/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15790574]

I've never read the Bible before, which version is the best?

[Anonymous No.15790581]

KJV

[Anonymous No.15790595]

>>15790574
Do not read the bible! It is a Jewish brainwashing device meant to turn you into a slave.

[Anonymous No.15790641]

>>15790574
kjv or catholic study bible.

[Anonymous No.15790649]

>>15790574
Start with the Greeks, don't bother with the Jewish distortions of Greek teachings

[Anonymous No.15790658]

>>15790574
Karl XII bible. If you do not know Swedish, learn it.

[Anonymous No.15790676]

>>15790574
You know it's just a book of old Jewish tall tales, right? Skip it, unless you're just super interested in ancient Jewish laws regarding stoning non-virgin brides on their father's doorstep

[Anonymous No.15790689]

>You know it's just a book of old Jewish tall tales, right? Skip it, unless you're just super interested in ancient Jewish laws regarding stoning non-virgin brides on their father's doorstep

[Anonymous No.15790710]

>>15790689
Even among holy texts it's pretty subpar, the Bhagavad Gita is far superior in basically every aspect

[Anonymous No.15790922]

>>15790574
NIV has been the most readable after trying a few versions. The oxford annotated is also good. its my first time reading it and knowing the stories is my priority. KJV is more poetic but less clear as to whats going on.

[Anonymous No.15790972]

NIV (1984)
KJV (1769 Oxford Edition)
NASB (pre 2020)

[Anonymous No.15790995]

What about the NKJV?

[Anonymous No.15791064]

>>15790574
You can read them all side by side online. I did (start), they are all heavily distorted bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15791326]

>>15790574
What is the best edition of the KJV to buy?

[Anonymous No.15791357]

>>15790676
I'm an atheist but the KJV is good for aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15791364]

>>15791357
It's also good for reading on public transport if you want to be left alone

[Anonymous No.15791377]

>>15791326
Westminster Reference Bible if you are a reference autist like me

[Anonymous No.15791389]

>>15790581
For the New Testament and Genesis up until they leave the garden. DR is superior for most of the old testament. Uses stronger language and shows the wrath and hatred of God much better. KJV downplays it.

[Anonymous No.15791411]

>>15790995
It’s pretty close to KJV, but updates the language (you instead of thou/thee, brothers instead of brethren, etc.), in addition to rewriting verses to change the word order to make it more updated. Some verses are also given what are considered better translations, and some of the original words from the Hebrew/Greek text are preserved. Other than that, it’s the closest to KJV than any other translation.

But I personally prefer KJV for the poetic beauty of the text, and for its accuracy, and if I come across a verse that’s hard to understand, I just look up an alternative translation on Bible hub, but that’s only occasionally. 95% or more is in plain enough English that anyone would be able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.15791434]

>>15791377
Not bad, I'm liking the look of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[Anonymous No.15791443]

>>15790641
>Catholic
Lol why, even the Vatican admits there's nothing wrong with Protestantism and it may actually be superior:

>"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined."
- Benedict XVI.

[Anonymous No.15791450]

Catholics changed their entire liturgy to please Protestants:

In the first place, an ecumenical liturgy that would no longer offend Protestants was Fr. Annibale Bugnini’s intention from the get-go as he declared in 1965:
>We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants

To accomplish this ecumenical goal, the Consilium enlisted the help of these Protestant observers:

1. A. Raymond George (Methodist)
2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
4. Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)
5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)
6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize)

But the most telling pudding proof comes from the Protestants themselves, who affirmed (in reference to the official edition and not merely a bad implementation of it), that they too could use Pope Paul’s new missal since the objectionable content such as “a false perspective of sacrifice offered to God” has been “abandoned” in “the new Eucharistic Prayers”.[6] Or that “...nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant”.

Even more significant were their actions. After declaring the doctrinal suitability of the Novus Ordo Missae, Episcopalians and Lutherans adopted its texts nearly verbatim. Obviously this indicates “a fundamental change of doctrine”,[8] because they were unwilling to do this with the undeniably orthodox texts of the 1962 Missale Romanum.

