/lit/ - Literature

>>19690470
1st for catholicism

>>19690482
2nd for Logos Rising.

>>19690482
>>19690493
3rd for the first Christian post in the Bible thread.

hey hey hey bros let's keep the factionalism at a minimum
>wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am

>>19690503
In that case, the Brenton should serve you well. the Lexham English Septuagint is another, though it's currently imperfect. Avoid the NETS. For a NT, the EOB NT might be of interest to you. Here's a PDF for you to sample some verses:
https://ia802306.us.archive.org/25/items/new-testament-the-eastern-greek-orthodox-bible/New%20Testament%20%28The%20Eastern%20Greek%20Orthodox%20Bible%29.pdf

>>19690522
>Avoid the NETS
Qrd? Is this just because its not an actual bible?

off topic

>>>/his/

>>19690529
>Bible
>not literature

>>19690522
>the Lexham English Septuagint is another, though it's currently imperfect
citation needed
>Avoid the NETS
why

>>19690513
Notice He didn't say:
>whenever two or more are gathered in my earthy mother's name

>>19690522
thank you anon. im already aware of the most egregious translation difference with MT and scratch/alter them in my esv, but i get concerned when i hear more scholarly anons talk about the various editions out there and wonder if i haven't wildly misread some important passages. when i first read Isaiah properly my heart fell through the floor realizing what i'd missed

>>19690528
No, it's because I spot-checked it and noticed one of its Psalm readings was an MT reading ("but you have given me an open ear") rather than an LXX reading ("but a body you have prepared me"). This LXX reading is the quote referenced in Hebrews 10:5-10. Haven't trusted the NETS since.

>>19690535
>citation needed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJA7ho_zUJE
Top comment is by the Lexham general editor acknowledging issues brought up with the LES that he said would be corrected in a later edition.
>why
>>19690557

>different sects really thought god cared more about whether they thought he was literally also jesus or only related to jesus, than about beating and murdering each other
explain wtf

>>19690566
Imagine some corporation thinking they can make a decent translation of sacred Scripture by just running a computer program and then tidying it up a little then glue binding it.

>>19690557
Adding to this, you can see it here:
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf
Search "Psalm 39(40)" and read verse 7(6).
Here's Hebrews 10:5-6 in the NRSV
>Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.
And here's the NRSV rendering of the Psalm 40:6, in line with the MT
>Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.
Now here's Brenton's Psalm 39:7, which is the same as 40:6
>Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
And Lexham's LXX
>
And finally NETS
>Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but ears you fashioned for me. Whole burnt offering and one for sin you did not request.
See the issue with the NETS?

>>19690557
Adding to this, you can see it here:
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf
Search "Psalm 39(40)" and read verse 7(6).
Here's Hebrews 10:5-6 in the NRSV
>Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.
And here's the NRSV rendering of the Psalm 40:6, in line with the MT
>Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.
Now here's Brenton's Psalm 39:7, which is the same as 40:6
>Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
And NETS
>Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but ears you fashioned for me. Whole burnt offering and one for sin you did not request.
See the issue with the NETS? The Lexham isn't online so I can't pull the Psalm right now, but I can tell you it doesn't say ears.

>>19690654
What I want to know is what do the actual ancient texts say?

>>19690566
Let's be extremely clear here: one of the editors of the LES 2nd edition identified 5 textual errors that all seem to stem from disagreements in translation semantics or simple transcription errors from the 1st edition, and of which only one (a rendering of what should be 'his' as 'its') impacts understanding of content in any way.
I think its pretty realistic to say this is as close to perfection as any translation is going to get, at least as far as satisfying the translators' self-stated mission goes.

>>19690666
Undoubtedly the LXX says "a body you have prepared for me," its not conceivable that translators would mistake the greek term for a body with that for the ear. You could do 5 minutes in google double checking the Koine if you really wanted to be sure.

Undoubtedly the LXX says "put both hands on my little dick bitch and spread them lips like a open face melt whiteboi

>>19690666
In the LXX Greek OT
>θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἐζήτησας.
In the Masoretic Hebrew OT
>זֶ֤בַח וּמִנְחָ֨ה׀ לֹֽא־חָפַ֗צְתָּ אָ֭זְנַיִם כָּרִ֣יתָ לִּ֑י עוֹלָ֥ה וַ֝חֲטָאָ֗ה לֹ֣א שָׁאָֽלְתָּ׃

>>19690667
I'm not saying the LES is bad. In fact, the Orthodox over at Newrome Press are using the LES (with the future corrections as the general editor noted in that comment) for their own Illuminated Septuagint planned to be released years from now. I'm just saying it's worth knowing there's still room for improvement in it and that a simple pencil can perfect it now if you really want one now. Either way, it's a better choice than the NETS for reasons already stated, even though scholars have already decided to worship the NETS now.

>>19690713
>σῶμα
Unless I'm terribly mistaken this is 'soma' meaning 'body'. Took 2 minutes on Google.

>>19690731
>Newrome Press are using the LES for their own Illuminated Septuagint planned to be released years from now.
This sounds awesome

>>19690745
That is correct. It says body. To go further, let's compare the Greek OT Psalm to the Greek NT Hebrews verses:
Psalm 39:7, LXX
>θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἐζήτησας.
And Hebrews 10:5-6 which quotes the above
>θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ εὐδόκησας·
To be clear, the NRSV says Hebrews here says
>Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.

>>19690666
checked

>>19690501
buuurn

Now I have to find the most historically accurate New Testament translation to go alongside my Septuagint, fuck.
What's the best NT sourced from Vanaticus and Sinaiticus with minimal later additions and glosses from, e.g. the Vulgate?

>>19690790
Get the "Tyndale House Greek New Testament", as it exclusively uses the oldest sources, even swapping the order of the Pauline letters and the Catholic letters because the oldest sources had them in a different order. For a Byzantine (KJV/NKJV) Greek NT, then get the "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform". The NA28 is the "scholarly" GNT, but some consider it suspect and also it's going to be replaced by the NA29 in a few years anyway as it's known that the NA29 is basically done.

Additionally, consider the charts in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDToQVs-ME0
Find your preferred English Bible and see which GNT it aligns with the best.

>>19690770
The MT makes a lot more sense when reading the whole Psalm. Seems like the LXX version was a forced fudge.

>>19690880
>Jews jewed a thing several centuries after the fact
>But its the original source that is fudged
Hmmm

>>19690829
Does textform actually matter at all? Byzantine vs Alexandrian, what's the distinction beyond use of uncials vs minuscules?

>>19690470

Here's a thought experiment for the thread. Let's say I wake up tomorrow and suddenly have demigod powers to cause all human beings to completely lose private religious feeling for a deity or other larger metaphysical purpose/Being. I demonstrate my ability by causing this to happen to a representative population, and then announce my intention to inflict this happy state on all humanity in a few weeks and for all time, since I gained immortality too and I'm not going anywhere. Also force fields, I live in a hut up north, etc, no getting out of it.

The question is, what would official Christian organizations try to do during the interval that they continue to experience delusion, under such a pressure? We know very well what the muslims would do when so openly confronted, so that's the uninteresting question.

>>19690940
Disregard, just realized Byzantine and Alexandrian differ in interpolations and such. Its too late for me to be posting on /lit/.

>>19690418
>25% of a group reading the Bible correctly once a week or more is still better than 63% reading it incorrectly once a week or more
We all have access to the RCC interpretations now, it's not some special secret that only the one institution holds and reveals. We can also see that much of it is clearly fabricated bullshit.

>>19690940
Don't worry, as I also misread your comment when making that post, thinking you were asking for "the most historically accurate New Testament" rather than "the most historically accurate New Testament translation." I'd still recommend that video, but do the reverse of my closing comment: Find your preferred GNT and see which English Bible it aligns with the best.

>>19690957
Be aware that the Antichrist has come.

>>19691041
there's so many candidates for antichrist that i don't know who it is. apparently (according to some foreigner on /pol/) there is a jewish sect that cooms themselves to be candidates for the antichrist. they breed up the most foul, villainous stock they possibly can and each generation elect, to great applause, the chief candidate for antichrist amongst them, a longstanding tradition that might be 2,000 years old by now.

>>19690957
Utterly retarded scenario. God would handle things as He saw fit.

