/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22195750]

Favorite Bibles?

[Anonymous No.22195757]

>>22195750
Incinerated ones.

[Anonymous No.22195770]

>>22195757

[Anonymous No.22195888]

>>22195750
picked this up the other day, a beautiful edition

[Anonymous No.22195904]

>>22195888
Blessed Trips.

[Anonymous No.22196474]

Any others like it? I need other sources

[Anonymous No.22196605]

>>22196474
This one is such a nice hand sized Bible.

[Anonymous No.22196805]

>>22195750
my 1611 KJV

[Anonymous No.22197170]

>>22196474
Got this the other day. Still learning Latin.

[Anonymous No.22197233]

The real one

[Anonymous No.22197257]

>>22195750
can you post a pic of this one? I was looking at getting it but I want to see the font

[Anonymous No.22197343]

>>22197233
Nice digits. I'll have to check this one out.

>>22197257
pir rel. doesn't do it justice, it actually looks rather nice and is easy to read.

I prefer the language of the text, Sheol instead of hell etc. The strongs numbers and the hebrew next to the king james makes for an easy study.

[Anonymous No.22197406]

>>22196605
I really want this Bible but somewhat larger

[Anonymous No.22197410]

>>22197343
>pir rel. doesn't do it justice, it actually looks rather nice and is easy to read.

nice thank you, I might end up getting it

[Anonymous No.22197537]

>>22195750
>you can get the nt for 30 bucks
>Complete text new is like a grand

Why is a Greek Bible from the third century so expensive?

[Anonymous No.22197608]

>>22197537
If you want a greek OT why not get a septuagint?

[Anonymous No.22197761]

>>22195750
Catholic here. Just bought picrel yesterday, the Knox Version (hardcover), after gaining an appreciation for it from reading it online. I quite like it. 1611 KJV is nice too. Douay Rheims is at best serviceable - it's really just a less nice KJV and something for trads who've never read it to larp behind.

I'm curious about your bible, OP. >>22195750
I would like a bible for purely academic purposes, which this seems to be. Could you tell me a bit about it? Does it use an existing English translation?

[Anonymous No.22197901]

[Anonymous No.22197985]

>>22196474
The Geneva Bible: The Bible of the Protestant Reformation
The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha
The New American Bible (With the Revised Book of Psalms and the Revised New Testament)
Orthodox Study Bible
>>22196605
Can't overstate how wonderful this one is.
>>22197761
Ah, a fellow KJV-and-Knox enjoyer.
I have one of those hardcover Knox Bibles, a pleasure to read from.

[Anonymous No.22198319]

>>22197761
the most important thing about the Douay Rheims is that it has the only the correct 'translation' of the Lord's Prayer which elucidates the prayers idea concerning the 'daily bread' which is not to be taken as being literally material bread by any means, as Christ affirms in the desert when the devil tempts him with bread/food (ie. material sustnance)

[Anonymous No.22198323]

>>22195750
I like the Ignatius Bible myself. (RSV-2CE)

[Anonymous No.22198604]

>>22195750
the job ad said I'd be pressing gold lettering onto the covers of books. I did some research and learned the company was one guy who'd written his own bible... i read some excerpts on google books. in the intro he said he'd been committed to a psych facility and heavily medicated.

the Worldzhong Bible is a hoot. it includes the Book of Susan and a Book of Hairdryer.

[Anonymous No.22198623]

>>22195757
you're so cool

[Anonymous No.22199269]

>>22197608
I have the Septuagint,
>just want something to cross reference

>>22197761
The combination of Greek, Hebrew, and English is great.
The English is KJV and it's in the margins
Then it's just a word for word translation of the Hebrew or Greek
>with Strong's numbers above

I would say, for the price its a great Bible. I got it for Christmas a few years ago and I study it daily.

>>22198323
What do you like about it?

>>22198604
No idea about the Wroldzhong Bible.

>>22197901
Was considering getting this just to see how they translate some of the...more sophisticated parts

[Anonymous No.22199317]

>>22198623
Thanks mate

[Anonymous No.22199948]

>>22195757
Fpbp
Christcucks btfo
>>22195770
Spwp

[Anonymous No.22200374]

>>22195750
NASB 2020 for accuracy,
idk what for aesthetics

[Anonymous No.22200404]

>>22200374
Tell me about the NASB 2020?

[Anonymous No.22200515]

>>22200404
Does NKJV take stuff out as well?
I know these removals are due to different sources being used

[Anonymous No.22201880]

>>22200515
It does
https://youtu.be/DtRYUbMwZes

[Anonymous No.22201924]

La Biblia del oso.

[Anonymous No.22202402]

[Anonymous No.22202407]

>>22195757
heh, leave it to me
>unsheathes katana
>activates PYRO-WEAPON ENCHANTMENT LEVEL 4
nothing personal, christcucks

[Anonymous No.22202431]

>>22200404
The NASB 2020 has additional removals beyond what the NASB 1995 has. For instance, in removing "to repentance" from Luke 5:32, the NASB 2020 is the only translation that does this other than the NABRE. And in removing the mention of the rooster crowing in Mark 14:68 (removal of a supposed contradiction), the NASB 2020 follows along with only the NIV.

The 2020 edition of the NASB also removes Acts 8:37 and Acts 24:7, even though these verses are found in the earlier editions of the NASB (Acts 8:37 appeared with brackets in NASB 1977 and then appeared without brackets in NASB 1995).

I could name many more changes beside these in the 2020 edition of the NASB. They just keep constantly changing stuff around and adding new things nonstop. I think that's the whole point, because they want people to be using multiple versions and to stop thinking of the Bible as being anything like the truth.

