep into the occult. Bet he stole at least a handful of esoteric ideas worth gleaning.
Gnostic texts were burned because they were insidious lies designed to swindle believers into an insane cult that forbade marriage and taught that the material world was evil.
The material world IS evil because it has been corrupted. All of the affairs of the material world are what pull us from God and are meant to put us to work for empire and Satan’s ends. This is why monks and hermits turn their back on worldly life. The material world corrupts. This is why zionists bombard us with materialism.
The Catholic church has always served empire and used to forbid laity from even reading the bible. The people who claimed gnostics were dangerous thought it was dangerous people read the bible to verify what they imposed on people. And then they forbid marriage for their clergy lolololol. Because you cannot both “serve God” and have a family? But they’re not batshit?
As if the Catholics were not also and insane cult who got to write the history and fool people like yourself.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Bible does reject the material world. But it doesn't say it's evil. The Gnostics believed in the concept of asceticism, where you reject comforts to become "more spiritual". Yeah, it's a bunch of hippie cult mumbo jumbo. They forbade marriage, sex of any kind even between married people, and forbid consumption of foods like meat.
The Gnostics that specifically forbade meat consumption were called Encratites, specifically rebuked by Paul in 1 Timothy 4. Jesus Himself ate fish often and the Bible is littered with meat consumption in both testaments. In fact, the Bible directly encourages consumption of many different kinds of foods to do this in memory of Jesus or even for the hell of it to enjoy yourself like Ecclesiastes. This is one of many examples of Gnostic beliefs flatly bring rejected by true Christian teachings. Gnostics literally believed that humans are trapped in evil bodies and the only way to free themselves was to use their fuckin idiotic "secret" knowledge. That sounds pretty damn insane. They also denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus because it would contradict their insane beliefs.
"used to forbid laity from even reading the bible"
No they fucking didn't. Bibles weren't even available widespread until the invention of the printing press in the 1450s and even then the prot reformation is right around the corner. Before that, Bibles were rare and like gold thus only used by priests, but even then the Latin Vulgate could be read by basically anyone. Unauthorized translations were also forbidden because people would sneak their own beliefs in there Gnostic style. The church did encourage people only to read the Bible with an authority to guide them, so, HYPOTHETICALLY, you don't end up with people falling for Gnostic nonsense or creating 30,000 Christian churches and counting. The scriptures warn about this schism in the church and personal interpretation, not only in Paul's letters (1 Corinthians 1) but also Peter's (2 Peter 1:20).
"Because you cannot both “serve God” and have a family? But they’re not batshit?"
That literally comes from the Bible homie. 1 Corinthians 7. Marriage is literally one of the sacraments in the Catholic church for non priests/nuns/bishops/monks. Even deacons can be married.
Put aside your hatred of Catholics for 5 fuckin seconds and actually do some real research on what Gnostics believed, they were nuts and their beliefs contradicted Jesus's teachings.
E-Sword is an electronic Bible you can download. Multiple versions including KJV and Old KJV. You can compare verses side by side. It has multiple commentaries you can download also and it is free. You can donate if you want.
That last KJV post dug up a lot of comments about the KJV.
I thought it would be nice for us to review this documentary; to learn and discuss it's history. This comes from a more historical/scholarly perspective.
Please check it out, even if you loathe the KJV.
Runtime - 1 hour
The BBC isn't exactly the most trustworthy source. What is the short story here?
This is for people who enjoy studying history. If you're not interested, feel free to pass this over.
I have labeled this post as a discussion since perceptions of this subject vary. There's no TL;DR here.
Reposting here again as I posted this as a top-level post in the previous thread but it seems to be shadow banned. Is that a thing on .win sites?
Chris Pinto from Adullam Films has done a brilliant 3 part (so far) documentary where he gives compelling evidence to show that after the KJV was published, the Vatican launched the counter-reformation and using the Jesuits, forged the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as a way to undermine the authority of the bible, since the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the two former manuscripts are claimed to be older and therefore more authoritive, and the motto from the reformation was "Sola Scriptura", undermining the authority of the Pope.
A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible
Tares Among the Wheat
Bridge to Babylon
Chris Pinto has allowed the above videos to stay up on youtube but original DVDs can be purchased from his web site at Adullam films if you want to support him. I am not affiliated with his site but I just think that these documentaries are groundbreaking and awesome.
Ty. I agree and hope to add to this tomorrow
Would a BBC documentary be the authoritative source for how the translation was done? I would think they would omit the important bits, like how they censored the real stuff, and provide som cover story.
Feel free to dig up a version that suits your needs and discuss it further. This post does not claim this video to be a definitive source, but a source that you can watch, learn, and discuss any differences you might find here.
This is the intent of the post.
Also be sure to bookmark the Bible Hub site. https://biblehub.com/ They also have an app. Every Bible tool, including the original Greek and Hebrew, Strong’s, Dictionaries, maps, commentaries, etc. This is a library that used to only be available to very few, yet we have it all at our fingertips.
