/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21371428]

Why do 90% of Bibles have this red letter shit or other gimmicks like thumb indexes or pink "women's Bible" covers? I just want the text in a nice format. Finding a good one with the apocrypha is even more difficult, there seems to be much less variety in Catholic Bibles (which always have unecessary theological notes) and the best selection of the apocrypha is in the NRSV, which has the downside of gender neutral language and tends to be more expensive.

The Oxford World's Classics version would be perfect for me, but it's only available as a massive stiff paperback.

[Anonymous No.21371437]

>>21371428
The red lettering is for the words of Jesus. What's the issue?

[Anonymous No.21371439]

>>21371428
Because these bibles are for plebs. Patricians read in greek and latin.

[Anonymous No.21371453]

>>21371439
The King James Version Bible is more accurate than any of the older manuscripts

[Anonymous No.21371480]

From its bitchy tone I assumed all Bibles were Women's Bibles

[Anonymous No.21371485]

>>21371437
Firstly, you have to be retarded to not be able to realise from context when Jesus is speaking. Secondly, it elevates the words of Jesus above the rest of the text, as if the rest is less important and can be skipped over. Why not highlight the words of the God the Father as well? Or the words of angels or prophets? It's an arbitrary innovation invented in 1901 and is totally unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.21371486]

>>21371480
kys

[Anonymous No.21371487]

>>21371485
Meh. I like it. If it makes autists seethe, even better.

[Anonymous No.21371494]

>>21371453
>cope

[Anonymous No.21371499]

>From its bitchy tone I assumed all Bibles were Women's Bibles

[Anonymous No.21371503]

>>21371437
This. It's so republcans and cultists can just read the black text and pretend it was Jesus who said it to their illiterate congregations.

[Anonymous No.21371515]

>>21371485
This isn’t a compelling argument for removing red lettering from when Jesus speaks. It’s actually a compelling argument for more red-lettering, since you’ve basically conceded the point that if Jesus’s words are gilt in some way, then so should God’s in all of the Old Testament.

I 100% agree.

[Anonymous No.21371569]

>>21371515
I'm not "conceding" anything, I pointed out that there are any number of decisions you could make about which words to highlight, so it's arbitrarily decided by editors following a gimmick that only appeared in the 20th century. Why not make every single word red because it's all inspired by God? Also, lol at "removing red lettering" as if it's an original feature rather than a modern innovation that's only been around 100 years. Elevating certain parts of the Bible implies the rest is less important and can be ignored.

[Anonymous No.21371571]

>>21371569
JESUS IS KING
COPE AND SEETHE

[Anonymous No.21371649]

>>21371571
Christians believed Jesus is King for 1900 years before red letter Bibles were invented. Your post doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.21371705]

>>21371503
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
- 2 Timothy 3:16

[Anonymous No.21371714]

>>21371569
>hurt durr then the non-red parts can be ignored

Not how it works shitforbrains

[Anonymous No.21371715]

>>21371499
>le hecking trolling face

[Anonymous No.21371718]

>>21371485
Most religious people ARE idiots, of course they need all the help they can get.

[Anonymous No.21371737]

>>21371715
That's a soi face, not a troll face

[Anonymous No.21371752]

>>21371428

download a free ebook of any bible and put it on a kindle

[Anonymous No.21371771]

>>21371714
I said "implies", and yes, highlighting certain parts means the editor saying "These bits deserve more attention than the rest." But different editors have different ways to determine which ones to highlight, there are some parts where it's ambiguous whether Jesus, the Father, or an angel is speaking. Also it doesn't highlight anything in the Old Testament, even though traditionally several Christophanies have been identified in it. Nobody had red letters for Jesus for 95% of the time Christianity has existed, in manuscripts red lettering was only used to mark the beginning of sections and it was never used for printed Bibles before 1900. It's unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.21371784]

>>21371752
>Just use Digital Product™
Physical books don't need charging.