[Anonymous No.22202435]

>>22198323
I'm gonna get shit from tradspics for this but as a Catholic RSVCE is honestly better than Douay-Rheims. Douay-Rheims is just clunky and propped up by tradcaths who want "their own KJV"

[Anonymous No.22203206]

>>22200404
Cringe.

[Nikhil No.22203207]

>>22195757

[Anonymous No.22203362]

>>22196605
This is my favourite also. It's a shame it doesn't have "The Translators to the Reader" or the chapter summaries though. Could also do with more references to the apocrypha in the canonical books.

[Anonymous No.22203383]

>>22197761
Catholics aren't allowed to read the bible wtf??? What is this heresy?

[Anonymous No.22203407]

>>22195750
Just ordered a few more Bibles mentioned in this thread.

[Anonymous No.22203470]

>>22202431
>they want people to be using multiple versions and to stop thinking of the Bible as being anything like the truth.

This very much.
Consider the Scofield Bible

[Anonymous No.22203495]

>>22195757
good one

[Anonymous No.22203525]

What is the best translation? Ive been told KJV is just a meme. IDK if that's true or not.

[Anonymous No.22203621]

Recently started studying the torah in Hebrew (+Polish translation, non interlinear). The commentary is top notch, allowed me to grasp some deeper concepts that were skipped in other translations. I'd love to grab an English KJV sometime, but it's nearly impossible to get one in a decent shape here.

>>22203407
Really impressive collection, anon. I'm kind of envious.

[Anonymous No.22203800]

>>22203206
The one on the right includes all the gnostic sources and corrupt sources. The one on the left includes ancient copies of New Testament books such as Codex Bezae, Codex Claromontanus and others.

[Anonymous No.22203810]

>>22203525
People are hating on the KJV because it's accurate and a lot of people use it, so there's a whole campaign out there trying to demean it or pidgeonhole its readers into some cultlike status. That is probably why you heard whatever it is you heard about it.

[Anonymous No.22203819]

>>22195750
The pocket KJV I got from my dad

[Anonymous No.22203855]

>>22203525
Check out an app called blue letter bible, and it lets you do a side by side with different versions of the bible a you read. I enjoy the YLT and the KJV as a side by side,

Something like OP's pic gives you the Hebrew and Greek text, the direct English translation and then the KJV int he margin. Pretty useful.

Really the KJV has some wonderful language and has influenced so much of the modern culture its outrageous how much they dump on it and steal from it at the same time.

[Anonymous No.22203908]

>>22195750
>>22203525
Check the New English Translation (NET). Has tons of notes on everything.
Also KJV.

[Anonymous No.22203958]

Septuagint with Apocrypha, or an Interlinear Bible?

[Anonymous No.22203982]

I've learned a lot from my ESV Study Bible. Many things which I didn't understand began to make some sense.

[Anonymous No.22204132]

>>22203958
I'm torn between these two. I want as close to a literal translation as I can get, while also giving me the potential to learn the original language, as well as something that doesn't take out any verses.

[Anonymous No.22204246]

The Nova Vulgata is a large scale revision based on all sources of the first millenium in any language and has that classicist flair to its grammar. It's honestly the best single bible.
Otherwise I have the usual set from the Stuttgart (I can't read any Hebrew though but it's sitting there) and many other bibles but none beat it, though I'm very biased in preferring Latin over Greek, literary wise, if only out of habit. In terms of physical book I have an old evangeliary.

>>22202435
Both the Kang James and the Douay Rheims are disappointing. The second is written in some bizarre Anglo-Latin just like the poetry of Milton (disappointing for the same reason). I say that after saying just above that the vulgate is the best. Let's not even talk about the disgusting Anglo-yiddish of """accurate""" translations.
The best English language bible is the 1950 Knox simply for actually being in high literate English (without being a bowdlerized retard version Da Jesus Book style).
The best version in a modern language (that I can read) is Lemaitre de Sacy.

>>22196474
Annotated bibles are a meme. Have your bibles then read separate commentaries. Some older editions have many-tomes following the bible with continuous commentary but this is quite different from the current breed of annotations. Footnote theology or even philology is simply not serious.
The Jerusalem Bible is somewhat more serious as far as annotations go. The school that did it (Dominicans of Jerusalem) is now in a project of pure autism in its scale called the Bible in its traditions that will make it worth but far from completed.

[Anonymous No.22204303]

>>22204246
>Have your bibles then read separate commentaries.
Which commentaries do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.22204391]

>>22204303
That's a whole other discussion since usually the commentaries are on one (or even simply a portion of one) book. Often the best commentaries on a passage are homilies by old fathers and doctors. Some people since the middle ages have tried concatenating those comments but it's quite an artificial exercise that breaks the arguments. The most classical example is the Catena Aurea on the Gospels by Aquinas (translated in English by John Newman).
>https://archive.org/search?query=Catena+aurea+newman
In terms of complete bible commentaries by one author, the best is Cornelius a Lapide (17th century, technically not complete since he died before doing Job and the psalms). It's available in the og Latin, also French and English:
>https://archive.org/search?query=cornelius%20lapide%20AND%20collection%3Atoronto
I say it's the best one but I still find some of his opinions strange. Even Augustine and Chrysostom just went completely off rails on rare passages.

[Anonymous No.22204620]

>>22195757
Fpbp. Christcucks stay assmad

[Anonymous No.22204623]

>>22195757

[Anonymous No.22205188]

>>22195757
Based

[Anonymous No.22205426]

>>22195750
I genuinely never got the point of an interlinear. If you can work from the Greek and Hebrew why would you need an English text with it? If you need the English text what good does the Greek and Hebrew do you?
My best guess is for cross-checking the translation decisions of specific translations but since most English version are translated from an eclectic text you might as well be looking at the textual apperatus of one of the major critical Greek texts anyway so, again, if you can work that confidently with the Greek why would you want the English there just making the book heavier.
If you're studying Greek and Hebrew wouldn't the selected English text bias you toward the translation decisions of the specific committees that rendered that English text?