I wish I could sticky this comment.
Did anybody download this video & upload to catbox/archive it somehow?
Yes biblehub is a pretty handy source. However, be wary of the Hebrew because it is a recreated written language of 1000 AD. It is not from the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew); the ancient written Hebrew that was lost in history about a thousand years before. By the 3rd Century BC, Paleo-Hebrew was dying out. There was great trepidation among Israelite priests and scholars that the paleo-Hebrew written language would soon be lost in antiquity. In 285 BC, 72 scribes translated the written Hebrew language of the Old Testament in Alexandria, Egypt into Koine Greek because they knew the writings would soon be indecipherable and lost. If the written language of the Bible hadn't been translated into the Koine Greek in 285 BC in Alexandria, to which 72 scribes were gathered, much of it would have perished altogether.
The results of their work became known as the Greek Septuagint and is the basis of all Old Testament versions today. The oldest Bible (OT) in existence is the Septuagint (285 BC). All original Bibles (OT+NT) are copies of earlier versions. The earliest versions are written in Koine Greek. These include the Uncials, papyrii, Syraic, etc. Greek was the international language spoken throughout the Levant, Egypt, and Turkey and served as the best means of preserving the Bible (OT).
So, what about the Hebrew today?
The written Hebrew today is a poorly reconstructed language referred to as 'Neo-Hebrew'. The Masoretes were Talmudic scribes that recreated a written form of 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other sources in 1000 AD. It is not the same written language of the ancient Israelites. The written Hebrew of the Israelites is lost in antiquity and the reason why the Greek Septuagint was written.
How convenient! More points in Fomenko's New Chronology favor
What part of this do you disagree with?
I actually agree.
I just find it fascinating that Hebrew as we know it is only 1k years old (at most) and we're just guessing about so called ancient hebrew.
Fomenko contends that history is very wrong, that we only actually have 1000 years of recorded history and everything beyond that are repeated echos of more recent events. Yes, even Egypt and every story in the Bible is very recent. He presents spectacular evidence to make the case that Jesus was actually from the year 1185ad.
Of course, AD by our current flawed measurement.
At first it sounds lunatic. And I wish I didn't take him seriously, but then he parades thousands of pages of pretty firm and convincing evidence at you.
He doesn't get kooky. No mud floods or aliens. Very scholarly.
I'd be happy to tell you more. Anything you read about him that pretends to debunk him doesn't even delve below the surface and gets everything wrong. I'd kill for a proper debunking, because I honestly want him to be wrong.
You should sit in your Anatoly Fomenko corner in Yakutsk and keep pondering this. Just know this, No one says anything bad about you that you know of.
Why Yakutsk?
Why Anatoly Fomenko and not Pat Paulsen?
Wow, this is the first time i am hearing about this - will check out Fomenko. Any particular videos you recommend to beginwith?
Many Fomenko videos get it wrong, but one decent guy who actually makes an effort is named ctruth
But I like this video for a quick mind blow, alleging that the Kremlin is described perfectly in the Bible, which should be absolutely impossible
https://youtu.be/LN30NhXF3YI
I used to love the KJV until I found out how many translation errors it has (changing "thou shalt not murder" to "thou shalt not kill") comes to mind. There's also the political agenda behind the translation, King James basically created his Bible to get rid of the Geneva Bible which he felt undermined his political authority.
Ah-ah-ah, gotta watch the documentary.
One thing I've learned is that many translations (especially ones in those days) were political.
I don't think anyone is going to get what they want unless they read Koine Greek, and even then people would still fight about different perspectives just as they did back then.
Gotta read Syriac and Ethiopian.
See? Lol. I rest my case.
It's almost like books are propaganda and almost certainly not the medium a divine being would risk conveying its message through
One of its early printed forms, really...
The best English translation is the Recovery Version Study Bible (not related to 12 step program) put out by Living Stream Publishers. I do word studies and I haven't yet found a mistake. Even the prepositions are right on. It doesn't confuse "in" (en) and "into" (eis). No politics involved in its production.
Where can one find a copy of that online? (It doesn't appear to be on Bible Hub)
You can get a free New Testament (below), if you want to check it out. I bought the version with both Old and New Testaments. It is excellent. It is in modern English. Here's an example of what I mentioned about the prepositions. John 3:16 reads in KJV, "...that whosoever believeth IN Him...." The Greek word that they translate as "in" is "eis," which means movement into some place. In should read, "whosoever believeth into Him..."It may seem awkward, so the KJV translators changed it because it didn't make sense to them. However, the Apostle Paul speaks of being "in" Christ.. The word for "in" in Greek is "en." 2 Cor. 5:17, "if anyone is in (en) Christ..." How do you get in Christ. You believe into Him, and then you are in Him. Noah got into the ark by walking into it, we get into Christ by believing into Him. To change the preposition, you miss the whole significance of that. Free NT: https://biblesforamerica.org/free-bible/
I love it! Thanks!
https://biblesforamerica.org/ offers a free NT. Great footnotes.
