/lit/ - Literature

>>19711376
what's the best bible commentary?

>>19711394
Matthew Henry's commentary.

>>19711394
IVP Background Commentary for historical and non-theological matters.

Which book of the bible is the most fun to read simply as literature or a good story, rather than theology?

>>19711394
There is a wide variety of specifics and types. Bible Knowledge Commentary is a good 2 vol.

>>19711464
1, 2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings.
It's a really good drama.

>>19711464
In the New Testament, Luke and Acts.

>>19711482
These are also both written by Luke and function together as a two-part story.

>>19711488
>written by Luke
lmao

I just happened to discover this phenomenon yesterday while researching Lucis Trust.

>>19711516
>Believing in atheistic historical criticism
I will pray for you

>>19711464
Samuel-Kings, the first half of Exodus, Tobit, Ester, and Luke-Acts.

Is it okay to read the NKJV?

>>19711556
Yes. It's a full translation and not a revision of the KJV. Like the KJV it uses the Textus Receptus as its New Testament base, and it includes footnotes to indicate where the Critical Text has differences.

>>19711519
Delete this right now

>>19711556
Sure but if you're already going to invest that much time and effort why not just read the Bible instead?

>>19711562
>Textus Receptus
You should really look into this before you promote this as a good thing. Riddled with known errors, produced relatively recently. Does not represent the best scholarship or anywhere close to the most ancient.

Not just being a hater. I used to think it was good too until I learned more.

>>19711612
Adding to it, the best possible we have is the LXX. The heavier the usage of the Septuagint in your Bible, the better.

>>19711600
But anon, it was predestine.

>>19711464
None
Without God, they lose their meaning
The ot becomes a masturbatory nationalistic bitching session
The NT becomes milktoast pseudophilosophical ravings
If this is not the gateway to interacting with God then its nothing
Paraphrasing Saint Paul
You don't need the Bible to learn that murder is bad

>>19711612
>produced relatively recently
Several of the TR readings exist in manuscripts from the 5th century.
Source: UBS5

>>19711612
I was not expressing a value judgment, but simply noting its textual basis. While the TR is indeed a primitive critical text in itself, I think it is appropriate to cultivate a healthy distrust of text critical work being done under secular presuppositions by secular academia and to only accept their conclusions should they be demonstrably true and in accord with our own beliefs.

>>19711620
This. LXX IS the OT.

>>19711687
Retarded. Not even Eastern Orthodox translate from an LXX base.

>>19711665
Yea I agree with that. It's really difficult because all of the versions/projects are compromised to varying degrees. You just have to be aware of when those disagreements could influence understanding of theology. There really can't be a lazy approach to understanding scripture like many lay people would prefer.

>>19711692
Wouldn't it make sense to use lxx as base for Samuel at least because of the problems with the Hebrew version?

>>19711692
Proof? I'm not Orthodox but I've only ever heard them emphasize the Septuagint.

>>19711710
All modern translations use the Masoretic Text as a base and make reference to the LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate, etc. whenever it is needed.

>>19711715
The big deal is the MT has a few "adjustments" by its makers that have to be fixed by referencing other texts. As long as it's well done it's alright.

>>19711692
Daniel is probably Theodotion as it is in the West but the chronology is kind of messed up. The chronology of Septuagint Daniel actually makes sense. It's easy to see this was messed around with in the first centuries.

>>19711715
Yes I agree for most texts of the Bible
Still, it seems much simpler for Samuel in particular to go with the Greek instead and use the masoretic as a point of reference
>>19711726
The guy you're replying to seems to know that very well
I'm talking about Samuel in particular because the Hebrew versions kinda go wild
This is not like turning "sons of God" to "sons of Israel" in Deuteronomy
This is generally kinda wild

>>19711714
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Synodal_Bible
>Official permission to use the Masoretic Text as preserved by the Jews (rather than relying on the Septuagint and/or the Church Slavonic translations as preserved by the Christians) was granted to Filaret [St. Philaret of Moscow] by the Synod in 1862
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Greek
>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 ... It is known in English as "Today's Greek Version (TGV)".

>>19711715
>>19711726
Imagine trusting Jews who rejected Christ and the prophecies of the OT, then had almost 1000 years to rewrite it and introduce their own interpretations, especially through the use of adding vowel marks (Which can completely change words and the meaning of verses), when the church fathers told us the Jews were changing their scriptures to undermine Christ as early as 2nd and 3rd century. Not gonna be me.

>>19711737
I agree with you
I'm the Samuel guy
But let's make one thing clear
Just because a synod says something in the orthodox church, that does not mean it's widely acknowledged or even "canon"
Just that at this point and time, a major part of the church say "ok"

>>19711726
>>19711736
The issue is that, as the text was written in Hebrew, you should translate from that when there is agreement that the Hebrew text is uncorrupted, as the original language will allow you greater insight into the text on a linguistic level (though reference to ancient translations is helpful here as well). In the cases where the Hebrew is clearly corrupted then the use of a different source is necessary.
>>19711747
Even so it does seem that the "we use the LXX" stuff is mostly baloney. In pre-schism translations, the Vulgate and Peshitta are also from Hebrew. It seems that only a few old translations, such as the Church Slavonic, actually use the LXX as a base.
>>19711746
We are not "trusting the Jews." I explained why it is important to work from the original when possible in the first part of this post.

>>19711737
I'm certainly not going to trust a 1997 change in the Greek church which certainly has a lot of issues and been going into dodgy territory for a while now. As for the Russian, I assume this is just supplementary to the LXX and in no way replaces it. The text you quoted literally shows it's not the bible of the church:
>rather than relying on the Septuagint and/or the Church Slavonic translations as preserved by the Christians

>>19711737
You have 2 (two) Bibles and the Greek one (TGV) is mainly used by Greek protestants and Orthodox laymen
If you actually knew anything about what you're talking about you would know that Greek churches use the LXX for liturgical use

>>19711759
The Masoretic / "Hebrew Bible" Is NOT the original text and it's completely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Anyone who pushes this idea is very suspect.