I genuinely don't see the point and would welcome clarification for why these exist.

[Anonymous No.22205820]

>>22205426
> If you can work from the Greek and Hebrew
But that's just it, I can't work from those just yet. I'm trying to learn.

It's Greek and KJV for the NT, and Hebrew and KJV for the old. And it has the direct word translation of the greek and the hebrew, under the word, and the strongs number above.

So really, it gives me a chance to read a literal translation from the greek or hebrew, and compare it to what KJV has. I can then compare it to, any of the other bibles on my shelf.
>>22203407

I study one of the Proverbs every day, and there is a wide range of variation just with in the different version of the KJV I have, which all claim to be true to the text.

I don't see what all the confusion is about, Comparing the translation from multiple sources gives you a better understanding of the text, or at least a broader one.

[Anonymous No.22205853]

>>22195757
>>22199948
>>22203207
>>22203495
>>22204620
>>22205188
You will be raped by fifty barbed wire cocks in each hole when you descend into hell and that's only the greeting hello.

[Anonymous No.22205961]

>>22200404
Why is KJV so bad.

[Anonymous No.22205966]

[Anonymous No.22206000]

>>22204246
Lovely Vulgates anon. I've only got pic rel, a Sixto-Clementine from San Paolo. How did you get the Nova Vulgata, Amazon?

[Anonymous No.22206014]

>>22195750
King James, The Living Oracles

[Anonymous No.22206031]

>>22195757
Somebody screenshot this and post on r/4chan!

[Anonymous No.22206093]

>>22206014
Wasn't Living Oracles copyright bought by the JW Watchtower society?

[Anonymous No.22206662]

When L.Ron Comes back for his stogie, you fags will be shittin your britches.

[Anonymous No.22206694]

>>22206000
>How did you get the Nova Vulgata, Amazon?
Yes. Surprised it's not available anymore, at least the editio maior. I got it for cheap two years ago. You can get it used, or the standard build one.

[Anonymous No.22206767]

>>22195750
Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision 1752. A step above the the original Rheims. Still has a proper imprimatur for traditional types. I have a wonderful copy from the 1950s, that feels and reads better than any Bible I've ever read. It was also free and basically untouched. Many years now it has served me well, and my children too hopefully can appreciate it as much as I have.

[Anonymous No.22207951]

>>22203800
>modern critical editions rightfully have an autistic attachment to the pure Alexandrine type text
>meanwhile anon praise the Codex Bezae out of all things
What did King James retards meant by this?

[Anonymous No.22208065]

>>22206031
seems like your still stuck in r/4chan

[Anonymous No.22208088]

My local diocese has its own edition meant for scripture study. It’s the NIV, but it’s full of extra notes and background information. Unfortunately I can’t recommend it without doxxing myself though

[Anonymous No.22208766]

Does anyone know of a Greek-Latin interlinear? I want to learn Latin that way. If it has English I guess that’s okay

[Anonymous No.22208774]

>>22205426
The only actual purpose is for people learning Greek/Hebrew
“Checking it in the Greek” means nothing if you don’t know Greek

[Anonymous No.22209568]

>>22207951
Theodore Beza, the editor of several editions of the Textus Receptus (published 1565-1604, also a Latin-only edition in 1556), had access to several quite old manuscripts which he used to cross-compare with the body of manuscripts as a whole. It's a misstatement and false information to suggest that the numerous manuscripts used by men like Stephanus and Beza, of which Bezae and Claromontanus are two relevant examples, is based on seven sources. It's also a fallacy to suggest that the King James translators only had access to the editions of Erasmus, which men like Stephanus and Beza corrected by consultation with an expanded library of manuscripts, and which the King James translators had access to during their 1604-1611 translation committee work. And if you do think so, then I can only conclude that you are, literally, a brainless moron, an ignorant person, who doesn't know anything about this subject and you shouldn't be posting here. And it's irresponsible for you to post such things as what you or your friend have here, speaking as if you know anything.

Also, I should add two other things wrong with your current statement, anon. Firstly, the whole idea and system of "text types" such as was used during the later 19th and 20th century is being questioned upon examination of the papyri, which seems to suggest a closer interrelationship between the supposed text types. And secondly, the Codex Bezae wasn't even considered to be Alexandrian text type, it was generally described as being closer to the Western text type. So, you've gotten several more things wrong here in addition to what the other person posted above.

[Anonymous No.22209598]

>>22209568
I never even remotely implied the Bezae was of Alexandrian type and know very well it is the western type.
If you read it in my previous post, I am afraid you are in no position to make extravagant claims about someone being a moron. Did you think the presence of the word "pure" behind the first meme arrow meant that the Bezae was an "impure" one? Because that follow neither from grammar nor from the use of meme arrows if you were not a terminal newfaggot.
I am also not the anon that posted the "seven sources" picture above, and you have no reason whatsoever to make that assumption. I am only >>22207951 responding to the comical position that the current critical editions are based on "corrupt sources" while shilling for the Bezae.

[Anonymous No.22209633]

>>22209598
>you have no reason whatsoever to make that assumption
I guess you missed the part where I said, "what the other person posted" at the end of my statement, anon.

>I am afraid you are in no position to make extravagant claims about someone being a moron.
That's only if you think the KJV is based on Erasmus alone. If you do, then my post still stands. If it was you or your friend who posted the other image, then it's true if either of you think that.
>Did you think the presence of the word "pure" behind the first meme arrow meant that the Bezae was an "impure" one?
There is no contradiction in using a Western (or so-called as such) manuscript - if we assume text types are a valid structure for understanding manuscript families - or in having someone use it as part of their valid textual criticism, and in simultaneously denouncing the fact that NA/UBS is almost entirely based on Alexandrian, or so-called Alexandrian. You juxtapose them like they are a contradiction when they're even not. I don't see the point in the juxtaposition if you already knew that Codex Bezae isn't even considered Alexandrian... other than maybe to mislead people into concluding it is, but without outright saying so? Kind of like the whole Erasmus-being-the-only-source thing always being subtly (but falsely) implied as well? I have seen many such confirmed cases in the past of this being done, and it's always disappointing to see, which is what I guess happened here.