[Anonymous No.21371798]

>>21371784

and physical books cost money

cost money vs need charging
i would go with the latter any day

e-readers usually stay charged for weeks so you don't need to worry about charging them. it doesn't take that long to charge them

[Anonymous No.21371866]

>>21371718
Invalid argument, this can be applied to any group of people on large scales. You're the idiot here for using the "religious people are dumb" arugment.

[Anonymous No.21372043]

>>21371428
>>21371439
>>21371487
> Makes autists want to kill themselves a century or so later by just turning a couple letters red.
Based.

[Anonymous No.21372133]

>why does *the* CHRISTIAN text puts the words of CHRIST in another color?
are you serious?

[Anonymous No.21372220]

>>21372133
Listen here you wop cocksucker, *the* Christian text doesn't put the words of Christ in red, some editors decided to do it in 1900 as a gimmick.

[Anonymous No.21372333]

>>21371485
>>21371718

It’s for when someone just wants read the quotes/words of jesus. Not to read or reread the writings of those who knew him. It’s not just for christians but for others too.

[Anonymous No.21373251]

>>21371453
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.21373321]

the red letter is so you can see jesus' words at a glance, the thumb indexes make it easier to flip thorough to a specific book or cross refrence passages from different books without having to look at the table of content first

[Anonymous No.21373361]

>>21373321
and pink bibles for women?

[Anonymous No.21373491]

>>21371453
>Kings James was there bro
Kys

[Anonymous No.21373531]

>>21371453
Catholic Bibles have several extra books

[Anonymous No.21373544]

>>21373361
women

[Anonymous No.21373552]

>>21371428
I use the Ignatius RSV2CE.

[Anonymous No.21373701]

>>21371428
Baronius Press has a very nice line of Catholic bibles available. Mostly Challoner revised Douay-Rheims but they do offer at least one Knox edition. They have no red text and are well constructed.

[Anonymous No.21373725]

>>21371705
That's incredibly convenient.

Why do we need a new testament?

[Anonymous No.21373775]

>>21371453
lole
luhmao

[Anonymous No.21374658]

>>21373725
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."
- Heb. 9

William Tyndale wrote this explanation:
Evangelion (that we call the gospell) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man's heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy. As when David had killed Goliath the giant, came glad tidings unto the jewes, that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger: for gladness whereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the Evangelion of God (which we call Gospel; and the New Testament) joyful tidings; and as some say, a good hearing published by the apostles throughout all the world, of Christ the right David how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them. Whereby all men that were in bondage to sin, wounded to death, overcome of the devil, are with out their own merits or deservings, loosed, justified, restored to life, and saved, brought to liberty, and reconciled unto the favour of God, and set at one with him again: which tidings as many as believe, laud praise and thank God; are glad, sing and dance for joy. This evangelion or gospell (that is to say, such joyful tidings) is called the new testament. Because that as a man when he shall die appointeth his goods to be dealt and distributed after his death among them which he nameth to be his heirs. Even so Christ before his death commanded and appointed that such evangelion, gospell, or tidings should be declared through out all the world, and there with to give unto all that believe all his goods, that is to say, his life, where with he swallowed and devoured up death: his righteousness, where with he banished sin: his salvation, where with he overcame eternal damnation. Now can the wretched man (that is wrapped in sin, and is in danger to death and hell) hear no more joyous a thing, then such glad and comfortable tidings, of Christ. So that he cannot but be glad and laugh from the low bottom of his heart, if he believe that the tidings are true. To strength such faith with all, God promised this his evangelion in the old testament by the prophets (as Paul sayth in the first chapter unto the romans). How that he was chosen out to preach God's evangelion, which he before had promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures that treat of his son which was born of the seed of David.

[Anonymous No.21374818]

>>21371428
>Why
because its a cheap value added feature.
If you're serious about Bibble Study, get the current edition from cepher.org. Also, a wycliffe edition helps with readability. And you cant go wrong with the classics.

