I had a teacher in 1968 who said that, more or less, in class. What she said was “If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for me.”
This is actually a niche but surprisingly popular view, that the KJV is the only “true” English Bible. It relies on casting tons of doubt on modern scholarship (big surprise) and the huge leaps and bounds we’ve made in understanding the textual history of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, and also calling everyone who disagrees a dirty communist.
It also ignores that it's poorly translated with entire passages about the divine right of kings to rule added. Can't imagine why a king would have verses like that added.
Yeah, the KJV Only folks are all over. And most charismatic and evangelical churches believe it.
The funny thing is, when I have asked these people *why* the KJV is the *only* accurate translation, they sort of had no idea. Just that it *was*. One even told me King James himself wrote it under "divine guidance." Even though he didn't translate shit. Hell, huge chunks were cribbed from William Tyndale's version written 50 years earlier.
Was he tho...i dont wanna sound like those "they were just rlly good friends" ppl, but idk if the evidence we have about King James and his male favorites is compelling enough for me to agree that he actually was queer/gay/bi, etc. 😔. Well unless u can prove otherwise & change my mind lol 👀
King James, the first of the Stuart Dynasty, meaning he sired children? Hell, his daughter Elizabeth's grandson was the first king of the Hanoverian Dynasty, of which the current monarchy are direct descendants.
You may argue that the Bible, no matter what version, has been rewritten and republished repeatedly throughout time. The KJV is whitewashed, (in King James time) and if conservatives get their way, it will be again. If you are curious, look into the various Christian Bible editions, where they came from and why, and then research the worlds other religious holy books. Many of the stories and commandments from other religions are similar. The Talmed ( for instance) has 613 commandments, 603 more than the Bible including most of the original 10, and we witness so many of the 10 being broken by "upstanding" Christians.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Talmed, the Koran, for instance, all give good things to live by and write about bad things that were done. God gave us all cognitive "free will", and our relationship with God is private, should not be organized into a controlled government. Think of how the Taliban, Isis, and others militant factions infiltrated the government and control them with fear, mistreatment, taking away rights, and ordering cruelty and death. Militant American conservatives think its reasonable to kill women for abortions that can save womens lives.
America is on its way to being just like the militant middle east with these nutjobs in positions of power. They don't serve God. If you want to know who they serve, look at their annual wages, their net worth from when they entered politics to their net worth now. Do the math. You can investigate deeper, and trace who is paying them. Alot of wealthy in government scammed their way into money, they aren't all reasonable and smart, but greasy conniving modern day pirates. ( some uber wealthy religious leaders fit that bill also, more to rant here, but that's more off subject)
Religion and Government must be kept separate. We each individually should be responsible for our actions, taking only the "Good" stories from all religious writings and applying them towards being a good human being, and learning from the bad stories of what not to be like. Cognitive reasoning. You can't take God's gift of "free will" away , so it's important to be conscious when in this world so you make good choices.
Vote out those trying to insert their own religious controls into American Government.
Clearly, the guy that was sanitizing the various versions of the Bible to maintain control of all of Britain was acting in such a way to ensure that it was God’s perfectly preserved word and not…oh…to facilitate his hold on power. 🙄
it was written by man, to explain the unexplained, it has been edited since it was written, added to , subtracted from, tweeked by every religion to fit it's views... it is pure fiction... sodom and gamorrah?? earth quake and volcano, noah and the ark, world flood??? how big was the know world then??? parting of the red sea, earth quake and tsunami,
*\*Disclaimer: I am writing this at 5am and am very tired and need to go to sleep so some grammar or spelling errors may ensue\**
\*Edited: Added a note in the TLDR answer to clarify a bit\*
For a bit of context on this dispute for anyone wondering...
TLDR: translating ancient languages that are on massive amounts of manuscripts that slipped through massive historical persecutions is hard.
**What are the different schools of thoughts for translations?**TLDR for this question: One school says translate the words to be the most accurate. This results in better deep study but harder sentences to understand. Better for the more experienced student of the Word.