What would be the best choice for a devotional Bible for an Orthodox reader?
I've heard people seem to like the Third Millennium Bible but it seems kind of old

>>19691142

You're making the mistake of invoking god. The point is that a good guy (me) who you believe to be bad comes along and starts actually fixing things, to the dismay of existing powers. The question is what new degree of hypocrisy those powers would exhibit when push really came to shove and they saw that they were about to become obsolete since everyone's about to become a bugman pod-people and the species will unironically be the better for it and with no unintended consequences (going to hell doesn't count, this is an adult discussion).

what did this man say about the reawakening of religion?

i think you'd all find it very eye-opening

>>19691173
The King James is the only Bible so that's that.

>>19690654
How do you think this happened? Lazy editor?

>>19691173
I recently heard an Orthodox describe the EOB NT as "what the Third Millennium Bible should've been," so there's that. Personally, I'd recommend getting the Holy Gospel and Holy Apostle books from Saint Ignatius Orthodox Press and (for now) the Lexham English Septuagint. It'll be three separate physical books, but the text will be what you want for the whole NT and OT. A cheap option for the NT is just to get the EOB NT paperback, which actually has more essays and whatnot useful for an Orthodox POV, but it's still just a glued paperback without any flair or hopes of lasting for many years.

>>19691277
Isn't the EOB based on WEB

>>19691277
Where's Revelation? The EO leave it out of liturgical readings. They got fooled by Satan.

>>19691197
I don't know. The digital NETS has gone through several corrections, as their own site notes (https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition)), but that Psalm has never been touched to my knowledge. If anyone wants to, they can email the editors and ask:
albert.pietersma@sympatico.ca
As this guy was the translator for the Psalms.

>>19691286
Technically it started out that way, but the changes were so extensive that the WEB base is unrecognizable. The EOB text has as much in common with the original WEB as the NRSV text has with the King James. The roots are there, but they're definitely not the same 1:1 translation anymore.
>>19691289
It's included in the Holy Apostle, but in a separate Appendix after pages of indexes and instructions and whatnot.

>>19691315
I thought that was the case but I couldn't confirm it anywhere. Isn't it a problem that they took a public domain work, altered it, and copyrighted it?

I've been sticking with the R.M. M'Cheyne reading plan this year.
It takes you through the OT once and the NT and Psalms twice in one year.

>>19691329
Not really. That's exactly what Nelson did with the NKJV vs the public domain KJV, and what the RSV did with the public domain ASV. The difference being the EOB, while technically copyrighted, is done in such a way that it's completely free for Orthodox to do whatever they want with it, and early on was distributed as a free PDF even after being printed and sold. Here's what the EOB preface has to say:
>The EOB project began as a revision of the World English Bible (WEB), which is a fairly accurate, easy-to-read, and well-respected public domain translation based on the MT. The WEB does not suffer from the constraints and occasional biases of other translations such as the NIV. The WEB is primarily an update of the 1901 edition of the American Standard Version (ASV) using the Byzantine MT for the New Testament.
>During the process of verifying, correcting, and re-translating the WEB text for the EOB, the PT of 1904 and the CT were systematically consulted. In addition, recent scholarship was taken into consideration.
>The revision and re-translation work has been so extensive as to make the EOB an entirely new translation, prepared to ensure accuracy and harmony with Orthodox theology and terminology.

>>19690470
I'm looking for a good study Bible for personal use. I was born Mormon and am currently conducting inquiry and research into Nicene Christianity, with some bias towards the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of things but no hard choice of any particular denomination as of yet.
Should I just get a OSB and be done with it or would I benefit in any way from another edition?

>>19691407
For Orthodox, OSB is fine for the notes/commentary. The EOB NT has a strong following these days as it was an in-house crowdsourced project by the Orthodox community rather than a way for Thomas Nelson to make money off Orthodox Christians. The OSB OT text is considered basically useless, though, as it's still a mostly MT text that very rarely conforms to the LXX text of the Orthodox Church. The OSB NT is just the NKJV.

>>19691368
Sounds like it's deliberately starting from some theological assumptions and showing them in the text, if the text is harmonized with orthodox theology

>>19691463
It's more so that, as a translation of the PT rather than the Majority Text, as the WEB was, or the Critical Text, as most modern Bibles are, it's altered the WEB in accordance with the PT so that it'd be a translation of the PT rather than the MT or CT. You can open the EOB here: >>19690522
All the material in the "ABOUT THE EOB NEW TESTAMENT" section lays their biases and perspectives pretty clearly. If you're walking into a translation called the Eastern Orthodox Bible, you probably shouldn't be surprised it has a perspective that Catholics and Protestants won't fully agree with.

Recommended spanish versions of the Bible?

>>19691590
La Sagrada Biblia by Felix Torres Amat

>>19691181
Enough screen time for you, bud - off the computer

Recommendations on guides on how to pray?

>>19691898
Sign of the Cross > Lord's Prayer > Sign of the Cross
I usually do this last thing before going to sleep and first thing in the morning before getting out of bed. I'd look in to a book of prayers, too.

>>19691898
http://www.liturgies.net/Prayers/Orthodox/orthodoxrosary.htm
https://www.svots.edu/saying-jesus-prayer
https://orthochristian.com/141586.html

if im going to read the bible for purposes of seeing what the fuck its about can i read a modern english version instead of king jim version?

>>19691898
>>19691915
You'll also want a prayer book and a Psalter

>>19691921
NRSV

>>19691929
i was thinking this?
>Listener's Audio Bible - New International Version, NIV: Complete Bible
Vocal Performance by Max McLean
on audible

>>19691935
For casual reading, the NIV is serviceable.

>>19691938
what does this mean lol?

>>19691941
It means if you're not drilling down into the text for scholarly or doctrinal debate or discussion, the NIV's fine for just reading. It's just not the Bible to cite when arguing over how specific Greek words are translated lol, hence the NRSV or the RSV or the ESV.

>Orthodox whine about how Protestants don't use the LXX
>Latin Vulgate (4th century) translates the OT from Hebrew
>Syriac Peshitta (2nd century) translates the OT from Hebrew
>Russian Synodal Bible (1876) translates the OT from the Masoretic Text, approved by St. Philaret of Moscow
???

>>19691438
>The OSB OT text is considered basically useless, though, as it's still a mostly MT text that very rarely conforms to the LXX text of the Orthodox Church.
Ah, there's one in the wild. Please respond to this: >>19692195

>>19692195
retard

>>19692272
Formulate a coherent thought please.

>>19692281
you first
I gotta have something to work with here

>>19692283
Take the last example then. A Russian translation approved by the Synod of Bishops, translated by Orthodox seminaries, and edited by an Orthodox saint, utilizes the Masoretic Text for its OT. So on what basis is it problematic for Protestants, or anyone, to use the Masoretic Text, when Eastern Orthodox use it themselves?

europe has suffered every single time they relied intensely on christian belief

don't @ me

>>19692283
Well? You were just calling me a retard so I am awaiting your response. Surely you knew that the Orthodox use the Masoretic text, right? Surely you didn't buy into some simplified internet apologetics bullshit hook line and sinker, right?

>>19692480
"the" orthodox don't use mt though
just because a russian translation exists that uses it doesn't mean anything, and it's not even the official bible of the russian church so I'm not really sure what you're on about, you really just seem to be misguided on the matter
septuagint is the officially recognized textual basis for the orthodox ot canon

>American Standard Version and Revised Version agree more closely with the most modern, primacy-driven translations of the NT Koine than any other versions
Why are modern versions of the NT getting less and less accurate, while our source translations are getting more accurate and more primacy-driven?

>>19692553
Lol. The Russian Synod of Bishops approved the use of the Masoretic text in translation, and that's what Russians use. As far as I can tell there are zero full translations of the Bible into Russian that use the Septuagint. What might it be like in other Orthodox nations I wonder?
>... the theological schools of the Universities of Athens and Thessaloniki had been working since the mid 1960s on another translation into the modern vernacular (Demotic Greek)... The translation of the New Testament, [was] first published in 1985 ... The translation of the Old Testament from Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Jewish Scriptures was first published in 1997. This translation has the blessing and approval of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece ...
So Greece is the same, with the Synod of Bishops approving the use of the Hebrew as the textual basis for OT translations. How about you realize you've been duped by apologists?
>canon
So is it just the canon or is it for the text itself? Because you could follow the list of books in the LXX without basing your translation on the LXX text. Those aren't the same thing.