[Anonymous No.22209790]

>>22208766
i don't know of one but there is a bilingual greek-latin NT if you're interested in that

[Anonymous No.22209876]

1 error in the King James

[Anonymous No.22209880]

Another error, but the correct one is on the same page, so I'm grateful for that. And yes, I believe this is important.

[Anonymous No.22209881]

Romans chapter 11
"NATURAL BRANCHES" are not Kikes/Judaism/Khazars.
"Natural Branches" are backslidden Christians/heretical Christians.

Revelation chapter 13
1st beast: Judaism
2nd beast: Islam

Do not be deceived.

[Anonymous No.22209983]

>>22209876
That's neither an error in the King James as a translation nor in the Gospel of Matthew. The prophecy mentioned is found in Zechariah, specifically Zechariah 11:12. What we see Matthew describing is that Jeremiah also spoke the same prophecy, but Matthew doesn't say that he "wrote" the same prophecy, or that it is "written" in Jeremiah, which would be a contradiction. The prophecies of some men of God can be recorded in other books, for instance Enoch's words are recorded in Jude, rather than in Genesis chapter 5 which is where he is first mentioned.

>>22209880
I've looked into this one and it preserves a traditional reading or understanding of the word which is normally translated "Leviathan" when it is the object of the Hebrew verb עֹרֵר . Similar case to the KJV translations in Isaiah 27:1 and Job 26:13, as well as the "nobles" reading in Isaiah 43:14. You can see this in Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon (attached), and it's also mentioned in Matthew Poole's commentary on Job, who gives the right sense of the context of this word.

[Anonymous No.22209992]

>>22205853
I bet some atheist is gonna say “thats not very Christian of you” considering it’s unchristian to tolerate evil in any manner

[Anonymous No.22209998]

>>22209983
1) The Matthew error is in the margin note. That is not a reference to Zechariah. To say othereise is making giant leaps to justify an interpretation that isn't in the text.

2) Leviathan is correct, because this is what God is upset about. When Job says "Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up Leviathan", he is speaking nonsense/blasphemy. No one can raise up Leviathan but God.

[Anonymous No.22210000]

>>22209998
"And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."
(Zechariah 11:13)

[Anonymous No.22210002]

>>22210000
That is not in Matthew 27.

[Anonymous No.22210005]

>>22210002
Just see Matthew 27:9-10

[Anonymous No.22210010]

>>22210005
Yeah, it's not the same. They both say "30 pieces of silver", "value" and "potter". They Pharisees did buy their water (doctrine) and they bought their wood.
>For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
>Acts 13:27 KJVAAE
https://bible.com/bible/546/act.13.27.KJVAAE

[Anonymous No.22210264]

>>22195750
I don't know about translation debates, but I like how the Gideon pocket Bibles look. The aesthetic is unmatched anywhere else in lit let alone Bibles.

[Anonymous No.22210279]

everyone is hating on the douay but I like it.

[Anonymous No.22210291]

What is THE bible I would want to read if I wanted to learn more about Orthodox Christianity? And no, I won't take Orthodox Study Bible as an answer.

[Anonymous No.22210293]

>>22197343
>hebrew next to the king james makes for an easy study
Nah it is more understanding in English. Hebrew or Arabic or Aramaic make nice art work, but thats about it pretty much.It is easier to understand Greek than semitic languages.

[Anonymous No.22210294]

>>22210291
The KJV if you're an English-speaker.

[Anonymous No.22210302]

>>22210294
come on, I was looking for a proper answer

[Anonymous No.22210305]

>>22195750
I like the Ving Rhames version the best.

[Anonymous No.22210306]

>>22210302
orthobro YouTube comments would probably be a better place to ask desu

[Anonymous No.22210310]

>>22210302
I'm not going to let some group take away my orthodoxy that easily by titling themselves as such.

[Anonymous No.22210625]

>>22210291
>>22210302
The King James Bible with the original punctuation and margin notes.

[Anonymous No.22211639]

>>22210625
Not that I disagree with you, but how do you feel about the original Greek and Hebrew having little to no punctuation at all?

And, what's the concern over the capital C?
>pic rel is Geneva Bible facsimile

[Anonymous No.22211652]

>>22195750

[Anonymous No.22211659]

>>22211639
I believe it all matters because of the focus on Dispensational corruptions in the last 150 years.

[Anonymous No.22211669]

>>22211639
There is 0 reason to change capitalizations without notice. The people making these changes are likely satanic.

[Anonymous No.22211678]

>>22195770
"Atheists wear fedoras" is the final cope of people who keep losing arguments.

[Anonymous No.22211760]

>>22211678
Funny how there never seemed to be any argument, just low effort trolling.

[Anonymous No.22211788]

>>22211659
>>22211669
Hey I don't disagree with you, there is a clearly a satanic force at work trying to obfuscate and destroy the Christian Bible, and Christianity in general.

However, I feel like these are some small examples or even possibly printers error, there must be larger or more glaring use cases you can point to?

[Anonymous No.22211832]

>>22211760
would you be more accepting of high effort trolling?

[Anonymous No.22211869]

>>22210264
Nice, I've been looking for just this very thing.

>>22210293
It has the Greek in the NT. Sometimes, as I read through the Hebrew I will find a work that seems off and ill go look it up in the strongs number reference, Ill do the same for the Greek, I dont see how greek is any different from hewbrew here?