[Anonymous No.15791468]

I shill the ESV study bible because that’s what I got and I like it

[Anonymous No.15791479]

>>15791364
I hope I meet my wife that way anons. Reading KJV in public transport. A girl starts talking to me. I can only dream.

[Anonymous No.15791488]

>>15791468
ESV is based. It's the bible of choice for the neo reformed young elite intellectual class. I personally got the esv archeology bible. Very cool!

[Anonymous No.15791496]

>>15791488
Archaeology bible? Definitely looking into that

[Anonymous No.15791497]

>>15790574
NRSV for textual clarity and accuracy
KJV for appreciation of the modern english language

[Anonymous No.15791506]

>>15791443
Stop fucking spamming this you Calvinist shill. Nobody cares about your "ackshually guys jesus really mean this" meme religion. You posted the same shit on /his/. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>>/his/8999137

[Anonymous No.15791507]

Get the New Vulgata, ignore all of these protestant faggots

[Anonymous No.15791518]

>>15791497
NRSV is literally liberal propaganda. Fuck off retard. The only reason it exists is to change things to reflect liberal theology. Stop shilling it like you do on /his/, where you were run off for being so illiterate.

[Anonymous No.15791527]

>>15791506
Lol. I just posted the words of the pope. If that makes you mad you must not be a very good Catholic. It's actually a sin to have that view of the popes words. Per canon law. Do you want me to quote it?

[Anonymous No.15791536]

>>15791450
>>15791443
Wait so of Vatican II just changed the Catholic church to be like protestant churches, why wouldn't I just join a protestant church??

[Anonymous No.15791539]

>>15791527
>It's actually a sin to have that view of the popes words.
See what I mean?
>Ackshtually guys, I know more about your own religion than you do.
I saw your shit on /his/. Crawl back to whatever Protestant evangelization forum you crawled out of. You're no better than the obsessive tradcaths over on Catholic Answers.

[Anonymous No.15791575]

Instead of cluttering the catolog with more bible related questions I'll ask it here. Can someone explain the book of Job to me or direct me to a good explanation? I can
t see it as anything other than god allowing the torture of a good man and rewarding him with a "new" family at the end. I also don't get why god decided to show off by killing the Leviathan and pretty much tell Job to shut the fuck up. I know this sounds like bait but Job is honestly one of the more difficult parts of the bible for me to fully grasp.

[Anonymous No.15791581]

>>15791468
Isn't that thing like 250$? You're one rich fella, anon.

[Anonymous No.15791589]

>>15791539
You know nothing about your own retarded faith:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Definition of authentic magisterium per Lumen Gentum:
>Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra

Therefore, it is a violation of canon law, and therefore a sin, to call protestants heretics or say that they are not authentic Christians doing good in the world.

[Anonymous No.15791593]

>>15791539
>obsessive tradcaths over on Catholic Answers.
Tradcaths are not on CA. Those are Pope Francis lapdogs, aka neoconservative or neo orthodox freaks

[Anonymous No.15791596]

>>15791581
I got the hardcover for $18 on Amazon a few weeks ago. I noticed it’s like $29 now so maybe I am a trendsetter. But they do make expensive leather versions.

[Anonymous No.15791613]

>>15791596
Maybe that's the one I'm thinking of, an anon posted it a few weeks ago here on /lit/ and it was a very nice study bible but I remember the link they gave had it listed in the 200$ range.

[Anonymous No.15791631]

Why are Catholics so fucking dumb and contradictory bros? Why are they always lying? Catholic Answers is full of neocons but they pretend they are tradcaths whenever someone calls them out or gets annoyed.

Meanwhile if you visit CA you will see millions of threads where they talk about how much they hate tradcaths for criticizing Francis pbuh

[Anonymous No.15791656]

>>15791631
I've noticed this too. Luckily Catholics have basically been run off from /his/ since the Catholic Answers raid were exposed.