>>19711759
>>19711746
Yeah i'm saying they mauled the text, but it's what everything is based on. Might as well hope it all got cross-referenced and properly fixed.

>>19711376
Got this a week ago, written in both English (Dhouay-Rheims) and Latin (Vulgata Clementina)

>>19711759
>the Vulgate and Peshitta are also from Hebrew.
Ok but so is the LXX so what is your point exactly?

>>19711769
>>19711772
Also this. LXX for example is actually older than MT, but people go "muh hebrew"

>>19711759
Yeah you win, the whole Septuagint supremacy thing is very recent. It existed during the confessional Age too (did you know that the orthodox church actually has 3 confessions. I have no idea what's in the them and nobody cites them but there you go) and it came back as the DSS became disseminated and we no longer believe LXX was written by time travelling Christians.
I actually use the LXX sometimes though because I think it's beautiful
Not as base but like actual reading
If I wanted to argue about something or write an article if I ever actually did something like that, I'd absolutely use something based on the masoretic with corrections

>>19711762
>>19711767
Russians generally don't read Greek or Church Slavonic, they read Russian. As far as I can tell, every translation into the modern Russian language uses the MT as a base. Likewise Greeks do not easily understand Koine Greek and thus modern translations exist.
>>19711769
I said the Hebrew is the original, not the MT. The original Hebrew may or may not be preserved in the MT. But if it is then you should use the Hebrew for the reason I gave.
>>19711776
Not the same thing. The Vulgate and Peshitta are Christian works. The LXX is pre-Christian. So I'm saying that that even in the early church, translations were not simply made from the LXX, they were made from the Hebrew when the translator was capable of such a thing.

>>19711759
Satan has deceived you and now you lead others astray. Repent brother, this is not the way. Lord have mercy on us.

>its a retard prot shits up the thread again episode

>>19711795
I hate that prot is an umbrella term and that i end up bundled with most problematics.

>>19711775
I'd get that too, but to me it's too big on one end, but too pretty to get rebound in goatskin like my two other Baronius Bibles. I settled on the Stuttgart Vulgate by itself for Latin.

>>19711788
I will not base my faith on distorted "scripture" handed to us by the assassins of Christ.

>>19711812
Consider this then. Suppose that you wish to translate a particular section of text. You take the MT and compare it to the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta. The Hebrew is in agreement and does not seem to have been corrupted in this instance. What reason would you have to not translate from the Hebrew in this case?

>>19711821
>jewish
>not corrupted

>>19711821
Corruption taints the entire text and renders it unholy
Why would I want to use an unholy text when I have other, superior, alternatives

>>19711836
>>19711843
The conversation is over then. Your attitude is not shared by any Christian church, I hope you understand.

>>19711846
cry about it kike

If you have faith, this is all you need to understand. LXX was written by scribes who had the authority of the temple. MT was written by scribes who rejected Christ and had no authority. You're either a servant of the Lord or a servant of Satan. It's that simple.

>>19711850
I urge you to join a Christian church and ground yourself in a community of other believers so that you can learn to follow Christ in humility and obedience.

>>19711868
you first

>>19711846
>any Christian church
There is only one Christian church. The rest are synagogues of Satan. Ecumenism is the work of devils.

I want to reply to post 19710407 from the last thread.
>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.
Bullshit.
The Bible is very clear that there is choice and that even God can be swayed by prayers. It is the complete opposite to calvinist glowniggers who themselves limit God's creation to some gay bicycle based on eastern thought.

>>19711846
If they take the word of Christ killers and devil worshippers over the word of saints and martyrs then they are no "Christian" church to me.

>>19711812
Sad to hear you're throwing out the entire OT and 99% of the NT.

>>19711895
>the word of saints
Is St. Philaret of Moscow sufficient, who approved of using the MT as the base in his work on the Russian Synodal Bible?

>>19711821
>>19711846
>>19711868
your posts glow blue

>>19711912
If you any argument you would have presented it, so you can only resort to this. As a Christian you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>19711899
Jews who wrote the LXX and the NT, those who followed and accepted Christ became Christians. Those who didn't continued in their wickedness and conjured up the MT.

>>19711920
>As a Christian you should be ashamed of yourself
It is very clear that you're not a Christian, but a follower of your father the devil. Please cease with your wickedness and lies. Repent.

>>19711924
You read old Jewsih and Greek by any chance?
If you don't, then you better start learning before you ass naked hypocrisy shows.

>>19711930
>heh you're not even Christian breh
Get the fuck outta here

>>19711911

>>19711933
Yes, I frequently study the LXX (And NT) in Greek. As for the other, why would I learn a written language invented only 1000 years ago?

>>19711938
You're puffed up in self-righteousness and your reaction is vulgarity. You are not a servant of the Lord. Humble yourself.

>>19711950
This statement has to be reconciled with the fact that he used the Masoretic Text as the base in the translation of Scripture that he oversaw. Unless you want to call him a hypocrite, the only thing he can be saying is that the Septuagint has to have priority in cases where the Hebrew has been manipulated or corrupted. Note his qualifier "in some cases".

>>19711737
Why did you intentionally left this part out
I really have to question your motivations here, you are acting extremely dishonestly and in bad faith, shilling known corrupted texts

>>19711974
Why are you knowingly misrepresenting things and spreading lies to further your strange pro-MT agenda
see >>19711976

how do christians justify taking the bible literaly when it closely resembles literature, prominently uses literary devices, and has a very obvious allegorical intent behind every story even if the meaning isnt clear? why do people draw a line between accepting some parts are allegorical or included for artistic effect and accepting that a literal personal god also serves the same function?

>>19711976
It means that the translation was already done from the Hebrew by the time approval was received. See pic related, the use of the Hebrew was the guideline he set forth at the beginning of the project. Perhaps you should research the issue yourself before throwing out accusations such as this, fool.
>>19711981
You as well. Repent of your false witness.

