/lit/ - Literature

>>13257661
It's decent. Some of the connections the footnotes make with scriptures seem spurious though. for the most part good and explains a lot of theological matters from orthodox perspective very clearly.
It's the first of its kind for Westerners

>>13257661
Yes its very good, especially with its sidenotes which tie together the OT and NT in a proper way.

>>13258353
>>13258366
Thanks, I will get it then. I am a Pentecostal and was hoping this can teach me more about Orthodox beliefs.

Is the New Oxford Annotated Bible any good?

Bump, want to know this as well >>13258581

>>13258581
>>13259693
bump for these anons.

>>13258581
>>13259693
>>13261287

It's pretty much required if you study biblical criticism at uni level. The notes are about as atheistic and liberal as you would expect. Its okay if you're approaching it from an academic perspective and fucking atrocious if you are approaching it from a theological perspective.

>>13257661
Extremely good bible. The New Testament is identical to the NKJV, the Old Testament is based of the Septuagint and follows along with the NKJV only when in is perfectly aligned with the LXX. Al the duterocanonical books are new translations afaik. If you're interested in learning Orthodox theology this bible is as good as it gets. Also consider picking up a few books explaining our theology. Met. Kallistos Ware has 2 books; The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way. The former is history, the latter is theology both are decent but there are problems with it. If you already have a decent grounding in general theology, read Vladimir Lossky's Thy Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church and Dogmatic Theology for a deep dive on the mindset of Orthodoxy. After that, when you have a good enough understanding, read some of the Fathers. St Athanasius's On the Incarnation is a great place to start. Also ask a priest if you can.

>>13258581
>>13259693
>>13261287
>wanting annotations from atheist jewish professors
yikes

The OT is inspired by NKJV, but otherwise it's original and unique, but NT is NKJV.

>>13261559
good post, thanks anon

Mine just got here. I expected it to be a bit thicker than it is since it has the Apocryphal books and study commentary in it.

I like the pictures (icons?) too. Here it is without the dust jacket.

>>13257661
It's worth getting solely on the fact that the translation is based on the Septuagint and not the Masoretic.

Ignatius study bible

>>13262231
This.

>>13257661
Here's a good overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzYh3WskL4

>>13257661
Probably the best you can get.

Use the new Jerusalem bible

>>13257661

I'm legitimate friends with the general editor. Everyone who worked on it is incredibly faithful, a lot of amazing work by Orthodox Priests and scholars.

You won't go wrong.

dont listen to King Jamesers

>>13257661
no

>>13257661
if you want to learn about the Bible from a Patristic standpoint it's invaluable but it's not a literary Bible

>>13264974
I was KJV only but I began reading the Orthodox Study Bible today.

I think I am more Textus Receptus derived only desu.

>8 Bible threads on the catalog
Are we being invaded again?

>>13264974
New King James Version only imitates the prose-style of KJV, otherwise it's a completely different text.

>>13257661
it has a NKJV New Testament with a newly translated Septuagint Old Testament, which is generally what the Eastern Churches traditionally used.

If you want to read the bible purely as English literature then the KJV would be the choice.

>>13257661
avoid protestant bibles. They enjoy making translation erros. Which is funny if you take into account that they regard themselves as the closest ones to the Bible.

>>13266842
Funny because Cathodox have had no choice but to rely on them for the most part to make a few token edits of their own to them.

>>13265013
Your only an easily impressionable dupe desu.

>>13265016
Oy vey how will I eva recuva from all this discussion on the single most poupulah book!

>>13266860
Yeah except we don't rely on the bible alone. We have the fullness of tradition; Liturgy, Patristic writings, councils etc. It doesn't matter if the bible we use isn't 100% accurate because Holy Tradition (of which the bible is a part) is 100% accurate. Extreme Biblical accuracy is only important if you're a scholar, translator, or sola scriptura retard

>>13266860
>>13268432
Just to ask you a question, what do you think of the Johannine Comma? No Greek text had it until the 15th century but all protties seem to think its inspired because it is in the KJV or whatever.

>>13268432
Nice moving of the goalposts.

>>13268452
KJOists preachers are moronic but their followers are not without reason considering the dulled down translations that have been made.

>>13269499
Nice moving of the goalposts.
I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm pointing out that we can use an incomplete or mistranslated bible and be no worse off for it because our dogmas are written in the council/liturgy/Fathers. I'm not denying that English speaking Orthodox have used protty translations for the last few hundred years, I'm just saying that it doesn't affect us.
>KJOists preachers are moronic but their followers are not without reason considering the dulled down translations that have been made.
Just because bad translations have been made doesn't justify heresy and idolatry of the text. That is the exact same argument the papacy made when they tried to stop the production of bibles in vernacular languages