Bible choice

[Anonymous No.13634451]

Ok /lit/, I'll cave. I want to see what all this Christianity stuff is about. How should one go about picking which version of the bible to read/study? Are there any other texts I should look into to aid in interpretation? Any historical texts I should check out concerning the development of the religion/church? Any prerequisites?

[Anonymous No.13634475]

>>13634451
Not sure which version is most common in English but there is no need to get fancy about it.

I'd say first read one of the Gospels - Luke maybe - and then Paul's letters.

The Gospels tell us about Christ, and the letters tell us why it's true and what it means.

I hope you will find God, anon.

[Anonymous No.13634519]

>>13634451
I use the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. The King James Bible is good, too, but in reality they're almost identical. I suggest reading the Gospel of St. Matthew first because it contains Christ's sermon on the mount running from chapter 5 through chapter 7. I personally think the letters to the Corinthians are some of the most important of the apostles' letters.

[Anonymous No.13634543]

>>13634451
KJV and catholic.org
t.Muslim

[Anonymous No.13634548]

>>13634451
Strong's Concordance is the gold standard Biblical glossary.

[Anonymous No.13634550]

Someone post the chart about the different types of bibles. The various ones designed for study look great.

[Anonymous No.13634551]

If you want to really go for it, and you have an interest in the Bible's influence on literature, get the Norton Critical King James Bible

[Anonymous No.13634570]

>>13634451

If you're going to read a version of the bible, and want it to be easily digestable then I suggest NIV or ESV versions. If you aren't concerned with language difficulty than New King James version is the best, the KJV is technically closer, but the only real changes are making the language more modernized. No one will give you shit for NKJV version.

Lastly, if you want to understand Christianity proper here's my suggestion:

Genesis -> Job -> Matthew -> John -> Acts -> Galatians (bc the writing is beautiful) -> Revelations

This is the abridged version of the bible. I would also suggest, to get the full effect just reading a handful of psalms and proverbs each time you pick up the bible, no specific order.

I grew up in the church and did some religious studies later, this is the beginner entry route that people suggest. You will have a better understanding of Christianity than most Christians after this.

[Anonymous No.13634581]

>>13634451
The Abridged Bible. I don't know if that exists but it should because there's a lot of useless crapola in there, like the censuses.

[Anonymous No.13634584]

>>13634570
what about the rest of the bible? just read it when you fancy?

[Anonymous No.13634592]

>>13634451
KJV or Douay-Rheims are the most literary translations
check the Catena app since it has a ton of commentaries from saints and church fathers.

[Anonymous No.13634596]

>>13634584
No, don't read it because its redundant and boring

[Anonymous No.13634599]

>>13634596
I thought Ecclesiastes was meant to be p good

[Anonymous No.13634606]

>>13634451
Learn Latin, and then read St. Jerome, if you're hard core.
And if you Jump straight into the bible, I would work backwards, from the letters of the apostles first, then start from genesis.

[Anonymous No.13634610]

>>13634596
>implying Ecclesiastes and SoS are boring
>implying the parts about Elijah are boring
>implying the prophetic books are boring
>implying Paul's epistles are boring

[Anonymous No.13634612]

>>13634584

yeah pretty much.

The bible arc I gave you is like the main continuity. There's of course Deuteronomy, Kings/Samuel, and Isiaih in the old testament.You can probably through in other shit in the new testament like Corinthians and James, but that is the main abridged storyline.

There are other great parts of the bible that I love and highly recommend. Literally all of the epistles are great. There's a lot of Old Testament stuff that has great parables, and the rest of the Gospels. The 4 gospels mirror the four temperaments. Luke is more analytyical, John idealistic--filled with miracles, etc. So reading all of them talk about the same events is interesting.

The bible has a lot of stuff in it, some is self-referential, some is completely unrelated to anything else. it's just interesting, if you've begun to get interested you can always find more focused study guides on different topics

[Anonymous No.13634632]

>>13634612

The more I think about it, you might want to read Exodus too to understand the Israelites leaving Egypt and the whole Ark of the Covenant thing, but I forgot that in my first post. That would come after Genesis

[Anonymous No.13634636]

You don't need to read the bible in order, you can skip around, in fact this is properly how a vast majority of pre-modern seminarians consumed the bible because of how ludicrously expensive a complete copy was.

