/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11329717]

Don't mind me, just the best translation of the Bible coming through

[Anonymous No.11329729]

>>11329717
nice bible, I usually stick with KJV or ESV tho

[Anonymous No.11329742]

>>11329729
Being an Orthodox wouldn't you use the Orthodox Study Bible? Assuming you can't read Greek of course.

[Anonymous No.11329749]

>large print edition
This is the best part. All other bibles have such tiny text that it makes them a pain to read.

[Anonymous No.11329753]

>>11329742
Not necessarily. We have a very nice EO translation of the New Testament. I use it a bit, mainly for references.

Check this out for a detailed view on bible translations http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm

KJV is still a top choice.

[Anonymous No.11329763]

why does every branch of christianity have to have it's own version other than nih syndrome? is there actually something different

[Anonymous No.11329767]

>not Holman Christian Standard

Try this one anons. It's a great blend of trying to best preserve the literal meaning of the words in Greek, while being very readable at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11329783]

>>11329753
Interesting. I thought the general view outside of Protestantism was that the KJV is a poor translation with several errors that alter theology. For example consider John 3:36.

NASB
>"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

KJV
>He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The changing of "obey" to "believe" changes the interpretation of the passage from one that supports a works based salvation theology to a faith based salvation theology.

[Anonymous No.11329787]

>>11329763
if a translation is good it'll be used by people from any denomination.
But some of the weaker translations might emphasis a theological point more than others and so it appeals more to some sects

Also some have more books than others

[Anonymous No.11329791]

>>11329783
>poor translation
nobody thinks that.
Its too great a work to be denied.
The kind of thing youre talking about is trivial and a bit silly to anyone who isnt a fundamentalist

[Anonymous No.11329796]

>>11329763
Different books are included. Catholic bibles include the deuterocanonical books of the old testament, they were removed from protestant bibles and called the apocrypha. Eastern Orthodox include a few more books than Catholics do, plus an extra psalm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Ethiopian Orthodox include even more books than that, including 1 Enoch which I highly recommend because it is a very entertaining read, it's much like the OT version of Revelation

[Anonymous No.11329797]

>>11329783
Orthodox accept synergistic faith based salvation, not works-based like catholics. Works are for theosis and virtuous living and getting closer to God.


>"So we, as Orthodox Christians, affirm as clearly and unambiguously as any Lutheran, for example, that “salvation is by grace” and not by our works. Unlike medieval Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not hold that a person can build up a “treasury of merits” that will count in our favor at the Judgment Seat of Christ. What will matter then is our having surrendered our sin to God through confession, and our gestures of love (Mt. 25), together with the unshakable conviction that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” and the unique Way to eternal life."
https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/salvation-is-indeed-by-grace

[Anonymous No.11329809]

>>11329791
This is a characteristic of /lit/ - everything is either the worst thing in the world or the greatest thing of all time. Its just how young (16,17 yr olds) talk. Either that or theyre just fuckin idiots.

[Anonymous No.11329811]

>>11329791
Not him, and its greatness is undeniable, but that's not to say there aren't any errors in interpretation of perhaps trivial things in the Hebrew (I've been reading through Job and comparing the KJV with the ESV lately and there are verses that have been updated to better reflect the original language)

[Anonymous No.11329818]

>>11329809
Depends on why you're reading it. If you're a non-Christian and just reading it because you want to understand the influence the Bible has had on other western works, then sure pick whichever translation reads the nicest. On the other hand if you are a Christian then having translations that accurately translate the meaning of each verse is pretty important since it will affect your understanding of what doctrines you should accept or reject

[Anonymous No.11329827]

>>11329811
Thats not the point. 'Poor translation' is not something anybody with would ever say about the KJV. Or even the RSV/ESV. Even the NIV (though obviously it isnt very Lit).

[Anonymous No.11329837]

>>11329818
are you a theology student or in seminary training? i flat out dont believe any normal Chirstian's beliefs would in any way be impacted by the minutiae of the interpretation of obscure particular words

[Anonymous No.11329846]

>>11329837
Really? You don't understand how someone reading the Bible may use verses to support their decision to become Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox? Minutiae matters. It's the difference between Jesus merely being the son of God and being God incarnate.