[Anonymous No.21374827]

nothing more stupider than a goy addicted to a jewish ramblngs

[Anonymous No.21376388]

Saved

[Anonymous No.21376838]

>>21371428
>he didn't read the Greek Orthodox Bible
I'm Catholic and I would never stoop to reading a Catholic Bible. It's GO or nothing.
>>21371453
>angl**ds

[Anonymous No.21376845]

>>21376838
well orthodoxy is satanic

[Anonymous No.21376849]

>>21374818
Is that the same as the jewish study bible?

[Anonymous No.21376856]

>>21376845
catholicism is supporting the import of negroes into Europe, a satanic inversion of creation's order. prots are holding rock concerts in out of business walmarts and driving there in cadillacs and lifted ford pickups. and it's orthodox you want to criticise?

[Anonymous No.21376881]

>>21374818
>A collection of 87 sacred books(81 canonized in 1611 as the KJV Holy Bible and 6 more considered to be inspired and/or historically significant), the את Cepher transliterates the names of the Father, Son & Spirit and restores the Hebrew את (aleph tav) throughout the text.
Lol what is this shit. Just leaving one grammatical feature untranslated doesn't make it a better translation.

[Anonymous No.21376886]

>>21376881
if you can actually read it at least phonetically it is indeed helpful. the greek orthodox version has the same feature for greek.

you can passively gain literacy for a foreign alphabet and trace the etymology, can't you, anon?

[Anonymous No.21376904]

>>21376856
>prots are holding rock concerts in out of business walmarts and driving there in cadillacs and lifted ford pickups
Wtf I want to be protestant now.

[Anonymous No.21376920]

>>21376904
t. idolater

[Anonymous No.21376929]

>>21376886
How does pronouncing 'et but translating everything else give you any extra information? If you're learning Hebrew you'll want the Hebrew text. And no, the Septuagint doesn't have the "feature" of some Hebrew characters in it, certain Jewish translators (not all) kept some Hebrew constructs like 'et and wrote them with *Greek characters*, because they read and spoke Hebrew. You don't read or speak Hebrew, you just want to feel like you have some special knowledge because you gave Cepher™ your money. I can see it also it renders New Testament names in their Hebrew and Aramaic forms which actually makes it less accurate to the Greek manuscripts. This is some modern Hebraising sect trying to make money, not a scholarly or esoteric endeavour.

[Anonymous No.21377074]

Anon, you really should check out the Ignatius RSV2CE. Minimal annotations, perfect-bound, hard cover, not expensive, has all the deuterocanonical books, and a good recent translation from the original texts with no modernisms like gender neutral language. I also find it to be quite beautiful, but that's subjective.

[Anonymous No.21377090]

>>21377074
I forgot to mention and I think it's obvious but it doesn't have red letters

[Khata No.21377119]

>>21373701
Based, I orderd the big one and it is being deliverd to me next week.

[Anonymous No.21377320]

Red letters for red pills.

[Anonymous No.21377455]

>>21374818
>>21376929
I only read the KJV for English because of its foundational influence on our language, but if you want to read Hebrew, seriously, just get a Tanakh in hollow type format, as published by Elias Hutter in three volumes in 1587. This format gives you an easy way to identify the root words of everything by making all of the inflectional letters hollow, and for words that don't actually contain their root it is written in small type above the word. This, I have been told makes the language worlds easier to read compared to trying to use some other format. Pic is an example of how it works, if this is your thing.

[Anonymous No.21377512]

>>21371428
lmk if im retarded but why does KJV have the apocrypha but not NABRE even though apocrypha is accepted by catholics but KJV is not

[Anonymous No.21377571]

>>21377512
Well, first off all, there is no one single collection of "Apocrypha." There are widely varying definitions of what is considered to be part of "the apocrypha" to begin with. Different versions of Catholicism operate under different vague definitions, not to mention other groups. Would the gnostic writings be considered apocryphal? I would say if a writing isn't inspired scriptures then it should all be considered as such. What relationship these apocryphal books have to Scripture differs among the different sects. Many groups want to accord a lesser status to "apocrypha," while still elevating them as being something above normal writings. In particular though, the church draws a hard line between what is inspired, however, being the word of God, as compared to everything else – this is based on what is said of Scripture being "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and being incorruptible and spoken by the prophets and apostles according to 1 Peter 1:23-25 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, among other distinctions. Those who tend not to take these distinctions spoken of in Scripture seriously, or who de-emphasize them, and are more likely to attribute scripture as a whole as being manmade, and are therefore more likely to have a more multi-layered view, with apocrypha occupying a rung below the core of the Bible but above most other things in their view, since really the Bible as a whole is all just manmade to them and in their view, anyway.