Thanks fren!!
Found this: https://online.recoveryversion.bible/
I don't care to order physical books if I can help it.
Both editions you mention are superior to all other English translations due to being the earliest. And KGV and Geneva are 90% the same word-for-word.
But the problem is translation itself, and also the slippery, shifting meaning of words over great periods of time. A quick review of many words in Strong's Concordonce reveals there can literally be DOZENS of definitions for a single word at times. This fact alone allows for infinite interpretations on the spectrum of today's "literal by today's mainstream definition" supporters to "allegorical. mystical and mysterious" by those who recognize the deeper layers embedded in scripture.
I find the second word of the bible in ALL English translations to be plainly inaccurate -> "in THE beginning". The use of a "definite article" (the) is grammatically incorrect in relation to the Hebrew word used, which is an "indefinite article" and would thusly be correctly translated in English to either: "In A beginning" or "In ANY beginning".
Even such a tiny little change from a single definite to indefinite article RADICALLY changes how one perceives and relates to the scripture itself, begging the question; "Was there this one and only "beginning", or are there an infinite and eternal number of "beginnings"?
Also, the Greek word "aEONious" being translated hundreds of times to "Eternal" when the correct word "EON" is right there and plainly obvious in the Greek word itself. The choice to make this change implies undeniable deceptive intent and a willful desire to defraud. There is no other possible explanation.
Nonetheless, I still enjoy much of the power and beauty of scripture. I feel blessed that I have learned to see through many of the deceptions due to the hand of man, which are inevitable and unavoidable.
1 Timothy 3:16
New International Version Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
English Standard Version Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
NASB 1995 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
King James Bible And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
God manifested in the flesh versus "he." Do you deny the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ?
1 John 5:7
New International Version For there are three that testify:
English Standard Version For there are three that testify:
NASB 1995 For there are three that testify:
King James Bible For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Do you deny the Trinity? Your "bible" does.
I speak 4 languages and there is NEVER a perfect translation because each language is set in its historical and cultural context. And even then, take Spanish...Dominican vs Columbian vs Spaniard vs Argentinian...very similar but very different. Bicho is insect in Spain, but penis in Puerto Rico.
Sky in Spanish is Cielo which is heaven, there are so many subtleties in language, and even 2 people speaking the same language will have different background knowledge and connotations to words.
You can't express the truth of totality in words which by nature are limited in scope.
Imagine if the disciples had an internet forum and started saying, "We need two moar weeks! That would be interdasting."
They could have confused language scholars and translators for millenia.
However, there are perfect originals to base a translation off of.
In the case of the Bible, we have 2 choices.
We either have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, which was codified long before the Khazarians converted to Judaism, and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek NT, which is what the Geneva Bible, King James Version, and Young's Literal Translation are based upon,
OR,
we have the translations based on Alexandrian Greek manuscripts such as the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
I'm not King James Only, but I am Textus Receptus only.
What does a perfect translation have to do with what I posted? Removing 20 words, that tell of the Trinity, is not a translation error.
The God that I worship is more powerful than the God that you worship. My God is able to give us his Word, infallible and without error, so that we may do it.
Funny, I don't think in words, I think in imagery and intuition. Some people have to narrate their inner knowledge.
Words are limited, there is no your God or my God, there is our God. But English, Latin, German, etc will never encompass totality.
And the word of God was never in English...your version of his word was translated translations of translations. Womp.
Womp.
How old are you? Have you ever been outside of rome?
Why are you so angry, man? Why are you so convinced that those three versions omitted words?
Check out the Greek and tell me what you think: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/3-16.htm
And...my dad can beat up your dad....
Where are you seeing anger? Those were honest questions.
As far as the Greek goes, I know what this system of yours is all about. satan set it up, he created 30 perverted versions of the Bible, none of them agree with each other so we have to consult another final authority instead of the Words of God Himself. Keep in mind, God gave us His Word in 1611 and all satan can do is imitate it. Just like everything else satan does. You are studying imitations because you have no faith.
--King James Version or Authorized Version was first published 1611. This translation was the result of 47 men working at the appointment of King James I.
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 King James himself, but only called authorized because it was authorized to be printed.
Although different languages and translations may subtly alter what some Bible passages say/mean, it is the totality of Holy Scripture that matters, and can be summed up as follows:
BBC really? That fake news site is top post on gawin?
Its an 11 years old documentary. Pre-WW3. It has SOME credibility.
I dont trust it for modern news, but this documentary provides some balanced insight on the making of the KJV.
I'm sure you cant fit the entire story of the KJV in an hour. Therefore this is a discussion to discuss the documentary, since American GAW had a lively discussion about KJV today.
Jesuits. Never trust a jesuit
The video poofed.
