/lit/ - Literature

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Have you read any version of the bible before?

Good for you, OP. The truth is in those pages.

Very nice. Congratulations, OP.

I like it.

I have a paperback NRSV. I would get something new, but all of my notes and underlined quotes are in there.

Now put it on your fiction shelf and then use the pages to roll a joint, brah. Do it like I did, brah.

666

hail dawkins!

420blaze it faggot!

fuck yeah marx!

we are legion

Song of Songs > Ecclesiastes > Gospel according to Luke > other gospels (let's face it they're the same thing) > Book of Job > Psalms > Kings >>>> the rest of that shit-ass shit

>>3390694
>book of job after gospels

go eat eleven dicks

>>3390720

>being this much of a jew

>>3390654

My French-language Bible, King James, Gideon's.

>>3390690

>>3390694

Good taste, although the Gospel of John rocks my jimmies more than anything else in the book.

>>3390690
>Not tearing pages from the bible to roll joints.

Do you even 420atheist?

>>3390694
>Luke
But that's easily the shittiest one. And also John is considerably different from the other three.

>>3390737
nigga plz

catholic

Relgious bullshit aside, it's a pretty poor book.

>>3390694
tfw song of songs, one of the most important pieces of the Judeo-Christian holy book is an erotic poem

>>3390760

This anon is correct, that's why they're grouped as such:

>John
>every other Gospel (synoptic gospels, made to use to look at John's, the main one).

Although Matthew contains lots of good shit too, but it's more a lawman's speech, whereas John's sounds like the way God would talk.

>>3390764

>I've never actually spent more than 5 minutes reading the Bible

God (lawl) tier:
Job
Psalms
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Mark
John
Revelation

Good Tier:
Genesis
Exodus
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Other prophets
Matthew
Acts

Mid tier:
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
Luke

Shit tier:
The rest
(though I'll admit I'm not very familiar with most of the Epistles)

>>3390771
I've read it a bunch of times, don't be such a child

>>3390757
I genuinely did that with a pocket bible I stole from a hotel. I had nothing to roll in it and the bible was just sitting there, so why the fuck not?

Not even edgy.

It was a horrible joint though.

>>3390773
>(though I'll admit I'm not very familiar with most of the Epistles)

These are the oldest in the New Testament, and certainly some of the very Best; Paul was an epic writer.

>dat I Corinthian 13

I don't read fantasy, personally. Whatever floats your boat.

>>3390760

>Luke
>shittiest

do you even logos?

>>3390779
Missing out. Some really good stories in there. Might just go over your head though. Too pleb.

>>3390765

There's even a part about oral sex.

Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out.

>>3390787
blasphemy

>>3390777

That's not safe bro. There are certain chemicals in regular paper you don't want to smoke.

>>3390779
It's not fantasy, it's ancient book of mythology, history, religious laws and rituals, poetry, prophecy, and inspirational letters.

>>3390777
666 5m0k3 b1bl3 3ryd4y

>>3390778

Paul was a glutton who muddled up Jesus' teachings with his stupid dogma and pacified the whole dang message.

>>3390778
I suppose I'm just bitter from growing up in the church. I see Jesus as falling into the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and it seems like the Gospels and Acts emphasize a dramatic new way of living that can make the world a more just and compassionate place. In contrast, growing up preachers and teachers were more likely to quote the writings of Paul than the words of Jesus, and all of the verses they would quote emphasized the concept of Christ being sent as a sacrifice for our sins, which I think is an oversimplification of the profundity of the Crucifixion.

>>3390798
>>3390802

Dat /lit/erati Jesuism

Is the annotation any good?

>>3390775

If you had, you'd have more interesting things to say. It's common knowledge that all edgy atheists truly believe they've read the whole book when they've read bits of it here and there. But hey, it's OK. We've all been 15.

>>3390779

>thinks the Bible is fantasy
>doesn't know there's poetry in the Bible
>and laws
>and chronicles
>and stories, tales, etc
>posts a knife

Right...

>>3390787

The pun on "blow" only works in English. In other languages, to blow actually means to push air with your mouth, not to suck.

>>3390798

I guess that's a point of view. There are many. Without backup and evidence, I can't make anything of your claim.

>>3390777
I did it when I was quitting and slipped. Fucking desparate. Really difficult when the paper doesn't even stick together.

>>3390802

You're probably correct.

>>3390808

Haven't had a chance to check it in depth, but each page has a third of footnotes. Fucking epic.

>>3390863
>not getting the knife was supposed to be edgy

Is KJV the best bible to start with? I've been wanting to read it for quite a while now but I don't know which version is best to start with

>>3390885
OP is.

