Here's what the writers of the KJV thought of the Septuagint and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, as told in the foreword of the KJV itself.
Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventy-two days ; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St. Jerome--if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything but presently it was caught from him and published, and he could not have leave to mend it --; neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel, if he overshot himself many times.
You really don't have any experience with historiography. My gosh man, take an ancient history class or something.
The writers are saying, "our version is the best because we took our time" but if you applied any critical thinking to it, you'd know they were 16 centuries removed from the Septuagint and not much less removed from the Vulgate - so their aspersions regarding the older creations are mythical at best.
There's a reason why original texts are valued. The oldest extant NT books are from the 4th century AD, but we have Septuagint fragments from within a few decades of Christ's death. Hate to break it to you, but there are changes that occurred between them....
But keep doing your Wiki searches, at some point you might stumble across the truth (it would help if you'd learn Greek of course - I've noticed you have absolutely no answer for that one.)
God the Father created all things, including His Son, Jesus. Jesus came to do not his will on Earth, but his Father's. Jesus didn't preach his name, but his Father's. Jesus made a point to pray to his Father and say, "I have made your name known!"
But since you don't even know the name of the Father, you can't say the same.
And if you aren't following Christ's example to make his Father's name known, how are you a Christian?
So many questions you can't answer! So desperate you are to be misled....
Here we go off in another direction. You got entirely defeated on the Vulgate and Septuagint, and so now you're going to get into the original text mythology. Original text that no one has ever seen. What's next, older is better? If this were a debate you would already be disqualified.
Who is the Comforter, that Jesus Christ asked the Father to send? Or has your apostate Bible erased this?
Older is better, absolutely, because it's closest to the original and less distorted source.
What do you think of school textbooks that combine Constitutional amendments? It's a dangerous slope. Particularly when schools aren't teaching cursive, so the originals won't be read in a few generations (that's their goal at least.)
Do you not see the danger? Do you not think that same danger applies to Scripture as well? Do you think all who've claimed to be Christian were steadfast and honest?
In Galatians 1:6, Paul warns about false Gospels because EVEN IN HIS TIME, WITHIN A DECADE OF CHRIST'S DEATH/RESURECTION, THERE WERE ALREADY FALSE GOSPELS FLOATING AROUND.
So yes, it should go utterly without saying that original is better to get as close to the true and undistorted intent as possible.
Here's what the writers of the KJV thought of the Septuagint and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, as told in the foreword of the KJV itself.
Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventy-two days ; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St. Jerome--if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything but presently it was caught from him and published, and he could not have leave to mend it --; neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel, if he overshot himself many times.
You really don't have any experience with historiography. My gosh man, take an ancient history class or something.
The writers are saying, "our version is the best because we took our time" but if you applied any critical thinking to it, you'd know they were 16 centuries removed from the Septuagint and not much less removed from the Vulgate - so their aspersions regarding the older creations are mythical at best.
There's a reason why original texts are valued. The oldest extant NT books are from the 4th century AD, but we have Septuagint fragments from within a few decades of Christ's death. Hate to break it to you, but there are changes that occurred between them....
But keep doing your Wiki searches, at some point you might stumble across the truth (it would help if you'd learn Greek of course - I've noticed you have absolutely no answer for that one.)
God the Father created all things, including His Son, Jesus. Jesus came to do not his will on Earth, but his Father's. Jesus didn't preach his name, but his Father's. Jesus made a point to pray to his Father and say, "I have made your name known!"
But since you don't even know the name of the Father, you can't say the same.
And if you aren't following Christ's example to make his Father's name known, how are you a Christian?
So many questions you can't answer! So desperate you are to be misled....
Here we go off in another direction. You got entirely defeated on the Vulgate and Septuagint, and so now you're going to get into the original text mythology. Original text that no one has ever seen. What's next, older is better? If this were a debate you would already be disqualified.
Who is the Comforter, that Jesus Christ asked the Father to send? Or has your apostate Bible erased this?
Older is better, absolutely, because it's closest to the original and less distorted source.
What do you think of school textbooks that combine Constitutional amendments? It's a dangerous slope. Particularly when schools aren't teaching cursive, so the originals won't be read in a few generations (that's their goal at least.)
Do you not see the danger? Do you not think that same danger applies to Scripture as well? Do you think all who've claimed to be Christian were steadfast and honest?
In Galatians 1:6, Paul warns about false Gospels because EVEN IN HIS TIME, WITHIN A DECADE OF CHRIST'S DEATH/RESURECTION, THERE WERE ALREADY FALSE GOSPELS FLOATING AROUND.
So yes, it should go utterly without saying that original is better to get as close to the true and undistorted intent as possible.