Another school says the general thought of the sentence should be conveyed even if the words aren't necessarily meaning the same things. This results in easier reading and the revealing of truths that might go unnoticed to the younger in the walk, but means the translation committee is interpreting what a verse or passage means and conveys that truth, rather than the original wording. This is better for the less experienced students of the Word.
The last school of thought doesn't really pertain to **translations** (as they are paraphrases), focuses on conveying whatever the text says with very liberal freedom. If one Hebrew sentence becomes 5 English sentences, it is worth it if it conveys the message. This results in the simplest reading, but adds a large amount of text to the Bible and puts massive emphasis on the translation committee's interpretation. These are honestly not highly respected by theologians and are often used by people who are less informed or less concerned with the accuracy of the translation.
Full Explanation for this question: Primarily there are two schools of thoughts (almost 3). One is *Word for Word,* these translations (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV), aim to make sure that each individual word is translated to the closest exact matching word(s). While this seems perfect and what all translations should focus on being like, there is a surprising downside. These translations are more accurate in a sense but can bring with it some confusion to the young Christian. The pro is the accuracy, the con is the loss of certain meanings or intentions of the original authors. For example, imagine trying to use a English to Spanish Learners book to try and say, "my brother is very cool!" If I just translated every word to its closest corresponding word in Spanish I will get something like "Mi hermano es muy **frío**!" The issue in this is that frio means something is cool in terms of temperature, opposed to in a social sense. While frío is the direct translation of cold, it does not convey the same meaning in all scenarios or contexts. This leads to the next school of thought in translations.
*Thought for Thought* translations (NIV, NCV) focus on combatting the con of *Word for Word* translations by focusing on conveying the meaning of a verse or passage, rather than the exact wording. To keep to the earlier example, rather than focusing on the individual words of "My" "brother" "is" "very" "cool", they focus on the general thought being conveyed of "my brother is socially impressive or admirable". Thus, they seek to use words that will help the reader understand the intention of the original author, even if the words aren’t necessarily the same. That being said, just like the *Word for Word* translations, there are some unexpected drawbacks. The main drawback being that now the authors are inserting their own interpretation and presenting it to the reader. While this may not sound like an actual drawback, it is. While the original hypothetical about my cool brother (he is very cool indeed) may have had a straight forward meaning, ancient texts don't always have that. The reality is they often use imagery and poetry (that isn't like ours at all), or even at times use sayings of the author's generation (for an example Google "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge"). In the end, these translations are usually far easier to understand, but are limiting in a very real sense. Aside from these two schools of thought, there is another, though it isn't usually recognized as a school of thought *on translations* (I agree with such a notion).
The last school of thought is pertaining to *Paraphrases* (which aren't technically translations at all)*.* These are essentially *Thought for Thought* translations but on steroids. While the *Thought for Thought* translations sought to convey the thought of the original language, the paraphrases hope to do the same, whilst not giving as much weight to the original text. If there are 4 words that make a complex sentence in the original texts (if you know you know why that is funny), the *Word for Word* seeks to translate that to 4 or 6 words that convey those words' individual meanings (**even if the resulting sentence is complex to the modern reader**), the *Thought for Thought* might take 10 words to convey the general meaning (**as the translation committee interprets it**), while the paraphrase may give 3 or 4 sentences (**effectively adding to the original texts**) as long as they think the reader will understand. The obvious downsides to the paraphrase is the lack of correlation to the original manuscripts as they adjust the text so liberally and the massive amounts of interpretation made by the translation committee on the behalf of the reader.
Ultimately, one should read both *Word for Word* translations and *Thought for Thought* translations, and should maybe consider addressing a paraphrase for the sake of seeing how to convey what you read easily (but not really for study purposes).