>>22210291
KJV.
But you could just download the app mentioned earlier and read multiple versions at the same time. Young literal(YLT) isn't bad, as a side by side to the KJV.
That is if you can trust one guy to translate for you.
>He did work in a bible book store his whole life.

[Anonymous No.22211879]

>>22211652
gebaseerd

[Anonymous No.22211886]

>>22211832
Of course.

What part of Jesus Christs philosophy do you disagree with and why?

[Anonymous No.22211887]

>>22210625
The old way of writing used to capitalize random words in a sentence on the basis of them being the objects of sentences. This wasn't only done in the Bible, it was done generally. The later editions of the KJV changed capitalization of various words to meet the current way of capitalization, not just the word "Church."

For instance, in the KJV 1900, Acts 28:4 reads:

"And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live."

While the KJV 1611 reads in the same verse:

"And when the Barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they saide among themselues, No doubt this man is a murtherer, whom though hee hath escaped the Sea, yet Uengeance suffereth not to liue."

Note that some of this formatting was deliberately archaic. The Geneva Bible of 1560 had already been using the letters U and V in a way that we would consider normal. It also used the letter J, unlike the first edition of the KJV. It seems pretty clear that the printers wanted to make the earliest editions of this Bible deliberately archaic. Later editions made by Cambridge university (1629 [pictured here], 1638) fixed a lot of these formatting choices, introducing things that the first edition lacked, such as the letter J and apostrophes, as well as fixing many of the typographical errors that the earliest editions suffered. In fact the work of fixing these printing errors had already begun as early as the second 1611 edition and the 1613 edition of the KJV. But puritans had often objected to these issues, and continued preferring the Geneva Bible up until the 1640s, which was around the time they made the switch.

What's interesting is looking at how the use of capitalization was used to signify interpretation generally. The use of capitalization for the purpose of signifying meaning (instead of simply as a grammatical rule) seems to be spreading to more and more words. In the old days, it seems like there was almost no concern for this, as they would haphazardly capitalize words like "Spirit" quite inconsistently in the 1611 first edition. Later editions seem to be increasingly careful to choose the capitalization of this word according to the context of the sentence, specifically whether it seems to be referring to God or not. The same thing with the use of capitalized "God" versus lower-case "god." (Acts 28:6, Malachi 2:11 for example). Or "Lord" instead of "lord" (Exodus 4:10; Judges 6:15, Daniel 10:16,17,19; Zechariah 4:4,5,13).

Much, much later than this, we see capitalization of words like "Church" become an issue of interpretation. Today, the capitalization of pronouns when referring to God, such as "He" instead of "he" is used in some Bibles also. Recall however that the Greek manuscripts don't use capitalization consistently or in this way, and some MSS such as the uncials were written in all capital letters.

[Anonymous No.22211905]

>>22211887
Spirit is capital because they are talking about The Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mother.

Proverbs refers to Wisdom as Spirit, and Female, and she being right there with God when he created everything.

And So does Jesus, also refer to Wisdom as feminine. So I think there's good reason to capitalize Spirit

[Anonymous No.22211933]

Required text for a Biblical Lit class I took in the spring. The notes and commentary were informative and augmented my comprehension and appreciation of the text immensely

[Anonymous No.22211939]

>>22211788
Of the examples I've presented so far, none could be called "printing errors". I don't have other examples, but I also haven't been searching for them, I just document what I come across in my study.
>>22211887
There is no reason to alter the text of the King James Bible in Capitalization or Punctuation. Changing "Yee" to "Ye" or "Daies" to "Days" is fine. Changing "Church" to "church" or "Spirit" to "spirit" is not. If such changes are made, it should be called a New King James.

[Anonymous No.22212006]

>>22211939
I can give you some good examples of improved punctuation and capitalization if you want. Although, I don't agree that this changes it to a new translation. The changes I've seen seem to be improvements. If you just want two examples, consider these:

Exodus 4:10– "my lord" corrected to "my Lord" in the 1613 edition.

KJV 1611 First edition (pictured) reads:
>"And Moses saide unto the LORD, O my lord..."

KJV 1613 edition and later reads:
>"And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord..."

Note that the Geneva Bible also capitalized the word "Lord" here, as it seems like the use of the uncapitalized "lord" was an unintentional printing error in the first edition KJV.

Malachi 2:11– "a strange God" corrected to "a strange god" in the 1629 Cambridge edition.

KJV 1611 1st edition reads:
>"Iudah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Ierusalem: for Iudah hath prophaned the holinesse of the LORD which he loued, and hath maried the daughter of a strange God."

KJV 1629 edition and later reads:
>"Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god."

Note again that the Geneva Bible of 1560 had also written "god" with lowercase letters in Malachi 2:11. So it seems to be an oversight of the pre-Cambridge printers. From 1611 to 1628, only the royal printer Robert Barker was allowed to print this translation. Interestingly, Barker would make a major printing mistake in his 1630 editions, which left out the word "not" in Exodus chapter 20, resulting in the reading "Thou shalt commit adultery," in Exodus 20:14. This edition is known as the "Wicked Bible," and Barker was forced to burn all copies of this printing run at his expense, eventually resulting in him going to debtor's prison for the rest of his life. Only a few, extremely rare, copies of this edition survive.

[Anonymous No.22212008]

>>22212006
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.22212490]

I actually have found the CSB to be a pretty good translation. I got it because of the Ancient Faith Bible, which includes foot notes that are all quotes from the Patristics (lot of Augustine, Origen, and Chrysostom). It pulls from the compilation done Ancient Commentary on Christian Scripture series which is excellent (I have it for Romans), but not portable.