>>19711992
cope and seethe son of satan

>>19711992
>fool
>but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

>>19712003
>what Russians "think" matters

>>19712017
cope

>>19712003
Quite obviously this is false as the entire western church from Jerome forward used a Bible based on the Hebrew. Likewise the areas in the East using the Syriac.
>>19712007
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

>>19712017
>what a saint thinks matters
Yes.

Who is the best Bible rebinder? I've heard good things about Leonard's and BensBibles.

>>19712022
the LXX is also based on hebrew so your point again makes 0 sense

>>19712017
All are one in Christ. Racism comes from the Darwinian materialist worldview and it completely un-Christian. Keep exposing yourself more.

>>19712029
So the problem with translating from the Hebrew is what? Saints can make translations using it (Jerome, Philaret), saints can use it to explain the LXX (Chrysostom). No one thinks that the MT should be used exclusively and not referenced to the LXX, etc. Your position is simply an unreality. It's a simplified apologetics position that you've swallowed that is not in accord with history.

>>19712029
LXX was not based on Hebrew written 1000 AD. It was not written by Jews who rejected Christ. I really hope you are just a shill. If not consider some serious prayer and repentance. The spirit of the Lord is not in you.

>>19712034
how can you be this braindead

>>19712047
>It's all corrupt even when there's no evidence it is because Jews
Deep

>>19712051
Begone rabbi

This is going to sound really limpwristed and weak but does anyone know of any good biblical scholars that delve into the context and the background of the various parts of scripture (OT and NT) but are also like, actual Christians
Even though you may question their quality as scholars, I'll give the examples of wright and Heiser
>>19712036
The masoretic preserves the really weird and difficult parts of Deuteronomy
You really overestimate second millennium Jews
Their fiddling is really obvious when it's there, especially in light of dss and the like

>>19712065
Yes, you can read the church fathers and/or ask a Priest. Secular scholars are for atheists who try to tear apart faith.
https://ccel.org/fathers

>>19712051
We have proof of this corruption as early as 180 AD which you can read here:
https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html
Why wouldn't it continue to happen for many centuries following? You think they suddenly decided to play nice and stop distorting the text?

Here's also a letter from Augustine rebuking Jerome for seeking counsel with Jews for his translation over the witness of The Seventy.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LXXII.html

>>19712065
IVP Bible Background Commentary, 2 volumes (OT and NT)

>>19712104
You can literally see for yourself whether it has been corrupted in any instance by simply comparing the Hebrew to ancient translations into Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc. It's something that can actually be verified, not some amorphous nonsense that pollutes the text imperceptibly.

>>19712115
This, but males discard the dust jackets!
Man they are good (on the whole).

>>19711957
Maybe it'll help you with your reading of the context above the granted literacy level.
>>19711971
>heh breh I called you a hypocrite and a devilman based on some gay sect I'm proud of being
>what? you fight back? how dare you repent
You're as Christian as those that Paul wrote about to others to not bother with.

>>19712155
You're full of pride and the Lord will judge you.

>>19712189
Says the guy who calls others Christians devil worshipers and shit.
I may be full of pride, but you're full of shit and I don't need to repent for calling a fag a fag.

>>19712216
You do actually. Poofters are children of god and either sin or don’t sin as acts of conscience and dependent on a correct reading of the New Testament. There’s no invective in calling a fag a fag.

You wanted to call a fag an unread sin filled judge.

What's the nicest KJV with apocrypha out there that isn't exorbitantly expensive?

>>19712227
based and Christianpilled

>>19712233
Pretty much the only choices are the Cambridge and the 1611 400th anniversary hardcovers.

>>19712227
You're still a fag tho.

>>19712135
>discarding dust jackets
>not just using Brodart covers to make them nice and shiny

>>19711376
Pic related explains the prequel to the Old Testament, it helps put the Old and New Testament into context

>>19712233
The best option for KJ specific is to just get a KJB and then get the Cambridge KJ Apocrypha only hardcover which is about $10 on Amazon. A better option is to get the Cambridge ESV Apocrypha only hardcover because the KJ Apocrypha is missing 70 verses from 2nd Esdras.

>>19712249
Don't ever believe anyone who tells (You) you will never be a woman!

>>19712227
>Poofters are children of god and either sin or don’t sin as acts of conscience and dependent on a correct reading of the New Testamen
What the fuck does that even mean?
What the fuck is the point of this anyways?

>>19711762
In practice, while in Church you'll hear Church Slavonic, at home you'll have a Synodal BIble, so that translation is very popular.

>>19712277
Ah, it's you again. Still getting your heretic ass rammed by girldicks while you read the IVPs?

What is the most comforting book in the Bible when you are completely overwhelmed by life?

>>19712315
No, I told your mother to give up and go home so I could read in peace. Keener is the true gem of this set, and his being as thick as the OT is telling. Whenever he does interviews from home it's just books and filing cabinets everywhere.

>>19712347
Revelation (unironically).

>>19712347
Ecclesiastes. Only if you actually understand and don't take it to mean nihilism though.

>>19711394
John Calvin

>>19712638
No Christian translation works solely from the Masoretic Text without comparing to the Septuagint and other ancient translations.

>>19712647
The evidence for this is to compare the OT in your Bible to Alter's Hebrew Bible translation. Even the most MT-using Bibles still pull from the LXX for very specific, important passages.

>>19712647
Ok shill

>>19712677
Feel free to disprove what I said if it is false.

>waste time with me
Ok shill

>>19712705
I accept your defeat.

>>19712744
please stop shitting up the threads

>>19712756
The only one refusing to engage in discussion is you.

>>19712760
(You)

>>19712760
you've been btfo and you still won't stop throwing a fit
maybe r/christianity would suit you better, people here don't want anything to do with your lies and shilling

>>19712768
>you've been btfo
When did this occur exactly?

>>19712774
Spring break. That one time when you were drunk and your friend pulled your pants down.

Any good commentaries on Ecclesiastes?