[Anonymous No.11329848]

>>11329827
The religion threads here are mostly LARPing cosplayers

I grew up in an actual sectarian city and Ive never met anyone who cares about catholic/prod divisions like ppl on here claim to

[Anonymous No.11329860]

>>11329846
Not true, all current sects besides Latter Day Saints or something even more obscure believe in the divinity of Christ and the trinity...most christians never read the bible. Are you a southern baptist or something? I think you have a strange idea of how most people practise religion. Most Christians never read the bible or even think about it

[Anonymous No.11329863]

>>11329848
what? there is a massive difference between catholics and protestants, all these new hispanics converts to pentacostal protestantism are always paranoid about catholics and talking shit about priests, meanwhile italians are always hyper aware of who is catholic or not, the only christians i meet who dont care are coptics which is ironic since they are the most different from others, but it might come from being a minority in muslim majority countries were christians in general are rare

[Anonymous No.11329866]

>>11329860
>Most Christians never read the bible or even think about it
What does that have to do with anything? We're specifically talking about people who DO read the bible in a thread on /lit/ about the bible. Who gives a fuck what some non-reading pleb who only goes to church because their parents make them thinks?

[Anonymous No.11329867]

>>11329860
And even most Baptists, though they may read it, don't understand it. Or just ignore books they don't "get."

[Anonymous No.11329926]

>>11329796
Isn't the book of Enoch where Darren Aronofsky got the idea for those giant angel-rock things in this movie?

[Anonymous No.11329941]

>>11329926
Yeah it was. It talks about the 'Watchers', fallen angels who were the ones who fathered the nephilim (briefly mentioned in Genesis) and basically mentions the flood was to wipe them out

>Again the Lord said to Raphael, Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there.

>Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones, covering him with darkness;

>There shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light.

>And in the great day of judgment let him be cast into the fire.

>Restore the earth, which the angels have corrupted; and announce life to it, that I may revive it.

>All the sons of men shall not perish in consequence of every secret, by which the Watchers have destroyed, and which they have taught, their offspring.

[Anonymous No.11330836]

Why do so few bible translations use the Septuagint? Almost all of them use the corrupt masoretic texts for some reason.

[Anonymous No.11331126]

>>11329749
t. old person

[Anonymous No.11331127]

>>11329791
No there's plenty of serious theological criticism of the KJV

[Anonymous No.11331138]

>>11329860
You've obviously never been around people who seriously practice faith

[Anonymous No.11331148]

>>11330836
Because we generally translate works from the languages in which they were originally written. That being said, any modern translators will reference translations of the Old Testament, including the Greek, and may prefer their readings when they feel they are justified.

[Anonymous No.11331788]

>>11331138
>practice faith
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11331796]

>>11331127
Re-read what you're responding to.

[Anonymous No.11331811]

>>11329809
is it even possible to be more of a boomer

[Anonymous No.11331819]

>>11329866
Please re-read the thread. The topic is how subtle variations of meaning of specific words, and the choices of specific tranlators, and how that could or could not impact upon a persons choice of denomination. There are few to zero serious people who swap churches based on this kind of thing.

Wats happening here is a conversation where Europeans and Americans are just talking past each other. To you (from the US) with the million varieties of Protestant you have, this argument seems to have more of a feeling of relevance. To us (Europeans) it seems obviouslt fallacious.

[Anonymous No.11331840]

>>11331811
I agree with fine young scholar, only being to express 'good' and 'bad', much like a dog or a chimp, well thats just the epitome of youthful coolness. I mean being good at anything, especially being able to express your thoughts with more precision than a 3 year old, that kind of thing is for old people, and cucks.

[Anonymous No.11331844]

Do priests know the bible in its original greek?

I dont expect the common christian to but the clergy should if they profess to be teachers of christianity.

[Anonymous No.11332207]

is Job the only book on the bible that can be read and agreed upon by non christians?
is there any stand-alone version of Job?

[Anonymous No.11332238]

>>11332207
Job is my favourite book of the Bible as well.

[Anonymous No.11332258]

>>11332238
Good choice.
Gospel of John
Ecclesiastes
Book of Job
Are 3 of my favorite. Read the KJV for just the /lit/ and refer to cathecism for doctorine.

[Anonymous No.11332278]

>>11332258
My favs are Job, Ecclesiastes and Samuel 1 i think. John, Esther and Genesis are runner ups.