>>19692609
retard

>>19692614
>Some guy on the internet said "Orthodox use the Septuagint" so that's what I believe in the face of Orthodox bishops throughout the world approving of the Masoretic text as a textual basis for translations
Who is the retard?

>>19692618
0.6 shekels have been deposited into your account

>>19692623
Have any counter evidence you'd like to present? How would you like to overrule the bishops in this matter?

>>19692625
I don't talk to jews

>>19692627
In acceptance of your defeat, I will give the following advice: instead of burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality when it doesn't fit what you'd like it to be, you should face it instead.

>>19692635
you don't know what you're talking about and are jewish

>>19692639
The Synod of Bishops of both Russia and Greece have approved of translating the OT from the Masoretic Text. Do you have any response to this at all? On what basis do you condemn what your own bishops approve?

>>19692657
"...the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions"
- Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Russia

>>19692688
>St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text
Is that why he was the editor or the Russian Synodal Bible which uses the Masoretic Text as the basis for its OT?

>>19692701
>editor of*

>>19692688
What is going on here anon?

>>19692732
>What is going on here anon?
you arguing in complete bad faith
even in the image you just posted it says that the septuagint would be used when it differs from the mt, which gives it primacy
now go be jewish somewhere else

>>19692840
The image I posted does not say that, it says
>Translation was to be based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, then from the Greek, when the latter was the original language.
So Greek would be used when Greek was the original language. That means that the OT would be translated from Hebrew and then the NT (along with some deuterocanonical texts) would be translated from Greek.
Regardless, you are correct that LXX would still be utilized. This approach you are speaking of, in which the Hebrew is used as the base text and then the Septuagint used as an important witness to early variants (such as "virgin" rather than "young girl" in Isa. 7:14), is the approach which is used by believing Protestants.
So again what is the problem with the Protestant approach when it is the same thing that Orthodox do?

I got this for Christmas and I am someone with very little knowledge of Christianity or religion.
Does anybody else have this? Can I start anywhere I like or is there a specific part you recommend?

>>19692907
cope

>>19692942
So far you cannot answer

1. Why the Orthodox do not actually use the LXX as their OT translation base despite it being their official OT text
2. Why the Orthodox saint you've quoted as supporting LXX primacy was a leading editor in a translation using the Hebrew as its OT textual base
3. How Protestants using the Hebrew is wrong given that they are following the same practice used by the Orthodox

Would you like to try again?

>>19692966
>1. Why the Orthodox do not actually use the LXX as their OT translation base despite it being their official OT text
they do and you're just lying lol idk what to tell you
>2. Why the Orthodox saint you've quoted as supporting LXX primacy was a leading editor in a translation using the Hebrew as its OT textual base
if you're somehow trying to insinuate that the quote is fake see pic
>3. How Protestants using the Hebrew is wrong given that they are following the same practice used by the Orthodox
because protestants are retarded, as you've demonstrated well enough

>>19692932
The Bible can be neatly divided into a few different tracts, first obviously between the OT and NT.
The OT consists of the Pentateuch/Laws (first five books), then the Prophetic Books, then the Poetic Books. Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim - however you want to call these divisions, they form both a chronological back-to-front narrative of Hebrew beliefs as well as compartmentalized thematic canons.
The NT is less delineated; you basically just have the Gospels, and then you have "a bunch of stuff people wrote ABOUT the Gospels." The Gospels themselves have obvious primacy and everything else included in the canonical NT was selected through debate and vote to determine the relevance of the commentary.
A decent starting place would be to read the Gospels first, or else the Book of Genesis and then the Gospels, and then the rest of the NT as you like. The rest of the Pentateuch and the Prophetic Books are kind of their own cultural history of the Israelites unnecessary for basic understanding of the NT and the Poetic Books feel like flavor text to entry level readers.

>>19693004
>they do and you're just lying lol idk what to tell you
This is a concession that you cannot deal with the conversation. The Russian Synodal Bible, approved by the Russian Synod of Bishops, and "Today's Greek Version", approved by the Greek Synod of Bishops, both are based upon the Hebrew in the Old Testament. Are you disputing this? Deal with facts, prove me wrong. You can't because what I am saying is true.
>if you're somehow trying to insinuate that the quote is fake see pic
I didn't say it is fake, but clearly he is saying one thing and doing something else. You can research his involvement in the Russian Synodal Bible and see for yourself.
>because protestants are retarded, as you've demonstrated well enough
Absolutely laughable. You cannot deal with a single fact I have prevented and have resorted to accusing me of lying instead. You are bearing false witness.

>>19690532
I think you got it

Any other Orthodox want to help out the fool I am arguing with? I would actually like an answer about why I hear this accusation towards Protestants and Catholics that we are in error for basing our Old Testament translations on Hebrew when you Orthodox do the same thing.

>>19693105
No no, let him hang himself

>>19693143
That seems to be all he can do. The conclusion I have come to is that the Orthodox LXX claim is partially true, in that Greek speaking Christians used the Septuagint in the past, and some early translations, e.g. Church Slavonic, are based on the Septuagint. But other early translations are based on the Hebrew, e.g. Latin, Syriac. And the Orthodox today, at least in the "old country", don't seem to have a different methodology from Protesants and Catholics, which is to use the Hebrew as a base and refer to translations, including the LXX, when needed.
But that leaves the matter of why you hear Orthodox complain about Protestant/Catholic usage of the Hebrew. It's obvious that many western converts simply don't know that Orthodox use the Hebrew in the same way. They got fed bullshit at some point and believed it rather than researching the issue. I think a lot want to use Orthodoxy to escape from the complexities and difficulties of Western Christianity, which they are familiar with, so they accept a simplified, magical understanding of Eastern Christianity which isn't the entire truth.

>>19693105
>>19693143
>>19693237
Embarrassing levels of samefagging.

>>19693256
Did you know that in Eastern Orthodoxy in the past, if you wanted your sins absolved without penance you could pay your bishop a certain amount of money and he would issue you an "absolution certificate"? Did they cover that in your catechism classes?

>>19693256
>>19693277
"The power of the forgiveness of sins, which is termed by the Eastern Church of Christ 'Absolution Certificates' when given in writing, but by the Latins 'Indulgences', is given to the Holy Church by Christ. These Absolution Certificates are issued in the whole Catholic Church by the four most holy Patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."
--Council of Constantinople 1727

>>19693277
Woah, no, I've never heard of this or anything remotely similar happening in the past, this completely irrelevant and unsolicited information (Which nobody was previously aware of certainly,) is sure to shake the Orthodox world to its very core.
Why does Orthodoxy make Pr*ts seethe so hard, bros?

>>19693323
I'm 100% sure from this post that you did not know about this before I told you.

>>19693330
There are exactly zero people who care about the selling of indulgences hundreds of years ago.

>>19693342
They're not even indulgences, but something worse. In Catholicism an indulgence reduces the temporal punishment due for a sin, e.g. in purgatory, where Christians go who are saved but still need to be cleansed of the vestiges of sin before entering Heaven. The Orthodox absolution certificate is rather directly paying for your sin to be forgiven.

It arrived a day earlier than expected, which is nice. The pages are extremely thin and flimsy though, probably to keep the book smaller. Going to start with the New Testament today. Do you have any reading tips? My current plan is to nust read 5 chapters per day. Sadly, I'm not someone who can just sit down and read for an hour, my attention span is a bit busted.

>>19693386
>Read bibble
>Die
t-thanks Iesus...

>>19693386
There are reading plans people have created. For example the M'Cheyne reading plan which has you read 4 chapters each day, and in one year will have you read the Old Testament once and the New Testament and Psalms twice. The four chapters each day are from four different books, so you jump around, which might help with attention issues.
http://www.edginet.org/mcheyne/year_classic_single_a4.pdf

If you don't want to deal with something like that then I'd say just start with the New Testament like you planned.

I'm not part of any particular denomination or even a particular religion but I've read parts of the Bible and have found them beautiful and interesting

>>19693516
Thanks!

>>19693527
You don't need to be part of organized religion to appreciate the Bible.