>>3390865

... You don't know much about oral sex do you.

>>3390878

>>3390885

Definitely not, not unless you're familiar with 17th century English and are ready to misunderstand a ton of stuff.

>>3390911
It is possible that that person has not sucked a lot of dicks.

>>3390929
What a homo.

>>3390911

>gets his cock blown on

>lol

>>3390790
Yeah, I know and never did it again. Shit is terrible. The paper is that very thin one, not like the usual book, but still. Not to mention the ink.

>>3390872
Yeah, the joint was all flabby and I had to put saliva all the time.

>>3390924
But all the other bibles seem shit, they don't even have God's name in them at Psalms 83:18

>>3390952

Get on my level: get my OP Bible.

>>3390959
What does Psalm 83:18 say?

>>3390965

"Let them know that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High..."

>>3390974
Thanks, pretty much what I thought it would say. Some bibles say 'Jehovah' instead of 'Lord'. KJV says 'That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.' One is a name, one is a title. I don't know why most newer bibles change this.

>>3390803
Paul sucks a dick in hell. He never stopped being secret police.

>>3390996
Jehovah means "Light-bearer" in Latin

>>3390996

Do you think that's a bad thing? What's the exact meaning of Jehovah to begin with?

>>3390974
>"Let them know that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High..."

>>3390777 here

I should have searched for that psalm...

>>3390996

According to sources, even Jehovah wasn't God's actual name; it wasn't used in the Bible before 1100 AD.

>>3391007

That's Lucifer, moron. Jehovah was never Latin.

That's a pretty neat edition OP. How much was it?

>>3391016
>implying you know more Latin than me

Jeho *vah = Light carrier

>>3391014
That's the english translation from Hebrew basically. YHWH or Yahweh. Translated to JHVH then Jehovah

>>3391008
It was a word so potent that just saying it would get you stoned.

>>3391020

Luci = lux = light

Fer = carrier

You must be trolling.

>>3391018

A bunch, I forget. 23 bucks. Be sure to get the hardcover with tabs.

>>3391020
Further proof that Satan and God are the same being.

>>3391020
10/10

>>3391022
Says who? The Jews? That's prob why God's name was removed from the bible in the first place. Apparently some Jews won't even write 'God', they'll write 'G~d'

>>3391023
光 = light 支架 = carrier

OOPS JUST AS IRRELEVANT

>>3391029

Don't you know Lucifer was never Satan? Seriously? I thought everyone knew. Some moron confused the two but scholars know they're entirely unrelated.

>>3391034

>luminous
>lumière

Etc. Give up.

>>3391020
Funfact: no J in the latin alphabet used by the Romans.

>>3391041
>multiple languages have words for light, therefore this language cannot have a word for light

>>3391048
Wow, you've seen Indiana Jones too? Obscure as fuck.

>>3391035
Doesn't matter.
Bad guy = good guy, is my point.

>>3391048

More fun facts: v and u were the same.

>>3391048
Jam mos rhetorum mutare 'i' pro 'j' est. Res mutant nonnumquam.

>>3391066

clovis
lovis
louis

Now you know.

>>3391060
Radio 4 did some program on the letter J years back. I can't remember much of Indiana Jones except that horrible fourth one.

>>3391048
There's no English "j" in Biblical Hebrew either. The sound at the beginning of the tetragrammaton (from which the word "Jehovah" comes) is the letter yod which is more like the German "j" or English "y".

>>3391073
>horrible fourth one
Still don't understand the hate. Just as good as the others. Better than Temple of Doom.

>>3391073
That's a pretty awful thing to remember.

You should rewatch 1 and 3. They're fucking great.

>>3391080
Good for you I guess.

I couldn't stand it.

>>3391080
>all actors and good director denounce it
>has no plot
>been torn apart by the greatest film expert of our time
>JUST AS GOOD AS THE OTHERS

tu plebs..

>>3391080

Really?

>CGI dust
>CGI goffers
>failed comedy
>retarded plot
>too many characters, none likeable, not even Jones
>plot makes no sense
>no sense of anything
>no thread
>aliens are a joke
>copypasta of previous Jones movies
>CGI
>horrible acting
>feels like the messed up effort of a grandmother at porn
>abortion on screen

>>3391074
Yep. And that applies to many Biblical names with Js, like Jesus or Joseph.

>>3391080

Remember when the Paramount mountain turned into a real mountain in the first movie?

>in the fourth, it turned into a goffer mole hill

>that was your warning right there and then
>should have run away, should have

>>3391082
I was planning to go through them again after rewatching the Star Wars trilogy, but I thought "I'll check out that new one first, I haven't seen it", and it completely put me off the idea.