That said, James I of England was Elizabeth's I's heir. She had his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded. Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father, broke from the Church to marry Anne Boleyn BUT he never broke completely. In fact, Henry still thought of himself as a Catholic even though he was head of The Church of England. He persecuted people of "the new faith" - of course, he had people of all faiths killed. He was a monster. On Henry's death bed, he had a priest hear his confession. Before his death, he was considering arresting Catherine, his last wife because she was a Protestant.
Elizabeth, after her father's death, went to live with his last wife, Catherine Parr. She influenced Elizabeth who was head of the church when she became queen. James was raised by members of the Scottish court who were almost fanatical Calvinists. He had the KJV translated to fit The Church of England's theology. It's why a lot of the book doesn't jive with some of what had come before in the Bible.
I was a History major in college with a specialization in Renaissance and Reformation. There's tons more but this is the jist.
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order employed Guy Fawkes to blow up King James and the entire English parliament as part of the Counter Reformation and to prevent this Bible from being published and released to the public.
This is the famous failed Gunpowder Plot which led to Guy Fawkes Day becoming a national holiday in England, where they burned effigies of the Pope for many years.
King James employed the absolute best scholars available to translate the Bible into English and spared no expense.
Not saying James did not use leading scholars. Was posting why some parts of KJV doesn't mesh with what had been written previously.
I'm aware of Guy Fawkes. Catholics were persecuted by a corrupt gov't. with a 2 tiered justice system and tried to take action. Hmmm, almost seems relevant today.
Chris Pinto from Adullam Films has done a brilliant 3 part (so far) documentary where he gives compelling evidence to show that after the KJV was published, the Vatican launched the counter-reformation and using the Jesuits, forged the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as a way to undermine the authority of the bible, since the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the two former manuscripts are claimed to be older and therefore more authoritive, and the motto from the reformation was "Sola Scriptura", undermining the authority of the Pope.
A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible
Tares Among the Wheat
Bridge to Babylon
Chris Pinto has allowed the above videos to stay up on youtube for free but original DVDs can be purchased from his web site at Adullam films if you want to support him. I am not affiliated with his site but I just think that these documentaries are groundbreaking and awesome.
Noted. Will save for later consumption
Sounds interesting
I will stick to my personal 1599 Geneva & my families 1602 Geneva Folio
Jesus said, "Show me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone."
When I was younger and had more concentration I would read all the versions and look for the differences. Used a concordance. These days online is easier. The kjv will have its bonuses for interpretation and help with Spiritual critical thinking. In my opinion.
Wonder how long till the fights over which translation/version of the Bible is the most true/least corrupted start.
Thats on That last KJV post
You realize it’ll probably spread to here as well. Right?
Based on how today has been going on GAW, I expect everyone to wake up and fight in the middle of their sleep cycle. 😑
You can't express totality in words.
You can't express anything except in words. Since we don't know what "totality" is, except as a vague concept, we can't express it at all. Don't fault language for being finite in capability. It's either language or being mute and deaf.
There are some classical pieces that can move you in ways words can't. There are photographs, paintings, etc that really express without words.
Language is de facto limited, especially once you have to translate.
Music and art can inspire feelings, but feelings are not an expression in the sense of intellectual communication. There are words that can move you in ways that graphic or musical art cannot (such as the Bible). The Bible is a message in language, because it is an expression of conceptual information. Everything is limited, so to say that language is limited is only a truism and a refutation of nothing. If there were no language, there would be no Bible, and thus no Word of God. However limited the language may be, the Word of God transcends the limitations.
Those are very good points.
Who selected what books are included in the Bible? Were the Gospels not written by the disciples in the name? The Gospel is witness accounts of parts of the life of Jesus as proofs, not, per se, the infallible ultimate word of God, though he is quoted frequently and his word is preserved in the context of which it was spoken.
They all are not correct.
Mauro biglino official channel youtube English subtitles. He was the interlinear translator for the Vatican publishers until he uncovered too much and they couldn't print his findings.
Mauro is an Italian..a Catholic..was...and an expert in old hebrew Greek Latin and other languages. He says the Vatican is aware that the elohim..not God or gods but aliens invaded this planet 6000 years ago. Yahweh was the governor only of tribe of Jacob and gave out 613 commandments..some about the wine he liked..his wife asherah maybe drank some of the six litres per day.
If it's a BBC documentary then they have an agenda and you know they are in any case just the propaganda arm of the government...they should all be jailed for their part in the hysteria and deaths when it was known a virus..soapy substance produced by the cells can't even exist outside the body let alone infect anyone.to say the Nuremberg codes were all broken is a fact. They class the 24/7 hysteria and fear as torture which it certainly was.
I bet they never told anyone that the printers are now churning out bibles for the public kJV Jerusalem Bible and about ten others showing elohim as singular when it is plural. The elohim who invaded were 240 ..some say more strong. They are called in all the bibles kings judges malachim lord arch angels god etc when it all is just elohim and some are th job titles of the elohim
This is not an error..bibles for scholars show Elohim as plural so it's a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I bet kJV still talks of eternity when there was no such word in old hebrew...olam does not mean eternity ..just an indefinite period of time....
