/lit/ - Literature

First for The Bible sucks

>>14085793
KJV isn't a Bible

>>14085793
Some people suggest that the God of the OT is the demiurge while Jesus is the Highest God, hence the tone shift.

>>14085793
>Is The Book of Mormon divinely inspired?
Galatians 1:8
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>>14085793
the back and forth between pharaoh, moses, and god is kind of funny. thats how far I am. just started yesterday

>>14085793
The only change is jesus. Gods still the same

Matthew 24:32
>Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh
Could this be referring to Israel again? Israel was created in 1948, so does that mean Jesus’ return is not far from us?

>>14086009
That's gnostic gobbledygook

fist bump

>>14085793
>prayerfully
that's not even a real word

>>14085793
>Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?
Yes. Don't listen to >>14086195 Galatians 1:8 only works if God really didn't found Mormonism, but he did.

>>14085793
IT is LITERALLY and UNIRONICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to argue that the KJV is the most correct translation.

There is no dramatic tone shift between the books. They constantly reference each other.
It was refuted as soon as it became popular.

>>14087641
>most correct
No, but it is the most kino.

>>14086270
Just wait until the people start complaining about the manna. That shit cracked me up!

>>14085793
I've always wanted a bible but I pussy out about translations.

Is the schocken bible any good for the OT?

>>14087641
you have to be either an autist or a retard, or perhaps both, not to prefer KJV if you are reading it in English.

>>14085793
>New American Catholic
stopped reading there. It's shit

>>14086009
Others, like the Muslims, suggest that the God of Jesus is the same God of the Old Testament. :3

Perhaps it is a good thing not to think with the pack. It is more unifying to think of the creator of Jesus as the same being who killed thousands in the great flood.

>>14087992
>"Stop your immoral behaviour or I will send my vengeance down upon you."
>"lol no"
>*vengeance comes down upon you*
>"oh no this is so unfair why is god doing this to us?"

>>14085793
I would rather say change of approach rather than change of heart. God changed his approach multiple times to bring humanity back to him. First the Law Of Noah, then the Law Of Moses, and finally Jesus. If we started acting morally and upright after the Law Of Moses, then Jesus didn't have to come. But it ultimately became necessary. If we start acting morally and upright right now then the Second Coming of Jesus won't be needed, but it is prophesized that it will be.

>>14087804
Looks to be a translation that isn't very well known. It appears to invent it's own way of rendering certain terms that frequently appear. The Literal English Version is a similar endeavor.

If your in it for the possible literary eloquence of it then one of the more prominent translations from the 16th to early 20th centuries would be satisfy and still be more precise than a great deal of more modern translations. Also the discoveries in research that have occured over the years that may be incorporated into newer translations still don't represent a tremendous change to the overall text. The thing however is that the older Bibles may get cumbersome with their antiquated grammar. So the best choice then would be to look into those of the newer translations which lean towards the most literalness; RSV, ESV, or NASB. Any of those should be easy enough to read without diverging into more dynamicized rewording of the source texts.

>>14088090
>Also the discoveries in research that have occured over the years that may be incorporated into newer translations still don't represent a tremendous change to the overall text
Although I'm not particularly knowledgable about translating the Bible I hang around with people that are and every single one has said something along the lines of: "We" aren't applying modern discoveries at all, even the the Dead Sea Scrolls are barely used, the entire field is paralysed by a ideology that any divergence from the masoretic text is verboten.

>>14088170
Isn't the Masoretic text actually newer than a lot of the Vulgate? Or am I thinking of something else?

>watching hour-long bible reviews for ASMR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS95JMmSYag
>check out geneva 1599 bible fascimile from library because of this review
>feel bad that i'm not reading my oxford annotated i made my mom buy for me years ago and never used enough
>can't make notes in it
>use my spare NSRV that i found because someone had thrown out and i felt bad for it to take notes
>have three different bibles open
>have to have computer on so i can look up certain terms in the greek, vulgate, and sometimes vetus latina out of curiosity
>eyes get tired
>start listening to KJV audiobook on youtube while in bed

>>14088207
>>watching hour-long bible reviews for ASMR
It is comfy, isn't it? I wonder if there's other scripture channels as comfy as this? Is Korantube as cosy as Bibletube?

