The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

So then, there can be no argument for them producing a superior translation by what they chose to work with.

for example we have in every English version of the Psalm, 'they pierced My hands and My feet'
that's not incorrect, but what it literally says is 'like a lion, My hands and My feet'

So then, there can be no argument for them producing a superior translation by what they chose to work with.

In the MT, but the LXX says pierced, so possibly translators used the LXX version instead of the MT one. I know Jewish bibles at one time universally used the MT version of Zechariah 14:5, but several later editions switched over to the LXX version, because it is indisputably the correct version.

Exactly. In comparison with what is available today, their resources were very limited.

There is at the very leaat no argument that they had superior resources at their disposal, and the whole "anti-textual-criticism" argument is nonsense or at best a diversionary tacric; textual criticism is exactly what every good translator does, kjv governing body included: they critique the texts available at them.

iirc the root of the argument is that the word for "pierced" is the word for lion. so the argument is purely about the true meaning of ancient Hebrew words, not about versions.

that's interesting.

it appears that ancient translations and manuscripts don't have "without cause" either.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...ngry-without-a-cause-in-matthew-522-only-kjv/

may i suggest that being liable to judgment does not make a person automatically condemned. and may i remind you that it is also written, do not judge, lest ye also be judged?
not, 'don't judge unless you're pretty sure you have a good reason to judge'


so while it may be more difficult to understand, it is consistent, and does not make Christ a sinner by saying it without a softening clause that textual and external evidence indicates was added after the second century.


Thank you for your examples; i will enjoy looking into these over the next couple of days - tho i will mention right away that things like NLT and GWT etc don't even attempt to be literal and imo don't count as translations at all, they are just rubbish.

i'm interested in accuracy not interpretive paraphrase.

Raca means telling someone he is going to Hell.

For, its word's usage, it was seen in the context of...

"The fool" says in his heart there is no God.

Got that from my pastor.
A scholar who taught us from the original languages.
Again, proof, that surface translations into English can make us miss the original point that was being made in a passage.

That is why I recommend my pastor when I can.
He never charges for his Bible lessons.
And, begins almost ever class by citing from the KJV.

You really need to get out from being under the concept of a one man teacher who spoon feeds people whereby his followers just blindly believe him without fact checking him. I have looked into this and there is no proof that the Aramaic word "Raca" is any way associated with hell. It means worthless, or empty, etcetera. There are no roots of the word "Raca" having to do with any form of hell, either.

If you wanted to convey to someone in Aramaic that they are "bound for hell," you would say the following:

"Att khaza l'Gehinnom" (אַתְּ חָזָא לְגֵיהִנּוֹם)

Here are the different Aramaic words that can be used to refer to hell in some way:

Gehinnom (ܓܼܗܲܢܵܐ, Gehinnā) – This is the most direct term used for hell in Aramaic, borrowed from the Hebrew Gehenna (גֵּיהִנּוֹם). Gehinnom originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom, a place outside Jerusalem where refuse and sometimes bodies were burned. Over time, it became a symbol of divine punishment or a place of fiery judgment in both Jewish and early Christian thought.

Sheol (שאול, pronounced She’ol in Hebrew and Shu'la in some Aramaic dialects) – Though not as common in Aramaic, Sheol sometimes appears to describe the abode of the dead. In Jewish and Aramaic contexts, Sheol represents a shadowy underworld or the grave, rather than a place of fiery punishment.

Nura d’Alma (ܢܘܪܐ ܕܥܠܡܐ) – Meaning "fire of the world" or "eternal fire." While not a direct word for hell, this phrase can describe a state or place of eternal punishment associated with hellfire. It is more descriptive and is used to convey the concept of an unquenchable or divine fire rather than hell itself.

Bor Taṭa (ܒܘܪܬܬܐ) – Literally "the pit below" or "the bottomless pit." This term is less commonly used but can refer to a place of spiritual imprisonment or a place of despair. It’s sometimes associated with Sheol or a hellish place.


....

KJV = Keep Jesus Veiled!

All those words you just said?
To show you could not gasp the few I presented?

in my work i use data to identify cause and find solutions.

i am never opposed to more and better data, and in large part the differences between kjv and later translation work ((where that work had the aim of accurate literal translation)) are the result of having more manuscripts and thereby a better sense of which readings were original and which had been altered over time.

kjv did exactly the same kind of analysis but with poorer resources available to them.

No. They had previous printed editions in English, Erasmus' five editions, Luther's German edition, a few other languages, the Latin Vulgate, and at most a handful of Greek manuscripts, all of them quite late (9th-11th centuries). Since that time, there have been thousands of manuscripts discovered. The current total is around 5800 NT manuscripts in Greek, along with hundreds of examples in other languages.

I would like to interject that we are subjective rather than objective, so the best we can be is open-minded rather than callous-hearted.

Also, even if we had a perfect/inerrant Bible, we are imperfect or fallible, so we would need to employ a good hermeneutic as we seek an ever better understanding of GW.

Thanks

Yes... But it means to be seen as a fool for Christ in the world's eyes.
But, not, to become a fool in the face of what the Scriptures teach.

Defining words should not exist amongst one man but it should be established by either Scripture, or a dictionary, or early church fathers, or the actual original language as the culture would recognize it. I checked on my end, and there is no proof for your definition here. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to give me goods or sources to back up your Pastor's claim.

Never did I suggest otherwise.
Anyway, your reply here does not in any way prove your agenda of the false of Science of Modern Textual Criticism.


...

I believe the data shows a clear KJV win for our current lifetime until the End in English-speaking countries.
I have come up with 150 Reasons for the KJV being the Pure Word of God for today.
As a data analyst, I would like your feedback on such data when I finish my sub-articles for this write-up.

…..