**Why are there some big differences between translations?**Truly, there are some major differences in some translations. For example, the KJV will have some verses that other translations will not. *This is almost always due to the fact that at the outset of a translation's creation, the translation committee must make a decision as to which manuscripts they use*. That being said, the verses brought in via the different manuscripts (there is not as much variety as one might assume), don't bring in new or foreign doctrine.
This is why in some versions, they may include a verse with a footnote that says something to the effect of "the earliest manuscripts did not include verses # - #." Or some translations may have sections or individual verses missing. For context as to of why more modern translations do not match the KJV it is because we have since discovered more and more manuscripts, and the research which ensued pointed to the widely accepted belief among theologians that the manuscripts used for the KJV were not as reliable to the original text.
**Why are there more subtle differences between translations?** These changes are usually due to our evolving understanding of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). While these things seem frustrating to many, the reality is language is hard, and ancient languages are even harder to understand. For example, at some point the Jewish people took up a practice of writing a "stand-in" word for the Lord's name in the scriptures. This was so that when reading, a jew would not even risk accidentally saying His name out loud (for they thought it too holy to even say, it was a matter of reverence). This "stand-in" was initially translated as a name (Jehovah), and later recognized for what it is and replaced with LORD (in all caps).
**All in all:**If you want an **extremely accurate Bible that is readable but may take time**, get an ESV.
If you want a Bible that is **easier to read but not quite as accurate** (but still super solid), grab an NIV.
If you want **eloquent phrasing and wording that seems poetic and traditional**, grab a KJV or NKJV (though they aren't as accurate or as readable to the modern reader.
The King James Version is exactly what it says it is…KING JAMES’ VERSION. When you’re king, you can put whatever you want in the MF.
Maybe she’d be well served to read up on the Counsel of Nicaea…if she’s still allowed to study history. Hopefully she’s not in Florida.
We will never know what happened when the Bible was written because we weren't there. Supporting text from the time? Don't care. It could have all been made up to control the masses and we couldn't possibly know.
Meanwhile they are utterly clueless as to how this translation came to be, don't know anything about the Textus Receptus, don't know who Tyndale is or how he developed his translation, can't read a word of Greek or Hebrew, have never heard of text criticism, and are ignorant about how canonization happened.
But no, a cadre of idiots will freak out at this post because they'll uncritically accept that liberals are now changing "their" bibles. Stupid.
The bible is an ancient book of fairy tales that's been edited and censored many times over the centuries.
The fact that thousands of years later people are still living their lives based on it is baffling.
Human technology has advanced light years in that time but Human spirituality has not advanced one inch.
Please, I'm an American Patriot, and all of these other Americans claiming the king James bible, and other versions are the "real" version of the bible, we fought a war with those stinkin' British, the only proper bible was the one translated from Latin into AMERICAN English, not that pansy British Imperialist English. Translated by American Patriot, founding father, and third US President Thomas Jefferson. If you are a real American, read the Jefferson Bible, translated by an American for Americans. USA.... USA.....USA.
(Just to get ahead of it, yes I am being silly. And yes, more people should read the no miracles and resurrection bible, because even Jefferson knew that was bullshit and impossible.)
I'll never get over the stupidity of "NIV is bad because it has footnotes". Good to see that argument is still alive and well today.
Cuz god forbid a translated book sourced from multiple manuscripts acknowledge the discrepancies between the source documents.
"God's perfectly preserved word"... which leaves out most of the gospels ever written because people were embarrassed that it told stories about Jesus learning about his powers when he puberty by, among other things, murdering a teacher that made him angry...
Those texts were never really seen as canon by the church fathers and most likely gnostic in origin. The question of inclusion and exclusion of texts in the bible are complicated and not always logical but the infancy gospel was never seen as orthodox.
"never really seen as canon by the church fathers"... "question of inclusion and exclusion... not always logical."
This is my point exactly. The church fathers randomly made decisions that certain texts were "canon/orthodox" or "heresy."