>>19690470
If Jesus was a jew, why do people hate jews so much?

>>19693643
Jews now refer to people who follow Judaism. If you want to be more precise, he was actually an israelite aswell.

>>19693643
Judaism today is not a successor to anything Jesus believed and practiced, nor John the Baptist for that matter. Judaism as we know it today, in all its Orthodox-Conservative-Reformed, etc., formed after AD 70, when the temple was destroyed and all Judaic sects except for the Pharisees were snuffed out, so the Pharisees got to monopolize what it meant to be Jewish.

>>19693733
This.
Those same Pharisees have the blame for killing Jesus placed at their feet by 99% of historical and modern interpretations of the Gospels as well. This is the actual root cause of European, Russian and American antisemitism, much moreso than muh banks.

>places 3-volume boxset of E. Michael Jones's Jewish Revolutionary Spirit next to 3-volume boxset of Alter's Hebrew Bible
Would it truly be the duality of man?

>>19692932
It's basically an atheist commentary on the Bible. There is a detailed analysis here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuW6fvHzIEs

>>19694038
The NRSV translation is also non-Christian. For example Isa. 7:14 is translated "young girl" with "Greek: virgin" in a footnote.

>>19694065
That has interesting implications. So apparently the Hebrew sources say "young woman" and the Greek says "virgin". At least it's transparent about that with that footnote. My Bibles in other languages all say "virgin", this definitely feels like revisionism.

>>19693256
Interesting, anon... tell me, is this uhm, samefagging tranny in the room with us now?

>>19694342
He's in the air, man. On these internet waaves...

>>19694300
Yes, the Masoretic text reads "almah" which means "young woman". This word occurs nine times in the OT. The Septuagint (which is pre-Christian) normally translates it as "young woman", but in two instances, Isa. 7:14, and Gen. 24:43 the Septuagint uses "parthenos" which means "virgin."

>>19692195
The Masoretic is fine and indeed part of Orthodox tradition. It's not perfect though, as it was compiled by the unbelieving Jews, and as early as St Justin Martyr it has been suspected of alterations or at least of certain textual variants that are too corrupt. The LXX is historically normative (even the Vulgate translated the Psalms from the LXX because it was so normative that translating from the Hebrew would be a problem liturgically) but it's also not perfect; it may be incredibly valuable in that it shows how the Jews understood their own text before Christ, but it's ultimately still a translation from the Hebrew.
We're not "LXX-onlyists", but it is indeed a pity that the Hebrew became the norm in Catholicism and Protestantism, when historically it was still the Greek that prevailed, even taking the Latin and Syriac traditions into account.

>>19694300
(cont.) The NRSV is a non-Christian translation so it presupposes that there is no prophetic fulfillment or anything like that between the OT and NT, and that such things are inventions of the NT writers. So verses like Isa. 7:14 will be translated in a way to disconnect them from the NT.

Fr Thomas Hopko made the remarkable observation that Matthew is written in the style of the books of the Law, Mark is written in the style of the books of prophecy, Luke-Acts is written in the style of the historical books, and John is written in the style of the wisdom books.
Is this observation mentioned by any of the Church Fathers? Are there any academic works diving into this topic?

>>19690470
I have never read the bible, with what book should I start? and in what order should I read the books?

>>19694518
See
>>19693007

>>19694484
I'd love to know which source texts he drew those observations from, because its easy to imagine this as an intentional product of harmonizing between the NT and OT by church scholars.

>>19694518
Gospels first and i'm not sure of the rest.
>>19693516
Get a reading plan like this guy's or whichever other

>>19694038
>>19694065
If the Bible is a divine scripture then it should withstand the scrutiny of originalists, literalists and textualists without centuries on centuries of editorializing by dogmatists. As long as the text is not being intentionally redacted to lessen its spiritual impact (as I strongly suspect the Masoretic Text has been, from a contra-Christian end), reading an account from non-believers should inspire as much reverence as an account from the faithful.

>>19694557
>Idunno pull out a fuckin Ouija board and read the text upside down and backwards who cares
shoo shoo Pr*tty

>>19694633
without needing* centuries on centuries...

>>19694518
John, Revelation, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts

>>19691898
I always pray The Lord's prayer, Ave Maria and a prayer for a Saint before sleeping.

How can anyone not take the Eucharist as being the literal body, blood, and divinity of Christ after reading John? He goes over it like 4 times that he is the bread of life and that you must eat his flesh.

>>19693007
I'd recommend something like the Ignatius Study Bible that has lots of notes linking to the Old Testament.

>>19694789
>Revelation
He's gonna get filtered so bad

>>19694638
He could've just scrolled up and found an answer, so i was just as low-effort as him.

>>19694911
>He
It's almost the single best book in the entire Holy Bible.

>>19694933
Yeah but you can't understand most of the stuff in there without previous study.

>>19694943
It was clear enough to me as a child and learning more was just learning more.

>>19694958
Me too, he just won't get a few parts. I find it is best to read, be half-filtered, study, and understand.

>>19694975
>be half-filtered
I guess I just can't relate, having been immediately mind blown and thinking it was inexpressibly amazing. I didn't feel any need to "know what everything was", as I just took it first and foremost as how grandly mysterious and trippy God is.

Anyone studying Koine Greek?

>>19694004
It would arguably be a way to shut down an anti-semitism accusation.

>>19694911
>filtered by the most widely read book in the history of the world
You’re not special

>>19695012
>I just took it first and foremost as how grandly mysterious and trippy God is.
I can tell you smell bad

>Numbers 12:1
>”And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”

>>19696520
Was Moses wife really black?

>>19696507
I can tell you're an actual retarded person.

>>19694806
No one understands it *literally* because the bread retains all physical properties of bread. If he meant the bread is his flesh *literally* then the bread would become flesh on a physical level. It would be similar to turning water into wine, in which the water simply becomes wine literally. You don't need to apply Aristotelian philosophical categories to it.

>>19694806
Look at the guy that replied to you and you be the judge

>>19694806
Other issues being simplified here as well, such as the involvement of faith. Reformed believe that the bread/wine is the flesh/blood of Christ in a spiritual sense and that the recipient of the sacrament feeds on Christ spiritually, and that he is present to us in the sacrament through faith. Catholics believe the bread undergoes an objective transformation and you can thus then put the bread in a box and venerate it.

>>19696613
I'd love to see you qualify that by pointing out which posts itt you think are mine

Here is the official /lit/ Bible reading plan:
- Start with the Gospels (Matthew to John)
- Acts
- All epistles in order (Romans to Jude)
- Revelation
Then move to Old Testament
- Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy)
- Wisdom Literature (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs)
- Major Prophets (Isaiah to Daniel)
- Minor Prophets (Hosea to Malachi)
- History Books (Joshua to Esther)
Then read the New Testament again to gain a clearer understanding of it in its context

>>19694806
Friendly reminder that the seemingly absurd nature of the Eucharist played a big role in the demonizing of Christians during the early years of the Church; to me, it's not hard to imagine that deliberate obfuscation of the meaning of the Eucharist might have been baked into the various teachings of the early Churches if just as a survival strategy or concession to social pressures.

>>19696531
One of them

>>19696678
All it took was the one but this one was strong reinforcement. Enjoy childhood while it lasts.

>>19691365
I've been thinking of doing a yearlong Bible reading plan, and the one you're doing is in my contenders.
It's either that or the one the Christadelphians came up with, I suppose.

>>19697066
There's also Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year plan if you want Catholic Deuterocanon included.

>>19690470
who else was saved by one of these? i took it out of the motel room after an especially depressing episode of sexual depravity and did not appreciate until several years later what i'd found. but today i consider it an incredible blessing. what a lovely organization. they know exactly where they're needed

>>19697127
Can confirm that this is a very good podcast.
>>19697141
Nice. Whenever I'm in a hotel, I always check for these, even though I always bring my own NT & Psalms. Always glad to see them and know they're there for the next person.

>>19697141
I grew up when they still brought one to every US elementary school student. KJBs for 3rd graders, I immediately treasured and read mine. I'd already had a children's Living Bible for years at that point, but the King James felt whole new levels of real and right. I was deeply blessed from that tiny gift and find it inexpressibly sad that has long since been forbidden.

