What translation of the Bible to read?

[Anonymous No.16952440]

There are several translations of the Bible: Hebrew, Protestant, Catholic and so on. Which one do you prefer?

[Anonymous No.16952453]

NIV since I'm catholic

[Anonymous No.16952473]

>>16952440
Several. ESV, NASB, NABRE, and NRSV are the ones I use most often. Also NJPS for Hebrew Bible.

[Anonymous No.16952673]

Aside from a really few obviously bad translations it really doesn't matter. Most protestant bibles are missing books and parts of other books and they don't have a good reason for it. If you want to study scripture seriously it really doesn't take much effort to learn Greek and there's a lot of good free resources available. Give it a few months and you can start properly judging these translations for yourself and you might even begin to understand why there is no perfect translation, and why it's not even possible.

[Anonymous No.16952753]

>>16952453
NIV is fucking garbage. You'll never know God's word

>>16952473
Great picks. I recommend a good study bible with NRSV (Harper Collins or NOAB)

[Anonymous No.16952797]

>>16952440
The KJV is God's preserved word in the English language.

[Anonymous No.16952901]

>>16952453
NIV isn't a Catholic bible though...

[Anonymous No.16953199]

>>16952673
Can you recommend free resources to learn Greek?

[Anonymous No.16953240]

>>16953199
WVBS.org has a free course that uses Alan Blacks book

[Anonymous No.16953847]

>>16953240
Nice!

[Anonymous No.16953887]

There are no english translations worth a shit. The fact that ESV/NABRE are the best ones says a lot.
I pity the monolingual angloids who will never truly understand what christianity is about

[Anonymous No.16953966]

>>16952440
NRSV Common Version. It has the widest canon.

[Anonymous No.16953981]

I like NKJV

[Anonymous No.16954145]

HWP
>God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.

[Anonymous No.16954532]

>>16954145
Black people are the spawn of satan

[Anonymous No.16954596]

>>16954532
>aloha

[Anonymous No.16954951]

>>16952673
>Most protestant bibles are missing books and parts of other books and they don't have a good reason for it.
There are theological reasons.

[Anonymous No.16954973]

>>16952673
Is it really so easy anon? I've had friends that have studied classics and I've spoken to other people on 4chan that claim both Greek and Latin are big time investments where years are required to read fluently

[Anonymous No.16954988]

The Vulgate

[Anonymous No.16955048]

>>16952440
From a secular perspective with little experience pick up a Thompson Chain Reference in NKJV format. It has scriptures in the ledger lines that assist in studying the text. The words of Christ in red help a lot for newer readers as it comes in handy to find what you are looking for. Also, when and if you finish. Move on to the pseudopigraphia and the apocrypha. A lot of wonderful text there that is very worth reading.

[Anonymous No.16955059]

The Message

[Anonymous No.16955068]

>>16952440
douay-rheims

[Anonymous No.16955078]

>>16954973
Not him, but Koine Greek isn't too bad from what I've heard. It's easier than other versions of the language.
>Latin
You don't need this to read the Bible in its original languages. Learn Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.16955094]

>>16954973
You're not going to be anywhere near fluent in a few months but the basic grammar is deceptively easy and there's a lot of great apps on Google play that you can use to "cheat" with while reading. The one I got gives me free access to Strong's Concordance, Thayler's and a few other lexicons that really simplify things. I promise you that getting started is so much easier than you think.

[Anonymous No.16955100]

Any English language Bibles translated from Greek OT and NT?

[Anonymous No.16955157]

>>16955100
NETS

[Anonymous No.16955739]

>>16955100
Why would you want a translation of a translation?

[Anonymous No.16955961]

>>16953981
Me too

[Anonymous No.16956301]

>>16953887
If there are no english translations worth reading, what is the alternative then?

[Anonymous No.16956304]

>>16954951
What are these theological reasons?

[Anonymous No.16956727]

>>16956304
Protestants believe the Deuterocanon is not of divine inspiration and cannot be considered scripture

[Anonymous No.16956800]

>>16952753
Are the NIV and ESV even that different?