>>14088184
It's difficult, the oldest Masoretic manuscripts we have are from the 10th century while we have Latin and Greek manuscripts from the 2nd century, but the Latin and Greek texts have more variants between them.

Everything is fucked up and nobody wants to admit it.

>>14088170
>any divergence from the masoretic text is verboten.

Why? I'm confused

>>14088250

>>14088257
>The Tanakh exists in its present form as a result of the efforts of Jewish scholars known as Masoretes who meticulously copied and recopied biblical manuscripts for centuries. These Hebrew texts were originally written only with consonants, which readers would vocalize from memory by providing appropriate vowels. Different ways of reading these texts inevitably developed over time. The Masoretes developed a written system of vowels, which they added to biblical manuscripts to standardize their pronunciation. The oldest complete manuscript of a Masoretic Text in existence today, the Leningrad Codex, dates from 1009 C.E. and serves as the textual basis of modern Jewish Bibles and of many Christian Old Testaments. An older and much better manuscript, the Aleppo Codex (circa 920 C.E.), is today stored in Jerusalem. However, it has been the center of modern controversy due to the circumstances under which it was obtained by the Israel Museum and the mysterious disappearance of about two hundred of its pages. Even today pages of this codex continue to surface.

>>14088250
It would hurt a lot of people if we suddenly started treating the Septuagint and Vulgate equally.

>>14088287
Why? Which people?

>>14088303
People would have to seriously start doubting hundreds of years of scholarship, protestants would have to face the idea that the reformers removed books from the Bible, much fewer Hebraists would get jobs, the Nova Vulgata would have to be rewritten to resemble the Stuttgart Vulgate, etc.

>>14088287
So what should we read if we want the most historically authentic text? The Septuagint? Are there any critical editions of the Septuagint that read it intertextually with the best and oldest fragments in other languages?

>>14088336
This doesn't sound like necessarily a bad thing. Almost a "people who change things will be unhappy with not being able to change things."

>>14088170
Might be the variation even between DSS manuscripts. It's said about 35℅ of them agree with the Masoretic tradition.
http://jur.byu.edu/?p=3703

>>14088184
>>14088250
Depends which Vulgate too since there were various manuscripts with variant readings with the most well known one being the Clementine Vulgate. By the time it was compiled there had previously been a series of compilations which went between being edited to agree with the Septuagint, Hebrew, and Old Latin.

A Hebrew text is still nonetheless of essential importance for determining what the syntax and wording of the original compositions would be as opposed to translations which will naturally introduce their own divergences in meaning. Obviously it would still be necessary to consult a variety of texts to determine the best readings.

>>14088340
>So what should we read if we want the most historically authentic text?
Critical editions of the Septuagint that read it intertextually with the best and oldest fragments in other languages.

>Are there any
No. I can't imagine there ever will be, the amount of work it would entail would be ridiculously immense.

>>14088361
Considering the nature of the writers of the Hebrew texts, shouldn't people more skeptical of them?

>>14088372
In what sense?

>>14088387
Read the Church Fathers, Christians have been complaining that the Jews have been fucking with the texts since day 1.

So wait I'm a total dilettante when it comes to this topic, but I'm mostly familiar with the old Wellhausen documentary hypothesis thing. Would it be correct to say that this whole Masoretic text situation is just as substantial a "layer" of redaction as any one of the JEDP sources we hear about?

Also, can any Hebrew/OT specialists comment on the retrospective/retroactive constructedness of Jewish identity, after or during the Hellenistic/Roman eras? What exactly was going on there? I recently googled something like "what language did the OT-era ancient Hebrews even speak, what even is 'ancient Hebrew'" and fell down a rabbit hole of just how uncertain anything about ancient Judaism really is. But when I tried to find my footing, all I found was "This Wikipedia page is DISPUTED" and suspiciously propaganda-sounding sentences obviously inserted ad hoc. So what I'm reading ITT is interesting.

