all 16 comments

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Wrong. Use a proper translation if you care what the Bible says

Textual criticism is a tool of the devil, by the way

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Who gave you the authority to determine which translations are proper? Anyway the only real difference is using the word "base" instead of "unborn". I don't know what "base" is supposed to mean, which is exactly why you don't use a 400-year-old translation. But I checked Scrivener's Textus Receptus, which is what the KJV was translated from, and it is identical other than adding "and" before "the things that are not".

τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεός, καὶ τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you don't know what words mean, you don't use a shit translation you learn what words mean. If you care.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What, do you think everything is translated from the KJV? I do know what ἀγενῆ means. I shouldn't have to understand Shakespearean English to know that.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's literally a couple dozen words a middle-schooler can learn

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why should you do that when you can understand it much better in modern English?

And that's not the only problem. There are a lot of words we do understand, but meant something completely different in 1611. That's why unicorns appear in the KJV. Additionally, the KJV did not have access to anywhere near as many manuscripts as we do today, and didn't have as much knowledge about their content and context. Because of that the KJV has countless errors. It even has things that are exclusively found in late copies of the Vulgate, due to pressure from the church to include them.

Is all that really worth it for nostalgia?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Better scholars than either of us have explained it. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jeremiah/7-22.htm

It's not hard to grasp but you have to be willing to grasp it.

You can't prove the unicorn didn't exist, nor any other negative proof.

KJV is the superior translation for English speakers. Cope.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All of those explanations are really straining to explain away the contradiction. I'll admit I'm no scholar myself, but those are also theologians and not serious scholars.

"Unicorn" in the days of the KJV meant an animal with one horn. In this case, most likely a kind of ox.

You keep insisting that the KJV is superior, but you have zero evidence. You're literally making the most circular argument possible: "it's superior because it's superior".

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not a contradiction

It's not up to me to explain things that have been explained at excruciating length by others already, to people who wouldn't understand.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You keep saying it's been solidly established, but you never back up your claims more than a tiny bit. Seems like you just don't have any real counterpoints.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Textual criticism is not a tool of the devil. According to the Bible it's biblical inerrancy that's a tool of the devil. Read Jeremiah 7:22 & 7:31, and then 8:8. And since it's in the Bible, and the Bible is inerrant, it has to be true. The implications are so disastrous for orthodoxy that most translations deliberately change something here to hide it.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you want to try to play up supposed contradictions in the bible, it's good that you pick as your example controversy something that makes sense only in your head gg

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It shouldn't only make sense in my head. I've pointed it out to others in the past and they were stunned. It's pretty clear that since God says he never commanded sacrifices, then the hundreds of commandments to offer sacrifices to him must be forgeries. Because he says he didn't say to burn people to death and finds it disgusting, wherever the Old Testament law says to burn people alive must be a forgery. Then soon afterward he laments, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us'? Look, truly the false pen of scribes made it into falsehood." That's pretty clear imo.

[–]patrol 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

k