[Anonymous No.16956814]

>>16956800
Yeah, the NIV has many glaringly bad translation issues.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/

[Anonymous No.16956988]

Anyone here speaks Spanish? I'm using the Biblia latinoamericana which I know tries to use a more simple language but I'd like to know, apart from that, how good the translation is.

[Anonymous No.16957153]

>>16953887
English translations are as serviceable as translations in any other less relevant modern language.

[Anonymous No.16957167]

>>16956304
The Apostle Paul writes that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Therefore since the Jews never considered the Apocryphal books Scripture then they are not Scripture.

[Anonymous No.16957212]

>>16956988
I think the Old Reina–Valera is generally the most accurate but cumbersome so for that reason I consider the 1960 revision the next best option and seems sufficiently easy to understand. Even Catholic commentators have admitted that the RV is better than any official Catholic translation. As for your bible in my opinion its rendition just looks more watered down and tentative.

[Anonymous No.16957236]

>>16957167
They were still worth reading in any case and also supposedly referenced in the NT. They just might not have the same authoritative weight as the primary canon.

[Anonymous No.16958134]

>>16952797
Good day to you, King

[Anonymous No.16958322]

>>16957167
There was no set canon at the time of Christ but we have good reason to believe Jesus himself used the Septuagint which included those books. Modern protestants utilize a Jewish canon created centuries after Christ which exclude them. Due to the nature of historical scholarship Luther couldn't know this at the time but we do and protestants have no excuse in continuing their error.

[Anonymous No.16958547]

Help me out here please.

I've seen, on a few occasions people list out the different reasons to read a particular version of the Bible.
but when they get to KJV they leave it blank or give some annoying statement like "KJV is KJV".
Why is there this strange attitude towards talking about KJV?
And what is the reason for choosing KJV?

[Anonymous No.16958554]

I've tried the German standard translation as is used in Catholic church service and I found the language to be bland desu.

[Anonymous No.16958660]

>>16952440
Wycliff

[Anonymous No.16958673]

>>16955100
For the Greek Old Testament you want A New English Translation of the Septuagint. The Orthodox Study Bible claims to translate the Septuagint but it's actually a weird frankenstein of the Hebrew and Greek, see this video (skip to 31:45) https://youtu.be/7BzYh3WskL4

[Anonymous No.16958731]

>>16958547
It was THE English Bible for hundreds of years and is still probably the most popular. It's got a long history of influencing English literature. So it's quite unique in terms of longevity and culture. However, some people make it out to be more exceptional than it is, it was simply a revision of the earlier Bishop's Bible and was also made to replace the popular Geneva Bible so that there would be a single standard translation for all of the Church of England. Some hardline conservative Protestants insist that later translations are corrupted, for example they take issue with modern critical editions of the New Testament that recent translations use, because those critical editions heavily rely on the Alexandrian text type which scholars think generally preserves earlier readings than other text types. The KJV-only people usually have vague arguments that there were pagans and heretics in Alexandria so you can't trust their New Testament text, which is ridiculous because the text type wasn't limited to Alexandria itself and the city was a major centre of Christianity in late antiquity.

[Anonymous No.16959369]

>>16952673
>it really doesn't take much effort to learn Greek

[Anonymous No.16959400]

>>16958322
Jesus preached in the synagogues and the Temple. He used a Hebrew text, not Greek.

[Anonymous No.16959437]

>>16952440
Alter's translation is the definitive one in English as far as I'm concerned. I've read ESV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV as well as NJPS for Hebrew.

Alter's translation is the only one that actually captures the essence without losing anything (or comes as close to it as I have read so far).

[Anonymous No.16959453]

>>16959369
It doesn't. It takes effort to become fluent but its easy to learn the basic grammar which will enable you to read the entire New Testament if you're willing to put in the work.

[Anonymous No.16959883]

>>16958731
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.16960196]

1977 RSV NOAB with Expanded Apocrypha is the GOAT

[Anonymous No.16960245]

>>16959453
Any book you recommend to learn greek?