[Anonymous No.11332292]

>>11332278
First time I read through Genesis (dramatized audio book actually), was a really really surreal experience. Nothing at all like I thought only knowing children's Bible stories.

[Anonymous No.11332358]

>>11331844
I don't expect more shithol-ish countries seminaries to do it, but here it's mandatory to have the basic minimum of grasp of Latin necessary to read the Vulgate. There are some Greek course but it's not expected to read in the original.

[Anonymous No.11332365]

>>11329717
>reading a translated bible
>לא קורא את זה בשפה המקורית

[Anonymous No.11332654]

>>11329717
Great NT study bible.

[Anonymous No.11332670]

>>11329717
I use Bible-hub when im not using my KJV and ive got to say my credulous christfag beloveds, there is no other addition of your blood cult spellbook that is as literary as the King James Bible Sir Francis Bacon and his friends wrote. You ought to respect your roots, your freemasonic luciferian promulgators, your Roman patrician mazdaist-dionysian blood drinking vampire founders and your necromantic cthonic baal-horus worshipping egypto-judaic greek apostles and read the KJV just saying my ophidian, lilith fascinated, pathologically neotenized, mysteria fascinated cavern dwelling, corner murmuring, theophany mongering cuckold companions.

[Anonymous No.11332716]

>>11329783
KJV is the work of dozens of learned divines, it is not a “bad” translation

[Anonymous No.11332732]

>>11329867
Lol at this half literate moron affecting o condescend to baptists

[Anonymous No.11332743]

>>11331819
Well the Bible itself is irrelevant to you now that 9/10 of your churches ordaim homobois

[Anonymous No.11332748]

>>11332670
>bacon
Stopped reading there, confirmed pseud

[Cyberheart No.11332775]

I don't really get the whole Christian theological standpoint on salvation and damnation. The entire Bible basically boils down to this: "Accept Jesus/God into your heart" = SAVED. "Don't accept Jesus/God into your heart" = DAMNED. For the prior, that means DAMNED forever. Eternity. Always suffering with no chance of freedom from pain and agony. What kind o fall powerful and "compassionate" being (i.e. the Christian God) would condemn one of His meager creations to an eternity of torture just for not believing? Like, am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.11332828]

>>11332775
That mostly seems to be the Protestant interpretation of salvation and the incarnation, I'm guessing you live in the US right?

[Anonymous No.11333653]

>>11331819
Europeans read the Bible too Hans. You just have less devoutly religious people over there.

[Anonymous No.11333660]

>>11331844
Catholics do. They need to do a degree before they can be ordained and koine Greek is part of the curriculum, as is Latin.

[Anonymous No.11333665]

>>11332207
Most atheists I've seen hate the book of Job because they think God was a big meanie head for allowing faithful Job to suffer. They kind of miss the entire point of the book. But yes, Job is one of the better books in the OT, it's actually the oldest book in the entire Bible as well.

[Anonymous No.11333670]

>>11333660
there was this insufferable pre-priest in a bunch of my china studies classes in college he said u needed a masters and he was always a fucking anti-marxist blowhard until it got to some part about guerilla war and the yannan days he starting going on and on about how his ancesters were irish terrorists or something, he also called porn "disgusting", i was like u find to adult humans having sex disgusting? then again thats maybe why he was going to be a priest, but any way the fuckin point was he said u need a masters, idk if true

[Anonymous No.11333805]

>>11333665
I see. What are some books you'd say are more accepted or relatable by and for atheists?
I also have some questions about the figure of the fallen angel, evil, hell as an intrinsic part of the nature of God. I went through an edgy atheist stage at my early teens and rejected/forgot a lot of things that even if I don't like it, are the basis for things that make up my environment. So I want to have a deeper understanding of this.
I was thinking of going to a church and asking a cleric but I'm not sure I trust them to not try to convert me and be as scholarly as possible.

