>American Church >Uses KJV exclusively Why.

>>2805508

You're confused why religious people would do irrational things that make no sense?

>>2805508
Because the overwhelming majority of Christians don't actually read the Bible with the intent to study and learn from it. They read it to mine out of context quotes, or to sound more learned and therefore impressive than other people.

The KJV uses a very archaic, stylized form of English. It sounds impressive, especially if you're not all that clear as to what half the words mean in their quasi-Elizabethan forms. Thus, it's great for sounding knowledgeable and authoritative. Sure, the translation quality is shit, but it's not like you're *actually* reading this for anything.

File: protestants.png (671KB, 1750x1043px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1750x1043px

>>2805508

File: bachman-bible.jpg (55KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x610px

Aren't there some denomination who consider KJB the only true version? Like, in a theological sense, just like some Muslims consider Qoran untranslatable.

>>2805508

KJV is actually pretty accurate for the most part, and it's certainly the most "literary" version in English.

That said, it literally doesn't matter which version you use, it's just a fairytale.

Only priests should be allowed to read and interpret the bible

>>2805540
Yes. Look up "Second inpsiration" or "second inspirationists". They believe that you should determine the accuracy of Greek manuscripts by how closely they adhere to the KJV.

>>2805543
You're joking right? This is the edition where they literally change the meaning of words and phrases to "correct" them, like how Mark's "Ἡσαΐᾳ " becomes "the Prophets" to cover up how Mark made a misquote.

>>2805543
>reading the Bible in English to begin with

>>2805547
Laity can too, but they should be learned in Koine at least so they can read original NT and the Septuagint. Reading the Bible only in English is pants on head retardation, bonus point if it's actual American "theologians" doing this.

File: disgust.jpg (105KB, 850x564px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 850x564px

>>2805553
>They believe that you should determine the accuracy of Greek manuscripts by how closely they adhere to the KJV.
Every day I feel sad Hitler didn't kill all Anglos.

>>2805553
>This is the edition where they literally change the meaning of words and phrases to "correct" them, like how Mark's "Ἡσαΐᾳ " becomes "the Prophets" to cover up how Mark made a misquote.

There are barely any examples of this, tho. Yes sure there's the "suffer a witch" redaction, but for the most part KJV is extremely accurate (meaning-for-meaning, not word-for-word).

>>2805556
>>reading the Bible in English to begin with
I know "people" like you would rather keep the proles ignorant, but letting people read what their holy text actually says is the number one method to cure people of infantile religiousity. It's like how nothing makes people atheistic like studying comparative religions, actually seeing for yourself the kind of garbage the Bible contains has saved countless people from wasting their lives believing in fairytales.

>>2805569
>proles ignorant
So it's beyond your cognitive abilities to learn another language? You aren't a feudal peasant in 700 AD who has no means of learning.

>>2805569
>There are barely any examples of this, tho.
No, there are lots of them, especially where the Old Testament is concerned. You can usually find one significant error per chapter in the KJV, it's pretty bad.

>but for the most part KJV is extremely accurate (meaning-for-meaning, not word-for-word).
It really isn't. Where it's even accurate at all, it glosses over enormous amounts of nuance, like the distinction between how it translates "Arum" in Genesis 2:25 and the immediate next verse in 3:1. There is supposed to be a VERY obvious parallel between the innocent nakedness of Adam and Eve and the "subtilty" of the serpent, which is completely ignored.

Which version of the bible do you read?

>>2805616
The original.

>>2805572

Like I said, you're an elitist prick. I honestly don't care what "people" like you "think".

>>2805644
Textbook 80 IQ American philistine.

>>2805528
This hit the nail on the head. The language is impressive and there's zero actual interest in understanding what's being read.

>>2805658

Whatever you say, prick.

>>2805665
Your low IQ fedora butt devastation contributes nothing to the discussion, kindly fuck off back to r*ddit.

>>2805671
>>2805665
>shitposting faggots ruin a thread

>>2805508
Tradition,the King James has always had a lofty place in protestant history, since the protestant even to this day have a form of vile reaction to anything Catholic, the more fanatical ones will stick to their old traditions of protestantism and align themselves to the KJV bible (1900), few if any use the original version, since it was revised many times over.

>>2805973
>protesntant history
Try A*glo history

>>2805973
>since the protestant even to this day have a form of vile reaction to anything Catholic
I've only ever seen this among evangelicals.

File: KJV chick.png (713KB, 506x4456px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 506x4456px

>>2805508
Because protties are retarded otherwise they wouldn't be protties.

>הוא לא קורא את התנ''ך בשפת המקור האמיתית

שיגי דיגי

File: 22032172.jpg (100KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1000x562px

>>2807028
Did you just curse me?

>>2807028
כ'כ

>>2806554
>evangelicals
they are protestants, at least the majority.

>>2805553
How is that any dumber than believing the original translators and compilers were "divinely inspired" to get the exact right manuscript, and that there's no possibility that any other translations are correct?

>>2805508
I prefer the KJV because it fits the poetic tone the original Greek and Aramaic had, while the milquetoast NLV and such just feel dry.

The best argument for KJV-only types is that it is based on the Textus Receptus, which is considered by many to be the God-driven, God-preserved text(s) on which translation is to be based. The argument is one of pedigree: the TR represents the best of biblical tradition preserved prior to the alterations of textual criticism, which is largely conducted by secular scholars or the "wrong" kinds of Christians. The TR is the Church's text. God has promised to preserve His Church and in order to do that it is also necessary that His revelation to them be preserved.

Is it a stupid argument? Yeah. But is it more stupid than arguments for apostolic succession? No.

>>2805553
Esai the prophet is a Byzantine vs Alexandrian text issue.

I'm in favor of word for word translation. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek all distinguish singular and plural second person like archaic English does with thou and you.
My favorite translations are Rotherham's Emphasised Bible and the American Standard Version. All translations have their faults though. The RSV goes opposite the gender neutral trend sometimes rendering neuter words masculine. The KJV translates Hádes, Géenna, and Tártaros all as hell. Rotherham's Bible takes the liberty to translate raca instead of leaving it as is like in the original Greek. In my opinion even Greek and Hellenized proper nouns should be preserved even if they differ with the Hebrew forms and vice versa.

>>2805528
>>2805661
> the overwhelming majority of Christians don't actually read the Bible with the intent to study and learn from it.
>They read it to mine out of context quotes, or to sound more learned and therefore impressive than other people.
>Christians
>read the Bible
no they don't, not in America, I've never read the bible and yet I have more biblical knowledge than 95% of the people I've talked to...I live in the bible belt, there are dozens of churches in my small town

File: KYS.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>2805538
Fucking gold

Which english bible translation is the best one to obtain?

KJV isn't that bad

The other books left out are mostly a bunch of filler, though they do have some poetic quality.

Theologist worth their salt however know Greek however, the original language of of scripture.

>>2807534
>Which english bible translation is the best one to obtain?
The ESV would be the best in my opinion, but its a bit more difficult to read. If you don't want that the NIV is the easiest because it renders the word more to the actual meaning of the text compare to ESV which literal word translation.

>>2805528

>KJV
>"very" archaic

You're semi-literate at best. You have no idea what you're talking about.