[Anonymous No.16960260]

[Anonymous No.16960296]

>>16952440
NASB, KJV, ESV, Alter OT, Lattimore or Hart NT

[Anonymous No.16960305]

>>16960245
I used David Alan Black's book since it was the cheapest and of course there's a free online class that follows it. You can't really go wrong with an introductory text though. I've seen people say Mounce's book is a little more difficult because he waits a long time before he starts introducing verbs but in the end it doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.16960344]

>>16960260
why were these removed

[Anonymous No.16960357]

>>16960344
They're translating different manuscripts. Everything will still be in the footnotes of any decent edition.

[Anonymous No.16960569]

>>16960344
>>16960260
>>16958731
>>16958547
>>16952797

https://studylib.net/doc/6651774/other-bible-translations---berean-internet-ministry

A COMPLETE explanation about the KJV and why it is superior. Its over 200 pages. Have fun.

[Anonymous No.16960683]

>>16952440
as many as god directs

[Anonymous No.16960980]

Only the New JPS (Jewish Publishing Society) or other Jewish translations should be trusted. Christian translations generally mistranslate to force in Christological implications.

[Anonymous No.16960984]

>>16952440
The Quran.

[Anonymous No.16960998]

>>16960569
200 pages of continual self-justified confirmation bias that overtly avoids giving genuine consideration to the stances of the opposing view, is not something worth anyone's time. Have fun finding a more substantiable explanation for your respective view.

[Anonymous No.16961262]

Oh fuck while I’m here what’s the most accurate Spanish version?
Don’t give me the KJV of Spanish since the KJV has problem

[Anonymous No.16961317]

>>16960569
based. King James (PBUH) changed the entire course of Protestant thinking.

[Anonymous No.16961441]

>>16961262
It's an improvement over the KJV.

[Anonymous No.16961452]

Geneva 1599 fascimiles are best

[Anonymous No.16961526]

>>16960980
>have all translations be just slight edits with a Jewish slant of Christian ones

[Anonymous No.16961545]

>>16952440
Whatever translation you choose be sure to read alongside Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin so you can understand what you are reading.

[Anonymous No.16961594]

>>16961545
Never heard of this before, Catholic here. Can you briefly summarize the book?

[Anonymous No.16961653]

>>16961594
It is a work of systematic theology written by Jehan Cauvin, a French theologian, in the 16th century.

Every Christian should read it, check digits

[Anonymous No.16961676]

>>16960998

Not a KJV-onlist, but the majority text is vastly superior to the critical text.

[Anonymous No.16961678]

>>16961441
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16961747]

>>16961676
Not that guy but I’m new to this shit, what’s critics text and what’s majority text?

[Anonymous No.16961840]

>>16961747

Huge debate that is best explained through several videos. I have been personally studying this for several months now. I will send a non-biased one from Pastor Everhart. Its long about 50 minutes. He is not KJV-only.

https://youtu.be/HzwcT_3WSak

Idea is that the majority text is some 5000 manuscripts that are pretty much all the same in wording dating from 900 AD +, while the Critical text are extremely old texts from about 200 - 300 AD. There are only about 50 such manuscripts, but have two controversial complete Bibles in very good condition. The debate comes down which is better? Older but fewer or newer but more.

[Anonymous No.16961945]

I was going to buy this one which is apparently a study bible. Anyone familiar with this?

[Anonymous No.16961949]

>>16961676
I don’t know man, how about you explain your reasoning?

[Anonymous No.16961968]

>>16961840

The KJV and NKJV are pretty much the only Bibles based on the Majority text, hence why we have KJV-onlyists. ALL new modern Bible translations use the critical text which has significant differences between the majority texts.

IMHO, both are the Word of God as the overall message is accessible. No key doctrines are changed, but a lot of the new translations are biased or have flaws/stigmas. Which is why I see the KJV as a standard to compare with what ever comes out.

NIV: gender neutral/inclusive; poor translations in several parts
ESV: Calvanist/reformed translation
CSB: Baptist translation Bible
The Message: Burn it
NASB: 2020 version will be controversial. Heard good things about the standard 1995 as a scholarly Bible. Harder tobreadbbeing very literal in comparison to KJV which is hard to read because of its age.