"Jehovah" goes for every vowel. Open, closed, all the sounds is there. Forget the consonants and realize J is more like I. "Ieouah" is more like it. It represents all the sounds, the rainbow of sounds that makes for the white light of God's name.

The "Om" is just that as well. It's in fact, "aounnnn" it starts open and then closes and the "m" is there usually to represent the closing into a nasal sound into what the Hindu consider as sound as well: silence (and that's why when saying "om" you have to be quiet for a while before saying it again). That reflects in their philosophy around the nothingness of sunyata and the use of 0 in their mathematics.

On the Jehovah thing I'm not sure as I just heard it from a priest years ago when I was a teenager and it made sense to me. The Om I read it a few times from different sources. Combining them sounds interesting enough to me.

>>3391116

Dude, the first trilogy is fucking gold.

>>3391091
Who's the greatest film expert of our time?

>>3391141

Mr. Plinkett.

>>3391118
Not sure if you're serious. The actual pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is debatable since Biblical Hebrew doesn't have letters per se that represent vowels, although they are marked in later texts. In reality, there are only four letters (thus why it's called the tetragrammaton): yod, heh, vav/waw, and heh, or YHVH/YHWH. Since most scholars think vav/waw was pronounced with a sound more like the English "w" than the "v"-ish sound it has now, it's probably something close to "YHWH" or, with vowels, "Yahweh". It can't be "Jehovah" because the first heh can't be used to elongate the vowel attached to the previous letter and simultaneously count as a sound at the beginning of a new syllable.

>>3391071

But that's retarded. Louis comes from Ludwig.

>>3391159
I was half-serious. It was "something I heard" and I'm ignorant on the matter, but felt like saying it even so. Thanks for the clarification.

>>3391164
And "wig" sounds like "vig"

>>3391186

No shit sherlock. Anyone with a 4th grade education knows that. Your point?

>>3391190
It's just one more name to add to the other anon's list. They are all the same name.

>>3391182
No problem. I thought the reason you gave was much less boring than mine anyway.

>>3391198

What? What list?

>>3391203
Clovis, lovis, louis, luis, ludwig... All the same, so there is nothing retarded in what he said:

>Louis is a traditional and still very popular French name related to Clovis and Ludovic.
>The Germanic Chlodowig, derived from 'hold' ("glory, fame") and 'wig' ("warrior), was simplified to Clovis. The Latin form of Clovis became Clodovico, which gave Ludovicus. The French forms of Ludovicus are Ludovic and later Louis.

recent purchase thread?
>tfw you can finally be a pretentious pseudo-intellectual

>>3391244
The weirdest one for me is:
William
Guillaume
Billy
Liam
Loik

How many first letters does it need?

>>3390791

It's basically the Silmarillion with a a Levantine flavour. Anyway they only version with reading is King James, since that's the most well written. The translators made an effort to make the language sound compelling, whereas the newer modern versions just go for easy readability like a vacuum cleaner manual.

>>3391253

>'feels'
>Sartre and Camus

Go back to /mu/ with your highschool bullshit.

>>3391270
>Implying Sartre and Camus aren't /lit/ tier.

>>3391278

Try shit tier

>>3391278

Like I said, get out.

>>3390996
Jehovah is a mistranslation, based on the fact that the Jews found the personal name of God (YHWH, Yahweh) too sacred to write down, so they would transpose letters of another name of God (Elohim) within the letters of YHWH.

>>3390651
I have this bible and it really is eye opening. All the bible editions that are actually used for religious purposes have notes that for the most part uncritical of the text (if there are notes at all). The edition in OP's pic treats the bible with the respect it deserves.

>>3392886
That's partly correct, although it's not letters they were transposing, strictly speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqqud

This inspired me to check the Skeptic Annotated Bible and it turns out this is the last month of pre-orders. Includes a discount and such. People should check it out.

>>3392961
>Skeptic annotated bible

Are you 12?

>>3390773
I am interested, which bible should I invest in to start my reading?

>>3393478
an annotated kjv

>>3393484
>an annotated kjv

The KJV is only your best choice for reading if your primary interest is in the influence of that version. Otherwise, KJV is a homogenized translation, based on outdated textual scholarship, in a form of English that is not just old but consciously artificial even in its own period.

I have several editions of the KJV, but if I want to read for sense and content, I use NRSV, RSV, NEB, or REB - these are based on modern textual editions, are significantly non-sectarian, and include versions of many of the apocryphal books accepted by various denominations (though NRSV and RSV are definitely ahead on that count).

>>3393469

>>3392908

Glad to hear that!

- OP