[Anonymous No.11333849]

>>11333805
>What are some books you'd say are more accepted or relatable by and for atheists
Ecclesiastes is the obvious one since it deals with the fact that without God you basically have no choice but to accept nihilism. Ecclesiastes, Job and Proverbs are called the wisdom books and they work together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeUiuSK81-0

The Psalms are a nice read too

>I also have some questions about the figure of the fallen angel, evil, hell as an intrinsic part of the nature of God
There's not much in the Bible about those really. Fallen angels are briefly mentioned in Revelation but are mostly absent from the rest of the Bible. Satan in the Old Testament has the job of 'adversary', the one who accuses. Apparently he's like a prosecutor whose job it is to expose faults in people, which he does to Jesus by attempting to tempt him in Matthew. Likewise with hell, it's characterized as a place with fire, it's called "Gehenna" which was a valley in which trash was burned.

[Anonymous No.11333940]

>>11333849
>the wisdom books
Nice. Are they intended to be read in the order the video suggests or that's irelevant? (Proverbs > Ecclesiastes > Job)

This are some of the conjectures I've had. Evil is a condition for God. The concept of God necessitates the existence of Evil. And if we take God to be Oneness, then Evil is in fact one of the many ways God itself manifests to its people [read "the Christians"]. This view is opposed to the popular God vs Satan narrative of our times. So, in this way, Evil is intrinsic to God. Evil might be even more inspiring than God, that's why Job seems so interesting for me. Judas might be more inspiring than Jesus. They all cannot escape their fate in the same way we cannot escape the fact of impermanence. They all accept their fate of being Evil. Are they not evil only out of their compassion for people? Is it not through evil times salvation comes? Is not God itself manifesting as Evil to test people?
I don't know if these views are wrong from the Christian point of view.

[Anonymous No.11334005]

>>11329717
What makes it the best? Is it the most literal? Literalness is what I look for most in a translation - or at least footnotes which note the literal translation when it differs from the actual.

[Anonymous No.11334011]

>>11333940
If you take God to be Oneness, you're wrong from the start and the rest of your thought experiment is useless.

[Anonymous No.11334036]

>>11334011
Isn't God the Creator? Can there be anything NOT created by Him?

[Anonymous No.11334919]

>>11333940
>Evil is a condition for God. The concept of God necessitates the existence of Evil.
This is so so wrong, absolutely not the Christian perspective. What is your line of thought behind this?

[Anonymous No.11335708]

>>11334036
Evil (or sin) isn't created by God but rather the privation or absence of God. Evil exists not because God exists, but rather because human free will neccesitates the ability to deviate from God's will.
To use a shitty overused metaphor, we would never say that a flame radiates darkness, on the contrary a flame radiates light which is the opposite of darkness. The darkness doesn't exist because the flame exists but rather it exists where the flame is not.

[Anonymous No.11337451]

>>11334919
Mainly Hegel.

>>11335708
>but rather because human free will neccesitates the ability to deviate from God's will
Now this is another topic I have questions about. I can understand that the fate of any particular person is not written in stone and that he or she is free to act however they please. But isn't God omniscient? Doesn't that mean that even if there is free will, ultimately he has the knowledge of how we are going to act and where are we going to end up in? Same goes for his knowledge of Evil. When he created man, he knew that sin was going to take place and exist. Isn't God omnipresent? Doesn't that mean that God is present even in its utter negation [read: Satan, Judas, sins]? I won't refer to omnipotence and whatever argument Christians have to why God doesn't use his power to completely remove Evil, I'm not interested in that topic.

>we would never say that a flame radiates darkness, on the contrary a flame radiates light which is the opposite of darkness. The darkness doesn't exist because the flame exists but rather it exists where the flame is not.
I see. That makes things a little bit more clear as to how you understand that.
But a negation of something is the condition of the affirmation of that same thing. That's why I say God necessitates Evil, that Evil is a condition for the existence of God (and obviously the other way around too). There can be no "pure Evil" neither "pure God".
The analogy you used is basically the definition of darkness. Darkness is defined as the absence of light. I con't disagree on that. What I disagree on is an independent light and an independent darkness. To define darkness you take for granted the existence of light. To define light you take for granted the existence of darkness.

[Anonymous No.11337476]

>>11331788
Acting in accordance with a faith-based framework ???

[Anonymous No.11337490]

>>11331844
No, Christianity is not a religion of the book like Judaism and Islam, Scripture is a big part of practice but really day to day they are going to be working more through the tradition.

[Anonymous No.11337503]

>>11333660
Neither of which are ever taught/mandatory past first year 95% of the time

[Anonymous No.11337510]

>>11331844
>Do priests know the bible in its original greek?
Yes, A lot if not most.