So, having said all that, there are different apocrypha that were included with various early Bibles during the printing press era, because these were writings that were referenced by others, so it was thought practical to include them. However, it was not indispensable. This is why in the KJV these writings are set apart from the rest of the Bible and marked as "apocrypha." According to the dictionary definition, these are "things [...] whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture." Like the other apparatuses included with the Bibles, such as the genealogies and maps, these were not always included in every edition.

One apocryphal book included in some Bibles of this era was the "Prayer of Manasses," a translation for which was included in the Matthew Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible, but it is not part of the apocryphal additions of Roman Catholicism in particular; while at the same time, other apocryphal books are. Overall, these books are not seen as inspired any more than the extra maps and calendars included by various Bible publishers. Some included them if they thought use for them.

In the history of English Bible translations for example, the apocrypha were relatively neglected as compared to the focus of the Bible, which was the translation of the main text of the 66 books of the Bible. Apocrypha translation quality tended to have less emphasis for the reason that they were seen as being an apparatus.

[Anonymous No.21377763]

>>21377512
NABRE does have the apocrypha/deuterocanon, it's integrated into the Old Testament. The KJV has it in a separate section.

[Anonymous No.21377946]

>>21377571
>Different versions of Catholicism
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.21377982]

>>21371453
>more accurate than any of the older manuscripts
I'm sure someone actually believes something this retarded.

[Anonymous No.21378047]

>>21373701
I do wish more books had the clean style of a Bible.

[Anonymous No.21378065]

>>21371453
this is your mind on American Evangelicalism

[Anonymous No.21378091]

My brothers gf is Brazilian and very religious, she is an evangelist. Is the kjv of the bible okay for her or are their different ones for each religion? I assumed they all read the same bible and interpreted it different. He ordered a nice white one for her for Christmas

[Anonymous No.21378949]

>>21377946
Yeah, there were always multiple versions of the state church from the very beginning. By the time Constantine had started up his church, there was already the Armenian state church. It just kept splitting into more and more factions including protestant state churches like the Church of England. There are also Miaphysite, Assyrian/Nestorian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc.

[Anonymous No.21378962]

>>21378091
She won't be able to read KJV if she is Brazilian. They do use Portuguese versions of NIV and KJV as far as I know. Mine reads a PT version of NIV, obviously it's a problematic bible somewhat, but it's still probably the best for ESL

[Anonymous No.21379030]

>>21378962
She has really good English and has been thinking of getting an English written bible. Why do you say she won't be able for the kjv one?

[Anonymous No.21379048]

>>21379030
Reading "thee" and "thou," and words that end in "-eth" is seen as extremely difficult by some people. I don't agree with that by the way, there shouldn't be a challenge for her any more than something else written in English would be.

[Anonymous No.21379063]

>>21379048
midwits think reading books is "hard"
praise god i was born with an IQ of three digits

[Anonymous No.21379067]

>>21379063
My IQ is 89. At least I can still understand enough to make it through the KJV and Plato. Maybe these normies just don't want to do it because they fear any deviation from what is normal for them.

[Anonymous No.21379074]

>>21379048
Ah she understands all that, thanks for the advice though.

