Favourite Bible Translations

Negative. Phileo and agape are two completely different terms with different meanings. Phileo,

you did exactly as I thought you would and twisted the meaning so it could fit your false belief in a book interpreted by man

anyway, thank you for trying

It has? Any more than the NASB?

When you copy texts, you usually do not have people removing verses, if anything you have them adding things, or copying things twice (a good example is Romans 8 in the KJV and NKJV)

Once again, the majority does not mean much,

the Most reliable ones would be the oldest ones, as they are closer to the time the origional manuscripts would have been in circulation.

they too are missing the lines of text found in the TR.

The KJV relies heavily on the Masoretic which has some verses omitted or changed. They filled in some parts from the Latin Vulgate so it's a bit of a patchwork. There have been verses omitted, added & omitted again in successive editions of the KJB. Onlyists aren't even curious to discus them because they believe in a magic translation frozen in time with the edition they now use.
Anyone seriously pursuing truth would want to seek out & understand where the KJV might be lacking.

I prefer an honest translation that recognises all the manuscript evidence available. There are some good translations that print the verses from the Masoretic in brackets where they differ from the Septuagint. This would have been difficult to do in 1611.
The KJ translators also didn't have the benefit of the DSS for comparison .

The work bilingual or multilingual translators do is a science that depends on copies of available manuscripts. The older manuscripts must be recognised. The entire Old Testament was translated into Greek at Alexandria BC. That's an incredible work that I want recognised in any version I'm reading. Not disregarded entirely because of a claim of corruption in later manuscripts.

Then you need to prove it. You're prejudice is something needs to be shredded. If you have something share then let's try yours. This still an open. You said nothing but completely different thing. Give me then a verse/s from the Bible so that we can study. Try...

Uhhh, because they were corrupt and rejected by early believers. They only survived because no one used them. They were found on a shelf in a Catholic Church and in the Vatican’s garbage. They should have left them there.

You are more ignorant than I thought. First, Strong's is a concordance, not a lexicon.

It goes from English to Greek. Not Greek to English, which is what a lexicon does. It's impossible for people than don't read Hebrew or Greek to use a lexicon, because the words are written in the different scripts, and they are found in Greek and Hebrew alphabetical order.

Strong's uses the KJV as its basis. You take the word from the KJV and use the number beside it in Strong's. If Greek, you go to the number in the back of Strong's, for its translation into English. I used one for years, till I learned Greek and Hebrew, hardly ever use it now. (I did use it to back translate words in the Hebrew to KJV!)

So, scholars use real tools. Like Bauer (BDAG) for Greek, and BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs!) for Hebrew.

No scholars use Strong's. I hear that a concordance was made for the NIV, but it is not my favourite version, and knowing Greek and Hebrew means I can use the better tools!

You have your fact to be found false, that's one. Then here is another one, this will be your strike two when you said "....
two completely different terms with different meanings. Phileo," and since it seems you wanted to say something, please proceed..I'll wait my friend...

I realize you don't fit that category, but most people who go to the "original languages" for better understanding go to Strong's. They look at Strong's opinion of what a Greek or Hebrew word means and then pick the definition that best fits their narrative.

All words in all languages usually have multiple meanings, how do you determine which meaning you will go with? I think you would agree that a person MUST HAVE the mind of Christ to be able to interpret context and word meaning. How do scholars like yourself do this? Are you guys inspired by the Holy Spirit or are your decisions based on your biases?

Why would you think that?

When the KJV was penned, there were perhaps less than twenty Greek manuscripts of the New Testament known, none older than about 900 AD (I don't have the details at hand), and not all were available for examination by the translators. They primarily worked from printed Greek editions of the text: Erasmus' five editions, and those of Stephanus and Beza, along with previous English translations and a few from other languages such as Luther's German edition.

Now there are close to 6,000 Greek manuscripts known, plus an abundance in other early languages. More is known about koine Greek than was known in 1604. Far more is known about the text. Also, the English language has changed enough that a reader of the KJV not only needs to learn completely unfamiliar words, but does well to check whether the meaning of a familiar word has changed over 400 years ("suffer" is a common example).

The reasons you cite appear to be nothing more than your own opinions. I would suggest you take advantage of your library skills and do some actual research on the subject.

Here is the actual evidence: there are many copies still in existence of the Byzantine-family manuscripts, while there are few copies still in existence of the Alexandrian family. As Angela has noted, the Byzantines made a conscious practice of copying the text; that says nothing at all about its accuracy, and actually tends to diminish its accuracy over time. Meanwhile, the expansion of militant Islam resulted in the destruction of many centres of Christian learning and very likely the destruction of many "Alexandrian" manuscripts.

We might like the truth to be simple, but in this case, the truth is not simple, and simplistic answers don't help anyone except the cultists and conspiracy nuts.

These too are opinions.☝️☝️☝️

My prejudice? Lol

dude Phileo love is familiar love, love of family, love of country, love of race etc etc. you could say the United States is stuck with 2 groups, each which have live for their own group, which highlights the weakness of Phileo,love, it is one side, while it is deep for those in your group, it is group related, the laws are that you love your group so much, you tend to not live outsiders, from this love can come racism, national pride which leads to wars, we see this type of love in our churches, in the social groups, which can be exclusive, as in anyone not part of yoru group is excluded (we call the click)

the Most important difference is Phileo love does not love its enemy, we see the greatest difference in

Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous person; [d]though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

this is agape love, it dies for your enemy, it does not differentiate based on race, family or like mindedness,, it is self sacrificial love it puts the needs of all others no matter who they are above their own, this is the kind of Love God showed. The kind of love which is foreign to those ho only love with Phileo love

you speak of prejudice, your the one defending an Idol. I love the KJV, I also love the NKJV, the king James Bible is my preferred bible, because I have used it since I first became A christian, so you need to look inside my friend, I am not the prejudiced one here, you are

You consider the documented existence of close to 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and an abundance in other early languages, to be "an opinion"?

If so, I can see why you hold so many strange ideas, and why you come up with so many bad arguments for your beliefs.

If I remember right, a lot or at least some of the KJV was translated from the Latin nto Greek, so in essence it is a translation of a translation, talk about multiplying the possibility of mistakes, unless those Latin manuscripts are perfect, the translation taken from them would not be perfect, where are the perfect Latin manuscripts? And why have they not been used to translate the Bible is other languages?

That's a terrible piece of pseudo-scholarship.

The author makes a tenuous connection at best between Gnostic beliefs and the Alexandrian texts. He uses the KJV as the standard, which is nothing other than blind bias. While giving reasonably sound information about early heresies, he provides nothing in the way of evidence that those heresies actually influenced the text; he only cites similarities which amount to opinions. The author cites (and mis-spells!) Scrivener (1894) which was essentially a back-translation of the KJV into Greek and therefore has absolutely no evidentiary value.

It might preach, but it wouldn't stand against actual evidence, and if Burgon were half the scholar that people claim he was, he would be insulted that such drivel is posted on a site dedicated to him.

I think you're overstating the case. I see nothing in Scripture suggesting that the Holy Spirit magically makes dictionaries and lexicons legible to believers while leaving them illegible to non-believers, and the relevance of context is taught in grade school.

What I'm saying is that a person has to have the mind of Christ in order to understand the context of a passage in order to get the correct meaning of a word in that passage.

And I still think you're overstating the issue. It's also rather self-serving, as you feel entitled to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as 'not having the mind of Christ'.