[Anonymous No.13634643]

>>13634584
Most of the OT (everything after Exodus) is the history of the Jews in the holy land from when they enter it all up to when they return to it following the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon. There are also prophetic texts like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Also, most of the NT (excluding the Gospels and Revelation) are letters, mostly written by Paul, about how the early church should operate (do this, not that) and a few other letters written by Peter, John, James and Jude.

But if you just want to know what the core of Christianity is, Genesis, the four Gospels, Acts and Revelation would be sufficient. Job is an important book because it talks about faith in the face of adversity. Add to that the psalms and proverbs, most of which are pretty short and easy to go through even if you only read one a day.

[Anonymous No.13634690]

>>13634451
>How should one go about picking which version of the bible to read/study?
Scott Hahn

>Are there any other texts I should look into to aid in interpretation?
Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

[Anonymous No.13634779]

>>13634451
Read the Good News Translation with Apocrypha included.
You'll thank me.

[Anonymous No.13634800]

>>13634610
>implying the prophetic books are boring

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are exhausting in their redundancy taken each one by itself, never mind taken altogether. And why the fuck would you want to read about the lesser prophets except for that guy who was told to take a gentile whore as a wife as a symbol of the new covenant?

[Anonymous No.13634815]

>>13634451
Why did someone paint Jesus having a shit on a rock?

[Anonymous No.13635152]

you'll want to get a study edition at the very least. interpretive essays and notes are essential.

HarperCollins NRSV most recent edition is good, very readable and scholarly. has all the books, extremely up to date texts.

Oxford Catholic Study Bible 3rd edition NABRE is also excellent. Has great guided essays and the notes are very very well done.

For a "reader" copy? Unvarnished New Testament - accurate koine rendering that conveys how readable the texts are if you knew Greek. Very good intro.

For a "devotional reader" copy? Knox version. Great modern translation that's still majestic, uses Vulgate renderings so it has some interesting readings. Good notes. However get this last.

My reccs for a total beginner are the unvarnished NT and the harpercollins NRSV. Start with the NT, then genesis, then the profits. Pick up a catechism on the way. together this is a good intro to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.13635160]

>>13634451
NIV for closest translation
KJV for literary use

[Anonymous No.13635182]

>>13635152
You aren't going to learn shit about "this Christianity stuff" reading a academic study bible based on the fucking NRSV.

[Anonymous No.13635217]

>>13635182

NRSV is a completely scholarly, devotional translation and the gender neutral stuff is well done. I was just as hesitant as you regarding the "liberal/feminized" slant, trust me, but I've read the NRSV at length and it's doctrinal sound, as well as faithful in renderings/notes and very readable. alternative readings are almost always provided in annotations or textual notes. also it has the full Catholic and Orthodox cannons which is quite solid. do not buy the SSPX "trad" meme and only read KJV/DRA1899. they're both opaque and textually unsound. also, even if just for devotional reading, you need an academic study copy or much of the historic/literary context will go over your head. remember, the Church herself endorsed the hc method, Pius XII no less.

[Anonymous No.13635237]

>>13635217
>the gender neutral stuff is well done
>but I've read the NRSV at length and it's doctrinal sound
I don't think you have, there's nothing doctrinal sound or well done about Timothy 3:12 or Romans 16:1.

[Anonymous No.13635266]

>>13635237
>Timothy 3:12

1 or 2 Timothy? also are you talking about the female "deacon" renderings in romans 16? the greek is "diakonos", can be accurately rendered either deacon or minister/overseer, as the NRSV notes in the textual annotation. Note that minister is different from priest. There is now magisterial prohibition against non-temporary female 'deacons', nor was there in the early days of the church. priest, of course, is another matter.

care to explain your objections are length or are you going to continue to post meme images?

[Anonymous No.13635274]

>>13635266
>now

no*

[Anonymous No.13635275]

>>13635237
Even Bruce Metzger and multiple translators admitted they purposely translated stuff incorrectly to make the NCC happy yet people still defend the NRSV as free from bias.

[Anonymous No.13635287]

>>13635237
What exactly is wrong with the NRSV translation of those verses?

[Anonymous No.13635291]

>>13635275

give some examples if you're so sure. honestly all the "gender neutral" translations, while nontraditional, are faithful to the greek; see "adelphoi" for ex.

