New bibles since 1960

The point is in the language that the bible was first written in, thee and thou (the singular forms of address) are actually used in those languages. Hebrew and greek. So the equivalent is thee and thous. Other languages have that too. Its just modern english is lazy, it doesnt differentiate anymore. Its like tu and vous in French.

Wonder why the new versions didn’t update the word “dung”?😀

Actually, "tu" and "vous" in French are not singular and plural exclusively, but also informal and formal. With a friend or family member you would use "tu"; but with a superior, "vous" would be the correct term.

You still hold to double standards.

That is being a hypocrite. Is that what kind of person you want to be?

Are you certain that they didn't? Have you done the homework, or are you simply making assumptions?

1 John 2:2

I notice maybe other versions have a different word, but if youve got a 'new' bible what word does it use?

Not sure what you mean. Every so called error in the KJV can be reconciled with truth. You have no answer for 2 Samuel 21:19?

Original text does not have the words "brother of ". The interpreters of King James added it in from the same story in Chronicles. Which does not change the meaning,
However they KJV interpreters added the name of Moses in Exodus 4 which is demonstrably wrong. The common pronoun him is what the actual text says. And Moses first born son is implied by the context. That being said the other Bibles leave that to the context and use the common pronoun him.

Doesn't change the meaning? Without the words, "brother of", it makes the Lord Jesus a sinner and in danger of hell fire. The Lord got angry several times, yet was without sin. His anger was justified with a cause. And in 2 Samuel 21:19 the words were added for truths sake. Without those words the text becomes a lie. Exodus 4 wrong? Nope, your opinion is not truth. We have the actual original text? Nope, again.

Ridiculous!
King James opinion about Exodus 4 is imposed , and wrongly so. The actual words are the common pronoun that translates to him. King James translators or interpreters inserted the name of Moses, thus imposing his opinion upon the reader both textually awkward and out of context.
In 2nd Samuel the words brother of was added by the interpreters. Not having "Brother of" does not make Jesus a liar. It simply makes you fail to understand because of huge cultural difference across many generations.
Some say son of Goliath the first, but some other cultural clues hint that the next in line brother may well have taken up the armor and the moniker Goliath in his elder brothers honor. Legacy of Goliath if you will. We know contextually it's not the same man that David killed; some enough, but it was the same spirit, legacy, and name.
We can't make the mistake of applying our cultural standards to thousands of years ago in far off places.

That's what you're going with...cultural standards? I'll stick with the actual words of Scripture. So the simple bible believer needs cultural standards to understand the plain text. Nope.

Well good you getting that as well good point.
Same with thee and thou, thou being mostly used to address God.

If youve got a new bible, dont be stingy, share what the word is for propitititian. If you dont well, to me seems like you a bit embarassed to admit you cant find it or dont understand it. Im not going to argue with someone whos got a bit of an attitude problem with answering questions.

I dont have a 'new' bible, so I am asking you who has one. If you want to be kind and share. If you dont well, forget about it. You probably dont know what propitiation means.

That's what you're going with...cultural standards? I'll stick with the actual words of Scripture. So the simple bible believer needs cultural standards to understand the plain text. Nope.

You characterize my suggestion that you look it up yourself as "an attitude problem". You characterize my lack of a direct answer as "you probably don't know".

Well, I characterize your unwillingness to do your own homework as "lazy" and your ignorant presumption as "insulting".

We can trade epithets all day, and in the end, you won't have your answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have internet access, therefore you are just as capable of linking to BibleGateway as I am. It has about 40 English versions so you'll know more than I would tell you with the six or seven that I have handy.

Here's a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/

If you were, you would acknowledge the plain contradiction in the KJV regarding the age of Ahaziah when he became king.

No you are going with the altered words of the KJV. The actually words of scripture don't have "brother of " in 2 sam Nor the name of Moses in Exodus 4. So be honest with yourself that you prefer the altered words.

You aren't a "simple bible believer". If you were, you would acknowledge the plain contradiction in the KJV regarding the age of Ahaziah when he became king. Instead you play with numbers and hypocritically call equivalent issues in other versions "lies".

Get some integrity.

Yep, I believe the Lord used the translators to add those words to make it true in the English language.