The only real complaint I have is that it doesn't include the Deuterocanonical works even though virtually everyone being quoted used them and that it seems somewhat selective in how it quotes, particularly around the sacraments. That said, the bias isn't too bad, they have a passage from Justin Martyr describing early Christian worship and that does include a description of the sacraments as not simply symbolic.

The Oxford RSV is decent too. My wife has an ESV and RSV. I am not a huge fan of the ESV Study Bible, which is downright misleading on historical facts to help support Evangelical dogma and essays that badly misrepresent German Idealism as a sort of boogeyman, etc. However, the translation is decent. The NIV I thought was ok but I Peter 4 is translated in a way that seems quite biased, so that makes me worried about other parts.

[Anonymous No.22212576]

>>22202402
Based

[Anonymous No.22212603]

>>22212006
>>22212008
Well you're right there, those changes are better.

[Anonymous No.22212626]

>>22212490
The problem is that the CSB, RSV and ESV all have significant parts of the New Testament missing, approximately 7%, due to the fact they use the modern critical text rather than the received text for their source. So all of the information contained in that 7%, and how it affects the remaining 93% is lost.

In the Westcott and Hort text, which is very similar to that used by UBS and the Nestle-Aland edition today, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament.

Five percent of the above represent deletions, and another two percent reflect substantial modifications to existing words. Modern translations like the NIV (also the ESV and CSB and RSV) and so on are based on this new construction, something that hasn't existed before in the past. This difference represents a fundamental shift away from the text of the Bible used historically, and that's the problem that I would have with all of them. By comparison, the King James Version (KJV) still uses the Old and New Testament that we have historically always had. And I don't see any particular problems with it as an accurate translation of those sources. Most criticism of the translation comes from those who want to adopt the newer source text(s) that has recently been constructed. So they come up with ways of criticizing it, although really what they don't always tell you is it's the underlying source text in Greek that they don't like for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.22212842]

>>22211933
>3000+ pages
>paperback
anon...

[Anonymous No.22213478]

>>22196605
I also have & love one of these; it's practically perfect.
>buy one before they go out of print/stock
https://www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-cameo-reference-bible-with-apocrypha-cambridge/

[Anonymous No.22213490]

>>22212626
>that we have always had
That was constructed by ideologists in an earlier period rather.

Earlier constructions and earlier translations (Tyndale, KJV) are useful for bible as literature. Or for the past failings of theologians. For those of us interested in the cutting edge failings of theologians there's the NIV.

[Anonymous No.22213520]

>>22213490
>That was constructed by ideologists in an earlier period rather.
What do you think they, their editions of the received text came from? Copies of Greek MSS with their source ultimately going back to the 1st century. There is no gap here, no period of time where nobody had the New Testament. That isn't the same with the critical text, because with that you have to say that nobody had it until Tischendorf discovered it in 1859, because that's around the time when he discovered it. And it took even longer for anyone else to see that version, much less the constructions that are partially based on it which the NIV, ESV and so forth are based on. You simply don't have this problem with the received text, because it's all based on a continuous line of MSS, and there is a vast number of them even today, and these still lend their support to the received text over and above the mere construct known today as the "critical text". It's simply not even comparable, for the above reasons.

And that's before we get into the internal differences, such as the glaring contradiction in Mark 1:2 of the critical text, which has Mark the evangelist say that Malachi 3:1 was "written" in Isaiah, which is factually incorrect because you won't find it there. Or the fact that Matthew 5:22 of the critical text contains the teaching that all anger, even righteous anger such as what Jesus Himself displayed, is sinful. I could go on if necessary with even more that I have in mind. The received text tradition is simply superior in every single way, that's just the way it turns out, my friend.

[Anonymous No.22213526]

>>22213520
>Copies of Greek MSS with their source ultimately going back to the 1st century. There is no gap here,
You need to ask for your money back from Bob Jones.

[Anonymous No.22213545]

>>22213526
I'm glad that you can't find anything factually wrong with that statement, or presumably any of the other statements. Not that I thought you would, but it is nice to get extra confirmation from you of that, which I have duly noted. So I hope you have a nice day, anon. And thanks to God for His amazing revealed and inspired word. Amen.

[Anonymous No.22213566]

>>22213545
Thanks for demonstrating your eisegesis, both here and above. You lack humility. Enjoy hell.

[Anonymous No.22213689]

>>22213566
>>22213526
>>22213490
How will you cope?

[Anonymous No.22213696]

>>22213689
By enjoying the plot.

[Anonymous No.22214312]

>>22195750
>Favorite Bibles?
The one I was given for my first communion. Made by the capuchin Franciscans.

[Anonymous No.22214367]

>>22213520
The oldest "Bibles," also have the Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas though, if not also Enoch, and these are quoted by early theologians, e.g., Origen's First Principals. Not to mention all the Gnostic stuff, or the Targum using the Deuterocanonical texts as scripture, some of said texts being discovered in Hebrew, and plenty of evidence against a closed or universal Jewish canon existing before the spread of Christianity.

Early copies of the NT exist but the NT itself didn't exist for centuries and it's fair to question how that came about. The Gospel of James doesn't make the cut but the idea of Mary's sinlessness and perpetual virginity comes from there. The Shepherd of Hermas is scripture until it conflicts with Trinitarianism. Then the Deuterocanonical texts go for political reasons millennia later with Luther wanting to scrap James and Revelations for not supporting "faith alone," as well.

The received text is thus winnowed by history.

[Anonymous No.22214375]

>>22195757
Based

[Anonymous No.22214379]

>>22195757
why are you being antisemitic rn

it's the HEBREW bible, innit

[Anonymous No.22214480]

>>22214367
That's why you gotta do all the extra reading :)

[Anonymous No.22214579]

>>22212842
>still getting a used one.

