Which version is the most real?

Which version is the most real?

Other urls found in this thread:

e-sword.net/
skepticsannotatedbible.com
skepticsannotatedbible.com/intro.html
biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm
biblehub.com/acts/18-21.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χάρις
youtube.com/watch?v=CeyajxMS8Jo
youtube.com/watch?v=BIP4fN6fknI
youtube.com/watch?v=C6wZLHgQmpw&
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Read several and figure it out for yourself. Study the bible if you want to learn about it. Nobody on here is going to be able to give you any real insight.

>not learning hebrew to experience jesus' words as he intended
Never gonna make it bruh

the original NT was written in Greek not Hebrew

Just learn biblical Greek if you're really gonna be a version virgin and pretend you understand God's word better than actual Biblical scholars who have spent a lifetime researching it.

Seriously? Fucking why

As a translator myself, dynamic would be the best option. The Torah isn't meant to be translated anyways so the best method would be learning hebrew and read the original. Regarding the NT, pretty much every dynamic translation available would be accurate.

KJV 1611. All other versions are false and heretical.

Because that was what they spoke when it was first written? Are you retarded?

Nah jesus spoke aramaic i just googled it

As Jews were expelled from their homeland, Hebrew became less important than the local language over the years. This, coupled with the fact that written ancient Hebrew is very difficult to read (no written vowels or spaces between words), Jews in Judea and throughout the Eastern half of the Roman empire used Greek as their written language.

Because Greek back them was today's English.
>our bible is the true one because God didn't really meant to give us the previous one.

>Nobody on here is going to be able to give you any real insight.
t. dumb newfag

There are over 5000 different copies of greek biblical manuscripts but only one of the original KJV 1611. Why would God allow men to create so many different, twisted versions of His word? It stands to reason that the KJV 1611 is God's favorite Bible.

The original NT is written in C and C++ moran

...

Topkek.

Is this laughing matter to you? Never speak to me again you subhuman hellbound ape.

how can we trust luther when he was a bit of a cunt and had a knack for propaganda

and how do orthodox bibles fit into this

Orthdox """""christians""""" still worship idols. Says a lot about what their "bible" teaches them

King James is jewshit.

Censors the zoroastrian crescent moon symbol and changes 'murder' to 'kill' to weaken christianity.

their icons dipshit.

And we don't worship them. Their windows into the pass that we observe and are thankful for.

How old do you need to be to post in Sup Forums?

Icons weren't a problem until Luther got sour grapes about bishops having more money than him

NRSV

If you believe saints or priests are inherently more godly than other people, you idolize them by definition.

>no Young's Literal Translation

Pleb

Explain the homosexual anal beads which you use to violate Matthew 6:7.

Because Alexander the Great buttfucked the Persian Empire

HCSB is the true bible kino. There is no debate.

Stay mad heretic.
>godly
Saints are not "godly" people, they are good Christians that lived and died a pious live for God, and are held as examples of how a good Christian should be.

Doesn't mean he wasn' t a jew that spoke his original message in hebrew. So "as intended" is definitely still in hebrew.

Get them all and cross reference:

e-sword.net/

Which of the 73 odd bibles?

I'm not the hail m*ry shouting, idol whoreshipping, jesus eating, fag enabling, p*pe calling hellbound heathen here. It is you.

MSG with my fortune cookie

NASB is good, NIV was fine until they recently started doing weird editorial shit like add gender inclusive language

Why don't you give some insight then?

Nice words there, your pastor knows how to indoctrinate ignorants. Enjoy your satanic fake degenerate creation of a schizophrenic lustful monk, chick priest divorce loving Zionist worshipping fag.

false jesus spoke aramaic

I see what you did there.

Jesus was fucking dead when they wrote it

>implying that the fags here actually understand the word of Jesus

>wew lad

KJV has the most scholarship, withstood the test of time, and no modern political bias, also talks frankly about jews and sodomites.

based
hard mode, no STL

Nice rebuttal. I notice you do not deny any of the charges against you. For the record Priests ARE allowed to get married - it would be SATANIC to forbid straight marriage! (Tim 4:1-3) For is our (not yours, for you worship the devil) God not a God of love? Peter himself was married! (Matt 8:14)There's also no scripture that supports divorce. Indeed in Mark 10:9 God quite clearly states that no MAN is allowed to put asunder a union of God! Why would I, a True Christian, be in support of such heretical practices?

guys, guys, calm down, both your religion's are shit

Put www.concordant.org even more in the Green to the left. And; was King James a pedo?

>word-for-word
>ESV: "Greetings, O favored one."
>NASB: "Greetings, favored one."
>AMP: "Greetings, favored one!"
>KJV: "Hail, thou that art highly favoured"
These are not word-for-word. The "favored one" is actually covering up a Greek word that means filled to plenitude with grace. Hence, "full of grace" is a more literal translation and also theologically far more insightful. The point is that the angel is addressing Mary with this word like it's her nature, filled to plenitude with grace. "Favored one" just leaves you asking "favored how" if you even ask because most people would read it in the sense that she's favored because the angel is speaking to her rather than being intrinsically favored beyond other creatures. It sounds almost like a polite form of address rather than something profoundly revelatory about Mary.

skepticsannotatedbible.com
le tip meme does not invalidate anything on this site.

I never said anything in favor of celibacy, which is not Christian doctrine and can and should be changed as it doesn't fit today's world. As for divorce, sectarians are known for divorcing their already invalid Christian unions as they please, which is a direct act against Jesus' teachings (Luke 16:18), not to mention many of them are performing degenerate marriage between homosexuals or even polygamist ones, yet they dare to call themselves Christians.

Which one is about Horus?
The Egyptian Original Jesus where Christianity just copied the Jesus story from.

Here is an updated image.

Please study and learn something biblefags.

Show evidence and not vague anti-christians assumptions or gtfo.

Why would a Christian read a skeptic's Bible the whole aim of which is to try to poke holes in the text and seek ways to ridicule religion? Only a fedora tipper like yourself could possibly be arrogant enough to think it's somehow unbiased or more credible as a source. It's like leaning on Christopher Hitchens for insight on the Christian faith.

It is unbiased. All it does is quote the evil shit that happens or is commanded in the bible, and if you don't see them as evil you are objectively a horrible person.

Wew, it's even worse than I thought. I note it reads Genesis as if it were meant to be a science text in the era it was written in. Absolutely cringey annotation. My instant thought was that there is no way the annotation is based on any kind of thorough study that entails knowledge and understanding beyond the superficial (regardless of actual belief since there are many scholars who are not believers). So I went looking for an about page and saw this: skepticsannotatedbible.com/intro.html
That is extraordinarily moronic from beginning to end. Phrase after phrase of foolishness. For example this entire passage is so unbelievably stupid and uninformed it leaves me speechless:
>The most popular solution to this problem is to leave the Bible reading to the clergy. The clergy then quote from the Bible in their writings and sermons, and explain its meaning to the others. Extreme care is taken, of course, to quote from the parts of the Bible that display the best side of God and to ignore those that don't. That this approach means that only a fraction of the Bible is ever referenced is not a great problem; because although the Bible is not a very good book, it is a very long one.
>But if so little of the Bible is actually used, then why isn't the rest deleted? Why aren't the repetitious passages -- which are often contradictory as well -- combined into single, consistent ones? Why aren't the hundreds of cruelties and absurdities eliminated? Why aren't the bad parts of the "Good Book" removed?
This remarkable in two ways: 1) it is amazingly uninformed and foolish, and 2) the author is so arrogant that he thinks it's intelligent and insightful.

You have no clue what you're talking about at all. None. Hence a perfect example of the average fedora tipper.

>in the era it was written in
Apologetics is fucking hilarious.
>I-it's the unerring word of G*d
>But you have to understand it in its historical context!!!

any English language translation is objectively bad and such translations are wholly responsible for the "Jesus was Jewish" mess we have today

if you're too dumb to read Latin or Greek you're too dumb to read the Bible.

You keep proving you're utterly clueless. So be it.

>Can't even read post IDs
Fucking retard get out.

95% of the bible is up to personal interpretation because it's vague, bronze age sand person horse shit. What isn't vague are commands like "kill people because I said so", "if you wear a cotton/polyester shirt you're going to hell", or the flooding the entire earth, the destruction of entire cities in a hail of fire, demonic plagues like locust, turning a river to blood and killing every firstborn son while passing over homes marked with blood sigils.

From my experience, NLT is very good

The horus thing is bullshit. Alexander the great, though... according to the more mythical accounts of his life his father, philipo, didn't sleep with olympias (the mother) because he thought she had an affair with a god. When alexander was born, the temple of artemis burnt down and middle eastern magi ran away, seeing it as a sign. Alexander died at age 33. He was seen as wise and special since he was a young kid. Christianity is heavily influenced by ancient greek and macedonian culture. A lot of the bible was actually written in greek and the concepts of the soul and variations of heaven and hell come from greece.
Also, no one wrote about jesus until more than a hundred years after his death and there's no reason to believe he actually existed. Specially when all the books have been kept by the vatican for hundreds of years and they must have been tempted to alter history to gain power every now and then.

Underage fedora tipper, please.

>95% of the bible is up to personal interpretation
Thoroughly false. As an aside, Christianity is not a Bible only religion. Neither is Judaism for that matter.
>because it's vague
Depends on understanding whether something is vague since it's not one book but a collection of books, and the books are not part of one genre but many different genres. There is also a need to understand the relation of different books to each other, but clearly this is impossible if one is unable to differentiate clearly between the books on a basic level.
>bronze age sand person horse shit
Hmm. Mythology? Yes, there is mythology in it.
>What isn't vague are commands like "kill people because I said so",
There are no such commands to believers in the sense of religious instruction. There is such in context of historical narratives, which is different.
>"if you wear a cotton/polyester shirt you're going to hell",
Oversimplifcation, and actually even the mixed garments issue is deeper than one would think at first blush because you would also want to understand the usage of say, linen in other contexts. Anyway, that also implies Mosaic law is binding. It is not. Mosaic law marked out Jews from other peoples, which is part of the reason they were important for Jews to follow.

As for the rest of your list, yes, many things have happened. Also would be helpful to have a basic understanding of the nature of different books in the Bible if you're interested in learning about it instead of listing stuff as an attempt at "gotcha" which is not illuminating.

Tacitus mentioned someone fitting the description of Jesus in fairness but it was probably a desert Jim Jones.

very informative but I disagree with God preserving the purity of the text

proof by counterexample
>the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness bibles exist

and why would God prescribe punishment for altering the text of Revelation if it was unalterable?
>[Rev 22:18-19 NASB] 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.


We can't just assume whichever translation is most convenient for us is most accurate.

What we CAN assume is that the original texts (not necessarily the manuscripts we have) were God's pure and perfect word. He wouldn't give false teachings under the assumption it would be corrected 300 years later.

We have to analyze all of our texts and use a formalized process, i.e. hermeneutics and probability theory, to try to uncover what those original texts were. Only then can we be sure that a well-developed translation can be most accurate.

It's absolutely silly to think a translation-of-a-translation-of-a-translation-of-a-translation could ever be more accurate than a translation of the original text.

He wrote around 100 ac

>KJV
>good
ishygsddt

None of these are arguments.
By the way I studied Religion at a private Christian university, so get fucked moron.

King James bible is the best and most accurate translation, all the (((new bibles))) were made by jews

I like Luther's

The Greek Orthodox version is probably the most authentic though

kys

>Thoroughly false.
There wouldn't be 6 million different sects of it if it wasn't up in the air. It is vague. There are innumerable nonsensical passages that nobody even knows what the fuck the point being made is so they have to say "ah, this must mean x", "no, it obviously means y", "you guise are both wrong, you see it's METAPHORICAL just like everything else in the bible even though there is absolutely no indication of this!"

>Yes, there is mythology in it.
Therefore because it was a time where mythology was accepted as fact you should take everything said within with a grain of salt.

>There are no such commands to believers in the sense of religious instruction.
There very clearly are, many of which involve cruelty and violence. The NT isn't any better with Jesus saying that if you don't hate your family/friends you can't truly love Jesus. He could have easily said "love me so much that the love for your friends/family is like hate in comparison" but he didn't, he stated it very clearly.

>Mosaic law
Matthew 5:17-18

>yes, many things have happened
Yes, biblically you are absolutely right. The biblical god is a malevolent, murderous vampiric demon and there is absolutely no reason anyone should actually want to worship it except to avoid going to hell, which is something he created based on whether or not you follow his absolutely fucking retarded ruleset.

Douay-Rheims is the best Bible you can get desu

>NIV was fine
Scholars don't use it because it's so garbage.

Here we go again *throws shit at fan*

>These are not word-for-word. The "favored one" is actually covering up a Greek word that means filled to plenitude with grace. Hence, "full of grace" is a more literal translation and also theologically far more insightful. The point is that the angel is addressing Mary with this word like it's her nature, filled to plenitude with grace. "Favored one" just leaves you asking "favored how" if you even ask because most people would read it in the sense that she's favored because the angel is speaking to her rather than being intrinsically favored beyond other creatures. It sounds almost like a polite form of address rather than something profoundly revelatory about Mary
Protestants edit and cover up shit so how is this surprising you?

Unm, no sweetie, the Hindu-Romans invented Christianity by forcing Greeyptian (Greek and Egyptian) pagan culture onto their people. You are so dumb pumkin.

Jesus spoke Aramaic you fucking idiot.

Septuagint.

Jesus is the Logos, i.e. the programming language of the universe. So the universe and everything within it was written in Jesus Christ.

Gnostics GTFO

>The biblical god is a malevolent
Old testament God had a tendency to fly off the handle.
>his absolutely fucking retarded ruleset.
It's not yours to judge, you're not a god.

ESV is easiest to read while getting a word-for-word translation (best). But have a KJV and an interlinear as well. If you are serious about leaning about the Bible. You should learn when they ADD things that were not originally there:

biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm

Notice how they add to this verse (occurred in 1859), and it is not in the KJB?

They are systematically taking law-observing behaviors out of the Bible.

Here is another one of Paul obeying Torah and attending the feast, correctly reported in the KJB but no others:

biblehub.com/acts/18-21.htm

(((Tipping intensifies)))

>Hindu Roman
>Absorbing Greek Egypt pagan
>Creating Christianity
W..what

I'll absolutely judge his moral code just like any other fictional character. He's okay with killing countless millions of innocents, slavery, rape, having multiple wives, wants you to kill people for stupid and arbitrary reasons such as disobedient children (see: all children), wants you to mutilate you and your sons' genitals among many other cruel and batshit examples. That is not good moral character. Instead of the test being how much you helped others and avoided hurting anyone it's based on obedience.

>There wouldn't be 6 million different sects of it if it wasn't up in the air. It is vague. T
False. These are Protestant sects. For the first 1500 years this issue did not exist. Many Protestant groups have interpretations that make no sense. This kind of degeneracy is not applicable to Christianity as a whole. As I said it is not a Bible only religion, nor is it a free-for-all in terms of interpretation.

>Therefore because it was a time where mythology was accepted as fact
It wasn't though.

>There very clearly are, many of which involve cruelty and violence.
No, there are no such commandments that you can claim are binding on Christians, and Jews have a lot to say about such commandments in the Hebrew Bible's narratives also. As for Jesus, he used rhetorical devices like hyperbole. Ultimately it is true though that if a believer chooses to agree to the evil of their family, they do not love Jesus.

>Matthew 5:17-18
Fulfilled the law. Mosaic law (like food laws) are not binding on Christians. Instead Christians seek the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Obviously a lengthy topic in itself.

>The biblical god is a malevolent, murderous vampiric demon ...
I disagree though I can see what could propel people to say something like that.

God is a superstition

>I disagree
Then you are legitimately a cruel and terrible person with a severe case of Stockholm syndrome and there's no point in talking to you.

>By the way I studied Religion at a private Christian university, so get fucked moron.
You must've gone to a shit-tier school given everything you've written in this thread smacks of someone who wouldn't pass an exam on 101-tier catechesis and elementary knowledge about the Bible and Christian doctrine.

I'm not going to explain in depth why I disagree because it would require a lot of writing. You can keep your self-righteous meme-tier fedora-tipping opinions and call me a cruel and terrible person as if you had any authority or real justification to do that.

If you don't see the issue with
>punishing all of humanity for something we had nothing to do with, instead of using his omniscience to see the fall of man coming and stop it
>mass murder, including the genocide of the entire planet and destruction of entire cities
>slavery (as long as it's not almighty YHWH's chosen people)
>rape, saying it's okay to rape little girls after you've killed all of the men, women and little boys
>murder - both commanded and okay when a jew does it to a gentile as long as nobody's looking
>genital mutilation
>the threat of eternal hellfire if you disobey
to name a few, there is absolutely no way you can consider yourself of good moral character. The only reason you let god get away with it is because he's god.

Any that has these
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χάρις

this is the Greek word

it's not even etymologically close to "filled to plenitude with grace"

>For the first 1500 years this issue did not exist.

Because you killed or exiled people who didn't agree.

>Matthew 5:17-18

He said "I came to fulfill." As in to fulfill an order. He came to bring the law, not to take it away.

>Matthew 5:17-18
>Fulfilled the law. Mosaic law (like food laws) are not binding on Christians. Instead Christians seek the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Obviously a lengthy topic in itself.

Not so much...

For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:18-19

Here is when "heaven and earth pass away:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. - Revelation 21:1

and here...

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. - 2 Peter 3:13

None of God's perfect, holy and eternal law have passed away. The Bible has been systematically changed to make you more lawless, which is not a good thing:

biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm

Notice how they add to this verse the parentheses (occurred in 1859), and it is not in the KJB?

They are systematically taking law-observing behaviors out of the Bible.

Here is another one of Paul obeying Torah and attending the feast, correctly reported in the KJB but no others:

biblehub.com/acts/18-21.htm

The KJB shows that Paul still obeyed God's laws about the festivals after Jesus' resurrection.

You have been fed a load of lies about God's law that are not in alignment with what Jesus said and did.

Remember also, breaking Deut 4:2 would have made Jesus a sinner:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Start here:

youtube.com/watch?v=CeyajxMS8Jo

youtube.com/watch?v=BIP4fN6fknI

youtube.com/watch?v=C6wZLHgQmpw&

If you get through those videos, then I would highly recommend you watch the entire "Pauline Paradox" series by 119 Ministries. Just test it by the Word and see if it is true for you brother. God bless.

>connection error
connection error

>there is absolutely no way you can consider yourself of good moral character
According to you, and there is nothing absolute about your understanding or moral authority. The way you present these things is fundamentally flawed. For example, by "rape little girls..." you must be referring to tribal warfare in Numbers. That was not God giving a command. God seemed to tolerate what Moses did, yes, but it doesn't say God saw it as inherently good. Tribal warfare was brutal on all sides, which I'm sure you realize. The reason Moses orders them to take the virgins was that they were the only ones Israelites could marry while the others were of the religion of their husbands. I guess they could've killed the virgins too, but it is unclear if that would have been your moral preference or whether you would have preferred the Israelites to allow the other tribe to kill them (the Israelites) instead. Perhaps you in the place of Moses would have applied your morals and taken all captive after they didn't want to be killed anymore and treated them peacefully despite not having the means at your disposal to hold such numbers of captives. Or maybe you would've let them go regroup and fight you again soon afterward. Or perhaps you would've opted to let the other tribe kill your people entirely. After all, this latter kind of moral is in vogue these days. The good thing is we're not in Moses' era fighting such tribal war.

No. The Greek word in Romanized script is kecharitōmenē and means what I said.

>119 Ministries
I don't have the time to look at it now. It would be helpful to know where and how and why it departs from orthodox Christianity. If they depart, it raises serious questions on what authority they do that. If they don't, it raises other questions. Anyway, since you linked those vids, I'll look at it later.