Back to the Waldenses!
KJV Fun Facts The word “Christ” appears in every New Testament Book except for “3 John”
“Christ” appears 555 times
“in Christ” appears 77 times
“church” appears 77 times (not counting the 3 in the colophons)
“baptiz*” (words beginning with “baptiz”) appears 77 times
“spirit” (all lowercase) appears 333 times
“Son” (initial caps) appears 297 times (33 x 9) “mystery” appears 22 times
Longest word: “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” in Isaiah 8:1
“Jesus Christ”appears 196 times(49x4=7x7x4)
“Son of man”appears 196 times(49x4=7x7x4)
“Word of God” appears 49 times (7 x 7)
“Most High” appears 49 times (7 x 7)
Daniel, the 27th book of the Old Testament is “sealed”. Revelation, the 27th book of the New Testament is “unsealed”.
Revelation 13:18 says “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Chapter 666 of the Bible is Ecclesiastes 7. And Ecclesiastes 7:27 says “Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:”
The KJV is the only English version that is completely pure. Anyone can debate it how they like, but the maths doesn’t lie.
If you believe there are errors in every Bible, then:
A. You don’t believe God purifies his words and preserves his Word for all generations.
B. You don’t believe it was God, not the will of men, who wrote that Bible.
C. You don’t believe God can direct steps, change hearts, and prevent men from not preserving his Word for every generation.
When you question Gods ability to preserve his Word perfectly for every generation, over man’s ability to corrupt it, you lack faith in God’s Word that he can do just as he promised.
This is not to say anyone using a corrupt Bible is going to hell. This next scripture is telling you the foundation is Christ, faith that Christ can save. You will still be saved, even if you build upon it wrong doctrine, for no man knew all interpretation of the scriptures perfectly, but you will suffer loss in this world due to incorrect doctrine but still be saved because of your faith in Christ. Imagine the amount of Christians deceived by false doctrines today, but still have their faith in Christ.
Gods Will, fate, these are things you may come to terms with in this life or not. I get synchronicity everyday, it took me a long time to realize how little we are in control of our lives, and how much God is in control.
Did you choose who you were born to, where you were born, and what purpose you were born for?
Does he not raise kings and nations, and destroy them?
Read about Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 and learn nothing was gotten by his own hand or will.
Donald Trump Sevens
Trump with all his genius did not control his date of birth, Israel’s rebirth, and when the presidential elections were going to be. But God aligned them up all perfectly.
Gods Will, fate, is still in effect today as it ever was.
If you don’t believe he can preserve his Word without error, then study and pray.
The devil can’t outsmart God, the deep state can’t, and definitely any man cannot.
So to think there is not a perfect Bible in existence today because evil men corrupted it by their own will, rather than believe in Gods promise and power that he can purify and preserve it for every generation, is a lack of understanding.
The only reason we are getting our world back at this time is because God put all the pieces into place as he always has. If God willed we should be destroyed, no one can stop it. He raises and destroy nations for his will.
Stop listening to man, but listen to God, humble yourselves, study, and pray. God bless.
This right here is a comment that EVERYONE should read, very well done, brother.
Its really interesting to study Bible translations that predate King James 1611.
Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.
I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )
The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )
The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.
The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.
There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.
The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.
The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.
Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.
Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.
Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.
A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.
None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.
There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.
These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.
What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.
The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.
Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?
Vatican and Sinai omit/change tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16. It is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh".
Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.
Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.
Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.
The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.
For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Received Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.
Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.
This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:
Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.
If that's two cents, I wonder what a piece of gold looks like...
Excellent post. I'd love for you to post more of your insights.
Thank you. :) I'm not especially insightful, I've just spent a lot of time trying to dig into this issue in the past. The information that I found made a noticeable difference in my and my family's life, and I believe the minority text has led to a lot of the problems of the modern western churches.
Agreed! This is really well presented and researched. You can tell that there is 20+ years of knowledge being dropped here. And everything easily verifiable. Loads of facts that really win the argument.
I really hope this rises to the top of this thread because this is truly research gold right here.
I would like to add that several of the newer versions have already been revised, for instance nasb 77 was followed by nasb 95. What did they change? The uproar was so great that had to revert back to KJV reading in about 33% of the verses.
Another point (a rousing success at the seminary withstanding lol) is that the KJV is preferred over all of the other versions COMBINED by 82% to 18%. Yes, people will reach for the KJV 82% more than they will for any other version.
I originally started getting into KJV because I noticed that the newer versions were always changing. I wanted a fixed, reasonable foundation that wasn't going to be changed out from under me. After 400 years, there is pretty good information about whatever weak points the KJV has, and I can adjust for that. With something produced last year, I have no idea how many mistakes are there, and how much time will go by before someone finds them.