[Anonymous No.21379190]

>>21378962
>Portuguese versions of anglo translations
nigger you know other languages aren't looking at english when translating the bible. Perhaps you meant "equivalent" but you didn't say it so I am still calling you a dumb anglo nigger

[Anonymous No.21379219]

>>21371428
I bought the 1611 KJV (with apocrypha). The old testament is based on the Mesoretic texts (c. 100 AD) and not the Septuagint (c. 300 BC), but I'm fine with that because the kikes use the Masoretic texts and the source text from which it was copied seems to have had some extra content vs the source text for the Septuagint.
I've read that Orthodox Christians in English speaking countries usually default to the KJV. so buying KJV with apocrypha is probably the Orthodox approved method. I'm assuming you're interested in Orthodox Christianity because that's what most of the internet converts seem drawn to (myself included).

[Anonymous No.21379236]

>>21379219
The original "Septuagint," that was translated by the seventy elders in the 3rd century BC, was in all likelihood only a translation of the first five or six books of the Old Testament, not a complete one. This is what our sources tell us. It's possible other people came along after that and translated other isolated passages of it into Greek. But the version of the Septuagint that is used today comes from Origen, in the 3rd century AD, and it bears distinctive marks of being edited by him. He and his group likely compiled fragments of existing translations in addition to what they could find of the original work in order to maintain a resemblance of continuity. Anything older than Origen there are only small fragments of. Greek quotations of the Old Testament could very well have been made up on the spot, then borrowed by Origen after the fact to be used in his translation.

[Anonymous No.21379966]

>>21371453
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.21379978]

>hurp durp old bibles didn't have embellishments that editorialize or fancify the core text
You have never read a single medieval illustrated bible or book of hours. You're a pseudointellectual and puritan seeking to jack yourself off over how serious and ascetic you are from your iphone.
Faggot. Nigger nigger nigger.

[Anonymous No.21379996]

>>21379236
The thing is, we can only speculate on the editorialization and possible falsification of the Septuagint, whereas we KNOW the Masoretic texts were editorialized to alter the interpretation of many Messianic elements of the OT. The nature of the Septuagint's possible editorialization is categorically less perfidious wherever it may exist; Origen et al were clearly in support of the Christian religion and early Christian church, while the compilers of the Masoretic texts were certainly opposed to it.
To prefer the Masoretic texts as the primary source text for any modern translation of the Christian bible is just foolish, to the point of wilfull ignorance.

[Anonymous No.21380104]

>>21379996
>we KNOW the Masoretic texts were editorialized
Right, but the KJV is translated from the original Hebrew, as opposed to being translated from a Masoretic text. There are slight differences. The Ben Asher MT is based mostly on the exemplar of the Codex Leningradensis, which was published by Rudolf Kittel in 1906 (called Biblia Hebraica) and afterward.

The KJV isn't based on that. It's based on a somewhat different Hebrew text that didn't come from the Masoretes, primarily one that was published by Daniel Bomberg in 1525 in Venice, namely the 2nd edition Bomberg text. This version of the Old Testament differs from the MT which is what modern translations such as the NKJV use. For instance in 1 Kings 20:38 and 41, the KJV and its Hebrew source text says "ashes," while the MT and most modern translations will say "bandage." Also in Zephaniah 3:15, the Hebrew (and the KJV) says, "see evil," but the Ben Asher Masoretic Text (and modern versions) says, "fear evil." There are numerous other differences, although they are not at severe as the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint of Origen.

What is commonly referred to as the LXX has numerous omissions and alterations, for instance in Genesis 5 the ages of the patriarchs is changed such that Methuselah outlives the Flood by 14 years.

Specifically:
Genesis 5:25 in the modern LXX makes Lamech be born twenty years sooner
Genesis 5:28 in the modern LXX makes Noah be born eight years later
The resulting consequence is that according to that version, Methuselah lived until Noah's 614th year, however the flood occurred in Noah's 600th year, which signifies that Methuselah outlived the flood by 14 years due to the change in numbers in Genesis 5:25 and 28.

Additionally, the following messianic prophecies are not found in the LXX, but they are found in the Hebrew/KJV.

Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 33:15, Habakkuk 3:13, Zephaniah 3:17, Haggai 2:7.

I've never seen someone give a legitimate converse example.