[Anonymous No.11337526]

>>11329717
>RSV
Fucking hell I hate using this word but take the historical revisionism sjw bullshit out of here. RSV and NRSV are literally trash subversions written in order to make the bible "gender neutral"

[Anonymous No.11337539]

>>11337510
Where do you live? I've known many priests, and only one had basic knowledge of Greek.

[Anonymous No.11337540]

>>11337526
Ignatius actually reverts all that trash, it unironically advertised itself as a non-SJW edition for a long time.

[Anonymous No.11337555]

>>11337539
Aren't you confused? the question wasn't if priests knew Greek but if they know the bible in its original Greek, there's a massive difference, you don't need to know Greek to Study the original Greek text.

[Anonymous No.11337584]

>>11337540
Your ok gypsy

[Anonymous No.11337590]

>>11337584
You're
I need to stop drinking

[Anonymous No.11339037]

>>11337526
God is a spirit and doesn't have a dick or a vagina so what does it matter whether you refer to it as Father or Mother?

[Anonymous No.11339067]

>>11332748
doesn’t matter the rest holds its a degenerate pedophile blood cult and the KJV is the only legitimate english version

[Anonymous No.11339618]

>>11332670
>freemasonic luciferian promulgators, your Roman patrician mazdaist-dionysian blood drinking vampire founders and your necromantic cthonic baal-horus worshipping egypto-judaic greek apostles and read the KJV just saying my ophidian, lilith fascinated, pathologically neotenized, mysteria fascinated cavern dwelling, corner murmuring, theophany mongering cuckold companions.
Nice.

[Anonymous No.11339640]

>>11337555
>you don't need to know Greek to Study the original Greek text.
What? How would you study it then? By rote-learning it as a series of meaningless sounds?

[Anonymous No.11339710]

Using anything other than Vulgate is degeneracy honestly.

I guess KJV is ok if you're under 13 and still learning

[Anonymous No.11340038]

>>11339710
Is this version ok?

[Anonymous No.11340535]

>>11329717
>best translation of the Bible
>English language
Padre, perdónalos, no saben lo que hacen.

[Anonymous No.11340585]

>>11339710
>Vulgate
It's literally for plebs, as evidenced by the title.

[Anonymous No.11340632]

whats wrong with NIV?

[Anonymous No.11341192]

>>11337555
uhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.11341600]

>>11335708
Isn't God supposed to be omnipresent though?

[Anonymous No.11342489]

>>11340535
¿Cuál es la mejor traducción al español?

[Anonymous No.11343764]

>>11332670
>this level of /x/ism

This is what happens when a person seeks esoteric """knowledge."""" They end up with a head full of worthless """facts""" interwoven into a web of lunacy and misdirection only an imbecile would care about. Congratulations on amassing such a monumental horde of delusions.

[Anonymous No.11343799]

>>11334005
I can't believe OP never gave me an answer.

>claims best translation
>gives no reasons

I guess I won't waste my time with it then.

>>11329783
>The changing of "obey" to "believe" changes the interpretation of the passage from one that supports a works based salvation theology to a faith based salvation theology.

Nonsense. Jesus, Himself, said, "If you love Me, obey my commandments." He also said, "these signs WILL accompany THOSE WHO BELIEVE...."

When God revealed Himself in the Law - which is Holy eternally - it was given to be obeyed. Would one who did not believe in God obey it? Of course not. They may observe aspects of it which they regarded as traditionally meaningful or culturally useful, but they would never possess the kind of obedience which pleased God.

It always was, and always will be, FAITH DEMONSTRATED through works. As James said, "faith without works is dead."

Both translations are fine - minor differences, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11343818]

>>11329717
>not Douey Rheims

Get out of here N E R D

[Anonymous No.11343839]

>>11331148
>masoretic texts
>original

[Anonymous No.11343843]

>>11342489
Todas son horribles. Reina Valera es la única que tiene algo de valor histórico pero fuera de eso son pura mierda. Los estudiosos serios recomiendan como mínimo aprender inglés si tienes algún interés en leer la Biblia como corresponde y la única razón por la que no se ha hecho una traducción decente es porque todas las iglesias están más preocupadas en fingir que tienen la verdad superior e intachable y mantener sus dogmas sectarios que en realmente estudiar la escritura.