>>19711394
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0EpOiu8YkI

>>19711376
all denominational theology is headcanon
ecclesiastical churches are the same as pharisees
if you're even remotely literate you can extrapolate everything you need to know directly from scripture without help form an "authority" like a priest or pastor
church communities can be helpful to provide you with social opportunities that align with your beliefs, but that's the extent of their use
it's much better to establish a personal relationship with scripture than to ask some college educated guy about it
i go to a methodist church cause that's what my family has always done. i couldn't tell you if john wesley knew any better than anyone else. and as much as i like my pastor i couldn't call him an authority
and i think it's good to regard anyone who espouses theology with suspicion
just read it over and over and pray for understanding

How am I supposed to interpret half of these Old Testament prophets? I’ve been reading through Zechariah and Isaiah, and oftentimes I can’t help but get the feeling that I am reading nothing but mad ravings of Jews against Assyrians, Edomites and Egyptians mixed in with something of actual theological and spiritual value. I like Jesus and find the fact of his resurrection and many prophecies surrounding him compelling, but some of this stuff honestly leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Are good church father commentaries on these or anything?

>>19712638
>>19712924
>>19713286
>>19713289
>>19713292
meds

>>19712233
Case bound new Cambridge paragraph bible with apocrypha

>>19712638
>incorrectly
That's a perfectly valid line of reasoning

>>19712233
>What's the nicest KJV with apocrypha out there
https://www.amazon.com/Reference-Apocrypha-Calfskin-Leather-Red-letter/dp/1107608074
>that isn't exorbitantly expensive?
Lame.

>>19712347
psalms. Merton said the Psalms are bread in the wilderness for prayer, and I have found that to be true. pray with the De Profundis or the Miserere.

>>19714172
>De Profundis or the Miserere
Oh, you're a papist. Disregarded.

>>19714187
Submit to Christ's Church, pastor bob.

>>19711394
truly you need multiple. depends on the way you intend to read the bible.
>>19711983
read the second vatican constitution on scripture. god works through human means (that's the core message of the incarnation)
>>19712638
jerome translated extensively from the old latin texts, some of which may have been older than the LXX even. almost all are lost. the vulgate is valuable because it uses textual traditions not currently available.
>>19713653
how are you going to correctly intrepret scripture? do you know greek and hebrew? who assembled the books of the bible? which manuscripts are valid and which aren't?tradition predates scripture. doctrine is not "headcanon" - it follows logically from tradition and from scripture.
>>19713691
you need a historical context commentary. IVP is a good one, has been mentioned in this thread. look into the International one volume commentary as well. remember the 4 senses of intrepreting scripture

>>19714187
>you use le foreign words! that is heretical!
the NIV and the KJV are translations

Would this hardcover set be preferable to Baronious' more expensive faux-leather version of the same books?

>>19714244
Baronius.

>>19714244
Didn't notice the two Vol. IIs on that one.

>>19714244
I find Baronius to be a bit gaudy, you should be able to find used copies of Catena Aurea on amazon or thriftbooks for pretty cheap, even multivolume sets.

>>19714272
I second this. Baronius has so many great books, but I'd probably get Word on Fire's modest cloth hardbacks before getting a whole shelf of gold-edged books, and anything Baronius has, I guarantee you can find more tasteful versions on AbeBooks. Even their two Bibles, Knox and Douay, I just got rebound in black goatskin so they'd feel better to hold. The last thing I really want is to start rebinding every book under the sun. And honestly, I'm starting to appreciate the tasteful hardcover more and more; an example being that I picked the hardcover Tyndale House GNT over the leather even though I could've gotten the leather. idk, maybe leather books are just a meme.

Did anyone else download the NRSVue?

I wish Bibles would stop with the thinline meme. Bibles should be shorter and thicker, not taller and thinner.

>>19714323
No. I'll wait until Bible Gateway gets the text so I can continue to ignore it as I have for the last 30 years.

>>19714331
Impressive that you've been ignoring a 2021 edition since 1991!

>>19714323
based. how much did it cost? I almost want to dl it but I'll probably just wait. any really noticable changes?

>>19714323
No, I only read the Bible.

>>19714359
It's $10 on Kindle, not in print til August

Here's the epub
https://library.bz/uploads/main/afbb62b1e5becdd345cbc932fa8a5523.epub

>>19714375
>https://library.bz/uploads/main/afbb62b1e5becdd345cbc932fa8a5523.epub
website is username/password protected

>>19714462
huh it's not on my side
if you see one it should be "genesis" "upload"

>>19714375
>>19714475
Thanks. Worth taking a look to see what they fucked up this time.

>>19714475
nice, it worked.

i'm not seeing too many noticable changes honestly.

>>19714512
Wow you read the whole thing really fast.

Oh look, it's still trash right from Gen 1:1-2.

>>19714527
>When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
wtf is this

>>19714547
Not the Bible.

>>19714553
Why not?

>>19714562
Because that says very different things than what the Bible says.

>>19714562
Because it should say
>the earth was [in] complete chaos
The way they have it sounds like a typo.

>>19714547
the translation is fine, it just lacks notes

>>19714625
Here it is with notes:
>When God began to create[a] the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God[b] swept over the face of the waters.
>[a] Or "In the beginning God created"
>[b] Or "while the spirit of God" or "while a mighty wind"

>>19714625
>the translation is fine

>>19714547
this is actually a good translation though it focuses too much on the meaning and not on the words
genesis 1 is not an ex nihilo creation though that is presupposed
I think the translators may be overplaying their hand with "chaos" but it's still technically what the writer of genesis 1 was getting too due to God's justice essentially being order
so the creation would ultimately be setting a chaotic state into an orderly one

>>19714722
Chaos being unintelligible is indifferentiable from non-existence because *intelligence does not order it*.

>>19714722
"complete" just isn't in there anywhere, and formless vacuity is not chaotic. This is not only not a good translation, it's not even a translation at all. It's fan fiction.

>>19714752
not how a protokike would have understood it
you're presumming materialism
again, they're overdoing it but it's more reflective of the text in context

>>19714754
Nah, words mean what they mean.

>>19714722
No. Even if you wanted that opening, the next section doesn't jive. Here's the JPS Tanakh.