There is no vertical gender neutral language either, only horizontal. reminder that just because they did not translation the hebrew scriptures in light of the NT does not mean they didn't included accurate language renderings. "son of humanity" is in fact accurate, even if it upsets people of think "son of man" is the only acceptable term

[Anonymous No.13635312]

>>13635287
To justify their translation of "diakonos" in Romans 16 they purposely translate 1 Timothy 3:12 wrong. They even admit this in the footnotes.

[Anonymous No.13635323]

>>13635312
>1 Timothy 3:12

the greek is "be husband of one wife". their rendering "be married only once" is acceptable and consistent with church tradition. why is this such an issue for you? are you coming from a fringe denomination where you want to be a deacon but you've been divorced?

thankfully i read the bible in light of both tradition AND scripture, so textual renderings are of little importance when cross-referenced with Church teaching on the matter.

[Anonymous No.13635366]

>>13635312
1 Timothy 3:12 uses the same word as Romans 16:1. How is the translation wrong???

[Anonymous No.13635384]

>>13635366
1 Timothy was written many years later and should be understood as an attempt to retcon Romans’s as part of an effort to establish a patriarchal hierarchy in the Church. Historical analysis 101.

[Anonymous No.13635393]

>>13635366
I suspect he comes from a conservative sola scriptura protestant sect that needs textual authority *exactly* for everthing they do. they probably allow divorced and remarried "deacons" and thus they take "be husband of one wife" to main *faithful* and not *be married only one*

btw this is exactly how protestants operate. they need everything in the scriptures to support exactly what they believe or else they throw a fit, accuse you of translation bias, etc.perils of sola scriptura.

[Anonymous No.13635405]

>>13635384

you're right it was written later but that doesn't matter at all. it was deemed canonical by the Church through the councils and the fathers. historical analysis 101. unless you reject the canon authority of the church fathers and you pick and choose which parts of the NT you desire to be "true". if that's the case, well, you opinion is obviously just that, an opinion, and you can stop replying. unless you think you know better than numerous committees of academic translators, historians and the church fathers alike.

[Anonymous No.13635409]

>>13635405
The absolute level of depression in this post, wewlad.

[Anonymous No.13635421]

>>13635409

are you going to respond or continue to meme? the text and tradition doesn't care about your personal opinion, i'm afraid. maybe the unitarians is more up your alley.

[Anonymous No.13635456]

>>13635405
Nobody was discussing the canonicity, your attempting to appeal to three different authorities ignoring the fact that they're more often than not at complete odds with each other, the Book of Enoch isn't considered authentic by "academic translators, historians" yet the church fathers considered it canon.

And yet you claim other people are "picking and choosing"

[Anonymous No.13635480]

>>13635456

you do realize the councils and fathers formulated the canon right? now you're moving the goalposts. rejecting 1 timothy is quite different than talking about the book of enoch. and, to that point, you're in fact incorrect. The fathers never incuded enoch: the earliest christian intact canons of the OT do not have enoch, any of them. Not the Septuagint, not the Bryennios List, not Melito's canon and not Athanasius. stop dodging the original point: you can't pick and choose which books to include. just because you pick a textually inaccurate rendering to support your protestant heretic fringe belief does not mean there's any legitimate tradition to back it up

[Anonymous No.13635856]

These guys are getting too into it.

First thing you gotta do is read the bitch

KJV is harder to read, skip that. NRSV is good if you are catholic.

Most evangelists that I know read NIV. THat is a good choice

I recently picked up an ESV and let me tell you the differences are not much.

My ESV is whats called a journaling bible thats great if you take it seriously

[Anonymous No.13635999]

>>13635856

best bible is really what you read. I do think if you're really interested it's worth getting a study edition, and it's true certain translations are more "slanted" than others. ESV/CSB/NIV have strong evangelical bents, but if you read them with that in mind they are still good textual translations.

[Anonymous No.13636021]

>>13634451
I prefer Modern English Version. Make sure it's leather-bound and has a ribbon marker.

[Anonymous No.13636186]

>>13635999
trips

explain the evangelical stuff

my new and old testament stuff is almost word for word against NRSV

but i would like your insights

[Anonymous No.13636232]

>>13636186

NRSV really isn't catholic, it's more mainly protestant. the only good catholic bible today is the NABRE, the RNJB might be ok too. anyway, the esv is essentially an RSV revision that is done with a theological perspective in mind. it's the like RSV2CE, textual accuracy is interpreted in light of doctrine.

let me know if this answers ur question