[Anonymous No.16962029]

>>16961949
>>16961840

Same person. I used the 1984 NIV for years, but for a lot of key verses they are modified and the full meaning is altered. Too many little modifications THROUGHOUT the entire Bible which no one talks about (Not talking about missing verses which I believe are possibly additions). Key doctrines are there, but it feels too altered. Hence why the majority text which includes the verses and does not modify any of these changes such as Roman 9:5 is better.

[Anonymous No.16962073]

>>16961945
Are the apocrypha canon or not? Literally no one ever answers me

[Anonymous No.16962109]

>>16962073

For protestants: No
Catholics/orthodox: Yes.

They are mostly historical books or a lot of proverbs. No doctrines as there are no New Testament apocryphal books that are accepted by both groups

[Anonymous No.16962374]

>>16962029
The compilers of the Textus Receptus were only doing the same thing Alexandrian text compilers were doing just with the fewer manuscripts that were less older. No single majority text manuscript fully agrees with the TR or the KJ. You shouldn't act as if the NIV were the prime example of translations based on Alexandrian NT texts either when there are multiple better examples such as the NASB and the English Revised Version. The changes in Romans 9:5 aren't due to a difference in source text.

[Anonymous No.16962466]

>>16962374
I'm not even seeing a difference in these

[Anonymous No.16962594]

>>16962466
Exactly since it's due to the individual translators and not the Alexandrian text.

>World English Bible
of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen.

>New American Standard Bible
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

>English Standard Version
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

>New International Version
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

It's actually the KJV which makes a questionable insertion of the "came" in italics.
>Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[Anonymous No.16962821]

>/lit/ is suddenly religious
Since when?

[Anonymous No.16962832]

>>16962821
>reading the Bible
>being religious
pick one

[Anonymous No.16962904]

>>16952440
RSVSCE

[Anonymous No.16962946]

[Anonymous No.16962971]

>>16962821
This board used to have 24/7 Catholic threads before the tranny jannies decided to impose themselves.

[Anonymous No.16963007]

>>16962971
Wait, seriously?

[Anonymous No.16963009]

I found using KJV and the ancient faith orthodox study bible to be a really good mix but I'm also autistic about the bible.

[Anonymous No.16963038]

>>16963007
Yes, new guy. Stop with the fedora shit.

[Anonymous No.16963041]

>>16962946
The gospels didn't come with headings

[Anonymous No.16963063]

>>16962971
>used to have Catholic threads until mods stepped in
Based mods, slapping the corrupted denomination down. If it was purely Christian threads it would’ve been fine. I bet you guys started worshipping your saints after being shut down.

[Anonymous No.16963074]

>>16963063
This is some boring shit

[Anonymous No.16963105]

>>16960980
this but unironically . Christian interpretations of the bible cannot be trusted

[Anonymous No.16963150]

>>16961945
This is the one you want because it's secular.

[Anonymous No.16963189]

>>16963150
What does secular mean?

[Anonymous No.16963278]

>>16963189
It means the people writing the annotations and essays aren't trying to convert you.

[Anonymous No.16963322]

>>16962821
Reading the bible yourself is actually the quickest way to see how ridiculous Judaism/Christianity is. The carefully filtered and interpreted meanings passed down culturally over the years are so far removed from the actual words on the page. If you read this book you will immediately have a better understanding of it than all those phony Christians who have its meaning passed down to them from someone else.

[Anonymous No.16963716]

>>16963322
I think people like you carry a lot of preconceived notions into the text and ultimately read it in a very stupid way. Nothing you have to say about it is challenging.

[Anonymous No.16963866]

Most accurate Spanish bible?
Please don’t say Reina-Valera.

[Anonymous No.16963880]

>>16963322
I agree!

[Anonymous No.16963893]

>>16952797
Hatred against homosexuality only exists because KJ was in the closet. No really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I#Robert_Carr,_1st_Earl_of_Somerset

[Anonymous No.16963939]

>>16963893
KJV cucks explain yourselves

[Anonymous No.16964030]

what's the appeal of esv? i'm reading nrsv study bible

[Anonymous No.16964060]

>>16959400
No he didn't you fucking idiot, he spoke Aramaic.