Never forget it is not tradcaths shitting up 4chan. It is neocons. You can tell because neocons are the ones who screech about papal authority and how Francis is actually really orthodox. It's insane stuff.

[Anonymous No.15791666]

>>15791631
On this topic are there any good Christian/religious forums for thoughtful discussion on the internet? or are /lit/ and /his/ ironically as good as it’s going to get.

[Anonymous No.15791679]

>>15791666
>666
It was an innocent question

[Anonymous No.15791689]

>>15791666
I am a Calvinist but I will unironically recommend the Fisheaters forums. They are Catholic traditionalist, some of the most intelligent people I've ever talked to.

You can learn a lot about Catholcism there and how sick and contradictory it is today, but you can also learn about all the positives about the faith.

Not sure about Reformed stuff. I just go to church and talk to real life people, but if you do know of good Reformed forums I'd be interested.

[Anonymous No.15791697]

>>15790574
Da Jesus Book
>>15790676
The bible is of high literary importance regardless of your beliefs
t. Not a Christian

[Anonymous No.15791704]

>>15791666
Most Christian forums ban at least some denoms or another. Its weird.
Apparently /christian/ on 8kun is doing pretty good now since the Catholic mods that would ban everyone left.

[Anonymous No.15791715]

>>15791704
What the fuck is wrong with neo Catholics holy shit

[Anonymous No.15791719]

>>15791697
Continuation

[Anonymous No.15791746]

>>15790574
Quick reminder to everyone in this chat that Martin Luther arbitrarily removed the apocryphal texts because he personally disliked them.

[Anonymous No.15791767]

>>15791746
Actually he removed them because their inspiration was widely debated even up to his time. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, personally advocated on behalf of the Protestant bible. The Jewish church before Christ did not consider them inspired but included them in the Septuagint out of convenience.

Besides Jerome, Cyril advocated for an important but not inspired understanding of the apocrypha, and this was adopted at Carthage. NOT that they were canon in the sense of was later understood.

For all these reasons, Luther was quite right to remove them.

[Anonymous No.15791826]

>>15791666
I have gone from non-denominational to Catholic to Sedevacantist and now to Eastern Orthodoxy. Here's the most concise explanation I can offer:

>Protestantism or Catholicism?
The Protestant belief in "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) makes no sense because it was by tradition (a council of members of the Church hierarchy) that the biblical canon (scriptura) was established.

>Why sedevacantism?
The second Vatican council was blatantly heretical, therefore who people perceive to be the Pope cannot really be the true Pope. With the new rite of ordination, the vast majority of Catholic clergy were not properly ordained and have no power to remit sins.

>Why is Sedevacantism wrong?
The chair of Peter having been vacant for 60 years and the entirety of the Church hierarchy being invalidly ordained constitutes a defection of the Church, something which cannot happen according to Catholic dogma.

>Why Eastern Orthodoxy?
It's the only other option if one is looking for the church which is the true successor to the Early Church prior to the great schism.

[Anonymous No.15791905]

>>15791826
Protestant belief in sola scriptura is not paradoxical or whatever. I took a similar path to you but started as a Catholic, ended as a Presbyterian in the stream of classical/confessional evangelical orthodoxy.

Protestants can recognize the early church without defaulting to suspect apostolic succession claims or the notion that a single visible institution represents the Church. That in no way negates sola scriptura. It's simply an acknowledgement of the fact that tradition is not infallible. Scripture was chosen based on apostolic authority of certain texts and letters. It's not the epistemological leap you make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.15791965]

>>15791575
Have you read it? Most of the book is a direct discussion of why Job suffered. It's a direct criticism of the idea that God makes men rich or spares men from suffering. The priests accuse Job of being a sinner because God wouldn't punish him otherwise and Job argues that God doesn't deal out Justice like that and that Evil men are wealthy all over the world. At the end God blesses Job and declares he is correct.

