Warning: 2001 Translation

Conan said:

King James Onlyism is wrong. The 1611 KJV is fantastic and better than most Bibles. But it is not always correct. It is not to be made into a golden perfect idol.

Click to expand...

GodisgraciousR325 said:

It is perfect.

Click to expand...

Conan said:

That is an immature saying. God is perfect. A Bible printed and translated by man is not.

Click to expand...

GodisgraciousR325 said:

Kindly stay on topic, do have opinons on the version I linked in the original post
?

Click to expand...

GodisgraciousR325 said:

Okay, good point. Anyways, please share opinions on the 2001 translation.

Click to expand...

How the 2001 identifies spurious texts​

1. The words are missing from the prominent old manuscripts, especially the great codexes (e.g. Matthew 6:13).
   This is direct evidence that the words were not always accepted as genuine.
2. The wording has different fundamental meanings in different manuscripts (e.g. Acts 7:16).
   This suggests there was no original to check against, and could be common notes added by different people before being transposed into the text.
3. The words jump around in different places in different manuscripts (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:33).
   This suggests that earlier copyists knew they were unoriginal, so they copied them in different places as marginal notes until, eventually, different copyists transposed it into the text wherever they found it.

1. The words are out of context and break the narrative (e.g. Matthew 27:52-53).
   Original words would not do this, but later additions would. This, by itself, would not be enough evidence to declare a passage spurious.
2. They say factually incorrect things or don’t make sense (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34).
   The original inspired writers could not make silly mistakes, but later persons inserting fake words could easily do so.
3. The words reflect later dogmas that nobody believed at the time (e.g. 1 John 5:7-8).
   An original writer would not say something that would require a time machine.
4. Removing the words allows the passage to flow better or to make more sense.
   If a passage is spurious, removing it would make no difference or improve the text. Removing original words could break or worsen the passage (usually, but not always).

How the 2001 identifies spurious texts​

1. The words are missing from the prominent old manuscripts, especially the great codexes (e.g. Matthew 6:13).
   This is direct evidence that the words were not always accepted as genuine.
2. The wording has different fundamental meanings in different manuscripts (e.g. Acts 7:16).
   This suggests there was no original to check against, and could be common notes added by different people before being transposed into the text.
3. The words jump around in different places in different manuscripts (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:33).
   This suggests that earlier copyists knew they were unoriginal, so they copied them in different places as marginal notes until, eventually, different copyists transposed it into the text wherever they found it.

1. The words are out of context and break the narrative (e.g. Matthew 27:52-53).
   Original words would not do this, but later additions would. This, by itself, would not be enough evidence to declare a passage spurious.
2. They say factually incorrect things or don’t make sense (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34).
   The original inspired writers could not make silly mistakes, but later persons inserting fake words could easily do so.
3. The words reflect later dogmas that nobody believed at the time (e.g. 1 John 5:7-8).
   An original writer would not say something that would require a time machine.
4. Removing the words allows the passage to flow better or to make more sense.
   If a passage is spurious, removing it would make no difference or improve the text. Removing original words could break or worsen the passage (usually, but not always).