[Anonymous No.22214620]

>>22196605
>>22196805

[Anonymous No.22214844]

Happy Sunday Brothers, and many blessings be upon you and yours.
>hope you read some of these wonderful looking Bibles today

Jesus Christ is Lord, and any Bible that brings a man to Jesus is doing the Lords work, is it not?

[Anonymous No.22215043]

As I'll begin learning French very soon I guess I'll get a Bible de Sacy, which is said to be the most beautiful one in that language

[Anonymous No.22215274]

>>22214367
>these are quoted by early theologians, e.g., Origen's First Principals.
So what? Origen was heterodox and most likely mutilated himself.

>The received text is thus winnowed by history.
It's been universally recognized by the church in all ages, whereas other texts have not been. The words of men have come and gone, like fads that appear and then fade away, they've been degraded by corruption and lost or partially lost and sometimes recovered or rediscovered over time. They are fallible by comparison to Scripture, and the words of man are not God-breathed or inspired. Consider the following from the biblical perspective:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:23-25

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
- 1 Thessalonians 2:13

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
- Luke 16:17

[Anonymous No.22215281]

>>22195750
It always weirds me out when people go on and on about bible “specs”. It doesn’t jive with the message of Christianity

[Anonymous No.22215302]

>>22215281
You mean about whether or not it accurately represents what God's word says? Keep in mind what it says at the end of the Bible about those who would change these things. It gives you an idea of how important keeping it accurate is.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
- Revelation 22:18-19

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
- Proverbs 3:5-6

[Anonymous No.22215316]

>>22215281
>doesn’t jive with the message
And what's that message exactly?

[Anonymous No.22215563]

>>22213689
>here's your 66 A.D. bro

[Anonymous No.22215579]

>>22215563
What's funny is that often the oldest surviving references to Scripture passages aren't in manuscripts but in other theological writings, or patristics. For example, people argue against the last twelve verses of Mark based on two manuscripts from the mid-300s, but we have quotes of these twelve verses as being from the ending of Mark that date to the 100s.

[Anonymous No.22215597]

>>22215579
Example of Mark 16:19 being quoted in the 2nd century AD.

[Anonymous No.22215614]

>>22215563
That is incorrect, and what (((Wikipedia))) says is lies. You might want to spend more time studying. Carsten Peter Thiede dated them using advanced technology as 1st century A.D.

[Anonymous No.22215630]

>>22215316
Loving and being nice and respectful towards other people

[Anonymous No.22215638]

>>22215579
>>22215597
Very interesting. Here is 1 John 5:7 by St. Cyprian in the 2nd century.

[Anonymous No.22215643]

>>22195750
the Aramaic Targum/Jerusalem Targum

[Anonymous No.22215667]

>>22215638
There are two quotes from Cyprian, the one you have is from "On the Unity of the Church" (AD 251), paragraph 6. The other time he quoted it was in Letter to Iubaianus (AD 256), chapter 12 paragraph 2.

Origen also used the same exact Greek words as are found in 1 John 5:7 around the same time as Cyprian, writing in Greek in a gloss on Psalm 123 (122). And a bit before either of them, Tertullian also made a less direct reference to 1 John 5:7, which counts as a fourth reference, in "Adversus Praxean" (c. 213), chapter 25.

I find it strange to think, from an objective perspective, that they all just made it up. It seems like it had to come from a Greek manuscript, which is also where the ancient Latin tradition comes from as well. It seems to me also that the people who compiled the received text had access to an ancient (Greek) manuscript that had it, which is why they were so confident to put it in all of their editions from the year 1522 onward.

[Anonymous No.22215686]

>>22215667
Thanks for this, I didn't know he mentioned it twice.

[Anonymous No.22215702]

>>22215302
More like not focusing on superficialities

[Anonymous No.22215714]

>>22215702
Consider what it says in the following Scripture passage:

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
(Matthew 4:4)

[Anonymous No.22215730]

>>22215714
Can the word of god only come from gilt edged pages with a lamb skin cover?

[Anonymous No.22215930]

>>22215630
>Loving
Well at least you got that part right.

>>22215643
Do you have a pic or an edition you enjoy?

>>22215730
So did you want to post your favorite Bible or just be smarmy?

[Anonymous No.22216369]

>>22215630
>wuv an wespeck evwewun
FUCKING WRONG!
THREADLY REMINDER:

There is no shortage of heresies these days.
If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.)
And, of all the heretical choices, probably the most common — and possibly the most damaging — is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.
The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and I will not compromise,’ the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras.
They insist that Jesus was a nice man, and that He never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and acceptance, and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings. They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue.
The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture, but they do know that He was ‘friends with prostitutes,’ and once said something about how, like, we shouldn’t get too ticked off about stuff, or whatever. In their minds, he’s essentially a supernatural Cheech Marin.
Read the comments under my previous post about gay rights militants, and you’ll see this heresy illustrated.
That post prompted an especially noteworthy email from someone concerned that I’m not being ‘Christlike,’ because I ‘call people names.’ He said, in part:
“You aren’t spreading Christianity when you talk like that. The whole message of Jesus was that we should be nice to people because we want them to be nice to us. That’s how we can all be happy. Period. It’s that simple.”
Be nice to me, I’ll be nice to you, and we’ll all be happy. This is the ‘whole message’ of Christianity?
Really?
Jesus Christ preached a Truth no deeper or more complex than a slogan on a poster in a Kindergarten classroom?
Really?
A provocative claim, to say the least. I decided to investigate the matter, and sure enough, I found this excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount:
“We’re best friends like friends should be. With a great big hug, and a kiss from me to you, won’t you say you love me too?”
Actually, wait, sorry, that’s from the original Barney theme song.
God help us. We’ve turned the Son of God into a purple dinosaur puppet.
There’s no way to be certain, but most theologians believe that, despite popular perception, Christ looked nothing like this.
I don’t recognize this Jesus.
This moderate. This pacifist.
>CONT