>>19714547
It's bad, but it's not the only Bible to have a different Gen 1:1, though that doesn't explain that Gen 1:2. The Knox translation:
>God, at the beginning of time, created heaven and earth. Earth was still an empty waste, and darkness hung over the deep; but already, over its waters, stirred the breath of God.

>>19714754
Show me which of these Hebrew words says "complete".

>>19714859
It's probably there but only faggots can see it.

>>19713653
>if you're even remotely literate you can extrapolate everything you need to know directly from scripture without help form an "authority" like a priest or pastor
Refuted by the current state of prottys. Sorry anon.

>>19712356
>>19712360
>>19714172
Thanks anons.

>>19712347
Psalms, Proverbs, Job.

>>19714156
Do you own that one?

>>19715226
No, but here's a video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrBXHH86o28

>>19715246
It seems small, is there a medium sized version like that? Also thanks for replying.

>>19714217
>tradition predates scripture.
In practice this becomes
>tradition is whatever we say it is and you have to believe it because we said so

>>19714217
>Latin texts older than lxx
Lmao what?
By the time Rome reached Judea, the whole OT had been translated in Greek

>>19715226
I am not that anon but I have the regular Cameo (no apocrypha) in goatskin, and if the standards are the same for this one, I can say you're getting the best of the best barring something custom-made at luxury prices. I assume that being calfskin it's slightly less floppy and soft than goatskin but leather gets softer with use anyway and Cambridge uses very high quality materials. There's no need to obsess over goatskin IMO and I think it's a bit materialistic once you have fulfilled the objective of getting something durable.
Does anyone know if there's an Apocrypha in a decent binding, as a separate book?

>>19714547
>while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
I’m triggered

>>19715721
I’m going to buy it tomorrow. And I agree about the leather, I wouldn’t know the difference anyway.

>>19715013
As though Protties are not being fed regurgitated mush by their pastors.

>>19715013
It's not a doctrine of the Reformation to begin with. We hold to the past tradition, but subject it to the authority of scripture to determine what parts of it are true and what parts are false. We've never believed you should take the Bible on its own and try to start everything from scratch by yourself, and the people who try to do that end up in crazy places.

>>19714845
Vulgate translations are not a good basis for comparison

Here's the epub not behind a password, since it finally catalogued
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=AFBB62B1E5BECDD345CBC932FA8A5523

>>19716301
Why would anyone want this trash

>>19716322
>The NRSV has been called the most accurate of English-language translations, based on the available manuscript evidence, textual analysis, and philological understanding. In the more than thirty years since its first publication, hundreds of ancient manuscripts have been studied in exacting detail. The NRSVue is informed by the results of this research.

>>19711376
I'm feeling like larping today
does anyone know a good version of the Bible that goes LXX + Byzantine
not a translation, just a critical compilation of the Septuagint and the Byzantine Typescript NT
Bible reading isn't really a tradition around here, even in devout homes, so I'm struggling to find an actual Bible to read
Now that I'm at my family's place, every day my father wakes the family up by incensing up the house but the only Bible I've been able to locate around here is a 50 year old kjv that was given to them by some guys called the Gideonties when they were in burgerland

>>19716333
it's a very inventive translation in that it puts on the text what should be in the notes as explanations of what's actually going on and puts on the notes what should actually be on the text but you can hardly call it the best

>>19716333
Yes, it's "accurate" to secular academia because it is translated under the assumption that Christianity is false. The new revision is based around making the text even more politically correct in its language.

>>19716334
I don't know a single edition of that, you just want the latest Robinson Pierpont and your preferred LXX

>>19716339
You don't have to think it's the best to think it's worth reading

>>19716352
What single change is based on political correctness?

1 Cor. 6:9-10 NRSV:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 6:9-10 NRSVue:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hahaha

>>19716376
Here's one example

>>19716382
That's not political correctness it's just how language has changed. We don't say "retard" or even "autist" anymore we say "boy with autism". If anything it's more mindful of people being imagers of God.

>>19716409
retard

>>19716409
Yes it's a change of language for political reasons, a bourgeois concern enforced by the professional class.

>>19716409
if anything, it's a bad translation
people not in ivory towers still refer to autists as autists in most parts of the english speaking world
I'll ignore the bad theology since evidently, the so called scholars have no interest in actually conveying what the text meant to its first century audience but rather what it should mean in their mind

>>19716409
If that isn't enough for you there's this >>19716377, changing sodomite to "men who engage in illicit sex" which is far more vague and can be interpreted to whatever Madam Pastrix decides it means.

>>19716427
My wife worked in SPED in a poor school. We don't say autist we say boy with autism. It's not an ivory tower thing it's a practical concern of dignity, which is Christian.
Also the rendering just makes it easier for simple readers. An ESL or a boy isn't likely to know what a demoniac is.

>>19716445
>My wife is a professional worker and she says you have to do blah blah to be morally righteous
Proving the point.
>Also the rendering just makes it easier for simple readers. An ESL or a boy isn't likely to know what a demoniac is.
The only places this translation is going to be used are in wealthy mainline churches with an average member age of 60 and in academic publications.

>>19716454
Oh and it will be used in hip, wealthy, urban pro-LGBT mainline churches, such as they exist. Can't forget those.

>>19716434
Is it any more vague than "abusers of themselves with mankind"?
I don't think it's the best either, I'm just saying the version as a whole is worth using alongside others like NASB or ESV or KJV.

>>19716454
Stop proving the liberal Christians' point that they're the ones concerned with dignity and intelligibility. You're embarrassing the rest of us.
Yes all sodomites go to hell. No you don't have to throw out a resource because it doesn't make that as clear as you want in every instance.