[Anonymous No.16964062]

>>16952797
Even the KJV translators admitted they weren't confident in it being 100% accurate

[Anonymous No.16964318]

any tips or guide on how to read the kjv bible?
English is not my mother tongue although my level of English is advance, I still struggle reading the kjv.

[Anonymous No.16964358]

>>16964318
Read the NKJV instead if you're ESL

[Anonymous No.16964368]

>>16964318
Well you could start by not reading KJV. It uses really old English that’s not spoken anymore so it would be much harder than it already is. Isn’t there a Bible in your native language?

[Anonymous No.16964622]

>>16964368
well yes, in my country they use "biblia latinoamericana" but I prefer to read in English rather than spanish.

[Anonymous No.16964829]

>>16964622
Oh were you the guy earlier in the thread who mentioned that bible? I was going to tell you to read the Nueva Biblia de las Americas (NBLA) and for English read the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

[Anonymous No.16964830]

>>16955059

[Anonymous No.16964950]

>>16964060

Spoke Aramaic. Read Hebrew. 'Jot and tittle shall not pass away'. Read your Bible please.

[Anonymous No.16964999]

>>16962374

The ESV's translation of Genesis 3:16 and then using it to push the doctrine of eternal subordination of the Son is what makes it complete trash. That is a huge gaping flaw. I have no respect for the ESV which is tainted with a Calvinist translation of the Pauline gospels.

[Anonymous No.16965011]

>>16963939

Complete slander from a single man.

James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law. His book on kingship, Basilikón Dōron, (Greek for "Royal Gift") lists sodomy among those "horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive". He also singled out sodomy in a letter to Lord Burleigh giving directives that Judges were to interpret the law broadly and were not to issue any pardons, saying that "no more colour may be left to judges to work upon their wits in that point."[4]

[Anonymous No.16965030]

>>16964999
What do Calvanits believe?

[Anonymous No.16965344]

>>16964999
>>16965030
It appears that it mentions the more traditional interpretation in a footnote and also indicates that its interpretation of Genesis 4:7 is influenced by or related to that interpretation.

>Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

>Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

[Anonymous No.16965410]

>>16954596
>pidgin

[Anonymous No.16965460]

Hey guys my neck hurt the other day and I screamed at the sky and told God I wouldnt be "some battered woman for God" and that "I wont be Job, and this treatment was bullshit" and that "a low tier alcoholic treats people better" and then I proclaimed my allegiance to Satan

My neck doesnt hurt as bad now

[Anonymous No.16965728]

>>16965460
Based and blasphemouspilled

[Anonymous No.16965876]

RSV with apocrypha is what many scholars from several different denoms use. Oxford press prints one

[Anonymous No.16966202]

>>16965344

Ah yes the footnotes. Problem is that if you buy any ESV reader Bible -- poof! -- there is no more footnotes. Showing that the translation that they put in the main text is the one they consider real.

Like I said before, I have been studying this for about a year. I have about 10 different translations of the Bible. I have been studying the hundreds of verses where the translations do not agree. Some are in complete opposition. All of the translations have flaws, just that some are much better (NKJV), or honest (NIV does not claim to be literal), or antiquated (KJV) and we now know the flaws due to time.

[Anonymous No.16966296]

Just get the bible gateway app and read/compare translations on your phone.

[Anonymous No.16966405]

Best study bible? That’s Unbiased and not leaning to any denomination

[Anonymous No.16966745]

>>16966405
There's nothing more Reddit than seeking something that's "unbiased". There's no such thing. If you think something is unbiased you're being fooled. Seek the truth instead. The answer is the Ignatius Study Bible.

[Anonymous No.16966825]

>>16966405

The Holy Spirit... get a wide margin Bible and make your own study Bible.

Do not get a study Bible based on one mans work. It will be biased to his opinions. However there may be insights.

I use the NIV study Bible. There is some slight biases in the commentary on a few verses on reformed theology, but overall on controversial verses it explains several positions on that topic. It is pretty good for casual reading and getting a basic knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16966840]

Robert Alter.