Also, memorizing verses becomes an issue with modern bibles. If I would have memorized a bunch of NIV verses, should I then re-memorize them for ESV? What about in a couple of years when whatever new hot translation comes out? KJV isn't going anywhere. There's too much crusty, grumpy people like me who enjoy something in the style of Shakespeare.
Also, if I am quoting a verse or reading KJV out loud, I can adjust the words / grammar for my audience if it is needed.
Another fun freebie is that English made a distinction between 2nd person singular "you" vs 2nd person plural "you guys / y'all" in 1611. Back then, if the 2nd person pronoun starts with a "th", it is singular, like thee and thou. If it starts with a "y", like you, then it is 2nd person plural. This allows a grammatical distinction of the original Hebrew and Greek to be visible in English. This isn't possible in any modern version.
A fun example is Luke 22:31: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat"
In this verse, Satan is desired to sift 2nd person PLURAL "you guys / y'all" as wheat. Modern English readers probably interpret this verse as Satan just desiring to "sift" Peter as wheat.
Matthew 7:15-20, “you will recognize them by their fruits.” In reading some of these KJV threads, I think we should remember the Lord’s words that take precedence for assessing truth of a person over their preferred Bible translation.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm
The Book of Enoch - https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm
Gnostic texts - https://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm
Enoch is cool but Gnostic texts are false gospels. They were the Mormons of their time.
We're they? I distrust all "settled" history and science.
I've read the Gnostic texts and they're so blatantly fake it's hilarious. In fact I just read the secret gospel of John today. And lo and behold it's bullshit.
"hey Jesus told this one person (changes depending on version) the REAL TRUTH and made them keep it a secret so they immediately wrote it down."
The Gnostics preached false teachings that contradicted real teachings of Christ and wrote them in a pseudoepigraphical way so they could trick people into joining their cult.
The Gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt also edited the Koine Greek scriptures and reproduced them in classical Greek. They produced the manuscripts the modern Bibles are based upon today.
Sauce for the claim?
I can't exactly source Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus, but those are the manuscripts in question.
They are indeed written in classical Greek, the university English of its time.
Meanwhile, the apostles spoke Koine Greek, or the language of the streets in the Roman Empire, as a second language. They were not classically educated.
The edits are self-evident when compared to the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and the Textus Receptus Greek NT and all involve removing the divinity of Christ.
Edit- Here's a source on Origen, one of the Alexandrian translators, from Encyclopaedia Britannica (vol 16) - 1768
From the article on Origen (page 901, which equates to page 1039 of 1157 on archive.org)
Outline of Origen’s View of the Universe and of Life
The system of Origen was formulated in opposition to the Greek philosophers on the one hand, and the Christian Gnostics on the others. But the science of faith, as expounded by him, bears unmistakably the stamp both of Neo-Platonism and of Gnosticism.
As a theologian, in fact, Origen is not merely an orthodox traditionalist and believing exegete, but a speculative philosopher of Neo-Platonic tendencies. He is, moreover, a judicious critic. The union of these four elements gives character to his theology, and in a certain degree to all subsequent theology. It is this combination which has determined the peculiar and varying relations in which theology and the faith of the church have stood to each other since the time of Origen. That relation depends on the predominance of one or other of the four factors embraced in his theology.
As an orthodox traditionalist Origen holds that Christianity is a practical and religious saving principle, that it has unfolded itself in an historical series of revealing facts, that'*the church has accurately embodied the substance of her faith in the regula fidei, and that simple faith is sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man.
As a philosophical idealist, however, he transmutes the whole contents of the faith of the church into ideas which bear the mark of Neo-Platonism, and were accordingly recognized by the later Neo-Platonists as Hellenic*. In Origen, however, the mystic and ecstatic element is held in abeyance. The ethico- religious ideal is the sorrowless condition, the state of superiority to all evils, the state of order and of rest. In this condition man enters into likeness to God and blessedness; and it is reached through contemplative isolation and self-knowledge, which is divine wisdom.
As a means to the realization of this ideal, Origen introduces the whole ethics of Stoicism. But the link that connects him with churchly realism, as well as with the Neo-Platonic mysticism, is the conviction that complete and certain knowledge rests wholly on divine revelation, i,e., on oracles. Consequently his theology is cosmological speculation and ethical reflection based on the sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures, however, are treated by Origen on the basis of a matured theory of inspiration in such a way that all their facts appear as the vehicles of ideas, and have their highest value only in this aspect.
That is to say, his gnosis neutralizes all that is empirical and historical, if not always as to its actuality, at least absolutely in respect of its value. The most convincing proof of this is that Origen (i) takes the idea of the immutability of God as the regulating idea of his system, and (2) deprives the historical “Word made flesh” of all significance for the true Gnostic. To him Christ appears simply as the Logos who is with the Father from eternity, and works from all eternity, to whom alone the Instructed Christian directs his thoughts, requiring nothing more than a perfect — i.e,, divine — teacher. In such propositions historical Christianity is stripped off as a mere husk. The objects of religious knowledge are beyond the plane of history, or rather belong to a supra-mundane history.