Just how uncertain is Jewish history? How related is, say, 6th century AD "Jewish culture" or "the Jewish spirit" to some 8th century BC Jew? Are there scholars who claim that later/Rabbinic Judaism is a totally different thing from OT Judaism, or only tenuously related? Was Wellhausen maybe right, are the old grumblings about the legalistic phase true? Where can I read about these things either way?

>>14088430
Can you recommend a few places to start with this?

Also, anyone read Werner Sombart's discussion of the formation of the Jewish medieval religious spirit in The Jews and Modern Capitalism, 197ff?
>With Ezra and the school of Soferim (scribes) that he founded, Judaism in the form which it has to-day originated; from the that period [440 BC] to the present it has remainde unchanged.
>The development was really a tightening of the legal formalism, with the view of protecting Judaism against the inroads of Hellenistic Philosophy.
>As soon as the Gemara was written down [200-600AD], and so received permanent form, the development of Judaism ceased. ... What is of interest to us in the case of all the codes is that they petrified Jewish religious life still more. Of Maimonides even Graetz asserts as much. "A great deal of what in the Talmud is still mutable, he changed into unmodifiable law. ... By his codification he robbed Judaism of the power of developing. ... Without considering the age in which the Talmudic regulations arose, he makes them binding for all ages and circumstances." R. Jacob ben Asher went beyond Maimonides, and Joseph Caro beyond Jacob ben Asher, reaching the utmost limit. His work tends to ultra-particularism and is full of hair-splitting casuistry. The religious life of the Jews "was rounded off and unified by the Shulchan Aruch [...] Caro gave Judaism the fixed form which it has retained down to the present day."
>Babylonian [that is Talmudic] Jewry came to be regarded as the new centre of Jewish life [under Islam].

>>14088430
The vast majority of the texts still agree with each other so it makes no sense to disregard the Hebrew where there isn't variation. Even NT quotations of scripture differ from any known texts. It's said the transmission of the OT manuscripts was more formal and systematic than the early transmission of NT texts and even they don't exhibit significant overall variation.

>>14087376
That is some serious fucking cope.
>We're just gonna ignore this verse because it completely btfo our false gospel.
At least C*tholics have the tradition argument to fall back on. You guys are just pathetic.
Galatians 1:8
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>>14088472
>Can you recommend a few places to start with this?
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho
John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos

Both are explicit in their claims.

>>14088483
>preach any other gospel
it is the very same gospel, being restored to the earth.

>>14088517
So God is a liar then?
>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>A civilized discussion among christian denominations...
>"Oh no! it's the Mormons."

>>14085793
>What's the reason for the dramatic tone shift from the old testament to the new testament?

The reason for the dramatic tone shift is owing to the incarnational ministry of the messiah (i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ) and the founding of the new covenant as is recorded in the New Testament.

In contrast, the Old Testament chronicles the Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, priestly (Aaronic priesthood), and Davidic covenants, which are pre-messiah.

>did God himself have a change of heart and have desires to save the human race or did Jesus convince him in His premortal existence to send him?

No. Jesus is God. He is the 2nd person of the trinity. God the father. God the son. God the spirit. All persons are equally and fully God and are united in purpose -- they are never divided.

It was decided in eternity past, before the world or the universe existed, before time existed, before any being outside of God existed, (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9) that Jesus Christ would enter into creation, take on human flesh, and be crucified in order to redeem a people for himself in order to magnify God's grace (Eph. 1:6).

>What is the most correct translation?

The original languages from the original manuscripts are the most correct translations. Greek for the New Testament; mostly Hebrew and some Aramaic for the Old Testament.

The 28th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece is the most correct translation for the New Testament.