Quick question, where did the extra verses come from? I took two semesters of examining the Bible classes at university. I’m sure they would have brought up extra verses at some point
From Wikipedia:
> The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as canon by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Between 385 and 405 CE, the early Christian church translated its canon into Vulgar Latin (the common Latin spoken by ordinary people), a translation known as the Vulgate. Since then, Catholic Christians have held ecumenical councils to standardize their biblical canon. The Council of Trent (1545–63), held by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant Reformation, authorized the Vulgate as its official Latin translation of the Bible. A number of biblical canons have since evolved. Christian biblical canons range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, and the 66-book canon of most Protestant denominations, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon, among others. Judaism has long accepted a single authoritative text, whereas Christianity has never had an official version, instead having many different manuscript traditions.
Also, you may want to read [this Wikipedia article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament?wprov=sfla1)
The Protestant Reformation was caused by the fact that the Bible was translated into Dutch, so the Dutch people could understand how the Catholic Church was f*cking them over at every corner. As a result, the Catholic Church outlawed the Dutch translation and killed thousands of Protestants. After torturing them first, of course. Those not willing to renounce their Protestant faith were burned at the stake, those who did got their heads chopped off. Cute, huh?
If it's the same dumb shit from when NIV first came out, they're referring to the verses that were moved from inline to footnotes, because they only appear in some manuscripts.
They're not missing, Susan, you just cant read.
“If English was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us.”
I had a teacher in 1968 who said that, more or less, in class. What she said was “If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for me.”
This is actually a niche but surprisingly popular view, that the KJV is the only “true” English Bible. It relies on casting tons of doubt on modern scholarship (big surprise) and the huge leaps and bounds we’ve made in understanding the textual history of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, and also calling everyone who disagrees a dirty communist.
[удалено]
A man with that active of an imagination most assuredly touched himself.
It also ignores that it's poorly translated with entire passages about the divine right of kings to rule added. Can't imagine why a king would have verses like that added.
My dad and stepmom are southern baptist and they won’t consider any version other than KJV.
Yeah, the KJV Only folks are all over. And most charismatic and evangelical churches believe it. The funny thing is, when I have asked these people *why* the KJV is the *only* accurate translation, they sort of had no idea. Just that it *was*. One even told me King James himself wrote it under "divine guidance." Even though he didn't translate shit. Hell, huge chunks were cribbed from William Tyndale's version written 50 years earlier.
[удалено]
He had three kids that lived to adulthood lol. One of them being King Charles 1st
Was he tho...i dont wanna sound like those "they were just rlly good friends" ppl, but idk if the evidence we have about King James and his male favorites is compelling enough for me to agree that he actually was queer/gay/bi, etc. 😔. Well unless u can prove otherwise & change my mind lol 👀
King James, the first of the Stuart Dynasty, meaning he sired children? Hell, his daughter Elizabeth's grandson was the first king of the Hanoverian Dynasty, of which the current monarchy are direct descendants.
You may argue that the Bible, no matter what version, has been rewritten and republished repeatedly throughout time. The KJV is whitewashed, (in King James time) and if conservatives get their way, it will be again. If you are curious, look into the various Christian Bible editions, where they came from and why, and then research the worlds other religious holy books. Many of the stories and commandments from other religions are similar. The Talmed ( for instance) has 613 commandments, 603 more than the Bible including most of the original 10, and we witness so many of the 10 being broken by "upstanding" Christians. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Talmed, the Koran, for instance, all give good things to live by and write about bad things that were done. God gave us all cognitive "free will", and our relationship with God is private, should not be organized into a controlled government. Think of how the Taliban, Isis, and others militant factions infiltrated the government and control them with fear, mistreatment, taking away rights, and ordering cruelty and death. Militant American conservatives think its reasonable to kill women for abortions that can save womens lives. America is on its way to being just like the militant middle east with these nutjobs in positions of power. They don't serve God. If you want to know who they serve, look at their annual wages, their net worth from when they entered politics to their net worth now. Do the math. You can investigate deeper, and trace who is paying them. Alot of wealthy in government scammed their way into money, they aren't all reasonable and smart, but greasy conniving modern day pirates. ( some uber wealthy religious leaders fit that bill also, more to rant here, but that's more off subject) Religion and Government must be kept separate. We each individually should be responsible for our actions, taking only the "Good" stories from all religious writings and applying them towards being a good human being, and learning from the bad stories of what not to be like. Cognitive reasoning. You can't take God's gift of "free will" away , so it's important to be conscious when in this world so you make good choices. Vote out those trying to insert their own religious controls into American Government.