[Anonymous No.16968082]

>>16952440
My personal bible is douay-rheims

[Anonymous No.16968107]

>>16952440
Armenian translation is referred to as the queen of translations. It's beautiful.

[Anonymous No.16968889]

>>16966405
New Oxford Annotated Bible is not aimed at a particular denomination. The notes are from a historical perspective so it's not for devotional reading.

[Anonymous No.16968916]

>>16964999
That's just the 2016 edition, thankfully. The 2001, 2007, 2011 and UK editions have the more usual translation. It's a shame such a theologically biased rendering was made for those passages, I generally like the ESV and I'm not even a Protestant.

[Anonymous No.16968946]

>>16964950
That verse is written in Greek lmao. He could easily have been referring to the Septuagint (which is what the New Testament authors used when quoting the Old Testament)

[Anonymous No.16969135]

Why yes I do only read bibles that have NIHIL OBSTAT AND IMPRIMATUR on them.

[Anonymous No.16969256]

Question for well-read Christians here. Is there a point of praying for someone else's salvation? Or praying for them to overcome sin? Since we all have free-will to do whatever we want. Will God really help them or is it pointless?

[Anonymous No.16969374]

I try to ἀγάπη all of them but primarily English and Hebrew at the moment.

[Anonymous No.16969428]

>>16969256
James 5:15-16: And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

[Anonymous No.16969455]

>>16969256
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:16

[Anonymous No.16969508]

>>16956301
gee i wonder

[Anonymous No.16969533]

>>16968946

New testament authors yes, but Jesus using the septuagint is unlikely. Even Paul does not exclusively use the Septuagint in his epistles.

[Anonymous No.16969544]

>>16969428
You retards really believe in magic huh

[Anonymous No.16969564]

>>16969544
Yeah, we do. Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.16969657]

>>16969544
And the Lord restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before. Job 42:10

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 1 Timothy 2:1

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. John 15:7

[Anonymous No.16969687]

>>16969544
>You retards really believe in magic huh
I don't see prayer as some kind of fortune giver, but I see it as a way to ask God to give others and myself spiritual strength. I don't believe in prosperity theology basically.

[Anonymous No.16969728]

>>16969564

Based

[Anonymous No.16969733]

>>16952453
Nigga do you mean NAB? NIV is trash Prot.
>>16952440
Douay or Knox.

[Anonymous No.16970306]

>>16969733
Wrong

[Anonymous No.16970753]

>>16952673
You don't need the perfect translation. This is what theologians will tell you to shill their beliefs knowing most people won't learn Greek to read. Read a decent translation like NKJV and pray for understanding. It's really that simple.

[Anonymous No.16970811]

>>16970753
This is some retarded protestant shit and it's leading people to hell because the truth is not up to the individual. When people get doctrines wrong, they die in the most literal sense and Jesus is not the God of the dead. When you disrespect the Eucharist by viewing it symbolically, for example, you are rejecting Jesus Christ. This is why he established a Church to guide his people and tell them what the truth is.

[Anonymous No.16970896]

>>16970811
The Eucharist is symbolic though

[Anonymous No.16970945]

>>16970811
>Sorry my child, you misinterpreted an obscure verse so straight to hell you go!
This is a stupid way of thinking. God is rational and wise.
Also
>unironically following the doctrine of the most corrupt church in history
When will catholics learn?

[Anonymous No.16970964]

>>16969564
what is the requisite number of believers to promote your faith from /x/ tier tinfoiltry to a legitimate religion? asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.16971032]

[Anonymous No.16971057]

>>16970945
God is rational and wise, but you aren't. The Muslims and Mormons both pray to God and consequently feel like their doctrines are true. Does that make them both true? There's nothing more irrational and unwise than a protestant.

[Anonymous No.16971070]

Mine is the Crampon Catholic Bible. If any other francophones are ITT I'd be interested in hearing what you think of its translation.

[Anonymous No.16971136]

>>16952753
>>16953887
>>16961262
>>16961747
>>16963038
>>16963074
>>16964060
>>16969564
>>16969733
>>16970811
>Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. - James 3:10
Hypocrites, the lot of you.