[Anonymous No.15792048]

>>15791905
Scripture was chosen based on apostolic authority of the texts *by people who had authority to do so*. This occurred centuries after the events of the New Testament, an authority was required to determine which texts and letters had apostolic authority.

[Anonymous No.15792096]

Oxford Annotated Bible

[Anonymous No.15792119]

>>15792048
Yes that authority was the Church. Not the Catholic or Orthodox church. Moreover the process wasn't arbitrary. It was based on authentic writing of the apostolic age

[Anonymous No.15792228]

ESV is the Protestant workhorse.
I prefer NASB, personally. But they're very similar. Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding NAS because of this.
I used to be KJV, but the syntax is hard to process when you can't understand it.

[Anonymous No.15792239]

KJV is fun language, but the Oxford Annotated Bible is the best study bible to actually look at:
1. How the bible was written
2. A comparative look with other mythology
3. Literary interpretation
which makes it the best way to read the bible

[willowo !!WLiEhST7Trn No.15792251]

>>15790574
in English? KJV by far. everything else is gay.

[Anonymous No.15792338]

>>15790581
100% yes

[Anonymous No.15792537]

>>15792239
Holy shit fuck OFF and stop shilling your SJW translation. Oxford Annotated is NRSV so this shill is finding another way of pushing it.

[Anonymous No.15792582]

>that one liberal """"Christian"""" who won't stfu about his gay oxford nrsv edition
>he definitely doesn't have an agenda
>he's just always lurking waiting to post about it, including talking points lifted right from the publisher
Why do leftists do stuff like this, bros?

[Anonymous No.15792585]

>>15792537
the translation was chosen by actual biblical scholars as the best translation to use for their study bible

[Anonymous No.15792602]

>>15792582
I’m an Atheist. It’s the best Bible for literary studies and this is a literature board, therefore it’s the appropriate recommendation.

[Anonymous No.15792622]

>>15792585
>the translation was chosen by liberals as the bible most supportive of their views
Real biblical scholars use the ESV. The ones who are actually Christian that is.

>>15792602
And there you have it. If you are not a Christian, please by all means use the NRSV. If you actually believe in God, use one where the text wasn't deliberately altered in numerous places

[Anonymous No.15792631]

>>15790574
Read KJV and Oxford Annotated

[Anonymous No.15792634]

>>15792622
Perhaps your suggestions would be appropriate if this were a religion board, but it’s a literature board. Even then, it’s important to understand the historical context of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15792641]

Imagine not using the Geneva Bible..

[Anonymous No.15792645]

>>15791411
Thanks for the info, anon.

[Anonymous No.15792649]

>>15792622
>implying that any translation is not “deliberately altered” just because a decision was made about gender that makes you mad

[Anonymous No.15792665]

>>15792641
Based

[Anonymous No.15792681]

>>15792649
>>15792634
The NRSV deliberately changes the original text of the bible to make it gender neutral above and beyond what the original text explicitly says. It's inaccurate on purpose for the sake of politics. That was the entire point of the revision, but there are other issues too. If you were actually interested in an accurate translation over politics and anti Christian sentiment, you would STILL use the ESV instead because it uses gendered or gender neutral language specifically in accord with the original manuscripts.

Pretending that the NRSV is just a humble academic edition and not a revision made in the context of heated gender politics in liberal Christian settings is absurd. I'm also amazed at how many posts you've now made shilling this SJW shit, including pretending to be multiple posters. Fuck off once again. No one will ever fall for your shit.

You are not a Christian. You are a liberal atheist. And even outside of a Christian context, the NRSV is still an unfaithful, deliberately manipulated translation that is solely at the service of a small, extremist type of left wing Christian that represents maybe 10-13% of all Christians in the US, and even fewer in the world.