>>19716445
>>19716481
these two posters are the same person

>>19716490
Yes

>>19716481
>Is it any more vague than "abusers of themselves with mankind"?
This is a disingenuous comparison, as the KJV is fully orthodox in this area. If the span of centuries has made their wording unclear to you, then that is not their fault.
>I don't think it's the best either, I'm just saying the version as a whole is worth using alongside others like NASB or ESV or KJV.
Literally nothing yo would get out of this translation that you could not get out of a translation that is orthodox and faithful. It's only purpose is to poison.
>Stop proving the liberal Christians' point that they're the ones concerned with dignity and intelligibility. You're embarrassing the rest of us.
I don't care whether I embarrass you. This language policing is a concern of professionals, the wealthy and the educates, and not poor and lowly people.
>Yes all sodomites go to hell.
I honestly doubt you believe that.
>No you don't have to throw out a resource because it doesn't make that as clear as you want in every instance.
Why is it unclear when the NRSV, which was already liberal, was clear? What is the reason for making it as vague as possible? The answer is obvious to anyone who is honest.

>>19716481
>abusers of themselves with mankind
arsenokete has a very simple and clear meaning
stop pretending it means anything other than soddomite
it consists of a very sexually charged word for male and bed
what else could it possibly mean besides someone who fucks other men
it's actually an interesting note that Paul feels the need to reference both tops and bottoms here because in your run of the mill sexual morality of the early imperial period being the bottom was the problem in roman eyes and probably those of the Corinthians who were mostly not roman

>>19715306
This, and not only whatever, but whenever. Centuries later there are things claimed out of nowhere to be "things the Apostles told us outside of the Bible, we swear".

>>19716354
>"bible" that's not the Bible
>worth reading

"I went in [to the church] to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. ... I beg ... that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of [that] sort—opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge."
--Letter of St. Epiphanius of Salamis to St. Jerome (394)

Uh Orthobros?

>>19716377
The footnotes for the "controversial" words say "Greek uncertain".

>>19716647
Your lesbian pastor needs a lot of leeway to manipulate the text, you know?

>>19716604
Based church fathers.

>>19716675
I left out the funny part where they get mad and tell him to give them a normal curtain in return

"They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader ..."

>>19716604
If the use of images was a universal practice in the early church and part of the consent of the church fathers, then how do these bishops not know about it and believe the opposite?

>>19716713
Sorry I mean saints not bishops. Epiphanius was a bishop but Jerome was not. Both are venerated as saints.

>>19716604
Icon of Epiphanius that Orthodox now put in their churches and pray to (lol)

>>19716604
Orthodox blog:
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2020/05/a-biography-of-saint-epiphanios-of.html
>In opposition to the attempts that were then being made to enlist pictorial art in the service of the church, Epiphanius maintained the full puritanical rigour of primitive times. Having entered on one occasion a village church in Palestine he found a curtain adorned with a picture of Christ or some saint; in sudden anger he tore it in pieces ...
Is this claiming that the original Christians forbid the use of images and that this was a practice that developed later in contradiction to the teachings of the Apostles? Say it ain't so.

>>19716805
You might be interested in Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira in the 4th century which also forbade the use of images.

On October 13, 787 the Second Council of Nicaea decreed that 'venerable and holy images are to be dedicated in the holy churches of God, namely the image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Lady the Holy Theotokos, and of the angels and all the saints. They are to be accorded the veneration of honor, not indeed the true worship paid to the divine nature alone, but in the same way, as this is accorded to the life-giving cross, the holy gospels, and other sacred offerings' (trans. Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea [Liverpool 2018], 564-5, abbreviated).

>>19716604

>>19716604
Iconoclasm is weird larp and its how you end up with a religion of reverence but devoid of humanity like Islam.

>>19716972
This is not an argument that should be acceptable among Christians as it does not make any reference to our sources of truth but only to your external philosophical and practical concerns.

>>19716979
Interpreting "stop worshipping other gods and idols" as "do not ever depict human beings or God in any context" is obviously ridiculous on the face of it. If man is made in the image of God then we are heretical depictions by our very own existence. It is unthinkably inhumane and cruel to enforce that dogma, and indeed the only religions which do enforce iconoclasm are extremely inhumane and cruel for the purposes of exploiting the population.

>>19716990
No one has ever said that you cannot depict a human being, but that you cannot depict a human in places of worship where they may end up being venerated.

2 Kings 18:3-4
"[Hezekiah] did what was right in the sight of the Lord, in accordance with everything that his father David had done. He removed the high places and smashed the memorial stones to pieces, and cut down the Asherah. He also crushed to pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan."

>>19716972
>>19716990
Ultimately the issue is how God tells us to worship him. In the ten commandments he tell us not to worship through images. This does not mean you cannot create images or possibly even have an image in a church (depending on what it is), but you cannot worship through images and you cannot have images of God.

>>19717174
>In the ten commandments he tell us not to worship through images
That is one fairly terse interpretation of the commandment.

>>19717121
>the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan."
Why did Moses make a bronze serpent when he had previously rebuked Aaron for making a golden calf?

>>19717213
Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

>>19717227
Q. 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.

>>19717220
God told him to.

>>19717227
>>19717254
You might as well be citing the hadiths at this point anon

>>19717263
You asked for a more full interpretation of what it commands/forbids and I gave you one.

>>19717261
>Don't worship idols unless God tells you to in which case its okay until God tells you to stop doing it again
The Israelites really were supremely fucking stupid, huh

>>19717271
What it should show you is the danger of images, how man is inclined to venerate them and worship God falsely.

>>19717267
I didn't ask for that, and you jumped on the opportunity to provide an unsourced interpretation in favor of your chosen dogma.

>>19717283
So you were making a complaint for no reason? The source is the Westminster Larger Catechism.

>>19717271
II Kings 18:4
It had other meaning, destroyed when they actually worshipped it

>>19715686
you realize old latin was used in the med. for over 700 years before the colonization of judea right? jerome himself says the old latin translations, in some cases, date to before AD 0

>>19714668
>old and inaccurate = good!
do you use Old English too?

>>19715306
read the Catechism. all tradition in the CC is scriptural, yes even purgatory and confession to priests. cope more

How do you not feel disgusted with yourself and everything you do after becoming aware of how wrong it is? I routinely repeat the same sins and I repent then I immediately do it again. And it's not just one sin but a whole bunch of them. I'm such a terrible person.