>Is The Book of Mormon divinely inspired?
No

>>14088644
>The 28th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece is the most correct translation for the New Testament.
Yet they can't even consistently decide between which variants are notable and schizophrenically between editions decide to remove and add variants despite no additional manuscript research.

>>14088588
Mormons aren't Christian. They have less in common with Christianity that Muslims.

Still waiting for a decent translation of Bible into English or my native language that isn't prepared by some encumbered old farts desu

>>14088761
NRSV and NKJV are just fine.

>>14088777
>NRSV
>just fine

>>14087827
>prefer
>most correct

>>14088761
King James is still the most kino translation into English (Douey is a close runner behind).

>>14088957
A problem for people who study the Bible for literary purposes is that the Geneva, KJV and the Challoner DRB is that that they're so similar, It's a shame nobody has done a Interlinear with them similar to the Cambridge KJV-AV Interlinear.

>>14089077
The KJV was based on the Geneva quite heavily as I recall. And the DRA must have been as well considering that it shares so much with the KJV yet came out before.

Soý

>>14089092
The Latinate in the 1611 KJV was from the DRB, the Geneva Bible has basically zero Latinate and hence is much more easier read even now. The Challoner revision of the DRB was then in turn influenced by what would later be known as the 1769 KJV.

So basically overly simplified it goes Wycliffe > DRB > KJV > CDRB. The Geneva Bible influenced the DRB and KJV equally but in slightly different manners.

Yeah it's weird.

>>14089152
>Wycliffe > DRB
Also this is hilarious because the DRB thought the Wycliffe translation was a Catholic translation because it was translated from the Vulgate.

>>14088761
NASB

>>14088558
His words didn't pass away though. You misidentify the word of God with the church. Literally the whole universe could pass away, with every human, with every copy of every Bible, and the words of God wouldn't pass away, that's what the verse is saying.

>>14088699
Imagine having this take
>People who don't reject the Bible or that Jesus was the incarnation of the pre-existent logos, call Jesus God, accept he is the Son of God, and accept he died for our sins on the cross and resurrected, have less in common with us than Muslims who reject all that
Admit it, you just prefer what's old over what's new.

>>14089860
bothe are bottom of the barrel trash dont worry.

>>14089860
You are confused. Mormons are polytheists. They believe in a plurality of gods, multiple worlds, and multiple universes. They believe in heretical doctrines (e.g. Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, baptizing dead relatives and ancestors, works-based salvation, etc.) and they believe in other falsehoods (Jesus came to America, there are 3 heavens) and they have a false and heretical view of the trinity. And they have their own book, The Book of Mormon, which is given more authority than the bible, and which was written by the con artist, Joseph Smith.

Christianity has more in common with Islam than with Mormonism mainly because Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic religions.

>>14085793
The only answer for the change in tone between the OT and NT that doesn't wrote off genuine revelations or deny the historical contexts of how the Bible came about (for example the early editing by Babylonian exiles, the Deuteronomists) is that God only shared with humanity what they can understand. Then, from that, the Bible is pieced together through various interpretations of those revelations which vary in their complexity. Thus, while the Bible on the surface tells the story of mankind's interactions with God, a story that is told by men and is only very somewhat historically supported (this should be obvious; Fundamentalists gtfo), it also reveals a far more theologically profound story about mankind's growing understanding of the most high God.
One must then ask: did that story end 2000 years ago, or has it been continued?