On this view contact with the faith of the church could only be maintained by distinguishing an exoteric and an esoteric form of Christianity. This distinction was already current in the catechetical school of Alexandria, but Origen gave it its boldest expression, and justified it on the ground of the incapacity of the Chris- tian masses to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, or unravel the difficulties of exegesis. On the other hand, in dealing with the problem of bringing his heterodox system into conformity with the regula fidei he evinced a high degree of technical skill. An external conformity was possible, inasmuch as speculation, proceeding from the higher to the lower, could keep by the stages of the regula fidei, which had been developed into a history of salvation. The system itself aims in principle at being thoroughly monistic; but, since matter, although created by God out of nothing, was regarded merely as the sphere in which souls are punished and purified, the system is pervaded by a strongly dualistic element. The immutability of God requires the eternity of the Logos and of the world. At this point Origen succeeded in avoiding the heretical Gnostic idea of God by assigning to the Godhead the attributes of goodness and righteousness.
The pre-existence of souls is another inference from the immutability of God, although Origen also deduced it from the nature of the soul, which as a spiritual potency must be eternal. From this follows the necessity for the created spirit, after apostasy, error and sin, to return always to its origin in God.
The actual sinfulness of all men Origen was able to explain by the theological hypothesis of pre-existence and the premundane fall of each individual soul. He holds that freedom is the inalienable prerogative of the finite spirit; and this is the second point that distinguishes his theology from the heretical Gnosticism.
The system unfolds itself like a drama, of which the successive stages are as follows : the transcendental fall, the creation of the material world, inaugurating the history of punishment and redemption, the clothing of fallen souls in flesh, the dominion of sin, evil and the demons on earth, the appearing of the Logos, His union with a pure human soul, His esoteric preaching of salvation, and His death in the flesh, then the imparting of the Spirit, and the ultimate restoration of all things.
The doctrine of the restoration appeared necessary because the spirit, in spite of its inherent freedom, cannot lose its true nature, and because the final purposes of God cannot be foiled. The end, however, is only relative, for spirits are continually falling, and God remains through eternity the creator of the world. Moreover the end is not conceived as a transfiguration of the world, but as a liberation of the spirit from its unnatural union with the sensual.
The old Christian eschatology is set aside; no one has dealt such deadly blows to Chiliasm and Christian apocalypticism as Origen. It need hardly be said that he spiritualized the church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. But, while in all these doctrines he appears in the character of a Platonic philosopher, traces of rational criticism are not wanting. Where his fundamental conception admits of it, he tries to solve historical problems by historical methods. Even in the christology, where he is treating of the historical Christ, he entertains critical considerations; hence it is not altogether without reason that in after times he was suspected of “Ebionitic” views of the Person of Christ.
Although the theology of Origen exerted a considerable influence as a whole in the two following centuries, it certainly lost nothing by the circumstance that several important propositions were capable of being tom from their original setting and placed in new connections. It is in fact one of the peculiarities of this theology, which professed to be at once churchly and philosophical, that most of its formulae could be interpreted and appreciated In Utramque Partem. By arbitrary divisions and rearrangements the doctrinal statements of this "science of faith” could be made to serve the most diverse dogmatic tendencies. This is seen especially in the doctrine of the Logos. On the basis of his idea of God Origen was obliged to insist in the strongest manner on the personality, the eternity (eternal generation) and the essential divinity of the Logos.
In later times both the orthodox and the Arians appealed to his teaching, both with a certain plausibility; but the inference of Arius, that an imparted divinity must be divinity in the second degree, Origen did not draw. With respect to other doctrines also, such as those of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Christ, etc., Origen prepared the way for the later dogmas. The technical terms round which such bitter controversies raged in the 4th and 5th centuries are often found in Origen lying peacefully side by side. But this is just where his epoch-making importance lies, that all the later parties in the church learned from him. And this is true not only of the dogmatic parties; solitary monks and ambitious priests, hard-headed critical exegetes, allegorists, mystics, all found something congenial in his writings. The only man who tried to shake off the theological influence of Origen was Marcellus of Ancyra, who produced no lasting effect on theology.
The attacks on Origen, which had begun in his lifetime, did not cease for centuries, and only subsided during the time of the fierce Arian controversy. It was not so much the relation between pistis and gnosis — faith and knowledge — as defined by Origen that gave offence, but rather isolated propositions, such as his doctrines of the pre-existence of souls, of the soul and body of Christ; of the resurrection of the flesh, of the final restoration, and of the plurality of worlds.
Even in the 3rd century Origen’s view of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ was called in question, and that from various points of view. It was not till the 5th century, however, that objections of this kind became frequent. In the 4th century Pamphilus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Didymus and Rufinus were on the side of Origen against the attacks of Methodius and many others. But, when the zeal of Epiphanius was kindled against him, when Jerome, alarmed about his own reputation, and in defiance of his past attitude, turned against his once honoured teacher, and Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, found it prudent, for political reasons to condemn Origen — then his authority received a shock from which it never recovered.
