1 month ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
It's pretty easy for me. I have faith God didn't hide his Word, or let it be hidden, for a thousand + years. So I go with the Textus Receptus Greek, i.e., KJV. It helps that I see it being attacked by all the right(wrong) type of people today. Faggot new agers, Jesuits, Rome (I repeat myself).
If you ignore the notes in the Scofield Bible, it's just another Bible.
The problem with it was his commentary explaining passages in a way that divided God's people into "the Church" and "Israel".
Beyond that, I don't think there are enough differences between literal, word-for-word translations that would cause an honest people to arrive at an interpretation that would damn them. Stay away from "dynamic equivalency" translations because it's way too easy for them to turn into commentaries.
Anything Vulgate based is safe, anything based on Scofield is jewed, and any translations using the (((Masoretic Text))), which has been edited by the Talmudists to obfuscate prophecies of Christ being the Messiah, are incredibly suspect.
All modern translations are jewed. Gotta find an older one, preferably something translated from the original Latin Vulgate or the Greek version (the very first completed Bible record) itself. I personally would recommend the Douay-Rhiems (which is an even older translation than the KJV). The KJV itself is probably not all that bad, but there's an even better protestant translation in the Geneva Bible.
"Keys of the Kingdom" bible translation by Sparks is a valid translation. The "Christogenea New Testament" is also very good. Taken from the original writings, these are far better (more accurate) translations which help to reveal what the jew has tried to hide....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY&list=PLiMliTxa3H172BW4ANpBAavcIGVz-KXFW
https://jmichaelrios.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/scofield_text-detail.jpg
The problem with it was his commentary explaining passages in a way that divided God's people into "the Church" and "Israel".
Beyond that, I don't think there are enough differences between literal, word-for-word translations that would cause an honest people to arrive at an interpretation that would damn them. Stay away from "dynamic equivalency" translations because it's way too easy for them to turn into commentaries.