/lit/ - Literature

If you’re not using a translation from the original Septuagint you are being played by Christ-hating Jews

>>19468450
Again with the Harry Potter spells. You do know witchcraft is punishable by death, right?

Bible translation politics are extremely tiresome. Why does everything have to be part of some autistic culture war? I read whatever I want, nigger. Fuck you.

>>19468445
Biscuit Tin Bible
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/18411/view/1/1/

>>19468458
It's an exquisitely modern thing. Imagine the Christians of old, who were actually trying to live by Christian teachings, and willing to die over faith, going
>Wait are we absolutely sure that this translation we sort of cobbled up together in the catacombs is 100% correct, I mean, there's this scholar in the next town who says that that "apple" here may actually translate as "apples", not one but many, this changes everything-
>HERESYYYY!!!

>>19468445
Oh look, another retarded Christianity thread

>>19468571
oh look another seething bunkertranny

>>19468445
>V
There are no "versions" of the Holy Bible.

>>19468458
Reader of counterfeit imposter imitation "bibles" detected.

>>19468588
I do not care, nigger. I read the KJV from front to back as well as others. Go dilate, you miserable tranny.

>>19468445
I refuse to read anything involving fags in the creation process in any way

>>19468580
>oh look another seething bunkertranny

>>19468580
He's a permanently stunted 15 yo

>>19468605
Yet somehow you still do not understand that it's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of words have meaning and you either translate them as what they are or translate them into what you think they should have been. The King James says it like it is, simple as.
>nigger
>tranny
picrel

>>19468570
There were scholars of the biblical text in the ancient world, e.g. Origen, Jerome.

>>19468681
Yes, I know, but you must also understand that things were much more organic and flawed in the past than they were today, and Christians were also persecuted. A copyist may have misunderstood several words, omited whole chunks, parts of a manuscript may have been damaged while smuggling, or a community may have received a foreign text which they didn't fully understand, and had to rely on someone who knew Greek or Latin. You can't even keep the ubiquitous KJV entirely straight in modern times: if you order a Thomas Nelson Bible they won't be using the Cambridge version but another, which is different. Do you really think the early Christians could get away with being anal about translations? This whole discourse is founded on technology. You cannot argue about which translation is valid in the context of KJV vs. ESV or NASB or whatever without the concept of widely available mass-produced translations that you can pick and choose.
That said I am poorly informed but curious to know how this sort of problem was dealt with historically.

>>19468760
Personally I think that it's best to use that which has been passed down to us providentially than to try to reconstruct the text in the way that modern scholarships attempts. For example the modern scholar will give greater weight to a surviving ancient manuscript (e.g. the Codex Sinaiticus), but it is very possible that such a manuscript survived because it was of poor quality and was not used. If it were used it would have worn out and been buried and replaced. Much methodology also relies on attempting to examine the psychology of the scribe, which is fully speculative. That being said, the closest thing that fits this among modern translations would be thus following the Textus Receptus, e.g. the KJV; however the Textus Receptus is itself a critical and is not perfect in this matter, though it does follow the (IMO) superior Byzantine text stream.

>>19468825
>however the Textus Receptus is itself a critical text*

>>19468825
>Personally I think that it's best to use that which has been passed down to us providentially
I agree on that. I like more modern translations as an accessory but I have the same approach. That said, early Christians couldn't get away with any of this discourse. And this stretches fairly far off into modern times. What of the pilgrims who went to Japan to spread Christianity there? It's definitely a possibility that much of the doctrine was lost in translations, that the texts on which the faith of those converts stood upon were poorly translated, and so on. Yet those faithfuls chose to die rather than renounce their faith, which I think is a much greater proof of faith and a greater deed than winning internet debates over which mass produced translation is the best.

>>19468860
This is true. Even among the modern translations which follow a disagreeable methodology, the Gospel is still present. I don't believe anyone has ever unearthed a manuscript that is so flawed that the faith itself is obscured in any meaningful fashion. The discrepancies are generally insignificant, to the extent I can use that term in relation to Scripture.

>>19468878
>a manuscript that is so flawed that the faith itself is obscured in any meaningful fashion
Well there's The Message, and the CCP's own "Bible" which they are force-feeding to the growing Protestants in the nation. It says that you shouldn't put God above the CCP.

>>19468893
I suppose I should clarify that then. I'm referring to any translation actually produced by (at least somewhat) orthodox Christians and that is not a paraphrase.

>>19468860
One point of issue you may not be considering is that since this has become an acknowledged issue in the modern world, it is also something that is commonly used to attack Christianity. Studying this subject can help the believer to understand that the text is not an unreliable mess.

>>19468954
>it is also something that is commonly used to attack Christianity
That doesn't matter, nihilists would dismiss the Scripture regardless. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation; if you take the text as it is, they will say that Christianity is stupid for being so stubborn over the outdated thoughts of goat farmers without revising anything. If you modernize the text and treat it analytically they'll say that you're trying to treat fiction like history and imply that your holy text has undergone too many revisions to be authentic. It's impossible to argue with someone who is dismissive a priori.

>>19469024
But I didn't say you should use it to argue. I said that it can be used by the believer to understand that the one attacking them is wrong. I think this is the primary benefit of apologetics.

>>19468626
>Everyone who doesn't adhere to my Jewish spin off religion is a poo poo head
You guys crack me up hahaha

KJV is good for it's poetic quality and influence on literature. It's not good for a genuine theological/historical/philosophical study of what the Bible "actually says"
That's literally the entire debate solved.

>>19469087
Man that is some pretty good b8 you have there.

>>19469087
>t. reddit

>>19468445
Ignatius Bible

>>19469712
Fuck off no one falls for this shit cathranny

>>19469723
falls for what?

>>19468570
Some differences change fundamental concepts, the trinity for example

the NKJV strikes a good balance by using the MT but noting extensively alternate readings.

>>19469177
not an argument
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/18411/view/1/1/

Kill yourself, btw

>>19468458
It's the word of god and a set of cultural Beliefs you fucking moron

>>19468571
Holy shit man

>>19468445
Anyone have a chart or video showing the different versions and explaining differences so i can make the decision which i favour? Right now i am reading a free bible titled "the new american version" which name alone scares me