You have a very deep ignorance of the history of the bible and it’s translations.
there literally isn't enough information in this thread for you to make that determination, you are just being a judgemental asshole.
Even more, being written in greek before being translated into latin strengthens my point.
Even the most widely spread "original" that came with the catholic church, and which all protestant English Bibles are based on, was a human translation with all the human errors associated with that.
These things are simply untrue. Stating incorrect facts demonstrates ignorance. If you are unwilling to do the proper research before forming your opinions, then you are ignorant. Me being a ‘judgemental asshole’ isn’t going to change that fact.
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of? Even the early English bibles were not based on the same set of sources. The Douay–Rheims is based on the Vulgate, the King James is based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text with corrections from LXX and the Vulgate, and most modern translations are based on the Nestle-Aland New Testament and the Masoretic text with corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
These are sources, an ideal copy of the text which a translation is theoretically based on, and must first be constructed from raw manuscripts. There are several manuscripts of the various sources from Roman times or earlier, with the exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls of which there exists only one set. Editing of these manuscripts is a largely solved problem. You can buy critical editions for them which are full of notes and context, and literal translations for them are available to compare to any bible. Furthermore, the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches have used the LXX and Byzantine majority text liturgically for over a thousand years. These churches are in communion with English-speaking and Russian-speaking Orthodox Churches which use mainly the KJV and the Elizabeth bible respectively. The Greeks have never questioned the authority of these translations nor have they ever demanded the bible only be read in Greek.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So you gonna opine on what exactly those reasons are, or you content to just judge me as wrong?
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of?
So you admit the bible isn't even a single work, but an amalgam of different human authors, and somehow this makes it less fallible and human?
The bible wasn’t written in Latin. It was written in Greek. You have a very deep ignorance of the history of the bible and it’s translations.
there literally isn't enough information in this thread for you to make that determination, you are just being a judgemental asshole.
Even more, being written in greek before being translated into latin strengthens my point.
Even the most widely spread "original" that came with the catholic church, and which all protestant English Bibles are based on, was a human translation with all the human errors associated with that.
These things are simply untrue. Stating incorrect facts demonstrates ignorance. If you are unwilling to do the proper research before forming your opinions, then you are ignorant. Me being a ‘judgemental asshole’ isn’t going to change that fact.
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of? Even the early English bibles were not based on the same set of sources. The Douay–Rheims is based on the Vulgate, the King James is based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text with corrections from LXX and the Vulgate, and most modern translations are based on the Nestle-Aland New Testament and the Masoretic text with corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
These are sources, an ideal copy of the text which a translation is theoretically based on, and must first be constructed from raw manuscripts. There are several manuscripts of the various sources from Roman times or earlier, with the exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls of which there exists only one set. Editing of these manuscripts is a largely solved problem. You can buy critical editions for them which are full of notes and context, and literal translations for them are available to compare to any bible. Furthermore, the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches have used the LXX and Byzantine majority text liturgically for over a thousand years. These churches are in communion with English-speaking and Russian-speaking Orthodox Churches which use mainly the KJV and the Elizabeth bible respectively. The Greeks have never questioned the authority of these translations nor have they ever demanded the bible only be read in Greek.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So you gonna opine on what exactly those reasons are, or you content to just judge me as wrong?
So you admit the bible isn't even a single work, but an amalgam of different human authors, and somehow this makes it less fallible and human?
Ok buddy.