>>19697300

I work in a grocery store and whenever anyone of whatever delusion leaves unwanted literature, I enthusiastically get rid of it immediately. This one time a guy even complained and I smugly went Nope, not here, with the full secular normative policy at my back. You are literally and equally as bad as whatever other startup cult, spreading your falsehoods.

>>19697413
Surprise surprise, reddit spacing.

>>19697619

Been using this website since the beginning, will never not space correctly notwithstanding the other site I never use, will never do the Talking Snake.

>>19697628
>t. natural born redditor
>no practice needed
Repent and humbly beg God to heal your overflowing well of faggotry.

>IVP NT Commentary
>Luke 1.28
>"Greetings (like "hail") were normal..."
>"Neither the title ("favored" or "graced one") nor the promise ("The Lord is with you")"
It's the little things. No wonder Catholics like it despite being written by an evangelical.

>>19697798
Nigga what

>>19694806

Why does Jesus describe it as effective BEFORE his execution?

>>19696694
>The early church clearly teaches the Real Presence™ dogma as currently understood by Catholics or Orthodox
>The early church obfuscated it because of oppression
Choose one

What was the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s demise?

>>19692426
Nietzsche is dead. God bless you.

>>19698973
One does wonder so.

>>19698668
>>The early church clearly teaches the Real Presence™ dogma as currently understood by Catholics or Orthodox
Why would you even assume this is a position I hold? Do you think anyone who talks about the historicity of biblical scholars is doing so from a position of faith? That's just bizarre. I'm an atheist. Societal forces shaped the interpretations and early teachings of the Churches.

>>19699449
Why do you think I would know anything about you, random anonymous poster? It's something I'm accustomed to hearing vomited out uncritically on a regular basis. If it doesn't apply to you, good job.

Where in the Bible can I find peace for my heart?

>>19699764
Matthew 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

>>19699764
Psalm 23

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

>>19692195
What are you talking about?
The EO don't have an OT canon in the first place
It's just pointed out quite rightly that the NT authors always cite from the Septuagint which is why it's generally preferred

I don't understand why did God choose David over Saul. David is depicted as a crook.

>>19700039
Preferred by whom? Not Orthodox translators of the Bible quite clearly.

Is that true that you don't have an Old Testament canon, Orthodox anons? I know definitions and such are quite slippery in the East, but I don't believe I've heard it stated before that you do not have an OT canon at all.

>>19700050
David is not just a crook
He's a relentless asshole
But he repents
That's what makes according to god
You could fill libraries with books by rabbis that are essentially David apologetics about why he did nothing wrong but they're kind of just missing the point
>>19700052
What you're seeing is mostly reactions to western textual emphasis
Especially with Philaret and burgerdoxes
Nothing wrong with using the masoretic text as long as you can tell when the Jews are being Jews
The ecumenical patriarchate is in communion with the Ethiopian orthodox church
Incidentally, Enoch is canonised in the Ethiopian orthodox church along with a lot of other stuff
The Slavs have some of their own stuff
The number of Psalms varies too
Another problem is that there is no one Septuagint so one would have to explain what they mean when they say they use the Septuagint
And all that is fine
EO is much more about worship than the texts
Chrysostom and Nazianzenus's liturgies might as well be part of the Bible

>>19700080
Are there any Saul apologetics? From my own studies, the Northern Israelites never accepted David: David-Solomon is the Judah gang. And when I read about them all I saw was debauchery and epsteinism.

>>19700080
>Nothing wrong with using the masoretic text as long as you can tell when the Jews are being Jews
This is how Protestants and Catholics utilize the Masoretic text, of course.
>And all that is fine
Would it be fine for someone to say that Isaiah is not scripture?
>Chrysostom and Nazianzenus's liturgies might as well be part of the Bible
I am doubtful that a position like this could be substantiated from the church fathers.

>>19691921
https://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/7-14-compare.html
You can get a feel for the style of each version. KJV isn't as difficult as you think though. I'm ESL and I understand it just fine. I don't know why there are people who think it's unintelligible but my guess is that they have a chip on their shoulder against it.

>>19700108
The KJV is indeed not difficult on the whole but there are certain areas in which words have changed meanings. Examples:
>Phil. 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ ...
"Conversation" used to mean "behavior"
>2 Thess. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
One of the meanings of "let" used to be "prevent."
So it's good to be aware of this sort of thing. Some editions include notes when this occurs, but most don't.

God sneed

>>19700097
Honestly, I've always felt there was something of ancient tragedy in Saul's story but he was an asshole overall
Again, David not a good person during most of his story
His redemption comes from his final ability to admit he was in fact a cunt
>>19700105
>Would it be fine for someone to say that Isaiah is not scripture?
Apophatically speaking, you'd be in error to axe something like Isaiah which has never been rejected by anyone we have ever taken seriously and which is often used
>I am doubtful that a position like this could be substantiated from the church fathers
Of course but that's not what I'm saying
I'm saying that the liturgy and worship overall is really fucking important and since these are the go tos for our worship they are absolutely fundamental
Speaking of cthe hurch fathers
They cite the gospel of Thomas unironically and then condemn it
The same individual does both often and says that while the book in general is abomination, there's some authentic stuff in there that should not be ignored
And we generally follow them when they take these routes

>>19700128
Thanks for the info. What more "modern" translation would you suggest? I have ESV and RSV as far as English goes and I'm not enthusiastic about them.

>>19700138
>Apophatically speaking, you'd be in error to axe something like Isaiah which has never been rejected by anyone we have ever taken seriously and which is often used
This means there is a canon then in some sense, even if it hasn't been fully hashed out. To speak for Protestants, we view the canon as an ontological category. There are a set of writings that are breathed out by God, and the works in that category are the canon.
>The same individual does both often and says that while the book in general is abomination, there's some authentic stuff in there that should not be ignored
You can find similar statements regarding the apocrypha / deuterocanon. E.g. Athanasius states that Sirach, Esther, etc. are not part of the canon but are still read profitably.

>>19700180
>even if it hasn't been fully hashed out
I should also confess that canonisation is a can of worms that we simply don't want to open.
Greece almost went to civil war in 1860s-1870s when the Danish king told the metropolitans to have the NT translated into demotic greek and it quickly emerged that not only was there wild disagreement about the meaning of the NT but also of manuscripts
Furthermore, there was no NT manuscript canon either until 1904 and really it's still up to debate
If certain people who are respected in the church had a say in the matter, the protoevangelium of James would get canonised tomorrow
>There are a set of writings that are breathed out by God, and the works in that category are the canon.
I definitely understand why protestants are keen on this but I don't see a very good reason why we at EO should take this route since it just doesn't mean much in our methodology. We also believe in inspiration though but if you ask each patriarch what that means, you'd get a violently different answer.
As far as layperson me goes, as long as we can agree on what is wrong, it's kind of everything goes if it helps you get closer to god, just be careful and handle this stuff with fear and trembling
>You can find similar statements regarding the apocrypha / deuterocanon. E.g. Athanasius states that Sirach, Esther, etc. are not part of the canon but are still read profitably.
Yeah, this is roughly how we understand it. Go ahead and read 4 Ezra just please be careful.

As mentioned a few times in the thread, I think the Alter Hebrew Bible set is probably worthwhile to have, both because it's a purely MT translation without corrections from the LXX/DSS and because it contains information from "authoritative" Jewish commentary that isn't just largely agnostic to Christian beliefs (like the Oxford Study NRSV for example) but rather completely oppositional to Christian beliefs. Having such a resource allows one to directly see why there are issues between us and them on, for example, the reading of Isaiah 53, among many other passages. We gloss over many of the disputes because we read an OT that's been corrected by pre-MT-corruption manuscripts and act surprised that they, reading from a different source, argue a different view than us. Obviously, you shouldn't read Alter's HB devotionally as a Christian, but it's IMO better and more honest in its own beliefs than any other Hebrew Bible out there, such as the JPS Tanakh.

Just make sure that NYT typo isn't in Joshua and you're good.

>>19700355
Make sure to get the Talmud as well.

>>19700355
Jewish commentaries are hilarious
You see the hoops they have to jump to explain how TPiH doesn't real or transforming the torah into a soteriological document
I think there's a bit of comedy to the fact that Caiaphas and Akiva are much closer to what Christians believe instead of modern Jews, whether reformed or orthodox

>>19700355
>>19700384
Don't forget the Mishnah either.

