[In a long essay disparaging the Teen Study Bible and arguing King James is the only real bible]
<img src="http://www.fstdt.com/images/kjvbest.jpg ">
41 comments
Actually, the KJV was translated at a time when only a few late manuscripts were available. Many more, much older manuscripts have become available since then. New translations that make use of this larger library of manuscripts are much more likely to be closer to the "autographs."
screwball squirrel: All the manuscrips have different content (there are more differences between existing manuscripts of the new testament than there are words in the new testament). In many cases, our oldest manuscipts have less content, indicating that at some point, passages and whole stories were added.
So fucking what... The best way to kill yourself is suffocation with a plastic bag and tape, it doesn't mean you should be recommending it to the young and impressionable, and in fact there's laws against it.
Sure, the butchered, 500 year old version is the closest to the real texts. Anyone who knows anything about the bible knows that this was tampered with severely. This is as much the 'true' bible as the menu at 'Denny's'.
screwball squirrel -- Different types of bible versions are useful for different purposes. Young's Literal and Green's Literal are good clarifying the actual meanings of a passage, but they are hard to read as literature. Paraphrases, like The Message, are easy to read but gloss over many problems and subtleties.
It's obvious why so many fundie preachers insist on the KJV - its Jacobean English can be "creatively interpreted" unlike more modern translations. They seem to ignore the fact that the KJV was reviled back in 1611...
For similar reasons, the Catholic Church long forbade translations of the bible other than Latin.
Yes, let's use only the King James Bible. Then, let's only watch black-and-white filmed media. Then, let's do away with all digital products, especially computers and the nasty Internet. Then, let's forget about the zipper, and go back to buttons. Yay!
*In many cases, our oldest manuscipts have less content, indicating that at some point, passages and whole stories were added.
That's correct. Some passages were indeed added.
The KJV was based on the third edition of a work known as the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by a man named Erasmus. Erasmus was working in haste, and in the process obtained manuscripts that modern scholars agree were somewhat dubious. The third edition is notable as Erasmus was pressured into inserting a passage known as the Comma Johanneum.
And while the LDS faith does use the KJV, there's nothing stopping us from grabbing another translation for comparison. I myself have an RSV and an NKJV New Testament sitting in my room somewhere.
In my opinion, all versions of the Bible are flawed since none can trace their roots to the original source materials.
That being said, I don't think much of the original source material either. Much of it was written by uneducated, mysoginistic, superstitious, bigoted individuals.
You can do much to improve on the material when the source is that bad to begin with.
Actually his hair kind of looks like feathers. His crest is raised in alarm and his mouth is giving off his danger cry. Can't work out whether to call him a galah or a drongo. Oh wait they're Australian birds - one's a parrot or a term of derision for a lunatic whack-job and one of thems a starling sized insect catcher with an ornamental tail that only became a term of derision in the 20's when a 'racehorse' called drongo famously came last in every race it went in by considerable margin. It means utterly fucking useless.
Oh and I retract the danger cry, it's clearly a mating display - he's marking out his territory and doing his courship dance to attract any nearby females.
If he likes the KJB so much, why is he STANDING on it? Yeah, nothing says "you're the best" like using the object of your admiration as a footstool.
Also, why are the words "King James Bible" on the BACK of the book?
The LDS church originally used Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version" of the Bible, in which he inserted a verse that began "and that seer I bless who shall be called Joseph..."
Yes, Smith injected himself into the "IV."
On the brochure "Omissions in the New King James Bible", it says that God is omitted 51 times, and Lord is omitted 66 times. Could you please send me the list of verses where they occur? Thank you very much.
"the Catholic Church long forbade translations of the bible other than Latin."
Incorrect. The very reason the Bible was first translated to Latin was that it was the lingua franca of the time of translation (4th century AD). At the very least, portions of the Bible (like the Psalms or Gospels or Epistles or even Apocalypse/Revelation) in the vernacular are attested to in several places, some as far back as the 7th century, and all without clerical censure. Still, there weren't many of them, owing to the expenses of producing books in the days before printing. Lest we forget, much of the populace at the time was also illiterate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_I_of_England
Queen James is the only Fabulous Bible
FTFY [/Jessie Jerry]
Incidentally, my best friend - who is a long-time Church of England Christian - when he heard of the C-of-E clergy in the House of Lords dropping their opposition to S-SM, his reaction to this being just one word:
'Good. '
And he uses the KJV.
Considering the above facts about the authoriser of such, I think we now know why those clergy peers in Parliament had no alternative but to accept the inevitable, re. that Bill introduced in the House of Commons. Just ask the Catholic clergy - once wielding so much political power - in Ireland a few years later.
Those Hypocrisy chickens are coming home to roost these days, eh fundies...?! [/Josh Buggar]
Could I please see the image?
Edit: apparently, the page is still up. Yeah, it's arguing that the KJV is easier to understand because it uses shorter words.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.