[Anonymous No.16971149]

>>16971057
>There's nothing more irrational and unwise than a protestant.
>believes doctrine that used to sell passes to heaven
Stay cucked with your false doctrine.

[Anonymous No.16971155]

>>16971149
What about orthodoxy?

[Anonymous No.16971173]

>>16966840
based

[Anonymous No.16971239]

>>16971149
You're so stupid, you don't even know what you're criticizing. When you sin, it's not enough to simply say "I repent". You have to actually mean it, and one way of doing that is by saying prayers, serving the poor, and giving to charity among other things. An indulgence is an act of charity for remission of sins. It's not a ticket to heaven, that's retarded.

I don't even know why I bother because you have nothing to say on the subject at hand, you just try to throw out this red herring about indulgences to change the subject. I'm sure you already have a post written up about how we worship idols and Mary, you walking cliche of a human being.

[Anonymous No.16971284]

>>16971239
>an act of charity
building the pope a better house is not an act of charity anon. This is a LARP, not even the RC's refend indulgences any more

[Anonymous No.16971295]

>>16971284
If the Catholics don't defend indulgences then why do they still offer them? Idiot.

[Anonymous No.16971365]

>>16971239
>When you sin, it's not enough to simply say "I repent".
Except it is
>If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9
Good works dont give you brownie points towards salvation.

[Anonymous No.16971388]

>>16971295
The Catholic Church has never sold indulgences contrary to protestant propaganda. What Luther was against was the popes authority to give them out without sufficient "biblical evidence." The usual example given was simply an alms giving of money to restore a basilica. This was considered a donation not simony.

[Anonymous No.16971425]

>>16971388
>history is actually a made up conspiracy against the one true doctrine
The amount of cope is unreal.

[Anonymous No.16971475]

>>16971425
>nobody ever lies about their enemies
>I get my memes from knowyourmeme like a newfag

[Anonymous No.16971495]

>>16971425
>5 thousand years of history of the separation from the Catholic Church is totally correct and not biased at all.
For example most protestants during the enlightenment cast a bad light on the dark ages even though most modern historians don't recognize the dark ages to be exactly "dark" anymore.

[Anonymous No.16971522]

>>16971365
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21).

Thy will be done

[Anonymous No.16971622]

>>16971155
Well?

[Anonymous No.16971633]

>>16971365
What good is "confessing your sins" if you don't actually mean it?

[Anonymous No.16971658]

>>16971622
Not him but, Orthodox and Catholics are more similar than protestants and Catholics. We just disagree on some theological ideas and the Petrine doctrine.

t. Catholic

[Anonymous No.16971940]

>>16958731
>The KJV-only people usually have vague arguments that there were pagans and heretics in Alexandria so you can't trust their New Testament text
I've never seen this argument from kjv only people, just "new version leaves out things kjv has. therefore it is a busted sword" even though they are there just left as foot notes for how there was added later for the kjv

[Anonymous No.16972980]

>>16971032
big if true

[Anonymous No.16973142]

>>16962904
Literally reading this exact one right now. Received it when I was confirmed.

[Anonymous No.16973313]

Should I read the Bible in Latin? Does reading the Vulgate provide a better understanding of the text than DR as a Catholic?

[Anonymous No.16973324]

>>16973313
if you already know latin, sure go for it
otherwise I would refrain from learning a dead language for the purpose of reading a handful of books

[Anonymous No.16973439]

>>16973324
Hey fuck you Esperanto isn’t a dead language

[Anonymous No.16973495]

>>16961945
Get the NOAB RSV with Expanded Apocrypha instead, includes full canon for all mainstream denominations

[Anonymous No.16973910]

>>16973495
I thought the apocrypha wasn’t canon?w de

[Anonymous No.16974041]

I like the CSB.

[Anonymous No.16974830]

>>16974041
What’s that

[Anonymous No.16974917]

>>16974830
Christian Super Bible

[Anonymous No.16974949]

>>16952440
This

[Anonymous No.16975104]

>>16974041
>dynamic equivalence
No meme answers please.