>>19717338
>all tradition in the CC is scriptural
Show me the scripture that states that when Christ was born he passed through Mary's hymen without damaging it.

>>19717346
You pray to get over them. We all fall again, it's hard to get out of a well we've been swimming deeper into until we realize we should leave.
Stay strong, repent, and do your best. You'll get there.

>>19716377
yeah that is bad. the translation is literally "men who sleep with men", referring to Leviticus. there's no way to spin that it doesn't mean homosexuality behavior.
>>19716990
imagine being so stupid you think having a picture of a holy person in a church means you are "worshipping" them. islam-tier logic

>>19717368
>imagine being so stupid you think having a picture of a holy person in a church means you are "worshipping" them
Is that before or after you go burn incense to them and pray to them?

>>19717352
From the CCC
>490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

>491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

>492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

>499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

no talk about "hymens" here bro. nice strawman.

How do protestants cope with the fact that their churches have no apostolic succession, their sacraments are invalid and they have never known God

>>19717386
>asking for intercession means you are worshipping them!

yeah bro, when I ask a friend for help, that means I think they're God. you're right.
not only that, incense is never used for statues and icons. they only things that are incensed in the Church is the book of the gospels, the altar, and the Sacrament.

you really should run a straw farm, you're good at using it!

>>19717397
>apostolic succession
No such thing
>their sacraments are invalid
Protestants are not rebaptized by Catholics and are generally not rebaptized by Orthodox
>and they have never known God
lol

>>19717386
Have you seriously never had a photograph of someone hanging on your wall? Have you never looked longingly at a photograph, or kissed it? The icons are there to represent people whom are to be venerated, they are not the actual people. The commandment about idols is about literally worshipping the idol. Given the historical context you'd know what the practices of idolaters were. You're either grossly misinformed or you're acting in bad faith.

>>19717409
cope cope cope
I hope you can come to God one day, anon

>>19714244
>>19714271
Get PCP one, not Baronius. Baronius is gaudy. Those white hardbacks are aesthetic.

>>19717394
No, that is the Catholic dogma. It concerns Mary's "in partu" (during childbirth) virginity. You need to research your own tradition more.

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."

>>19717400
>It's just like asking your neighbor.
Utter nonsense. I don't believe anyone who uses this argument actually believes it but just thinks the person they are talking to is stupid. Simply on the level of how the communication occurs it is fundamentally different.
>not only that, incense is never used for statues and icons.
Image of the Pope using incense on a statue here >>19717121

>>19717411
I don't believe this is actually representative of iconodule theology, and that you are simplifying it to make it appear normal.

>>19717409
>the bishopry does not exist! wait, acts of the apostles? council of jerusalem? apostolic authority? nah bro, THOSE parts the bible don't count!

>>19717423
actually this idea is scriptural. genesis: the curse on woman is that she will have pain during childbirth, which is a consequence of original sin. since mary is "without sin", her childbirth is painless. duh. use some logic, son.
>Mary’s bodily integrity remained inviolate in harmony with her chaste spiritual integrity. There was no profane element of anything natural or any form of physical corruption in her giving birth to Jesus that could violate the purity of her soul and her exemption from all stain of original sin, nor anything wholly natural at all that could defile and render impure her holy Child. Both the Mother and the Son were exempted from experiencing the corruption associated with birth because of original sin.

>>19717455
>but just thinks the person they are talking to is stupid.
I mean you are pretty stupid

>>19717455
that's a statue of mary holding the Christ child, are you retarded? that's not a saint, that's literally an icon of Jesus

"puritanism" is antiscriptural, anti tradition, is an anglo mental illness invention, is not and wil NEVER be "normal". you're a modern day pharisee. you really think asking saints for intercession, having pictures of Jesus, or having a statue of his mother makes God mad? you need to chill with the anthrocentric "theology" which is a small brained prot invention.

>>19717469
>actually this idea is scriptural. genesis: the curse on woman is that she will have pain during childbirth, which is a consequence of original sin
Prove from scripture that Mary does not have original sin.

>>19717470
Then leave this fool in peace and cease arguing with me.
>>19717481
>incense is never used for statues and icons.
>that's literally an icon of Jesus
Is it used on icons or is it not? Is it somehow magically avoiding the Mary statue also?
>blah blah blah
I don't think you're helping your case by having a tantrum.

>>19717508
>I don't think you're helping your case by having a tantrum.
talking about yourself again are we?

>>19717455
The common explanation of icons is that they're "a window onto heaven", and that they're purely representative of the Saints, Christ, the Virgin, etc. They have no intrinsic power or godliness of their own. They're just literal images.
Of course you treat the objects themselves with respect, e.g. wehen they become ruined or broken you do not simply throw them away but burn them and dispose of them respectfully, but that's pretty much it.
Having been introduced to icons which I found completely alien at first, I cannot grasp how someone can insist that icons are an object of worship. The style of the art itself is usually very stylized specifically to strip all fleshly attributes from such images.
Other than that, when you refer to a Saint you obviously ask for intercession. There's no concept of a Saint or Mary directly acting instead of God. There is never a moment in which Christ is superseded by a Saint or the Virgin in one's prayers.
Now I'm going to play Devil's advocate and I will admit that there are definitely cases of idolatry, namely in Catholicism. There are countless old ladies who directly worship statues, hold onto amulets with various intrinsic properties, directly ask patron Saints for favors, and other such things. The Catholic Church is extremely laissez-faire about such things, and without an orthodox approach they can definitely become idolatry, just like other aspects of worship can become twisted and heretical.

>>19717517
Is incense used on icons or is it not?

>>19717492
>And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

>Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary, we get deeper insight into the meaning of Mary’s new name. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has the aorist tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past, resulting in a present state of being. That’s Mary’s name! So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the immaculate Mother of God.

>The angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In our culture, I would just be considered weird. But in Hebrew culture, names, and name changes, tell us something that is permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (changed from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”) in Genesis 17:15, and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28.

of course, where does the bible support the doctrine of sola scriptura? your turn bro.