>>14090086
>muh monotheism
This always matters to you guys more than anything. It's absurd. Never mind the fact the "one god" Yahweh Elohim is fundamentally plural in the Hebrew already. Never mind the fact that three persons are, in fact, already present in the Old Testament and rightly distinguished as Glory, Word, and Breath/Spirit, corresponding exactly to the New Testament three persons. You don't realize how much your monotheism is really the result of post-Biblical Judaizing, the very Judaizing that got rid of the tripartite Glory/Word/Breath composition of Yahweh Elohim which is actually to be found in the Old Testament, on the very basis of which they rejected Jesus when he appeared. Not to mention, their medieval editing of the masoretic version of Psalm 110 and other places to eliminate the existence of more than one being called Yahweh in the original text. In that passage, there is a Yahweh at the right hand of another Yahweh, and the early Christians (Justin Martyr) noticed this and realized this was the Son and the Father. Look up the 134 emendations of the sopherim. Never mind also that the Hebrew word 'el' is broader than the English word 'god' so that, in the Hebrew, it was perfectly legitimate to even call mortals of renown, even dead ones, "gods." Heck, Jesus himself cites Psalm 82 to the Jewish hecklers to make this fucking point. But you monotheist Christians are severely uncritical, you disregard Justin Martyr's appeal to two Yahwehs in Dialogue with Trypho, and let the Second Temple era Jewish theologians (and their medieval counterparts, via their textual editing) dupe you into thinking monotheist stuff. Read John 17 again. Jesus and the Father are one, and want Christians to be one, and to be one with them, even as Jesus and the Father are one. Why be asymmetric here? What stupid hermeneutical principle do you want to appeal to, in order to interpret this passage asymmetrically? Be symmetric instead. Clearly we won't fuse with the Father or the Son. Clearly our oneness is not numerical. So why conclude their oneness is numerical? And there's nothing wrong calling different beings 'gods' when the Hebrew fucking allows it, nor to recognize that Yahweh Elohim was always a trinity--the one thing mainstream Christianity recognizes. Just get rid of your dumb numerical unity dogma. Read the actual texts that masoretic Jews didn't censor, read some ante-Nicene Christian theology like Justin Martyr, learn some basic Hebrew to know what it is fit to call "god" in the original Hebrew sense, employ symmetrical reasoning when reading texts like John 17, and only then go back to the Shema and read it as unity of the three persons already present in the Old Testament (kabod, dabar, ruach, or Glory, Word, Breath, meaning Father, Son, Spirit). The Father (kabod elohim) appears to Ezekiel in the vision. The Son is the Word of the Lord (dabar yahweh). The Holy Spirit appears as-is, ruach ha-kodesh. Mainstream Christians never do research.

There is no divinity expressed through your trite insular garbage
I already wiped with your shit text, which was all it was every good for
Now fuck off

>>14091573
>no counter argument
Your ancestors all persecuted each other when they had nothing more to say, it's a shame you can't kill the heterodox today, isn't it?

DOUAY RHEIMS

>>14091585
You know nothing about me or my ancestors so eat your trite shit and keep on how it tastes so sweet

>>14091596
Yeah okay. Missing the point. You could have converted from a tribe with no Christian genetic ancestors and I would still say the same thing.

>>14091604
>You could have
Hey. Retard. Fuck you
You don't get it
Nobody gives a shit
Now eat shit and die

>>14091610
>Hey retard
Unchristian behavior.
>Fuck you
Unchristian behavior.
>Eat shit and die
Unchristian behavior.
Seethe some more.

>>14091632
>Unchristian behavior
Awwww poor little shit eater

>>14091637
>le epic sectarian comeback

>>14085793
Heard the Book of Revelation is pretty kino, should i?

>>14091638
>le epic sectarian comeback
>Unchristian behavior
Not very epic, nor very imaginative, now is it?
Much like all of these shitposting threads, and all of your n-n-n-no uhhhhhh!'s
Now fuck off you pathetic loser
I think the words you use is Christ Almighty
Which is all those words are good for
Cuck

>>14091660
Imagine getting this anally ravaged by Christianity.

>>14091660
Cringe meltdown.
I hope the rest of the Christians here aren't as pathetic.

>>14091653
You can't really understand Revelation without firstly understanding the Gospel of John, It's definitely a wild ride if you read it literally.

>>14091688
>>14091693
Bla bla bla
Get a life already

>>14091697
>Get a life already
I'm just posting on /lit/ like you are. What is your problem dude.

>>14091522
Look at the giant wall of COPE
You are not Christian and will never be

>>14091704
Christfuckers continually spamming the board with the same shit all the fucking time, obviously
>>14085793
>we prayerfully illuminate the wonder of God and discuss the great works of our creator
Yeah? Really?
Nah.