[Anonymous No.22216376]

>>22216369
This nice guy.
He’s not the Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.
He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.
On one occasion — or at least one recorded occasion — He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. He fashioned a whip (this is what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants away. He turned over tables and shouted. He caused a scene. [John 2:15]
Assault with a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance.
In two words: not nice.
Not nice at all.
Can you imagine how some moderate, pious, ‘nice’ Christians of today would react to that spectacle in the Temple? Can you envision the proponents of the Nice Doctrine, with their wagging fingers and their passive aggressive sighs? I’m sure they’d send Jesus a patronizing email, perhaps leave a disapproving comment under the news article about the incident, reminding Jesus that Jesus would never do what Jesus just did.
Personally, I’ve studied the New Testament and found not a single instance of Christ calling for a ‘dialogue’ with evil or seeking the middle ground on an issue. I see an absolutist, unafraid of confrontation. I see a man who did not waver or give credence to the other side. I see someone who never once avoided a dispute by saying that He’ll just ‘agree to disagree.’
I see a Christ who calls the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers. He labels them murderers and blind guides, and ridicules them publicly [Matthew 23:33]. He undermines their authority. He insults them. He castigates them. He’s not very nice to them.
Jesus rebukes and condemns. In Matthew 18, He utilizes morbid and violent imagery, saying that it would be better to drown in the sea with a stone around your neck than to harm a child. Had our modern politicians been around two thousand years ago, I’m sure they’d go on the cable news shows and shake their heads and insist that there’s ‘no place for that kind of language.’
No place for the language of God.
Jesus deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. He stirred up division and controversy. He provoked. He didn’t have to break from established customs, but He did. He didn’t have to heal that man’s hand on the Sabbath, knowing how it would disturb others and cause them immense irritation, but He did, and He did so with ‘anger’ [Mark 3:5]. He could have gone with the flow a little bit. He could have chilled out and let bygones be bygones, but He didn’t. He could have been diplomatic, but He wasn’t.
He could have told everyone to relax, but instead He made them uncomfortable.
>CONT

[Anonymous No.22216386]

>>22216376
He could have put them at ease, but He chose to put them on edge.
He convinced the mob not to stone the adulterer [John 8], and you’ll notice that He then turned to her and told her to stop sinning. Indeed, never once did He encounter sin and corruption and say: “Hey, do your thang, homies. Just have fun. YOLO!”
The followers of Nice Jesus love to quote the ‘throw the first stone’ verse — and for good reason, it’s a beautiful and compelling story — but you rarely hear mention of the exchange that occurs just a few sentences later, in that very same chapter. In John 8:44, Jesus rebukes unbelieving Jews and calls them ‘sons of the Devil.’
Maybe we ought to follow suit.
Wow.
That wasn’t nice, Jesus.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you can catch more flies with honey, Jesus?
Of course, you’d catch even more flies with a mound of garbage, so maybe ‘catching flies’ isn’t the point.
While we’re often reminded that Jesus said, ‘live by the sword, die by the sword,’ we seem to ignore his other sword references. Like when he told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword [Luke 22], or when He said that He ‘didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword’ [Matthew 10].
Now, It’s true that He is God and we are not. Jesus can say whatever He wants to say. But we are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like?
Well, He is, among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive. He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry.
He is always loving.
Christ was not and is not a cosmic guidance counselor, and He is not mankind’s best friend, nor did He call us to be. He made dogs for that role — our destiny is more substantial, and our path to it is far more challenging and dangerous.
And nice?
Where does nice factor into this?
Nice: affable, peachy, swell.
Nice has nothing to do with Christianity. I’ve got nothing against nice — nice is nice — but even serial killers can be nice to people. They generally are exceptionally affable, except when they’re murdering. That means they’re nice to, like, 97 or 98 percent of everyone they meet.
I guess they’re following Christ almost all of the time, right?
And tolerance?
Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction; intolerance is action. We are called to refuse to tolerate evil. We are called to get angry at it and actively work to destroy it.
Who’d have guess it — anger is far more godly than tolerance ever could be.
>CONT

[Anonymous No.22216402]

>>22216386
Anger is good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God. Just as Christ’s intolerance, like the intolerance we’re commanded to have, stems from a desire to save souls and defend Truth.
Even when we have righteous anger, we do not have carte blanche to act on it in anyway we please. But, according to the Bible, there are times to use strong language, there are times to cause a scene, there are times to hurt people’s feelings, and there are times when we might need to use physical force.
Jesus told us to turn the other cheek when we are personally attacked; He never told us to turn our backs entirely and let lies spread and evil grow.
So, enough with the niceties.
Christians in this country sound too similar to the the Golden Girls song, and not enough like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. There’s too much ‘thank you for being a friend,’ and not enough ‘lightening from His terrible swift sword.’
We’re all hugging and singing Kumbaya, when we should be marching and shouting Hallelujah.
We’re nice Christians with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.
Enough, already.
I think it’s time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit; the spirit of Christ.
I think it’s time we ask that question: ‘What would Jesus do?’
And I think it’s time we answer it truthfully: Jesus would flip tables and yell.

> -- ~ anonymous channel four poster (circa 21st century anno domini)


+ + +


So: you have been duped by the Synagogue of Satan into adopting the heresy of "tolerant xtianity w/lesbian ministers" and six million other sins. (((They))) *want* you to be a christcuck, not a CHRISTIAN WARRIOR. True Christianity is all about putting an end of the evils of those who call themselves Jews but are not Jews, but do lie, for they do the work of their father, and their father is the Devil.

To be a True Christian is to be a soldier in Christ, Jesus, at war against Satan & Evil.

To be a True Christian is to never tolerate the wicked.

>as all previous replies to this chain:
Verification not required.