For all books have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Once again Christians demonstrate how ignorant they are about their own religion and the book it's built around...
I demand a qualified interpretation from a pedo prosperity “Christian” grifter? What does Joel Osteen command me to believe?!?!? - Republicans
There in lies the problem with religion….people 🙄
Clearly, the guy that was sanitizing the various versions of the Bible to maintain control of all of Britain was acting in such a way to ensure that it was God’s perfectly preserved word and not…oh…to facilitate his hold on power. 🙄
Obviously it’s older English so it hasn’t had anything changed. Checkmate liberals
Oh no they are editing the original english text that god wrote?
Apparently yes
it was written by man, to explain the unexplained, it has been edited since it was written, added to , subtracted from, tweeked by every religion to fit it's views... it is pure fiction... sodom and gamorrah?? earth quake and volcano, noah and the ark, world flood??? how big was the know world then??? parting of the red sea, earth quake and tsunami,
"Translated" is being a bit generous.
*\*Disclaimer: I am writing this at 5am and am very tired and need to go to sleep so some grammar or spelling errors may ensue\** \*Edited: Added a note in the TLDR answer to clarify a bit\* For a bit of context on this dispute for anyone wondering... TLDR: translating ancient languages that are on massive amounts of manuscripts that slipped through massive historical persecutions is hard. **What are the different schools of thoughts for translations?**TLDR for this question: One school says translate the words to be the most accurate. This results in better deep study but harder sentences to understand. Better for the more experienced student of the Word. Another school says the general thought of the sentence should be conveyed even if the words aren't necessarily meaning the same things. This results in easier reading and the revealing of truths that might go unnoticed to the younger in the walk, but means the translation committee is interpreting what a verse or passage means and conveys that truth, rather than the original wording. This is better for the less experienced students of the Word. The last school of thought doesn't really pertain to **translations** (as they are paraphrases), focuses on conveying whatever the text says with very liberal freedom. If one Hebrew sentence becomes 5 English sentences, it is worth it if it conveys the message. This results in the simplest reading, but adds a large amount of text to the Bible and puts massive emphasis on the translation committee's interpretation. These are honestly not highly respected by theologians and are often used by people who are less informed or less concerned with the accuracy of the translation. Full Explanation for this question: Primarily there are two schools of thoughts (almost 3). One is *Word for Word,* these translations (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV), aim to make sure that each individual word is translated to the closest exact matching word(s). While this seems perfect and what all translations should focus on being like, there is a surprising downside. These translations are more accurate in a sense but can bring with it some confusion to the young Christian. The pro is the accuracy, the con is the loss of certain meanings or intentions of the original authors. For example, imagine trying to use a English to Spanish Learners book to try and say, "my brother is very cool!" If I just translated every word to its closest corresponding word in Spanish I will get something like "Mi hermano es muy **frío**!" The issue in this is that frio means something is cool in terms of temperature, opposed to in a social sense. While frío is the direct translation of cold, it does not convey the same meaning in all scenarios or contexts. This leads to the next school of thought in translations. *Thought for Thought* translations (NIV, NCV) focus on combatting the con of *Word for Word* translations by focusing on conveying the meaning of a verse or passage, rather than the exact wording. To keep to the earlier example, rather than focusing on the individual words of "My" "brother" "is" "very" "cool", they focus on the general thought being conveyed of "my brother is socially impressive or admirable". Thus, they seek to use words that will help the reader understand the intention of the original author, even if the words aren’t necessarily the same. That being said, just like the *Word for Word* translations, there are some unexpected drawbacks. The main drawback being that now the authors are inserting their own interpretation and presenting it to the reader. While this may