>>19700172
I don't see why the need to avoid the KJB but the closest thing to a recommendable modern is the NASB. The ESV has better footnotes for alternate manuscript readings though.

>>19700172
Sorry, I missed your post somehow. The closest thing to the KJV would be the NKJV, which is translated from the same textual base (critical text variants in footnotes). It's a new translation into modern English that hews very close to the KJV, not a revision of the KJV.

>>19700410
>It's a new translation
I mean new in the sense that it's not a revision. It was completed in the 1980s.

Why are the majority of people on this website unhappy?

>>19700405
>I don't see why the need to avoid the KJB
I default to KJV but I like to read other translations of the same passage sometimes. I've found a lot of nuance by reading, say, the ESV this way. Generally speaking I welcome reading different translations, or even Bibles in different languages even just to see how something was rendered.

Is it plausible that Judas was likely condemned because of his suicide, rather than his betrayal of Christ? Did the horror of his realization and his guilt count as repentance? What is the general agreement on him?

>>19701425
general consensus is that his suicide condemned him, as it left him unable to repent

Good book about the attributes of God

>>19701446
General consensus among whom? I've never even heard of the dogma that states suicide damns your soul to hell irl, I only learned of it through cultural osmosis. So I'd venture to guess that your average Prots don't really agree with your average Catholics on this interpretation, and I wouldn't even try to speak to the Orthodox position.

>>19701864
the suicide itself isn't the problem per se, simply that by killing himself he denied himself repentance

>>19701875
or more accurately the ability to repent

>>19699728
>Why do you think I would know anything about you, random anonymous poster? It's something I'm accustomed to hearing vomited out uncritically on a regular basis. If it doesn't apply to you, good job.
Do you think this makes you sound like anything other than a defensive paranoid idiot?

>>19701875
If I had to guess the spread:
>Prots: Judas wen ta hell cuz he wuz bad
>Caths: Judas went to hell because he committed suicide before he had the chance to use his 30 talents to pay off his sin
>Orths: Judas was damned because he never came to accept the true divinity of Jesus

I am very new to all things religion, should I read a plain old Bible or should I gravitate towards a study Bible?

>>19702180
I'd get a study Bible. Notes really help you get what you're reading. Careful eith whst you get though, a lot are tainted.
Make sure the translation is based in the LXX(Septuagint). The MT translation is horrible and tries to remove references of Jesus from most books. The Vulgata is average. So septuagint is best.

>>19702180
Also if you want a specific one, i'm having a good time with the JB. Not the NJB or whatever, mind you. Those are bad.
Do study further though. I know it strays from the MT, but not sure how well it fares yet.

>>19702180
Check the wiki, there's a bunch of charts to help. Take a look at the other christian lit there aswell.

>>19702239
>>19702254
>>19702274
thank you

>>19702239
>study Bible
>based in the LXX
Any recommendations of a specific book that meets these criteria?
Orthodox Study Bible doesn't.

>>19702364
I'd say that you should probably do some reading before marching off into the bible
the first five books of the bible all presuppose a ton of context that makes them painful to read otherwise
contrary to what some seem to believe
the bible is not a clear or easy to understand book
the whole thing was written across at least a millenium across several languages and several versions of these languages with many manuscripts and varying canons
I'd suggest starting with some more historical works
my recommendations are as follows
N.T. Wright's New Testament in its World (he has some idiosyncratic views but you don't know any of this stuff so it'll go over your head and I wouldn't worry much about it. He also writes his books like sermons and has an ability to fire you up when talking about Jesus. He also respects that a reader might not be from a religious background and treads tenderly when the supernatural is involved)
Heiser's naked bible podcast eps 16-29 (he presumes some stuff that you'll have grasped at this point through Wright. He goes into more detail on the books of the bible)
if you have your interest piqued in this faith of ours at this point, look for churches
don't read the bible by itself
this is not a
>I need muh priest to expleen me the boobl
it helps ground you, take everything you hear critically
find a church that speaks to you and move on from there
you'll have probably done more research of your own at this point if you're actually interested
>>19702239
the masoretic doesn't axe jesus, it goes through some bizarre hoops to transform the good old spiritual epic into an ethnonationalist propaganda piece
>>19702397
there is none
you have to remember that most "scholars" essentially believed the LXX was written by time travelling Christians until very recently
the MT is fine if you can get the corrected version that doesn't include bullshit like the sons of Israel inherting the nations before Israel even existed

>>19702422
>MT doesn't axe Jesus
It does in Isaiah for example.
Ranting off about it, i don't know why people think it is superior to the LXX, seeing as the latter is literally older.

>>19701890
Get over yourself retard.

>>19702397
Can't help you there. Check the charts. There's a line one that shows which Bibles deviate the most. It's at most at the previous bible thread or the one before it. Worth digging for. Search about it and Isaiah. We were discussing changes on it when it got posted

>>19702397
>>19702529
Translations are generally not based upon the MT solely, but use the MT as a base and compare with the LXX, Peshitta, etc. as needed. So any translation by believing Christians is going to have the correct reading of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, for example. This is done because the OT was written in Hebrew. It was not written in Greek. This is also the practice followed by modern translators in Eastern Orthodox countries, by the way. Modern translations by Orthodox in Russia, Greece, etc. use the MT as their base.

>>19702554
>>19702546
Yeah. A better suggestion would be finding this line image i talked about.

>>19702572
Two to avoid would be the RSV and NRSV which are non-Christian and translate Isaiah incorrectly.

>>19702587
Except for the second Catholic version of the RSV (not the NRSV or the first Catholic version), which does translate Isaiah correctly.

>>19702422
I would argue against a lot of this post, honestly most of the cultural and mythological context surrounding the Pentateuch is so poorly understood and fuzzy even in the source texts that you'll get a good grasp of it after an hour on Youtube. Not that reading historical, mythological and anthropological texts on the people and places of the OT (and the entirety of the bible) ISN'T a good practice, but;
A: you can thoroughly understand enough of the Pentateuch on a blind read to make secondary analysis unnecessary
B: the Bible and Torah are both intended to serve as reference texts, continually re-read in light of new questions, informations or simple thoughts. You should really be rereading these texts a lot anyways, so missing some things on your first read is to be expected. Obligating a huge wealth of background knowledge on cultural, mythological and historical touchpoints for new readers actively defeats the point of the Bible as a tool of introduction to faith, which is the context it is intended to be read in.

>>19702648
>cultural and mythological context surrounding the Pentateuch is so poorly understood and fuzzy even in the source texts that you'll get a good grasp of it after an hour on Youtube
* A good grasp on what we can solidly infer, I mean to say. That is to say, there's not a real wealth of apocryphal information that biblical scholars will confidently append to the OT, its more that there are a few well known bits of syncretism and proto-Hebrew revisionism and the rest we don't really have any clue about the origins of.

>>19702529
it doesn't
mainly because rabbinic jews forgot how prophecy actually works in the old testament lmao
>actively defeats the point of the Bible as a tool of introduction to faith, which is the context it is intended to be read in.
I can get not liking Heiser and NT Wright
they have their ups and downs
but how can you say that?
the Bible was written in a society where most people were illiterate
yes Jews and Christians had the highest literacy rates of any people in the world before Constantine, I'll grant you that
but most still couldn't read
the actual context of the Bible is to help you after you've been familiarised with things somewhat through worship
I absolutely agree with B besides the thing I said before but not with A
say you read through the "prologue" in Genesis just fine and you follow the rythm of the story from Abraham to mount Sinai
what kind of new reader won't just give up around Leviticus?
Even if they skip Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy aren't exactly easy
the stuff I recommended has nothing to do with mythology though
I very specifically recommended particular episodes from Heiser
these are not rants about genesis 6:1-4 or the divine council
they are introductions to the various genres of the Bible and how to handle translations of the various texts
The NT Wright book I suggested is an introduction to the immediate history of the time of the NT and also an introduction to each book of the NT. The closest Wright gets to being Wright is when he is talking about how Paul on women is talking about talkative women in church

most of >>19702727 was meant for >>19702648

>>19702727
I don't see how anything you're suggesting would make getting through Leviticus or Deuteronomy any easier. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the "difficult" books of the OT are only difficult in that they tax the reader's attention span, to which you can always simply put the book down for a bit and pick it up later, or gloss through passages you cannot immediately discern meaning from and return to them later. Doing additional homework and putting in a few dozen extra reading hours to make those sloggy parts of the text more bearable is just counterproductive.