[Anonymous No.15792691]

>>15792681
this is /lit/ not some sort of religion site
maybe you’ll have more luck with your crusade over at /his/

[Anonymous No.15792704]

>>15792681
go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.15792708]

>>15792691
This is a literary topic. Maybe you'll didn't notice but the first image you see when you enter the board is an illustration inspired from the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15792712]

>>15792691
Seething. You've been exposed as a pathetic shill. Your rejoinder means nothing. The NRSV doesn't work in academic contexts either, so it's not a religion thing. Again, the ONLY purpose of the NRSV is if you want a Bible that has been altered for left wing purposes.

And stop samefagging this is getting embarrassing. >>15792704

You've pretended to be several different people at this point shilling the same shit over and over. Why? How fucking mentally ill are you that you NEED to push your shitty translation and build a fake consensus through samefagging in this thread? I honestly cannot understand the mindset here.

[Anonymous No.15792736]

I like the Oxford annotated bible the best. The footnotes are the most interesting.

[Anonymous No.15792744]

>>15792708
Oh, it’s fine to talk about the Bible, just in terms of the context of it as literature. Here’s what the post you mentioned has to say:
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.15792767]

>>15791389
>DR
what's that

[Anonymous No.15792788]

>>15790710
Based

[Anonymous No.15792797]

It’s really not a great piece of literature. It’s only worth reading for its historical and cultural significance, so get something with good footnotes along those lines.

[Anonymous No.15792810]

>>15792681
based anti-NRSV poster

[Anonymous No.15792843]

>>15792736
>he's still samefagging go try to trick people
Lmao holy shit actually just keep going you mentally ill atheist tranny. Now it's just funny

[Anonymous No.15792866]

>>15792736
Are you fucking serious? After everything in this thread?

[Anonymous No.15792869]

I like the NRSV it is the most accurate translation recommended by academic scholars.

[Anonymous No.15792923]

The Oxford Annotated NRSV is recommended by leading academics. It is the preferred study bible with thousands of footnotes compiled by leading experts.

[Anonymous No.15792939]

NRSV is preferred for textual clarity and accuracy

[Anonymous No.15792949]

As an intellectual, my professors recommended me the Oxford Annotated NRSV for the superior experience thanks to the excellent footnotes written by leading scholars. It is cutting edge.

[Anonymous No.15792961]

Oxford Annotated Bible/NRSV

[Anonymous No.15792962]

For me, it's NRSV

[Anonymous No.15792964]

NRSV for clarity and accuracy

[Anonymous No.15792973]

>>15790574
KJV (For the language&jumping point for other translations) and Oxford Annotated NRSV (For footnotes and biblical scholars)

[Anonymous No.15793003]

>>15792964
>>15792962
>>15792961
>>15792949
>>15792939
>>15792923
>>15792869
>poster count isn't going up...

[Anonymous No.15793010]

KJV (For the language&jumping point for other translations) and Oxford Annotated NRSV (For footnotes and biblical scholars)

[Anonymous No.15793019]

NRSV for clarity and accuracy

[Anonymous No.15793037]

NRSV, Oxford Annotated

[Anonymous No.15793054]

>>15793003
Schizo take your meds

[Anonymous No.15793077]

NRSV for clarity and the footnotes, compiled by academics in the field

[Anonymous No.15793085]

>>15793003
I smell Jewry

[Anonymous No.15793089]

Guys... wtf is happening ITT

[Anonymous No.15793097]

The level of samefagging is ridiculous. Tranny atheist take your meds ffs

[Anonymous No.15793133]

>>15791411
That's interesting. Sounds like I would continue favouring the "regular" KJV, but can definitely appreciate how the changes can make reading the Bible FAR more accessible to most people, who are turned off by the archaic language tendencies.

[Anonymous No.15793137]

>>15793133
Try the NRSV

[Anonymous No.15793150]

>>15793133
Have you considered the NRSV?

[Anonymous No.15793158]

>>15793133
The Oxford Annotated NRSV is preferred by leading academics

[Anonymous No.15793164]

>>15791527
>It's actually a sin to have that view of the popes words.
What do you mean? If you're referring to Papal Infallibility, that's a gross mischaracterization of that law. It does not mean that everything the Pope says or does is correct and infallible. Rather, it is something to be invoked prior to a declaraction, qualifying the declaration itself to be infallible. It has only been invoked twice in history.

[Anonymous No.15793171]

>>15793164
I'm referring to the subsequent posts I made. Try reading the thread retard

[Anonymous No.15793175]

>>15793133
Nah NRSV has thousands of footnotes by leading academics

[Anonymous No.15793182]

>>15791826
Does Eastern Orthodoxy believe in the Trinity?

[Anonymous No.15793186]

>>15793164
Have you considered the NRSV?

[Anonymous No.15793191]

>>15792622
>use one where the text wasn't deliberately altered in numerous places
I got bad news for you, anon...

[Anonymous No.15793198]

>>15793182
The Oxford Annotated NRSV is recommended by leading academics

[Anonymous No.15793203]

>>15793164
>can't read thread
Based Catholic dumbass

[Anonymous No.15793208]

>>15793164
The Oxford Annotated NRSV is recommended by leading academics in the field

[Anonymous No.15793211]

>>15793137
>>15793150
>>15793158
>>15793175
A study bible and an introductory bible are very different. As OP has never read the Bible before, I would recommend him the version which is easiest and most enjoyable to read first, which is the KJV, as opposed to any study Bible.

>>15793203
Sorry forgot to put "btw not Catholic" at the end of my post.

[Anonymous No.15793227]

>>15793211
The NRSV is preferred

[Anonymous No.15793238]

>>15793211
You're replying to a potential bot idiot. Something is shilling the NRSV like there's no tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15793250]

Do the mods maybe want to do something about the tranny atheist who has made over 48 posts in this thread samefagging the NRSV? I mean the posts are even starting to repeat. Come on.

[Anonymous No.15793267]

>>15793227
>>15793208
>>15793198
>>15793186
>>15793175
>>15793158
>>15793150
>>15793137
>>15793077
>>15793037
>>15793019
>>15793010
MODS DO YOUR FUCKING JOB

[Anonymous No.15793329]

>>15793267
It’s different people just making a joke out of it man

[Anonymous No.15793331]

>>15793250
>>15793267
Legit seething about a troll... just report, hide, and ignore newfags. Screaming into the aether hoping mods hear about it won't make anything happen faster.

[Anonymous No.15793373]

Okay, I was the first guy to say the Oxford Annotated Bible and I think the guy that got pissed at me went insane because I didn’t post any of that stuff above, hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.15793525]

If Protestant, use the NASB or ESV.

KJV if you're just reading it for aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15793566]

>>15793373
Yeah totally, but have you considered purchasing the Oxford Annotated NRSV, available online?

[Anonymous No.15793609]

Okay, I was the first guy to say the Oxford Annotated Bible and I think the guy that got pissed at me went insane because I didn’t post any of that stuff above, hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.15793669]

in all honesty
if you’re reading it for its literary, historical, and cultural value
the oxford annotated is probably your best bet
seriously

[Anonymous No.15793681]

>>15793669
>post count didn't go up
>49 posters
>126 posts
The Oxford Annotated is garbage and so is this thread.

[Anonymous No.15793806]

>>15793681
this thread is hilarious

[Anonymous No.15793821]

>>15793681
>watching the poster count like a hawk
>terrified of the NRSV
>can’t deal with a gender neutral bible
>shook down to the core that people actually read it

[Anonymous No.15793824]

>>15793182
Yes. Eastern Orthodoxy in general is theologically superior to any other denomination. Eastern Orthodoxy has much in common with Catholicism, but branches out when you get to the papacy. So a lot of theology established by the Catholics doesn't apply to EO. Look up the history yourself and you'll see history in general sides with Eastern Orthodoxy (especially with Papal supremacy, despite what Catholic apologists say there's a clear evolution of the idea). In EO there is no single human figure that holds authority over the bible, so the ideas that developed are much more coherent and non-contradictory than the ones Catholicism has produced.

[Anonymous No.15793853]

[Anonymous No.15793859]

Bro, the Bible isn't real,,,

[Anonymous No.15793863]

>>15793525
Unless you are Reformed then use the KJV.

[Anonymous No.15793889]

>>15793824
Breaking away from the papacy is based and in general they seem a lot closer to Jesus' original words than any of the western Christianity shitshow has ever been, but it's a shame they still carry some of the unintentional poison injected by the early Church, such as the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.15793897]

>>15793859
That can't be, I just read it this morning.

[Anonymous No.15793926]

>>15793821
>s-stop w-w-watching the poster count!
No.

[Anonymous No.15793941]

It’s pretty good

[Anonymous No.15793962]

There are no ''Versions''. There's the bible, and there are counterfeits and perversions.
>pic related

[Anonymous No.15793976]

>>15793941
holy shit it's real? but do scholars approve of it?

[Anonymous No.15794004]

Leading Jewish scholars at radical left wing divinity schools prefer the NRSV/Oxford Annotated. It's the only bible to use the terms BCE/CE instead of BC/AD.

In a bible

[Anonymous No.15794062]

Norton Critical Edition KJV > Oxford Annotated NRSV

[Anonymous No.15794091]

>>15794062
This is true. Some of the classically annotated KJV's are good too. The ESV has like 4 different study bibles based on history, theology, etc.

But you're going to make the NRSV tranny schizo mad.

[Anonymous No.15794244]

>>15793889
They didn't "break" away from anything or anyone. They are literally the original Church, everything the original generation of Christians believed, they believe. Just like the Catholics there is a direct line of succession between the apostles and the bishops of today. The original Church is what produced the bible. Everything you know of Jesus comes from them. To say you are a witness to the bible, yet say the people who wrote it are injecting poison, is completely contradictory and irrational.

[Anonymous No.15794379]

>>15791443
That's not saying there's nothing wrong with protestantism. He's saying that even with its faults protestant Christianity has done good in building up Christian belief in people who have not willfully decided to abandon the Catholic Church like they did back in the old days.

[Anonymous No.15794405]

>>15794379
it's also saying protestantism isn't a heresy. and, per canon law quoted earlier, it means that no catholic, under pain of sin, can assert that protestantism is heresy.

[Anonymous No.15794406]

>>15793889
Heresy isn't cool anon

[Anonymous No.15794518]

>>15793962
Based schizo KJVO heretic

[Anonymous No.15794659]

>>15794091
Why do you kind of people always turn to calling someone transgender in order to attack them, when it doesn’t even have anything remotely to do with the conversation at hand? It’s a weird take.

[Anonymous No.15794672]

>>15790574
NRSV for its textual clarity and accuracy

[Anonymous No.15794692]

Where can I find a nice cheap edition of the KJV with apocrypha for fuck's sake

Nothing has the FUCKING apocrypha for less than $200,000

[Anonymous No.15794762]

>>15794692
Buy a real Bible with the Deuterocanonical books already in it. Or if you're dead set on the KJV just buy them separate.

[Anonymous No.15795581]

>>15794692
See >>15793853

[Anonymous No.15796563]

>>15792843
Why are you sperging out so badly man

[Anonymous No.15796960]

>>15790574
Brenton's Septuagint for the OT
Christogenea or The Scriptures 2009 for the NT

Orthodox Study Bible and the Jerusalem Bible are also pretty good. As a rule, avoid any Bible translated from the (purposefully) corrupted Masoretic text, including the KJV and its derivatives

[Anonymous No.15797366]

NOAB

[Anonymous No.15797399]

>>15794518
How can he be a KJVonlyist if his pic references the Westminster Confession? KJVonlys are all independent baptists.

[Anonymous No.15797407]

>>15794518
>>15797399
Also his pic seems to be saying that all those translations in the traditional text line are valid.

[Anonymous No.15798596]

>>15790581
fpbp

[Anonymous No.15799056]

>Why yes I am a Geneva bible onlyist, how could you tell?