There were, doubtless, in the 5th century church historians and theologians who still spoke of him with reverence, but such men became fewer and fewer. In the West Vincent of Lerins held up Origen as a warning example (Commonit. 23), showing how even the most learned and most eminent of church teachers might be- come a misleading light. In the East the exegetical school of Antioch had an aversion to Origen; the Alexandrians had utterly repudiated him. Nevertheless his writings were much read, especially in Palestine. The monophysite monks appealed to his authority, but could not prevent Justinian and the fifth oecumenical council at Constantinople (553) from anathematizing his teaching.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.12837/page/n1038/mode/1up
tl;dr Origen was strongly influenced by Gnosticism and was one of the leading classical scholars of his day.
Also, here's an interesting tidbit from the last paragraph, when compared to what it says about Antioch in the Book of Acts-
In the East the exegetical school of Antioch had an aversion to Origen.
Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
I haven’t read the Mormon books but I bet they still have something to offer. Joseph was deep into the occult. Bet he stole at least a handful of esoteric ideas worth gleaning.
Tried reading book of Mormon but the writing was just soooo bad I had to stop
It's false because it blatantly contradicts much of the teachings of Christ.
One literally needs to just read the average Gnostic text to see it's blatantly fabricated pseudoepigrapha for the purpose of propaganda.
Lol says the proto Catholics that burned like 30 books still in the Ethiopian Bible in the Hellenic world. Sure.
Sauce for the claim?
Gnostic texts were burned because they were insidious lies designed to swindle believers into an insane cult that forbade marriage and taught that the material world was evil.
The material world IS evil because it has been corrupted. All of the affairs of the material world are what pull us from God and are meant to put us to work for empire and Satan’s ends. This is why monks and hermits turn their back on worldly life. The material world corrupts. This is why zionists bombard us with materialism.
The Catholic church has always served empire and used to forbid laity from even reading the bible. The people who claimed gnostics were dangerous thought it was dangerous people read the bible to verify what they imposed on people. And then they forbid marriage for their clergy lolololol. Because you cannot both “serve God” and have a family? But they’re not batshit?
As if the Catholics were not also and insane cult who got to write the history and fool people like yourself.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Bible does reject the material world. But it doesn't say it's evil. The Gnostics believed in the concept of asceticism, where you reject comforts to become "more spiritual". Yeah, it's a bunch of hippie cult mumbo jumbo. They forbade marriage, sex of any kind even between married people, and forbid consumption of foods like meat.
The Gnostics that specifically forbade meat consumption were called Encratites, specifically rebuked by Paul in 1 Timothy 4. Jesus Himself ate fish often and the Bible is littered with meat consumption in both testaments. In fact, the Bible directly encourages consumption of many different kinds of foods to do this in memory of Jesus or even for the hell of it to enjoy yourself like Ecclesiastes. This is one of many examples of Gnostic beliefs flatly bring rejected by true Christian teachings. Gnostics literally believed that humans are trapped in evil bodies and the only way to free themselves was to use their fuckin idiotic "secret" knowledge. That sounds pretty damn insane. They also denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus because it would contradict their insane beliefs.
"used to forbid laity from even reading the bible"
No they fucking didn't. Bibles weren't even available widespread until the invention of the printing press in the 1450s and even then the prot reformation is right around the corner. Before that, Bibles were rare and like gold thus only used by priests, but even then the Latin Vulgate could be read by basically anyone. Unauthorized translations were also forbidden because people would sneak their own beliefs in there Gnostic style. The church did encourage people only to read the Bible with an authority to guide them, so, HYPOTHETICALLY, you don't end up with people falling for Gnostic nonsense or creating 30,000 Christian churches and counting. The scriptures warn about this schism in the church and personal interpretation, not only in Paul's letters (1 Corinthians 1) but also Peter's (2 Peter 1:20).
"Because you cannot both “serve God” and have a family? But they’re not batshit?"
That literally comes from the Bible homie. 1 Corinthians 7. Marriage is literally one of the sacraments in the Catholic church for non priests/nuns/bishops/monks. Even deacons can be married.
Put aside your hatred of Catholics for 5 fuckin seconds and actually do some real research on what Gnostics believed, they were nuts and their beliefs contradicted Jesus's teachings.
Nice essay. It’d be a shame if I actually read all that gobbledygook.
Classy.
Enjoy your ignorance since you can't be bothered to learn.
Maybe you should go to patriots.win, that's really more what they're into.
E-Sword is an electronic Bible you can download. Multiple versions including KJV and Old KJV. You can compare verses side by side. It has multiple commentaries you can download also and it is free. You can donate if you want.
https://e-sword.net/
There is no true Bible - it's a matter of faith