King James Bible

Geneva Bible > King James Bible > NRSV > all others

fight me

>>8624640

The Geneva Bible contains slanted translations with even more slanted marginal notes which are distracting to readers.

NSRV is one of the "gender" neutered version of the bible. NRSV removes the very important messianic phrase “Son of Man” from the entire Old Testament (feminists are offended at having two gender distinctions). And so when we read Daniel 7:13, in the NRSV, we find the "Son of Man" is taken out of the prophecy referring to Jesus and replaced with "one like a human being".

>>8624637
I'm sorry, I just can't take anybody claiming an English translation is the best product of literature seriously. You people have no idea how poor your language is grammar-wise. Feel free to produce great literature in your own language, but refrain from praising your translations, because they are all botched. Get real.

inshallah, the Quran dictated by Mohammed (pbuh) is the greatest spiritual guide and the most beautiful work of literature

>>8624637
Blasphemous.

>>8624660
>NRSV removes the very important messianic phrase “Son of Man” from the entire Old Testament

holy fuck is that true? I always hear that version is one of the more accurate ones. That is a massive change

>>8624666
Racist

>>8624666
>666

No its not.
Just like Iliad or Aeneid, and Gilgamesh, and Republic, people love to hype old shit simply because it's old and influential
None of these books would stand to scrutiny were they to be released in modern society

>>8624695
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A10&version=NRSV

>For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.
>http://www.bible-researcher.com/harrelson1.html

>Daniel's "son of man" was treated differently, since there the Aramaic "one like a human being," which was the translation adopted, clearly means just that. The New Testament references, however, retain Son of Man.

It's much more complex than that 'alt-right' idiot up there wants you to believe.

>>8624711
>>8624711
That's not the old testament.
From what I know the usage of "son of man" in Daniel and Ezekiel is extremely important to the supposed fulfillment of old testament prophecies by Jesus.
I don't really see why they would change a term with such long history and with such great importance linking the old and new testaments just for the sake of being "inclusive".

>>8624732
It's not for the sake of being inclusive - it's for the sake of being correct. The old testament uses various words that are similar to 'son of man' but are not literal - the later translations retcon 'son of man' in there so that the prophecy looks better. The 'the man's son' thing appeared only in the new testament and there as a definite address to Jesus, the old testament uses 'son of man 'for many different purposes. Using the same word in English for both cases, as older English translations of the Bible did, is imprecise.

>>8624711
>The New Testament references, however, retain Son of Man.

feminist and libtards are hard at working trying to subvert the NT don't worry. They'll gender-neutralize it one day.

>>8624752
>The 'the man's son' thing appeared only in the new testament

>Daniel 8:17
So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was terrified, and fell upon my face; but he said unto me: 'Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.'

in hebrew the term is apparently ben-'adam which sounds pretty close to son of man to me

and this is from the JPS translation so it can't be argued as Christian retconning

File: luci pepe.jpg (36KB, 163x225px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 163x225px

>>8624752

>incorrect information within a vague argument

are you jewish by any chance?

>>8624710
>None of these books would stand to scrutiny were they to be released in modern society
>he thinks that's a good thing
>we've come a long way, amirite guys?

>>8624660


yep; the Septuagint OT version says the same: "son of man" and we know the apostles quoted the OT from the Greek Septuagint.

>>8624775
>dumb frogposting

Are you a retarded burgerperson by any chance?

>>8624752
Also
>The second concern was how much masculine language was being retained in our draft translations. Could we not eliminate more of it and still remain by our mandate to revise the RSV only where it was necessary to do so? What tactics were available that we might not yet have tried?

that hardly sounds like they were going strictly for accuracy, that sounds pretty ideological