[Anonymous No.16975318]

>>16962946
Do earlier dated manuscripts not include these passages? If so, the right thing to do is remove them as some scribe had adlibbed when copying a manuscript.

[Anonymous No.16975337]

>>16975318
You know nothing about the Bible. Leave

[Anonymous No.16975445]

>>16975337
Explain to me why we should include the extra words included in Luke 9:55-56 when both the extant Papyrus texts (P45 (250AD) and P75 (200 AD) and the four oldest full bibles (Vaticanus, Sanaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus around 400AD) don't include them?

[Anonymous No.16975451]

>>16952797
lmao

[Anonymous No.16975527]

>>16968107
Am Armenian, can confirm.

[Anonymous No.16975782]

>>16975445

Because the majority of manuscripts include them. Also these manuscripts were actually used unlike Vaticanus and Sanaiticus (which was basically found in a dumpster, and is the most heavily edited and corrected manuscript that exists). Also Sanaiticus doesn't even agree with Vaticanus.

[Anonymous No.16975785]

>>16975782
>>16975445

In addition, Erasmus knew of the existence of Vaticanus, which was basically kept in storage for hundreds of years, but did not use it as it differed greatly from the manuscripts used for the received text.

[Anonymous No.16975790]

>>16956800
NIV censors some parts.

[Anonymous No.16977402]

>>16952440
If you don't already have any sort of denominational commitment, this is the best one you can get.

It includes all the books which are canonical for catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches, and specifics who adheres to which. It's also a clear translation in contemporary English, with an incredible amount of annotation to clarify and give context. Each book is also prefaced by a page explaining what the book is, and the role it plays in the bible overall.

The translation (NRSV) is the translation most commonly used in academic biblical scholarship today.

>>16958547
The KJV is arguably the most literary and beautiful translation in English, and was the standard for hundreds of years, but it will be extremely opaque to the modern reader. If you actually want to try to understand the contents of the bible, you'll have a far more productive time relying on more modern and annotated editions.

[Anonymous No.16978562]

>>16977402
I agree. Probably, a good idea would be to read NRSV Oxford and then read KJV just for its literacy and beauty.

This seems to be the most approachable way.

[Anonymous No.16978925]

>>16978562
>and then read KJV just for its literacy and beauty
You motherfuckers are basic

[Anonymous No.16979835]

>>16978925
how so?

[Anonymous No.16980292]

>>16978925
Why?

[Anonymous No.16980336]

>>16978925
Explain

[Anonymous No.16980354]

>>16978562
i fail to see the beauty in archaic language like "thou" and "shalt" instead of "you" and "shall". NKJV is better

[Anonymous No.16980454]

>>16980354
Probably KJV is relevant to other texts of English literature.

[Anonymous No.16980541]

>>16980454
it's the same book except with modern pronouns.

[Anonymous No.16980654]

>>16980541
You just don’t understand.

[Anonymous No.16980672]

>>16980654
if you were really concerned about purity of language you wouldn't be reading it in english at all

[Anonymous No.16980702]

>>16952440
>ctl-f jerusalem bible
>0 results
cmon guys jfc

[Anonymous No.16981043]

>>16980702
Don’t use the lords name in vain

[Anonymous No.16981062]

>>16952440
KJV is the most poetic

[Anonymous No.16981086]

ahem

[Anonymous No.16981784]

>>16981062
Yeap, that seems to be the overall opinion.

[Anonymous No.16982190]

>>16964062
no translator would admit that

[Anonymous No.16982220]

>>16952440
KJV and Geneva are the only acceptable translations

[Anonymous No.16982506]

>>16980354
no its not, all these new translations are desperately modified, why?

THIS IMAGE ONLY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE.

KJV > NKJV

[Anonymous No.16982512]

>>16980354
>>16952440
>>16952453

[Anonymous No.16982513]

>>16982506
Jehovah is a mistranslation

[Anonymous No.16982529]

>>16982512
NKJV is literally more accurate. Cope

[Anonymous No.16982968]

>>16982529
>literally proven wrong multiple times
Whatever you say NKJV apologist.