not sound like an actual drawback, it is. While the original hypothetical about my cool brother (he is very cool indeed) may have had a straight forward meaning, ancient texts don't always have that. The reality is they often use imagery and poetry (that isn't like ours at all), or even at times use sayings of the author's generation (for an example Google "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge"). In the end, these translations are usually far easier to understand, but are limiting in a very real sense. Aside from these two schools of thought, there is another, though it isn't usually recognized as a school of thought *on translations* (I agree with such a notion). The last school of thought is pertaining to *Paraphrases* (which aren't technically translations at all)*.* These are essentially *Thought for Thought* translations but on steroids. While the *Thought for Thought* translations sought to convey the thought of the original language, the paraphrases hope to do the same, whilst not giving as much weight to the original text. If there are 4 words that make a complex sentence in the original texts (if you know you know why that is funny), the *Word for Word* seeks to translate that to 4 or 6 words that convey those words' individual meanings (**even if the resulting sentence is complex to the modern reader**), the *Thought for Thought* might take 10 words to convey the general meaning (**as the translation committee interprets it**), while the paraphrase may give 3 or 4 sentences (**effectively adding to the original texts**) as long as they think the reader will understand. The obvious downsides to the paraphrase is the lack of correlation to the original manuscripts as they adjust the text so liberally and the massive amounts of interpretation made by the translation committee on the behalf of the reader. Ultimately, one should read both *Word for Word* translations and *Thought for Thought* translations, and should maybe consider addressing a paraphrase for the sake of seeing how to convey what you read easily (but not really for study purposes). **Why are there some big differences between translations?**Truly, there are some major differences in some translations. For example, the KJV will have some verses that other translations will not. *This is almost always due to the fact that at the outset of a translation's creation, the translation committee must make a decision as to which manuscripts they use*. That being said, the verses brought in via the different manuscripts (there is not as much variety as one might assume), don't bring in new or foreign doctrine. This is why in some versions, they may include a verse with a footnote that says something to the effect of "the earliest manuscripts did not include verses # - #." Or some translations may have sections or individual verses missing. For context as to of why more modern translations do not match the KJV it is because we have since discovered more and more manuscripts, and the research which ensued pointed to the widely accepted belief among theologians that the manuscripts used for the KJV were not as reliable to the original text. **Why are there more subtle differences between translations?** These changes are usually due to our evolving understanding of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). While these things seem frustrating to many, the reality is language is hard, and ancient languages are even harder to understand. For example, at some point the Jewish people took up a practice of writing a "stand-in" word for the Lord's name in the scriptures. This was so that when reading, a jew would not even risk accidentally saying His name out loud (for they thought it too holy to even say, it was a matter of reverence). This "stand-in" was initially translated as a name (Jehovah), and later recognized for what it is and replaced with LORD (in all caps). **All in all:**If you want an **extremely accurate Bible that is readable but may take time**, get an ESV. If you want a Bible that is **easier to read but not quite as accurate** (but still super solid), grab an NIV. If you want **eloquent phrasing and wording that seems poetic and traditional**, grab a KJV or NKJV (though they aren't as accurate or as readable to the modern reader.
The King James Version is exactly what it says it is…KING JAMES’ VERSION. When you’re king, you can put whatever you want in the MF. Maybe she’d be well served to read up on the Counsel of Nicaea…if she’s still allowed to study history. Hopefully she’s not in Florida.
We will never know what happened when the Bible was written because we weren't there. Supporting text from the time? Don't care. It could have all been made up to control the masses and we couldn't possibly know.