>>19717524
do you even know what incense stands for? protism is literally a mental disorder, it is unable to see anything as symbolic.

>The use of incense is recorded in the New Testament. Frankincense was one of the precious gifts that the Three Kings brought in homage to the Baby Jesus, which was a sign of his role as priest in addition to prophet and king. In his apocalyptic visions of heaven, St. John the Apostle recorded that he saw incense being used in God’s heavenly throne:

>And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. (Revelation 5:6-8)

>In the above passage, incense is identified with the prayers of the saints. In the one below, incense is added to the prayers of the saints by an angel, highlighting the mediation of the angels in our worship of God:

>And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. (Revelation 8:3-4)

>>19717521
folk catholicism =/= Church teaching

>>19717565
My point is that in absence of Church teaching, what you get is folk Catholicism where old women worship a figurine of the Patron Saint of Gamblers in order to win the lottery.

>>19717534
You know your own church doesn't use this translation anymore, right? This is an old canard no Catholic scholar accepts anymore.
>And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NABRE)
>And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NRSVCE)
>"He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'" (NJB)

>>19717550
Is it used on icons? You said it was not then said I was retarded when I showed it being used on one and now are copy pasting walls of text instead of just answering the question. I don't see much reason to even converse with you if you behave this way.

>>19717583
cope

>>19717470
>gets fooled into praying to Ishtar
>calls others pretty stupid

>>19717612
literally what the fuck are you talking about LMFAO

>>19717591
He's right in that during liturgy, the only things that get censed are the Scriptures, the Sacrament and the altar. Personally I don't get what the issue is with censing stuff. You can buy incense to burn at home just like you can light a candle.

>>19717469
Anon here is defending that the state of Mary's hymen, not whether she had sex, but specifically the physical state of her hymen, is a dogma of Christianity. It's hard not to laugh.

>>19717583
you got BTFO dude.
>b-but da greek doesn't count! nono uhhhh...
there is no "official" English translation for the Catholic Church. unlike your "church" pastor bob, we don't worship the KJV.

>>19717591
it's used to SYMBOLIZE prayers in conjunction with the saints, or our own prayers to Jesus
i'm sorry big words and doctrinal scriptural support scares you, maybe stick with the Good News Translation, that's more your speed

>>19717631
the entire thread has been laughing at you nonstop my guy

>>19717634
Do you actually believe this shit? Do you actually think it's pious to dogmatize Mary's hymen?

>>19717631
I literally provided scriptural support to answer your question. the consequence of original sin is pain in childbirth, it literally says in Genesis. I provided scriptural support for the immaculate conception. therefore, Mary doesn't suffer the pain of original sin, which includes pain in childbirth, which means no physical harm came from childbirth.

you really need to take a beginner class in logic, it's actually pretty embarrassing.

>>19717646

>>19717647
This concept of in partu virginity is ancient and does not depend on her having or not having original sin. Orthodox do not hold to the immaculate conception but hold to in partu virginity. I also note you didn't even know about this before I told you.

>>19717655
You should engage in some kind of self reflection on this matter.

>>19717646
>>19717665
You need to repent for rebuking the name of the most Holy Mother of God
Your soul is in grave spiritual danger

>>19717674
I'm not the one that is obsessed with her vagina, anon.

>>19717683
uh actually you are because you're the only one talking about it and you constantly brought it up last thread too lol?

>>19717687
I'm bringing it up because it is a dogma that you hold to. You just told me that my soul is in danger because I do not hold a specific conception of Mary's vagina. This is like when faggots say people are obsessed when they argue about sodomy.

Question: Do full-leather goatskin Bibles stand up vertically or are they so floppy that they have to be held up straight on a shelf by either other books or by bookends? How does the yapp factor in?

>>19717696
>brings up hymen unprovoked multiple times
>i-im not the one obsessed with marys hymen
anon...

>>19717710
I would like you to know that you believe something utterly farcical. You're using faggot logic at this point, as I said.

>>19717397
Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

>>19717720
Because unlike you, I believe in God and His teachings

>>19717732
not reading all that retatrded shit but you're wrong

>>19717757
The teaching of scripture is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Christ, who was her firstborn son, after which she knew her husband and gave birth to Jesus's brothers and sisters.

>>19717683
>>19717696
>>19717720
address this: go ahead, i even provided scriptural reasoning. if you can't provide an answer for this, you're not arguing in good faith. in fact, you're probably a jew to be honest.

"actually this idea is scriptural. genesis: the curse on woman is that she will have pain during childbirth, which is a consequence of original sin. since mary is "without sin", her childbirth is painless. duh. use some logic, son."
>Mary’s bodily integrity remained inviolate in harmony with her chaste spiritual integrity. There was no profane element of anything natural or any form of physical corruption in her giving birth to Jesus that could violate the purity of her soul and her exemption from all stain of original sin, nor anything wholly natural at all that could defile and render impure her holy Child. Both the Mother and the Son were exempted from experiencing the corruption associated with birth because of original sin.

>>19717764
No, it isn't

>>19717700
They usually come in some sort of rigid box but I wouldn't store them vertically. The yapp doesn't provide support; it's just there to wrap around the otherwise uncovered pages for protection while you're carrying it around.
I would save a space like a drawer and store it there horizontally in its own box. You can stack another Bible on top, but I wouldn't have a stack of more than two.

>>19717764
Honestly asking because I don't know: why did then Jesus tell his disciple to take her in as if she were his own mother (John 19:26-27), if he had brothers and sisters who could provide for her?

Do low church Protestants believe in the Trinity?

>>19717801
She's with her other children again in Acts
1:14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.

>>19717810
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
There's a list here. Most notably, JWs are non-trinitarian.

>>19717769
address this
>>19717766
go ahead dude, I'm waiting

>>19717732
Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.

Do you know better than the early Christians?

new thread >>19717840

>>19717816
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

>>19717271
>The Israelites really were supremely fucking stupid, huh
Yes, this is what the Bible teaches