>>14091719
>Christfuckers continually spamming the board with the same shit all the fucking time, obviously
"Christfuckers" don't ask "What is the most correct translation?" nor "Is The Book of Mormon divinely inspired?".

>>14091710
>Y-your argument is just COPE
>But I'm not coping, t-trust me
You're miserable.

>>14091730
Fuck off cunt
You're fucking vegans claiming veganism is /lit/ because they namedrop a cookbook or some shit
It is not, not are you. Now go back and indulge your drunk cannibalism

>>14091522
You're spouting nonsense. Try reading up on the origins of Yahweh and OT scholarship before typing this load of shit.
>The word elohim or 'elohiym (ʼĕlôhîym) is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deities" or various other words in Biblical Hebrew.[5][6]

>In Hebrew, the ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural. However, when referring to the Jewish God, Elohim is usually understood to be grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective).
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2538/why-is-elohim-translated-as-god-and-not-gods

>>14091753
cope

>>14091753
All that the text has is a plural noun with singular predicates. Nothing in the Bible tells you the plural noun isn't indicating a real plurality, a plurality treated with singular predicates due to special non-numerical unity (in the sense of agreement or harmony). That's a perfectly valid option that already-biased monotheists don't even want to consider. Rather than read the predicates literally and the noun figuratively, switch it around. Read the predicates figuratively and the noun literally. This coheres better with the kabod/dabar/ruach tripartite division, and with the two Yahwehs of Psalm 110. The reason we're here, with monotheism being taken for granted, goes back to Second Temple era theology. On the other hand, the earliest Christians were far more comfortable with numerical plurality. Like I said, Justin Martyr recognized the two Yahwehs and he was fine calling Jesus a "second god". Trinitarian theology (it's already a logical mystery how to understand it as neither tritheist nor modalist) developed out of 4th century zeal.

>>14086293
Pretty much every reference to any type of plant is a metaphor for people. The fruit bared is the works a person performs, the soil and water and such are the environment. It's saying that it's apparent when a person is going to do good things because favorable conditions for such things are underway.

>>14091809
>Nothing in the Bible tells you the plural noun isn't indicating a real plurality
We can see it in Deuteronomy where Elohim is used to refer to God:
Deuteronomy 4:35 "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other." In this verse, the term Elohim is used for God, yet the verse is clearly saying he is the only "God." Secondly, the ancient Hebrews used "Elohim" to refer to one God.

>>14091901
Well that uses the singular predicates earlier mentioned. That doesn't settle things one way or another, since the interpretation of plural noun + singular predicates is what's at stake here. Same would go even for singular pronouns. The grammar won't settle one interpretation or the other alone.

Can somebody explain what the Transfiguration was?

How many times has a prophet or man of God brought someone back to life from the dead?
I have just read about Elisha bringing the Shumanite woman's son back alive and am interested as it is mentioned rather casually compared with his other divine deeds

>>14088367
This is all speculative. There is absolutely no way to know if an older text is more reliable or not. It’s all bullshit. The entire quest to get close to the “original” is folly.

>>14088558
Kek you’re the autist on Christchan who equates inspiration to authorship, aren’t you? In the apocrypha thread?

>>14092090
>Christchan
Link?

I've listened to the open Yale lectures on the OT/NT. What do I study after?

>>14092883
You should study the NT further.

Best Latin version? (Nova, Clementine, Sixtine?) I'm still a new latin learner, is there any recommended editions?

>>14092096
christchannel.xyz

Should I just get the Oxford Annotated Bible if it is my first time reading it?

>>14093464
orthodox study Bible is the best

>>14093466
I can not recommend the OSB as a first bible unless you’re Orthodox. Get an RSV catholic edition or something first. The OSB was unfortunately relatively low effort.

>>14093635
It has the best commentary, it won't give you false interpretations of it that don't make sense like the Peter Rock passage.