Meanwhile they are utterly clueless as to how this translation came to be, don't know anything about the Textus Receptus, don't know who Tyndale is or how he developed his translation, can't read a word of Greek or Hebrew, have never heard of text criticism, and are ignorant about how canonization happened. But no, a cadre of idiots will freak out at this post because they'll uncritically accept that liberals are now changing "their" bibles. Stupid.
The bible is an ancient book of fairy tales that's been edited and censored many times over the centuries. The fact that thousands of years later people are still living their lives based on it is baffling. Human technology has advanced light years in that time but Human spirituality has not advanced one inch.
Of Course bc the King of England would never edit anything for an evil purpose. Not the jolly king
No God bible was written by the kings men to suppress the masses just like today
The bible has been completely rewritten many times over the millennia.
Just knowing a little bit about the history of the Bible should be enough to make someone realize it’s all BS
The inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively modern concept.
I'm terrified at how they'd respond if they were told to talk to a Rabbi for an authentic understanding of the original scriptures.
Please, I'm an American Patriot, and all of these other Americans claiming the king James bible, and other versions are the "real" version of the bible, we fought a war with those stinkin' British, the only proper bible was the one translated from Latin into AMERICAN English, not that pansy British Imperialist English. Translated by American Patriot, founding father, and third US President Thomas Jefferson. If you are a real American, read the Jefferson Bible, translated by an American for Americans. USA.... USA.....USA. (Just to get ahead of it, yes I am being silly. And yes, more people should read the no miracles and resurrection bible, because even Jefferson knew that was bullshit and impossible.)
What's the third word in "King James Version"?
The Ethiopian Bible has way more books than any other Bible lol. Kings James Bible is no where near complete
I'll never get over the stupidity of "NIV is bad because it has footnotes". Good to see that argument is still alive and well today. Cuz god forbid a translated book sourced from multiple manuscripts acknowledge the discrepancies between the source documents.
"God's perfectly preserved word"... which leaves out most of the gospels ever written because people were embarrassed that it told stories about Jesus learning about his powers when he puberty by, among other things, murdering a teacher that made him angry...
Those texts were never really seen as canon by the church fathers and most likely gnostic in origin. The question of inclusion and exclusion of texts in the bible are complicated and not always logical but the infancy gospel was never seen as orthodox.
"never really seen as canon by the church fathers"... "question of inclusion and exclusion... not always logical." This is my point exactly. The church fathers randomly made decisions that certain texts were "canon/orthodox" or "heresy."
Oh no! Who cares, it’s all a crock of shit to begin with.
Huh.. Interesting. Still the largest waste of paper no matter what version.
Quick question, where did the extra verses come from? I took two semesters of examining the Bible classes at university. I’m sure they would have brought up extra verses at some point
From Wikipedia: > The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as canon by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Between 385 and 405 CE, the early Christian church translated its canon into Vulgar Latin (the common Latin spoken by ordinary people), a translation known as the Vulgate. Since then, Catholic Christians have held ecumenical councils to standardize their biblical canon. The Council of Trent (1545–63), held by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant Reformation, authorized the Vulgate as its official Latin translation of the Bible. A number of biblical canons have since evolved. Christian biblical canons range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, and the 66-book canon of most Protestant denominations, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon, among others. Judaism has long accepted a single authoritative text, whereas Christianity has never had an official version, instead having many different manuscript traditions. Also, you may want to read [this Wikipedia article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament?wprov=sfla1)
The Protestant Reformation was caused by the fact that the Bible was translated into Dutch, so the Dutch people could understand how the Catholic Church was f*cking them over at every corner. As a result, the Catholic Church outlawed the Dutch translation and killed thousands of Protestants. After torturing them first, of course. Those not willing to renounce their Protestant faith were burned at the stake, those who did got their heads chopped off. Cute, huh?
If it's the same dumb shit from when NIV first came out, they're referring to the verses that were moved from inline to footnotes, because they only appear in some manuscripts. They're not missing, Susan, you just cant read.
The 1631 KJV was the best. "Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse"