Is it really the best Bible out there? Or should I stick with the KJV like a good goy?
OT: Robert AlterNT: David Bentley HartApocrypa: No idea
Yeah it's the best Bible for a first time reader who wants a guide to understand the plot/history presented in the Bible
learn Greek and get a Nestle-Aland, retard
>>24108569It is extremely liberal, basically just propaganda that supports transgender, human rights, and other claptrap. Certainly worthless as a translation. Read Douay-Rheims.
>>24108569Absolutely best bang for your buck and the version used in all Protestant academic and actually scholarly seminaries. You need a Catholic version if you want one that spoon feeds you Catholicism though.
>>24108569People keep recommended this but I don't see the point of reading a bible with some essays by liberal eggheads tacked on
>>24108654>WITH THE APOCRYPHAWhat are you on, NRSV has the imprimatur and is the standard authorized translation in some countries.The fact that both protestants and Catholics use it is literally one of its strong points.
>>24108920It doesn't have footnotes reminding you that you have to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and various other wacky Catholic doctrines. Then again, why would you read the Bible if you wanted to know more about Catholicism when you could just read a catechism instead. Like reading the Capital to understand China.
>>24108972It also doesn't talk about any protestant doctrines, wacky or otherwise, because it's not a work of thelogy but just studies the Bible as a text. It has Jewish and atheist translators on the panel. The fact that despite that it's approved by both protestants and Catholics is an incredible testament (heh) to the integrity of their work.
>>24108972Rent free.
>>24109158>>24109203It has notes that point out specific Protestant doctrines. I have never noticed Catholic doctrines in it. But again. I have never consulted the Bible directly to understand Catholicism, as they literally have documents telling you their position and those are the correct source, not the Bible. I am not shitting on them. They assert that their organization is the body that should do the interpretation, and so I follow that rule. It's the same as how I would consult the US Supreme Court opinions on a constitutional issue without even bothering to look at the constitution itself. Doing your own research on anything related to Catholicism is literally not understanding their system.
>>24108638agree but dont read douay rheims its too old. read like new jerusalem or something
It's 2025 and businessmen still commercialize a jewish fiction...
>>24109325bro said the bible is too old
>>24108569Stick with the KJV
Isn't that a Bible for Atheists? Which stuff like claiming the Gospels were written by communities rather than the traditional authors?
>>24110170yes. it asserts q theory, doubt of gospel authorship, doubt of Jesus' divinity claims and rampant antisemitism of paul all as factual. the entire thing is written by skeptics and that skepticism is written into each essay and footnote. i'm not quite sure why you'd read this if you were actually interested in the faith of what Christians believe in.
>>24108569
Is there a study/anotated old/new testament bible...For Gnostics?
If you want a purely academic/ scholarly edition of the bible, the SBL Study Bible(2023) is your best bet. It was the first Study bible to incorporate the updated edition of the NRSV aka the NRSVue. The next edition of the New Oxford Annotated Series will include the NRSVue but that hasn't come out yet
>>24110229another study bible that includes the NRSVue is the Westminster Study Bible(2024) this one has slightly more devotional stuff rather than purely academic compared to the SBL Study Bible. The printing quality/ layout is also better on the Westminster IMO
>>24110199my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is coming in the mail soon, I was able to get a copy before they sold out. I'm not a Catholic though, I am Presbyterian but am a Bible collector
>>24110183Is it really faith to willfully ignore modern research though, just because it doesn't fit with your dogmatic view of the text? They didn't write these things to spite you, they wrote them because that's what the research suggests is most likely factual and true.
>>24110251yes and i understand your point but it is very one sided; if that makes sense. perhaps its due to its age but ignoring greek being the lingua franca or internal verifiers like onamastic congruence is a thing to talk about. all you read are assertions like q, which hasn't a single shred of manuscript evidence for it, and others. if you want to understand the theological significance of the bible, you wouldn't read something like this. it's like asking an evangelist to write a commentary on nietzsche .
>>24110251This kind of research is trash and based on fanfics in the minds of 19th century Germans.There is zero evidence of a Q Gospel or that there was something like a "Lukan community who wrote the Gospel of Luke". There is zero evidence that "John was written by a committee that tried to reconcile the Paul community with the Peter community". They argued Paul was Simon Magus.They argued for a long time, without evidence that a passage of Isaiah was added by Christians later, until the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that it was already there before Christianity.Their arguments are similar to "Shakespeare was not really the author of his plays" arguments.
>>24108569read the Douay Rheims or the Vulgate
>>24109336It is. The New Jerusalem is the more modern translation. If you want a classic translation you either read the Vulgate in Latin, Luther's translation in German or the KJV in English. With honorable mentions to the Geneva Bible for English. There is no reason to read the Douay-Rheims as it just a crude translation of the Vulgate into English. It was never used for any theological purpose, it was just ephemeral propaganda (that didn't work). You would get a more accurate Bible if you ran the Greek through google translate. It might actually be lower IQ than the NIV.
>>24110269>I don't like Q source, and even though it is the majority opinion in scholarship my feelings mean it shouldn't be including in the textKek.>Muh Isaiah 53Who is even arguing this? The argument is that Isaiah 40-55 was written post exile is because the earlier part assumes the temple is still there, and 40-55 assume it is not, the omission of Isaiah's name suddenly, changes in words and phrases and theological concepts.>""56-60 seems to assume a second Temple is being built. All of these events predate the dead sea scrolls by hundreds of years. You would need a copy of Isaiah from the first temple period to settle this debate without using textual evidence and the text suggests 40-55 is later and 56-60 is later still.
>>24110329you left out the part of q that it has zero supporting evidence. literally zero. 5800 manuscripts circulating around antioch and its neighboring regions and not a single mention of this source. and it's asserted and written as fact because "consensus" says so. it's a hilarious violation of methodology and never questioned because people want it to be true.
>>24110352Question for you, what is the oldest copy of the gospel? Look that up. Also since your an Isaiah 53 fag, have you ever read Isaiah 52-53 straight through and noticed in 52:3-6 it is specifically talking about Israel as a whole? If that is still unclear have you read 40-60 straight through? It is incredibly obvious it is talking about the literal kingdom and the temple periods. Is there a narrative in the Jesus story that parallels it? Yes, just like the parts the parallel the Joshua narrative. It's almost as if the people writing the gospel were reading the OT and making the story match it. Just food for thought.
Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible, JPS Tanakh( Jewish Study Bible/ JPS Torah commentary series) NRSVue( SBL Study Bible/ Westminster Study Bible) NET Bible with notes, David Bentley Hart's New Testament, Sarah Ruden's The Gospels & The New Oxford Annotated Bible 6th edition that will be released sometime next year or the year after.Introduction to the Hebrew Bible(3rd edition) by John CollinsIntroduction to the Old Testament by David CarrIntroduction to the New Testament by Bart EhrmanHistory of the Bible by John Barton
>>24110329Surely, you have a copy of the Q Gospel? Or any mention of it by Church Fathers? Or by anyone talking about it for the small period of 1,800 years before Germans came up with this idea?
>>24110659Good point. The correct position then is that the entire NT was written after 125 AD by people who had their or forth hand knowledge. If there is no Q source sayings of Jesus then the NT has no authority. Only Paul's letters which were based on his understanding of legend are possibly written by a party, and so the Gospel is based on Paul's letters as understood by people who did not know Paul. Is that preferable to you? Because without a Q source that is the only possible explanation.
>>24110678>he thinks paleographical dating of egyptian papyri scrolls means they were written then and not anytime before. he thinks p52 was the original source of john's gospel written in egypt. kek
>>24110678Or, it could have been written by the people who were unanimously have been said to write them for 1,800 years.
>John's writing style meant it not could have been written before the 3rd century ADAnd then the DSS were found which have texts written before Jesus was born in the same style as John
>>24110400This is one of the best shelves I have ever seen on this site.
Does the Oxford Annotated NRSV actually argue for the Q source? Honestly I mostly bought it for its analysis of the Pentateuch.
>>24110878i have the 5th edition but half of the intro to the gospels is about it; and then each book of them has an intro where it's mentioned again.
>>24110993even in the letter of james they suggest an acquaintance. rereading it, they even have an "L" source as a possible for luke. i guess it's not all that bad to talk about a proposed theory, but i really fail to see how any of this is helpful if you're trying to learn about the faith of things; and there are certainly more interesting academic studies like onamastic congruence and little details that internally verify stuff; like walking up to jerusalem, luke knowing about caiphus and anna, etc.
for me it's Castellio's or Louis-Segond
>>24108569>KJV like a good goyyou are nearly unsalvageable
>>24111046I think the worst part about Higher Criticism is how theories without any kind of external evidence are taken as the absolute truth. And that what is the absolute truth changes over time without new evidence."John was actually written as a compromise document by the two competing factions of Paul's followers and Peter's followers"Is there any evidence, any document, anyone speaking of this super important meeting? No.Is there any evidence of those two factions even existing? No.Who did people say wrote the Gospel of John for over a 1,000 years? John.But it is the objective truth because someone inspired by Hegel had this idea and this sounds modern.
>>24110706Who dates John to the 3rd century AD?
>>24110693>>241106941600ish years. First mention of the Gospels in around 170-180 AD, Q source comes out around 1800. Also wild the first mention of the Gospels is almost 150 years from the events. Almost as if they aren't first hand accounts...
>>24111087>tiberius' biography was written about 100 years later so we can conclude we know nothing about him other than he seems to have existed
>>24111115Alexander the Great's oldest surviving material is like 300 years after he died.
>>24111080Had a brainfart, lol.They claimed it was written in 175. But they were proven wrong later
I've seen the Norton Critical Edition recommended a few times before. Is it a good choice for someone who has never read the Bible? Is it too academic? I'd like something that would help me grasp the essence of the texts while not being too bloated with unnecessary details and fringe theories
>>24111166you're going to find a lot of "scholarly" problems talked about in this thread there, but at least it's kjv. i don't own that one but i've read through it before. there's even a footnote in mark 9 about how jesus is "likely sarcastic" when he says all things are possible through faith. it's hard to suggest a proper study bible that doesn't go too far in one direction but at least with the more evangelical ones you'd understand the theology more.
>>24111166I'm not a big fanI think the OP edition is more helpful There's also the Jewish Study Bible for the OT but that one is a bit more detailed and academic whereas the OP one is academic in tone but it doesn't get bogged downI highly recommend the NOAB for a first Bible read
>>24108569Call me back when we get the Wilson translation of the Bible.
>>24111166Get the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible >But I'm not CatholicDon't care. It is a good study Bible for everyone and almost everything there will be very good for non-Catholic Christians too.
>>24111166>Is it too academic? I'd like something that would help me grasp the essence of the texts while not being too bloated with unnecessary details and fringe theoriesThen you certainly don't want an "Academic" bible.
>Ahem
>>24111205>open up this bible>first page gives us why it's thought why moses is the author of the pentateuch>the following 6 pages are reasons it's not>Modern scholarship has largely abandoned the tradition of Mosaic authorship in favor of a theory of multiple authorship>we'll let you decide; fairy tales or what consensus believes.>also rsv2ce which removes thees and thousno thanks
>>24111256What?Are we talking about the same Bible?
>>24111231But is there a soft cover version?
>>24111300it has a recently released old testament.
>>24111334The one I read didn't spend 6 pages defending the higher critical theory. It actually said dating in the era of Moses makes more sense.
>>24108569I’ve started with the KJV but the wording in it is so archaic it’s hard for me to follow at points. Part of me wants to continue with the KJV just because of how beautifully written it is, but I also want to be able fully digest the meaning in a straightforward manner. I’m afraid though that if I veer from the KJV I’ll sacrifice the truthfulness to the original text and start getting modern biases malevolently added by the translators.
>>24111137>Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sourcesWe also have coins, the land bridge at Tyre, and graffiti.
>>24111182>evangelical ones you'd understand the theology more.No you won't, because they tend to have theology that was developed in the last 150 years. You get modern shit like Premillennialism that has zero basis in historical Christianity. At this point, theologically, Evangelicals are almost as different from Historical Christians as Mormons are.
>>24111374>Oldest surviving material>survivingThose sources didn't survive. The best material we have on Alexander the Great was written by Arrian (also known as the Epictetus guy) who wrote the Anabasis 400 years after the time of Alexander. There is a slightly older material, but it is written 300 years after Alexander.
>>24111397>sources recounted in other sources don't countIf that was the case we wouldn't have most of the Church fathers, and we wouldn't have things like the Poetry of Sappho. We don't have Against Heresies by Irenaeus btw, we just have Latin translations.
>>24111420Why are you so sure about the authorship of the contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great's life?How can we not know that a Ptolomeian community and an Aristobulusian community created stories a century after Alexander the Great's era who were later attributed to a Ptolemy and Aristobulus? That Arrian and the others attributed those works to those historical figures centuries later to improve their status? What if the contemporary sources were actually forgeries made centuries later based on myths that were different from the Historical Alexander?After all 300 or 400 years are much larger than the number of years you were complaining about, right?I would even argue about a F source that was the basis of the work of two of those contemporary accounts, if we actually had more than very few fragments of them.
We actually need to make a Quest for the Historical Alexander. Actually, Alexander was a composite of many different historical figures and whose military victories were created centuries later by Roman authors.
>>24108654I was about to post a sneer, but this is very useful. Grew up extremely religious (recent tradcath converts who grew up in friendly lib households, you look like fools btw), read the KJV front to back so many times before the age of 13. Have wanted to reread it as a "nonbeliever" (it's complicated), will be checking out this version, thanks
What do you guys think about Pooh studies?>There is little need, at the present stage of scholarship, to attempt a justification of the principle that the dogma of unitary authorship for works of literature must be totally abandoned. In all confidence we may say that a priori we may expect the Pooh corpus (viz. Winnie-the-Pooh, hereafter abbreviated W, containing traditions of higher antiquity than the Deutero-Pooh book, The House at Pooh Corner, hereafter abbreviated H) to be of composite origin; even if there were such a person as A.A. Milne, traditionally the ‘author’, we may be sure that he did not write the Pooh books. His name does not occur once within the narratives themselves, and we can hardly be expected to take a title-page, manifestly a later addition, seriously
>>24111466>>24111476The existence of Alexander the Great, and his conquests are confirmed by numismatic evidence. And people regularly doubt the truth of sources regarding Alexander. If Jesus was examined like Alexander they would probably not even conclude he was real.
>>24111476Problem is, we have a control-set. It's the Tayyaye conquests of the 630s and 640s in the Near East.Contemporaries report much on Abu Musa, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas, Iyad, Khalid, and Mu'awiya. They don't report on Muhammad much, and when they do (Maronite Chronicle, for instance) it's indirect.But with Alexander's conquest we have Babylonian records talking about Darius III and suddenly they're talking Alexander. Also the coinage, as already noted.Difference: Alexander would show up at the place of conquest in person. Muhammad did not - because he was either dead by then or (per Stephen Shoemaker) made a brief run around Roman Palaestina and then died.
>>24111555We are arguing about the authorship of the Alexandrian literature and how the "Alexander the Great" figure might be different from the "Historical Alexander".How can we be sure that Ptolemy and the others wrote the sources? That the (non-surviving, by the way) sources were written by famous contemporary people of Alexander the Great rather than attributed to them centuries after? That those sources were not actually written centuries after Alexander's death by people who have never met them and later attributed to famous people?Of course, the point is not that Alexander the Great was not real. Alexander was real, Arrian was an amazing intellectual who did his best.The point is that academic arguments are just fanfics without any kind of external evidence and if you use the same stupid standards they use, you can't trust the authorship of pretty much anything.Also, your argument here >>24111087 was moronic as well and if used for other things would cast doubt on anything from antiquity.
>>24111593Are you autistic and can't detect sarcasm?
>>24111628I like this theme of Christian argument where they compare a figure whose existence is proven by archaeological evidence (the coins) and deeds are reinforced by archaeological evidence (the coins depicting him being in the places he allegedly conquered, the land bridge at Tyre) and weirdly enough primary sources exist in other cultures the Babylonian Chronicles include the Alexander Chronicle, which is a cuneiform tablet recounting the events so it doubles as archeological evidence; with biblical events and figures which are often absent from the record or contradict the record as found in tablets. This argument and narrative is fascinating because no one says you are supposed to take ancient authors as accurate, they regularly make hilariously weird mistakes and overstate battle numbers by orders of magnitude, or write weird things about the battle (Sennacherib's Prism which contradicts the Bible saying the whole point was the lock him in his cage, when clearly they would have preferred to take the city but weren't up for the necessary assault). In contrast, their sources are usually something written a century after the events by parties who were not present as confirmed by someone who lived two or three centuries later, and their sources are supposed to be taken literally as if the silly shit they say is true.
>>24112024Are you a bot or are you just someone who didn't quite understand what I'm talking about?I'm talking about the authorship and dating of the Gospels and the arguments by some academics to argue against the traditional view. If you use their arguments, you should also doubt the authorship of any other material from the Ancient era.Or even much later material, as seen by the Shakespearean authorship debate (funnily enough, someone used the Higher Biblical Criticism method as a joke on Shakespeare and those same arguments were used later by people arguing Shakespeare didn't write his plays).
I'm >>24112301Just to be explicit and short so you don't miss on the point again: "I'm arguing about the authorship and dating of the Gospels".I'm not arguing Shakespeare was not real. I'm not arguing Shakespeare didn't write his plays.
>>24110400>CCNA 200-301Are you a sysadmin?
I’ve spent so much time reading forums blogs articles and shit online honestly the Douay Rheims is the best. I’ve also compared translations on Bible gateway and it’s the only one that has zero missing verses. It literally only has one weird “error” in Genesis 3:15 it says “her heel” but this was attributed both Hebrew and Latin not having a singular gender word so it can be translated as their heel, his heel or her heel. Either way Challoner and Haydock footnote on this verse explain it. Don’t fall for the “Catholics worship Mary “ or “they’re pagans” meme. Just get the Douay Rheims for the most complete translation. Doesn’t matter what denomination you are or if you believe at all. Also try to get the Haydock Douay Rheims (awesome large book but pricey) or a vintage Benziger published one. The current Baronius, Benedict and Loreto ones have slight typos that were never corrected from 1899 and 1914. This is probably one the few things where I know what I’m talking about. KJV is a meme, plus the Douay has similar flowery language since everyone likes that.
What is the best edition of the KJV?
>>24112301>>24112317I don't necessarily believe Socrates existed. Plenty of ancient texts turned out to be written by other parties. I, based on the text and historical context, am defending Marconian priority and Q source. This is the orthodox scholarly position in academia and has been for almost two hundred years. You are the one making weird assertions.
>>24112452The Douay Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate, not a translation of the Bible. It only serves the purpose of proving the Vulgate in English with all the weird errors that passes through. It's like if someone translated the KJV into Spanish.
>>24112413I wish, I was just in a 1 year course for IT but just recently got dropped for missing over 60 hours.
>>24112452I have 2 copies of this pocket Douay Rheims New Testaments made in Jerusalem from my great Aunt when she visited there
>>241129633/4 of my grandparents were raised Catholic, but my paternal grandfather was Jewish
>>24112919>I don't necessarily believe Socrates existed.This is not related to the discussion, but then you are a fool. Socrates existed.The whole point of my post is that I spit on the face of the "scholarly position" on the authorship of the Gospel. The arguments are illogical and have no supporting evidence.I spit on the face of the scholar consensus in a bunch of areas in social psychology and gender theory too. I spit on the face of fat studies scholars who say Sumo wrestlers are healthy. I spit on so many faces that my mouth is dry right now.Those consensus are not based on evidence but on intellectual fads. Do you have any kind of independent thinking or will you just follow whatever some clown in an academic department will tell you?
Thomas Nelson makes really nice KJV Bibles with center column references. That's my preferred format. Ideally, I'd also have with me a slimline paperback New American Standard Bible with translator's notes, Strong's Concordance, and Vine's Expository Dictionary, and perhaps an atlas. I like the NASB95 for quick reference, since it's a very literal translation, like the KJV, but in modern American english.
>>24110400How the Orthodox Study Bible?I saw it for sale at my local book store.
>>24113283You can choose: either keep Reilly posting; or, if it's not ironic, please familiarize yourself with the Socratic problem so you can understand my post.
>>24113396I should've read the thread. My suggestions for a study bible are either Beeke's Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, or Sproul's Reformation ESV Study Bible
>>24113439You're an idiot if you think Socrates didn't exist.
>>24113396What possible purpose would reading the NASB serve? At least the KJV is historical. The NASB actively mistranslates large portions of key scripture for the purpose of furthering its agenda. They literally created it because they didn't like how accurate translations came out. It is like the ultimate cope/seethe edition of the Bible and was effectively an admission of its group that they knew their positions weren't theologically sound enough to be supported by the actual text. It is mind blowing that these people believe in sola scriptura and are willing to actively promote lies. Clearly they don't seriously believe in their own religion as by their professed beliefs about the scripture and translation they all deserve eternal damnation.
>>24113449Read my post again, google the concepts you don't understand, and try again. >>24113439
>>24113428It's alright if you're Eastern Orthodox or a bible collector like me. I did kinda go through an Orthodox phase but I am a member of PCUSA but my church is conservative.
>>24113462I would think if you had an Oxford Study Bible, that the logical next two bibles to get would be a New Jerusalem and than an Orthodox one. Then maybe an NIV one for particularly funky pop Protestantism. Do you happen to have a recommendation for a Mormon one?
I have the annotated book of Mormon by Oxford University Press(2023) I haven't got around to reading it yet, but it is by the same publisher than puts out the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the Jewish Study Bible and the Catholic Study Bible so it should be pretty good.
>>24113462>or a bible collector like menot orthodox but I like collecting books and reading different versions of the bible.> I am a member of PCUSA but my church is conservative.How does this even happen? The PCUSA church by my house is completely pozzed and I thought they all had to be that way due to presbyterian govt or something. The only reason I'd consider joining PCUSA over PCA is that it's older, but I think that's cope because "he who's last will be first" so who really cares how old it is if they've mostly been co-opted by trannies. I also think it's pretty gay that you have to go to a 4 year college to be an elder in their church. >hurr durr if you want to be involved in our church you have to pay thousands of dollars.They should be able to train elders internally instead of relying on outside institutions. For these reasons I'm wondering if I might as well go the reformed baptist route, because the presbyterian government structure unsettles me a bit and I think I'll never find a church that I agree with on doctrine 100%.
>>24113457This is a gross mischaracterization. The NASB is a highly respected translation known for its accuracy and literal approach to the original languagse. I'm open to addressing any specific issues you might wish to cite.
>>24113457Are you saying the NASB isn't materially sufficient?I've heard good things about it and heard it recommended along with the ESV.
>>24113561Oh, and the obvious purpose it serves is that it helps contemporary readers understand the original text more easily than the KJV, which uses archaic English that can be challenging for modern readers.
>>24113557Redeemed Zoomer( a member of the PCUSA) has a map of historic mainline Protestant churches that haven't gone liberal/ pozzed https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=-1.013965594255032%2C-45.34013837262136&z=3&entry=yt&mid=1PNd_sJagci84PyKmGC6M5VJtaLMEWxg
>>24113599He literally lists the one in my town that I've been to that's "all about social justice" and does gay marriages. RZ does some okay work but he's still an authoritarian leftist (commie lmao) at heart based on his political compass results that he took on stream. He probably made a mistake, though, and didn't know that this particular church is ran by leftists.
>>24113615RZ is cringe and should not be listened to.
>>24113457found the seething catholic
>>24113663NASB + MacArthur guide and ESV are literally Reformed (aka Calvinist) translations. Their ideas didn't just branch away from the KJV and Tyndale versions—they didn't even have perfectly overlapping source material.KJV used the Masoretic Texts and the Textus Receptus.But NASB makes changes in the Old Testament using the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in the 20th century. And it used Nestle-Aland for the New Testament, including the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the one that was discovered in a fucking trash can). But they used textual criticism to decide which of the thousands of manuscripts was accurate. Basically, it is completely arbitrary. There is no seething to be had here on my part. I'm just a Protestant pointing out NASB is a shit translation made by people who doubt the Word of God is refined pure as silver in the translation he gave to English speaking people first.
So you're some kind of fundie? Primitive Baptist or something?I'm not sure why you'd include a book of commentary by MacArthur in a conversation about the validity of translations, but at any rate textual criticism is a rigorous field of study, not 'arbitrary guessing.' The NASB involved scholars from various denominations. The idea that it was solely produced by eisegetical Calvinists is simply untrue.
>>24113777>textual criticism is a rigorous field of studyLolLmao even
>>24113561>>24113571The NASB is not respected. If people around you are saying it is they, hopefully, are just ignorant. The NASB is like the ESV. It is an agenda driven translation that willfully changes the text. A good test for a bible translation you can easily run is this: flip to Isaiah 7:14. If the word is virgin it is not an accurate translation of the text, unless you are reading a translation of the Vulgate. Even modern Catholic bibles don't make this mistake. The mistake relates to a historical translation error that was considered too theologically useful to undo. There are other tests, but the Isaiah 7:14 is easiest as its one word and 2x7 is 14 so it's easy to remember.
>>24113557I like the theological unseriousness of people who don't like a Christian church because it is pozzed. Like hypothetically imagine you have to choose between hating gays/troons and going to heaven, and you are like no I would rather hate gays/troons. How unserious does someone have to be about Christianity that they put their political preferences AHEAD of their possibility of salvation. Then again, there are dead serious racist Christians, which is hilarious as it overtly tells you in Acts that racism is bad.
>>24113898Your an idiot. God literally hates sinners in the Bible. You can welcome gays to your Church to hear the word of God and repent, but you don't affirm their sin with a stamp of approval by marrying fags and claiming to be more about "social justice" than Christ. But you're obviously not even a Christian talking out of the side of your neck.
>>24113914You clearly didn't understand my post. What if hating something you prefer to hate is a sin? Would you continue to hate it? God is the judge not you, so any inquiry as to what he hates and likes should be done carefully and not based on your own preferences. A great example is racist Christians. Acts 10:34-35 say you aren't allowed to be racist. Are you going to be racist? If so you aren't seriously concerned with hell, and probably, deep down, don't believe in God or at least in the Bible's truths. You worship the work of your own hands, and will not be saved. It's not my problem if you won't repent, but it's a pity.
>>24113898Christians shouldn't hate anyone. We should love everyone.But a church who changes its teaching in order to please atheists is not serious.
>>24113968So a Church that changes the Bible to suit the demands of parishioners that it be "based" as opposed to "pozzed" is preferable? What if the word of God was pozzed? Would you still follow it?
>>24113982who leads? the body or the head? the child or the parent?
>>24113959You're basically arguing that a Church can preach and do whatever they want. So ignoring your rhetorical non-sequiturs, let me propose one of my own: Would a Church that doesn't preach the word of God be just as valid as one that does? If someone goes to that church their whole life without hearing the gospel, would that benefit them? I'll answer for you, no they wouldn't. A preachers job is to expound the word of God, NOT to haphazardly influence others to pursue what he himself thinks would amount to some idea of social justice propagated and invented by literal neo-marxists.>inb4 ignores everything and says I'm racist for bring up marxism or something.
>>24113982Where did I say anything about changing the Bible to "make it more based"?
>>24114001No. I am arguing a Protestant Church needs to base its theology in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the OT and the Greek NT. My hypothetical is as follows: if you are required to be "liberal" by the NT, and you choose not to do that because it is "liberal" you cannot possibly believe in sola scriptura. This question only applies to Churches claiming to believe in sola scriptura. The inverse would be equally true, and is equally applicable to an organization that ignores the text in the other direction.>>24113990>>24114050Origin of my point was addressing the NASB, which changed the text to suit "conservative" preferences specifically willfully mistranslating Isaiah 7:14 to read Virgin when it reads young woman.
>>24112508I like my Oxford World's Classics copy. It has a very good introduction on the history and collation of the Bible.
>>24114108>mistranslating Isaiah 7:14 to read Virgin when it reads young woman.listen, nerd. the "sign", in the context as coming from the lord, is a miracle so every translation has the right to consider the young maiden a virgin. this includes the lxx, peshitta and the dss. not only is this perfectly reasonable, but in the following chapter, isaiah does have a child and this fulfills the short and long term prophecy.
>>24108569My family has a big Catholic bible with gilded pages and it has the best footnotes. When Jesus gets speared in the side and water comes out of him, there's a footnote explaining it's possible if the spear hit a specific organ, but it's still generally considered a miracle. I've never seen a Bible spit hard facts so casually before or since.
>>24114160The LXX was the translation error. Are you asserting that when the LXX differs from the DSS and Hebrew text that it is preferable? So edited Isaiah is correct? Like that's your choice but that's not sola scriptura. Because there is a word for virgin, and almah is not the word for it. BTW, if you are insisting that an edited copy of Isaiah is the "correct" version for Christianity, you are insisting that Jesus isn't the Messiah, as under your logic Isaiah did not foresee Jesus.Hebrew: הָעַלְמָ֗ה
>>24114186Too bad the alexandrian jews didn't know this interpretative translation would become problematic 200 years later for them. oopsie.
>>24114186almah means young women of marriage age, which contextually means virgin. tie that in with the "sign" from the lord and it's completely understandable to translate this as virgin.
I was baptized tonight, guys.
>>24114191Did it? Or did they want to associate the prophecy with Artemis for some weird reason we 2300 years later don't understand? Who knows, but it's not Isaiah.>>24114206Look at Genesis 24 in an interlinear to see how it is translated as young woman in the NRSVU just like Isaiah 7:14, but the NASB translated Genesis 24's virgins as virgins and young woman as young woman but translates the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 as virgin.
>>24114443>Look at Genesis 24no, you don't understand. i have read the hebrew and i know what the term is. betulah is what you, the skeptic, would like to see but i'm baking in the very first line of the passage to make the case; as it should be with reading texts from antiquity. this is like a bart erhman type of textual criticism where every line is seen as in a vacuum removed from the time, context and people it was written for. and when did i say i was sola scriptura? early church fathers like augustine and eusebius understood this as virgin.
>>24114471In the Song of Solomon 6:8 a group is described as almah and one of the almah in the group is specified as being undefiled in the rest of the chapter. So no. It doesn't mean virgin. You can read academic articles on this, but the group that made the NASB specifically derive (like most evangelicals) from a group that lost that academic debate but were able to secure funding from rich patrons to create their own translation. It's amazing how the last 200 years of Christian theological history has been a narrative where the losers get more funding than the winners of academic debate, and so the most retarded version of the religion gets pushed out front. Seriously, even the Catholic Church translates Isaiah 7:14 as young woman and their big thing is the perpetual virginity of Mary. Like yeah, maybe mainline Protestants are just correct about things and that's why they control all the seminaries while evangelicals have to found new ones every 30 years because after a generation or so of diligent intelligent people reading the Bible full time they stop believing what their funding what's them to create propaganda for. Disgusting anti-Christian filth. The NASB/NIV/ESV might as well be the book of the antichrist himself as they only thing they are inspired by is the whispers of the devil.
>>24114649>KJVonlyists sperging outPar for the course. What denomination do you hail from?
>>24114670I am arguing for the NRSVU and literally the version the OP posted as a study bible as I think it's good. I hate the NASB and ESV with a passion though. I am actually a super boring PECUSA. So maybe I got a little carried away but it's really messed up that they willful mistranslate the Bible and then claim sola scriptura just because they wanted to make it hateful. I know it's schizo, but I unironically believe the NASB, NIV and ESV translations have a demonic aura, and I don't like to touch copies of them.
>>24114649>once again only apply textual criticism to a single word in a passage and ignore the hebrew word for miracle in the passage preceding itand for the record, i'm not protestant nor catholic. call this retarded all you want but you're the pedant in this. you even assumed i was trying to be sola scriptura. i have no idea what your goal is in all of this.
>>24114726Support for the NRSVU and New Jerusalem translations opposition to the ESV, NIV and NASB translations. Very simple. I believe OP's study Bible is ideal.
>>24114415Congrats bro. I was baptized in November 2019.
>>24114415Impressive for a baby to be posting, but you need to be 18 to post here.
>>24114786Infant baptism is gross.
>>24108569If you don’t handle serpents or speak in tongues you aren’t a true Christian
>>24114788"It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell" -John Calvin
>>24114799See? Catholicism is gross.
Good thread.
>>24111347I've read the entire Bible with the NRSV and the entirety of the New Testament with the KJV. The NRSV is a fine translation
Why would any Christian look down on the Septuagint? It is older than the Masoretic text and is the version the Apostles had.
>>24115377Because it has errors in Isaiah that the DSS confirmed. Prior to the DSS scrolls there was a debate about the Masoretic text vs the LXX but the DSS proved the errors to be in the LXX not the Masoretic text. Also only Jesus was a prophet and the NT merely recounts his deeds, so the book is just an attempt of an institution, the Church, to recount his deeds. That's why Apostolic Succession is so important.
This is the edition of the KJV I would recommend :)
>>24115618Jesus read the Septuagint when he was doing his ministry. Did he make a mistake and should have listened to atheist bible scholars instead?The DSS is not the ultimate authority and in many places it sides with the Septuagint.Jerome had better sources than we have, both in Hebrew and Greek and he translated it as "virgin".Also, did Divinely Inspired Matthew made a mistake when he interpreted it as "virgin" when writing his Gospel?
>>24115686Are you implying the Jesus was not familiar with the actual text of Isaiah? Like that the LXX is somehow divinely inspired but not the writings of the prophet himself?
>>24115630>47th president of the United States of AmericaDoesn't this declare that Biden was the 46th and thus his election wasn't legitimate?
>>24115989Your post confirms you're autistic.
>>24115956Jesus quotes the Septuagint in the Gospels
Blump
Anyone here have any insight on the Knox translation? I appreciate the historical aspect of the vulgate rather than more modern masoretic texts, but have found from reading online that the duoay rheims is too archaic for me to read at a comfortable pace. The sections of the Knox translation I’ve read online on the other hand seem to be beautifully composed. To have access to an English vulgate translation with such prose seems too good to be true though, does he take too many liberties with the translation?
>>24116112Wait, that kind of disproves the NT. That is a major error as the DSS show that to be incorrect. So either the NT is not a reliable source or Jesus was not the Messiah. Fucking kek.
>>24118389No, because the LXX could be divinely inspired and not the Hebrew Bible. Meaning that the Isaiah prophecy is actually a prophecy of the LXX, not Isaiah.
>>24111347I read the KJV last year, and I wouldn't have understood it as well if I hadn't previously read Gideons. I even still skipped Ecclesiastes and read it in Gideons. The KJV is very beautiful but you can always read it again after you have understanding in a less opaque version.
>>24115618>You can't really trust your version of the Bible, goy, you need to just TRUST THE EXPERTS.
>>24118389If God Himself quoted from the Septuagint in His ministry, who are you to say he is wrong?Are the DSS scrolls supposed to be above God?
Solomon Zeitlin wrote extensively on the language in the great isaiah scroll(1QIsa) which is dated 100 bc but is actually a first century forgery due to contemporary popular hebrew terms in it. the scraps and fragments of the "dss" agree more with the lxx than they do with the mt.
>>24118576Seems to disprove him being god if he can't quote Isaiah right. I have never seen a stronger argument of Christianity before than the one you just gave me.
