Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

374

This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.

"Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.)

Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was.

Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning essentially "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus".

About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded.

This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible.

Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true".

Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like.

We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea.

TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

*This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.* "Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.) Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was. Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning *essentially* "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus". About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded. This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible. Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true". Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like. We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea. TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (19).
[–] • 0 pt

The New Testament translation of the KJV is ok. The NKJV is probably the most useful - because the 1600s Kings English is a foreign language.

The best version of the Old Testament is found in the .

They used the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. There are several critical differences. If you have ever read the words "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a child", you have read a quote from the Septuagint.

In ~200BC the best scholars who spoke Hebrew translated the book of Isaiah to say "A virgin shall conceive", and in 100AD, the "updated" version said "a young woman shall conceive". Before Christ the promised Messiah had striking differences to what Rabbinical Judaism said following 100AD.

The other books that you should have, are found in the Ethiopian Canon - namely Jubilee's and Enoch. Jubilees in particular is interesting, read as a part of the Torah, it adds tremendous context and explains a lot of the events seen in the first five books of the accepted Bible.

TL;DR: KJV is not written in modern english, and it is a dialect that none now speak. The source text has significant corruption of the Old Testament. The NJKV is a good x-lation of the NT, and the Orthodox Study Bible sources from the Septuagint, is a much improved source text for the Old Testament.