>>19702772
you make a good point
It helped me personally though and I'll insist on the fundamental point that the Bible is not a clear and easy set of books to go through and that one should approach it with fear and trembling
I'd also point out that our friend appears to come from a non-religious background so I thought that maybe it'd help ease him in

>>19702805
As an atheist raised protestant I have to say, I think trying to read the Bible as some kind of dispassionate cultural artifact the way we might read, say, the Book of the Dead or the Enuma Elish is hilariously ignorant. There's certainly value in scholarly objectivity when it comes to selecting translations and revisions, especially when you're not trying to understand the text through the lens of any particular dogma, but the Bible is still actively defining the moral and cultural framework of the modern world. The people whose lives the Bible is shaping, and the people downstream from them, are not scholars; there is extreme value for the layman and the neophyte in getting a firsthand look at the bare text that serves as the foundation for western society.
Teaching yourself to read the bible as an artifact will probably push you further from any kind of understanding, of faith or of your surroundings. See: deluded evangelical atheists who think they have 'debunked' Christianity.

>>19702862
Were you raised atheist? That got a bit ambiguous.
Also, i agree.
If only we all knew koine greek and aramaic.

>>19702891
Currently atheist, raised protestant.

>But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day.

Genesis ends so beautifully lads :)

>>19702180
I recommend to also get the Android "Bible Study App" by And Bible, next to whatever Bible you choose. It's open source and also on f-Droid. Sadly it doesn't have the copyrighted translations like ESV, but there are still a whole lot of texts in several languages that you can put side by side, as well as commentaries.

>>19703230
Indeed, Romans 8:28.

I wonder how many Christians these threads are going to create. Imagine telling people you found Jesus in a Mongolian basket weaving forum.

>>19699764
Hebrews 4 has this
>For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
>Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

>>19704244
I have found some of the reading material that brought me closer to Christianity here, and afterwards I could ask a few questions I would have been otherwise unable to ask, and got a few suggestions for books. So I must give some credit to this den of coomers.

There's an Anglican Church in my city, celebrating in English I think. It's quite beautiful.

>>19704043
>And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Indeed

https://orthochristian.com/81240.html
decent article

>>19691041
>>19691137
The antichrist has been around since the prophet Daniel. It's anyone who acts in accordance against God.

>>19704904
I knew this article. So much for the KJV being old, outdated and inaccurate, as I was told.

>>19705196
It celebrated its 400th birthday not too long ago so it is a bit old, to be fair.

>>19705212
That comparison in the "Liturgical Utility" section is amazing. The KJV absolutely towers over the others and paradoxically it's more clear despite the language used.

I'm a Christian who doesn't care about denominations.
What do you think of that?

>>19705715
what do you actually believe then?

>>19705715
You're a Protesant, so be straightforward about it

>>19705479
Douay is better

>>19705715
How many books in ur bible

>>19705915
>Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

>>19705934
Is there something wrong

>>19705946
You for thinking that is better for liturgical reading.

>>19705950
That's because it is
You'll understand when you grow up

>>19705951
I'm bigger than you

>>19705915
>the woman rather than her seed will crush the head of the serpent
Repent, Ishtar worshiper.

>>19706183
That's what it says in the Latin manuscripts
If you have a problem take it up with Saint Jerome

>>19706281
The Bible was not written in Latin.

>>19706281
Jerome was the very individual who argued for the church to take on "ever virgin" beliefs so that Mary wouldn't be lower than actual lifelong virgins in the heavenly hierarchy schemes they had been fabricating. That was his argument, not "this is what we've always known straight from the Apostles". Enjoy being fooled by Satan.

>>19706281
Modern Catholic translation in pic related.

>>19706295
>>19706315
>>19706335
Why samefag though?

>>19706335
"Full of grace" is out now too, lol.

Reminder that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of Mary's virginity is not just that she didn't have sex, but that her hymen remained intact before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus.

>>19706396
So everyone who refers to Mary as a perpetual virgin is specifically referring to her hymen being intact. Mary's hymen is a Catholic and Orthodox dogma.

>>19705715
Me too, I only believe in One Church, the Orthodox Church, and all others are in proud schism from it.

"denominationalism" and "ecumenism" are just Christian relativism, subjectivism, emotivism producing 10000+ divided disagreeing groups and leading to nihilism (what we see has happened in our society today)

>>19706396
>orthodox
>doctrine
You'll definitely find many people who actually believe that but it's not established doctrine since it's not in the seven ecumenical councils

ive always found it hilarious how kjv worshippers start seething and having an actual meltdown anytime someone dares to say their preffered bible isnt the kjv lmao

>>19706405
First Lateran Council: "If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned."

>her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth

>>19706425
"Again, in the iconic tradition, in almost all images of Mary that one finds throughout history, she is depicted wearing three stars on her maphorion (or the garment that covers her head and shoulders). These starts are the artistic evocation of her threefold virginity: before, during, and after the birth of Christ."
--"The Orthodox Church" by John Anthony McGuckin

pic related

How does someone read the New Testament and then come to the conclusion that Mary's hymen is a central doctrinal matter of Christianity?

>>19706315
>>19706335
>>19706357
>>19706396
>>19706405
>>19706430
>>19706454
>>19706474

>>19706356
Wrong.

>>19706454
>McGuckin
based, I feel he's really underrated, I hope you actually gave it a read and found it there, he's a ton of fun even if you aren't an orth
again, most people here do believe in it no doubt
but it's not doctrine
the only things that are doctrine are the seven councils or to be more exact in our pluralistic world, our version of the seven councils
>>19706474
it isn't
Mary is just appreciated for her consent (yes, yes, she was probably around the same age James was but fuck you) in the whole bringing the son of god to earth thing so this can lead to what one might deem extreme devotion?

>>19706491
It is in the Second Council of Constantinople, referenced multiple times in its anathemas, e.g.
>If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense ...
The term "ever-virgin" (ἀειπάρθενος) refers her to virginity before, during, and after Christ's birth. That simply what the term is used to mean theologically. It's not about sex specifically but the inviolability of the hymen.

>>19706335
It's difficult to believe that anyone with any intellect who is paying any attention can take them at all seriously anymore. The only explanations are ignorance and Satan's supernatural sway.

>>19706543
you just gonna keep crying about it or what

>>19706491
Here's the full McGuckin quote that mentions all of this and even notes how the icons are structured in a particular way to address concerns about Mary's "in partu" (during birth) virginity.

>>19706563
Example of the obscured third star.

>>19706563
>>19706534
yeah no, I'm fucking stupid
lemme think about this for a moment

>>19706592
It's not too late to become a Protestant, anon

>>19706600
Checked dub dubs, 66 books.

>>19706600
I'm appealing to the fact that I already believe God came down to earth through a virgin and proceeded to tell a cough to leave a sick person
believing in in partu virginity isn't that stark raving mad
I guess I'm putting this on the list of things I'm jealous of protestants for besides
actually good sermons that don't make me want to smash my head on the wall and actually successful missions (we have good missions too but I can't help but feel weak when I see the borderline suicidal journeys certain protestant missionaries go through to spread the Word and they actually succeed. I'm in awe that these people actually go right into islamic countries and actually achieve something.)
Still, I prefer our belief system overall even if it's occasionally marred by stuff like this

Ever virgin Mary came from the 2nd century fan fiction Gospel of James and was argued into the church by Jerome in the 4th because he didn't want other women higher than Mary in heaven according to church fabricated schemes, end of story, cope with the truth.

>>19706647
I don't think that in partu virginity (considered by itself) is crazy either; it's certainly within the power of God to perform such a miracle. The issue is that this makes the state of Mary's hymen a dogmatic matter, which I can't find anything but ridiculous.