[Anonymous No.11343850]

[Anonymous No.11344161]

>>11332670
I'll pray for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.11344358]

>>11343799
The RSV is easy to read and translates the meaning in the most accurate way with a few exceptions here and there.

[Anonymous No.11345138]

It took me a year to slog through the Moses books, should I just read the New Testament and come back to the Old one later?

[Anonymous No.11345174]

>>11329717
>best translation
>not a translation based on the newest manuscript evidence

[Anonymous No.11345192]

>>11332775
Christians don't all agree on the content and instrument of salvation. You're expressing a more typical evangelical protestant soteriology.

[Anonymous No.11345233]

>>11332775
Is God genuinely loving if he doesn't deeply hate that which threatens his love?

[Anonymous No.11345252]

>>11332775
God damns people to hell because he loves them. He's not going to force somebody to spend eternity with Him against their will. That's all hell really is, the absence of God. If you love somebody that doesn't want to be around you, you let them go.

[Anonymous No.11345416]

>>11340632

Not bad for beginners. I'm just getting into it before I move on to other versions. KJ and earlier bibles are more complicated because the writing and stories are confusing to me and my sort (not religious, pleb tier understanding layman terms).

[Anonymous No.11345444]

>>11339037
It isn't god they attempt to make gender neutral, that would at least make some semblance of sense. No the translation does stupid stuff because these insane people believe English has an inherently masculine bias so every time there's reference to a man or group of men they change it to things like "people"

[Anonymous No.11345553]

>>11345444
Ok that's pretty dumb then. You'd miss out on a lot of OT references to Jesus if that's the case

[Anonymous No.11345560]

>>11329926
Is it just me or does that costume look stupid as fuck?
Actually, why is Noah standing straight up if the surface of the Flood is tilted? Is it a wave? It doesn't look like one. If it's a Dutch tilt, Noah should also be tilted, but he's not.
Is it just me, or is this poster just really terrible?

[Anonymous No.11345586]

>>11335708
>>11341600
I've always thought of it in this way: Not only does a flame radiate light, but properly understood, the shadows it casts don't "exist." Shadows have only non-existence, because they are merely an absence of something that does exist (in this case light). In that way you can reconcile the idea of God with the idea of evil, by pointing out that evil is a non-existence.

[Anonymous No.11345596]

>>11337451
>To define light you take for granted the existence of darkness.
I think this is the weak point here, because "darkness" is included in the definition of light and can actually be found nowhere else, but the definition of darkness is NOT included in the definition of light. It's conceivable to imagine light without imagining darkness because light exists and dark is an absence: it is not conceivable to have darkness without also conceiving of light, because it is merely an absence of light. I think that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.11345705]

>>11343850
I didn't know the Bible was an Evil dead remake?

[Anonymous No.11346167]

>>11339037
God chose to reveal himself to us as a father, and he knows what he's doing

[Anonymous No.11346385]

what are your opinion on bible translations approved by the catholic church vs unapproved ones? does it make that much of a difference? is the main factor for having the approval the presence of all canonical texts, as opposed to protestant editions or is there other important factors for it?

although I am catholic and like orthodoxy I bought a considered protestant translation (basically the equivalent of a KJV in my language) because it is more faithful to the original and because it was not too expensive. am I gone to hell or what

[Anonymous No.11346453]

>>11346385
The Church approves some translations over others for regulatory purposes to ensure that heretical stuff like the "Queen James Bible" can't be read in church. It doesn't necessarily mean that unapproved translations are bad or shouldn't be read. On a practical level for English speakers at least, a translation being unapproved means it probably doesn't contain the entire bible. Missing the deuterocanonicals and/or parts of Daniel and Esther.

[Anonymous No.11346546]

>>11329717
>Not latin vulgate and Douay Rheims
It's like you want to fall for Jewish tricks...

[Anonymous No.11346929]

Whenever I hear somebody recommend the KJV I can't help but picture somebody sniffing their own ass.

[Anonymous No.11347117]

>>11346385
>>11346453
I think what's an 'approved' Bible partly depends on your region, as they're approved by regional synods. For example, In the USA, the New American Bible is used for liturgy, in Canada the NRSV-CE, in the UK the Jerusalem Bible.