Also, the LXX or Septuagint removes vast amounts of the Old Testament. For instance in the Septuagint, the book of Jeremiah is missing about 1/8 of its content. In total, about 2700 words are removed from Jeremiah in the LXX, representing about 1/8 of the book. Other parts of the book of Jeremiah are altered to be inaccurate as well. For instance as one example, in Jeremiah 37:1, the name, "Coniah the son of Jehoiakim," is replaced with the name "Jehoiakim," a different person. Looking in other books, there are many other removals in the LXX. It is completely missing, for instance, more than 30 proverbs from the book of Proverbs. To mention just a few at random, Proverbs 11:4, 13:6, 15:31, 16:1, 16:3-4, 16:6-9, etc. And after these, there are many more verses that are only partially removed or are quite substantially altered in the Septuagint.

>Origen et al were clearly in support of the Christian religion
I don't believe this, look up what Origen believed.

[Anonymous No.21380117]

>>21380104
Here are a couple of examples of what I'm talking about. Comparing the KJV as a representative of the original Hebrew and translations of the Greek Septuagint (example Brenton 1844 or OSB 2008 translation).

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Brenton Septuagint 1844 translation says:
>"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."
OSB Septuagint 2008 translation:
>"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by Him."

Notice the difference between the Hebrew version of Isaiah versus the Septuagint translations from the Greek LXX version of Isaiah. There is no reference in the latter to the title of the Son being "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." That prophecy is only in the Hebrew Old Testament.

A few other examples:
Psalm 2:12 KJV
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

1844 Brenton Sept. translation:
"Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him."
The 2008 OSB Septuagint also says this:
"Lay hold of His instruction, lest the Lord be angry, And you perish from the righteous way When His fury shall be quickly kindled. Blessed are all who trust in Him."

[Anonymous No.21380121]

>>21380117
Here's three more examples:

Jeremiah 33:15-16 KJV
"In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness."

Septuagint:
Jeremiah 33:14-26 is omitted.

Habakkuk 3:13 KJV:
"Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah." (Note: the word "anointed" in this verse in the Hebrew OT, is מְשִׁיחֶךָ or "masiah / messiah" and this word is not plural but singular case)

Same verse in 2008 OSB Septuagint translation:
>"You went forth for the salvation of Your people,
To save Your anointed ones. [Gr. plural: χριστούς]
You brought death upon the heads of the lawless;
You brought bonds upon their neck. Pause."

Daniel 9:26 KJV:
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;"

Same place in the 1844 Brenton Septuagint translation:
>"And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming:"

So you see from these examples that there are several messianic prophecies removed in the Septuagint, though whether these are the work of Jews altering it or not, it is hard to say definitively.

[Anonymous No.21380122]

>>21371428

The Ignatius Bible has no notes, red letters or other gimmicks, and the formatting is a lot better than most (especially with the text size). It uses a Catholic version of the RSV, without the pozzed edits they made in the NRSV.

[Anonymous No.21380141]

>>21380104
>>21380117
Very elucidating. My original post was specifically decrying the masoretic texts; I didn't mean to imply the KJV be lumped in with other more modern MT-derived translations (my interjecting into the discussion probably didn't help make that clear). At the same time I will admit I wasn't aware of the substantial differences between the KJV text source and the Septuagint sources.

[Anonymous No.21380146]

>>21380141
Yeah, I would agree that we shouldn't rely on something that was actually produced by that group. They appear to have attempted to preserve the Old Testament, but they made mistakes in a few places that we shouldn't copy. At the same time, it's important not to confuse the original version (which mainstream scholars confusingly call the "pre-masoretic" text, whatever that means), with something actually produced by the actual Masoretes. Because there is a difference. Contrary to what modern scholars usually assert, we have several good copies of the Hebrew text that didn't come from them, for instance Bomberg's two editions, also the Complutensian Polyglot was another source, as well as the excellent editions produced a bit later in the 16th century by Elias Hutter.

[Anonymous No.21380148]

>>21378949
>Church of England
>protestant

[Anonymous No.21380197]

>>21371453
Bait.