Speaking more broadly of the perpetual virginity doctrine, I don't think any of it makes sense. The most basic objection I would raise is that scripture tells us that it is the duty of the husband and wife to copulate (1 Cor. 7:3-4) as otherwise marriage would fail its purpose of preventing fornication (1 Cor. 7:2, 9). Paul gives permission for spouses to abstain for a time to devote themselves to prayer, but they must come together again (1 Cor. 7:5). So the idea that Mary would be polluted in some way for obeying God in this matter is absurd. Is marriage not the prefiguration of the church (Eph. 5:32)? Orthodox at least do not take this as far as Catholics, who also hold that Mary was born without original sin, which adds another level of nonsense to all of this.

Anyway, I do have my own quarrels with Protestantism. I think that in some way the Reformation overreacted to Catholicism; certain practices which were heavily abused could perhaps have been reformed into something more true and good. I think Protestantism has a certain lack in its spirituality due to this. But I can't make the doctrinal leap into Orthodoxy or Catholicism (particularly the latter).

>>19706708
>certain practices which were heavily abused could perhaps have been reformed into something more true and good
Referring to things such as monasticism, veneration of saints, etc.

>>19706708
I can understand, thank you for being so polite even when I was talking out of my ass
I'll go on a largely source:trust me bro tangent and say that perpetual virginity has something to do with parthenos referring to a specifically consecrated virgin rather than just any virgin
I can see why EO is a leap for most people, we're really bad at giving answers. We just kinda give sign posts and hope for the best with fear and trembling and love
most of the priests are also politically crazy nutwacks who should spend less time warning people of hellfire if they don't vote for the priest's pet party and more time learning how to do proper pastoral care. I think our confessions are really good for the most part but our priests are mostly bad pastors, another thing to learn from the proties

>>19705715
The Orthodox Church is pre-denominational, and is the Church from which every other one split off.

>>19705832
I can tell you that I don't believe it matters how many fingers you use to make a cross or procreating myself to some Emperor is going to help me get into heaven.
>>19705913
Next thing you're going to call me a calvinist out of your ass?
>>19705921
Which Bible version lol
>>19706423
I can respect that.
>>19706812
I can respect that too, but in this day and age the Orts are forced to be a denomination to some extent.

I know this is the Bible thread but for those of you who also take prayer seriously
what kinds of prayer books do you use?

>>19707211
The Bible.

>>19707211
Some that I enjoy are as follows:
Spiritual Psalter of St. Ephraim the Syrian
The Psalter According to the Seventy
The Light of the World: Prayers to our Lord and Savior Jesus
Mother of the Light: Prayers to the Theotokos
Newrome Press Prayer Book

>>19706868
Anon, if you don't follow the dogma of the Orthodox or Catholic churches, you are practicing faith *in protest* of the official dogmas. You are a Protestant. It doesn't really matter if you identify yourself as one or not. Protestantism is opposition to historical Church dogma.

>>19707783
>historical Church dogma
*later* "Church™" dogma, definitely not original.

whats a good pace to go through the bible start to finish if im also reading other /lit/ and have other hobbies and such. reading in audiobook format so i can listen while i drive, go for walks as well.

>>19707985
>also reading other /lit/ and have other hobbies and such
ngmi enjoy hell

>>19708006
bullshit im allowed to enjoy real life right now too asshat

>>19706295
So you think.

Similar to >>19707211 but does anyone have any suggestions for books on the importance of prayer? I've picked up a few titles by Thomas Keating and was curious where to go next.

>>19690470
the power of the Lord's prayer is truly incredible
sometimes i'm so afraid and it just puts my mind at ease

>>19690790
I like Richmond Lattimores New Testament

>>19708256
The Bible.

>>19707211
I use 9780884651758 (pic rel) and the one issued by my Church.

>>19706426
There's always that one KJVO zealot somewhere. But if you like one of those gender neutral translation it's pretty bad ngl

>>19706708
>The issue is that this makes the state of Mary's hymen a dogmatic matter, which I can't find anything but ridiculous.
Why is the virginity of a woman trivial?

>>19708894
It's basically just the RSV, though.

After consulting various articles and writeups on the different Bible translations I have decided to just stick with the KJV. Thank you for your time.

>>19709046
The hymen has a small perforations in it through which menstrual fluids exit. So did Mary menstruate? That can be your next big dogma. Her hymen was a complete wall protecting her holy sinless womb so therefore she did not menstruate and anyone who says otherwise is anathema.

>>19706426
Preferring a "bible" that isn't the King James is not possible.

>>19709046
The dogma is not just about whether Mary had sex but whether her hymen remained intact. That's why she is said to be a virgin "in partu" (during birth). Catholic/Orthodox dogma is that when she gave birth Jesus passed through her hymen without tearing it.

>>19709288
KJ is just a discount Geneva.

>>19707783
>dogma of the Orthodox or Catholic churches
So which one is it then?
Some weeks back I heard from a really smart Orthodox monk something really stupid, how the Orthodox is the main Church since Christ's Church can't be divided. I laughed like 5 times and maybe a 6th on the way.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against dogma and I respect Christians who respect their denominations and stick with them, but there has to be a limit.
And I don't consider myself a Protestant at all. ML was a monster, Calvin was a retard, etc. etc. So keep your labels to yourself lol

>>19709336
>how the Orthodox is the main Church since Christ's Church can't be divided
Why is this stupid? I can claim there are 74 genders, that doesn't mean there are more or less than 2. There are self-proclaimed Christian denominations that are clearly heretical in every way like JWs, but they're not Christian.

new thread?

>>19709494
Exactly, but it goes in reverse also.
It's a fucked up example to give, but gender dysphoria is an actually real thing, although very rare and in no way connected to what some SJW hyper cunt wants to believe he/she is or he/she isn't.
Same thing with denominational disagreements which were there at the very beginning of the Church. So while true that some sects and cults are full of shit for obvious reasons, the "truest" Church is hard to figure out since there's so much history and disagreement by OG megamind theologians that us mortal retards can't sift through that easily.
So wouldn't it be true that the true Church is not as dependent on dogma and tradition as dogmatist traditionalists believe?

2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Arminianbros I don't feel so good....

>>19709618
No God can't do that! Everyone has free will so he can't do that! The Bible says we have free will in uh... well it doesn't say it anywhere but it's true so stop it!

>>19709618
>>19709651
Go back to Islam or use that free will to break through the illusions.

>>19709691
How does one break through a delusion given to them by God himself for the purpose of damning them?

>>19709290
ok and lmao
why are u still sperging out about this

>>19709705
God does not "damn" anyone who hasn't damned himself.
If God does send a burden too hard for you, the best thing you can do is to keep faith and trust in God that it's for a holy purpose. If you do break your faith, there's still the Church which is mandated to help you keep the faith and not be alone.
Any otherwise there is no free will and if there's no free will, salvation doesn't mean anything.
Read Job or at least Paul.

>>19709586
>the "truest" Church is hard to figure out
Consider the following:

>>19709586
>but gender dysphoria is an actually real thing
I know, but it's a mental illness. It doesn't change the truth, that you are of the sex you are born (whichever of the two) and your gender is not distinct from your sex.

>>19710093
>Inb4 Pachamama is canonized. Two birds with one stone!

>>19710093
Way ahead of you.
>>19710116
In what way? I'm not talking about the mental whackos here.
If you have real, biological dysphoria, where your whole body is waging a biological war with itself naturally from your birth, if your genitals become mutilated, mutated or whatever, whatever of the two genders you're mostly stuck with, you still have to live with issues most don't.
To the Church, this is a cultural disparity. One Church accepts this or that Council or this or that OT book or doesn't. Problem is how do you truly know which of the many different sides is correct? Sometimes it's really easy when you have cultist wackos preaching total bullshit. Other times you have very subtle differences that are usually cultural based practices or worse cases are semantic nonsenses. At that point what can you do, but to step back to something more primitive?

>>19709928
>why are u still sperging out about this
Because you replied to my post and said something about it, so I replied back to you. You're not very bright are you?

>>19710359
no i didnt lmao

>>19710362
Didn't see that one coming. /s

>>19710366
get a trip so I can filter you already

>>19710370
Are you Catholic? That would explain the petulant behavior.

>>19709930
>and if there's no free will, salvation doesn't mean anything.
This is not an idea that can be derived from scripture, but something you are importing from external philosophy.

>>19710375
your "church" ordains women and trannies

>>19710433
It does not.

>>19710436
yes it does
keep coping