[Anonymous No.11347167]

I happened to notice today that in one part of my Bible (NRSV), the Greek for "brother" is translated "another member of the church". It's such a pathetic and unnecessary dumbing-down that I got really pissed off desu. Made me wonder what else they ruined. Shouldn't translations be literal unless the equivalent words or idioms don't exist in English?

[Anonymous No.11347204]

>>11345596
Yeah, that's the main weak point in my argument, but there are several ways I can still defend it.
You arbitrarily define light as an objective reality and darkness as the negation of that [arbitrarily defined] reality. We can define them the other way around in the same arbitrary way. For some reason (probably because the dogma says it's The Creator) you presuppose light to be the fundamental beginning. I won't try to refute this dogma, but keep in mind that I do not take this dogma to be true.
Another way to defend my argument would be what I've already said here >>11337451, and another anon confirmed here >>11341600 pertaining the omnipresence of God. Saying that sin is the absence of God doesn't make sense. It goes against the basic characteristics of God.

[Anonymous No.11348724]

>>11347204
>Saying that sin is the absence of God doesn't make sense. It goes against the basic characteristics of God.
This is something I've thought as well, but we can get around that without doing away with omnipresence if we claim that evil doesn't actually "exist."
I also wrote >>11345586. If you follow the metaphor, overused or not, evil is defined by a lack of positive qualities, and therefore they can't be sensibly said to "exist" in the same way that a substance can. Therefore, evil is actually an illusion, or something like one, and when we say things like "how can God exist and be benevolent if evil also exists?" it's because we (falsely) believe that evil has a positive, actual existence, when it has neither.

[Anonymous No.11348764]

>>11346385
You're not a true Christian unless you have 5 bibles and cross reference them to understand the bias each one contains.

I own:
RSV2CE
Orthodox Study Bible
NASB
KJV
The Didache Bible

[Anonymous No.11349331]

>>11348724
That makes much more sense. But I still disagree with the arbitrary definition of light as the primordial substance and darkness as the negation of it. Don't get me wrong, I'd also disagree with the [equally arbitrary] definition of darkness as the primordial substance and light as the negation of it. My point is the importance and actuality of the inter-relation and inter-dependence of both concepts. The constant struggle and dynamic process through which they come about for us to experience them. I know that what I'm saying is incompatible with the Christian view of God as the Creator, and I respect that.
To expand a little bit on another topic I touched previously, if we say evil to be an illusion, then why are the antagonists of the Bible always seen as inherently bad? Why can't we take inspiration from them to truly understand and experience God? Seeing them as inherently evil only leads to hatred.

[Anonymous No.11350642]

>>11349331
>But I still disagree with the arbitrary definition of light as the primordial substance and darkness as the negation of it.
Well, that's just the maybe-overused metaphor still: the thesis here is actually that GOD is the primordial substance and evil its negation. I was just extending the metaphor of the candle.
>To expand a little bit on another topic I touched previously, if we say evil to be an illusion, then why are the antagonists of the Bible always seen as inherently bad?
I agree, but I think that focusing on antagonists is a mis-read. Much of even the Old Testament is about flawed protagonists: David, for example. David is a sinner, but he's also anointed by God. The same is true for so many of the judges and so much of the New Testament. I don't think the Bible supports a read in which the antagonists are "always" and "inherently" bad.

[Anonymous No.11351146]

>>11337526

How is the RSV SJW? Most of the time it just reads like a garbled KJV. In fact they specifically drafted the NRSV just so they could smuggle that shit in.

[Anonymous No.11351727]

>>11329717
the bible was written in english dumb ass

[Anonymous No.11352497]

>>11329717
Vulgate or Douay–Rheims in English is the best, considering that those were what Western (essentially the only) Christianity was based upon.

[Anonymous No.11352543]

>>11345560
>>11329926
I also just noticed how bad this poster is. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.11352578]

>>11337490
it is if youre proddy, including "apostolic" protestant churches

[Anonymous No.11352581]

>>11339710
the vulgate as a translation isn't really that good

[Anonymous No.11352609]

>>11329742
Orthodox aren't bible worshipers the way westerners are. They can choose a bible purely for aesthetics and still receive all doctrine from their church.