Which version of the bible is Sup Forums approved and why?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

haydock1859.tripod.com
i.imgur.com/MDZYZLs.png
satanslibrary.org/Pdf_Library.html
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Clementina-Vulgata-English-Latin/dp/1905574444
youtu.be/bEDfrBBPZzg
gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-one-god-of-bible-trinity-or-god.html
youtu.be/VowDsBkr2f8
youtube.com/channel/UCwX0AEx-qIhQ9kgtlNhyIXw
youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

King James. Apart from that whatever the orthodox read.

This

King James or douay rheims

No Jewish literature is Sup Forums approved.

>being this much of a cuck

Catholic bible. One approved by American catholic association, don't buy into the Martin Luther meme or this judaized New Testament bullshit

Not Jewish. I prefer the old testament alone.

KJV
If there was a new Bible version and (((newly discovered manuscripts))) every 10 years you can guess where that will eventually lead.

Name me one good Catholic Bibles,

Fourth post best post

Kiss any muslim feet today cucktholic?

Go marry fags and pray to women ministries, cuck.

...

>martin luther
>judaised

You're living the time of revelations. The sign which was in the sky during creation was visible on the 23rd Sept 2017 as a sign of revelations beginning. The fact that the sign was present also when God told humanity that he'll place signs in the heavens, and that it is the only sign to be repeated makes it the greatest sign.

Latin vulgate if you're autistic about being authentic, or douay rheims if you're cool with having an English translation.

ArtScroll's Chumash (only 5 books of Moses tho)

To speak of English translations, first is the Douay-Rheims (Challoner revision)
haydock1859.tripod.com

That is the translation that English-speaking traditionalist Catholics generally read. If you're looking for a modern version, there is the New American Bible (decent translation, but the notes are not very Catholic), the Jerusalem bibles (not familiar with those translations) and there are Catholic versions of the RSV. There is also the Ronald Knox translation, which is a looser translation, but has been praised for its literary merits (I don't like it personally).

If you want an older translation, there is the original Douay-Rheims translation. The Rheims NT was completed in 1583 and the Douay OT was completed in 1609 (two volumes), so it predates the KJV. It's a very interesting translation, and has its own study notes that are different from the Haydock notes I posted with the (revised) DR above. You can probably find PDFs on Google Books, but may have a hard time filtering it out from the Challoner revision.

...

...

...

>Catholic bible. One approved by American catholic association, don't buy into the Martin Luther meme or this judaized New Testament bullshit

Which contains apocryphal books that contradict Jesus' message

i.imgur.com/MDZYZLs.png

>human words used to interpret god's will
No book is approved by God and all of you blasphemers will have to face him someday

Yes, this is the answer. To authentically experience sacred scripture, you must don a burlap sack and read from the Stuttgart Vulgate with the Glossa Ordinaria.

>an inaccurate translation in a dead language
>a KJV ripoff
>NABRE and Jerusalem, just shitty modern Bibles that aren't even literal translations

Yeah, that's what I thought.

The older you go the better. Don't read the modern iterations.

Hebrew, aramaic and greek manuscripts only, or else you're not hardcore

>>an inaccurate translation in a dead language
>>a KJV ripoff
>>NABRE and Jerusalem, just shitty modern Bibles that aren't even literal translations

Yeah mate. KJV was translated from Byzantine texts which were recorded by the apostles during the Pentecost.

>Hebrew, aramaic and greek manuscripts only

Why is Hebrew fine if you're against translations? And what in the English translation KJV has been mistranslated from Greek?

>Why is Hebrew fine if you're against translations?
Old Testament is in Hebrew

>virgin
>gave birth
pick one

>Old Testament is in Hebrew
Would have been re translated mate. Hebrew only started being taught again in the nineteenth century I think.

The truth about the bible: satanslibrary.org/Pdf_Library.html

See article: "the holy bible a book of jewish witchcraft" among others.

So basically you're just trolling, not actually asking a question?

The Douay-Rheims isn't a ripoff of the KJV. First of all, the original Douay-Rheims Bible predates the KJV, which was not completed until 1611, and in fact the Rheims NT was a strong influence on the NT of the KJV. The Challoner revision reads more like the KJV in terms of vocabulary, but the KJV itself borrows on other earlier versions. Secondly, they both serve different purposes. The KJV is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text for the OT and the Greek NT. The Douay-Rheims is a translation based on the Vulgate.

The NAB is not as "literal" in terms of formal equivalence as other modern translations like the NASB and ESV, but it still is mostly a formal equivalent translation. That said, more dynamic translations have their own merits, and only people who are autistically stuck to a single translation (not even the original languages, but the one, true "literal" English translation) can't stand the idea of different translation philosophies.

>See article: "the holy bible a book of jewish witchcraft" among others.

kabbalah started off just as Biblical science for the OT before it devolved into occult and satanic cults.

Hell is a trash pile, and not the same as the lake of fire.

She gave birth in a miraculous and virginal way, so that Mary retained her virginity before, during and after the birth of Christ.

>but the one, true "literal" English translation
It was ordered by a King and translated from the original Greek Bible's mate. Can you point out any way in which other versions are more accurate?

Take a look at this chart that compares King James Bible verses with several other modern translations. Modern versions are omitting key phrases & watering down God's message which leads to false doctrines/heresies. Do the right thing and go KJV Only.

it's cute you think god is real

I trust historians and the great grand parents used to record events. Honestly.

I know the original Douay Rheims predates the KJV. But every modern edition of the Douay Rheims is the revised version that is basically a ripoff of the KJV. The KJV is still much better, and it is based on the original Greek rather than being a translation of a Latin translation, that doesn't even match up with the original Greek anyway.

Dude, even Catholics don't like the NAB. The Jerusalem version has some literary merits, it reads a lot better than many modern translations like the NIV in my opinion, but neither of them comes close to the KJV.

She was a hoe that would have gotten pelted with stones to death if she didn't lie.

>seeing
>without pupils
lol are catholics just retarded?
she's cleary faking vision

Not quite. The English word hell corresponds most closely to the Greek word hades and the Hebrew word sheol. The primary meaning of all of these is more or less just the underworld, i.e. the abode of the dead. The "trash pile" you're thinking of is the valley Gehenna. However, Gehenna is used in scripture (as well as in rabbinical Judaism) to refer to the state of the wicked after death (you can argue about whether prople believed this was purely allegorical or literally in the geographical location of Gehenna, but that's neither here nor there).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

This

MY GRANDPA SAW A TALKING BUSH THATS ON FIRE SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE

I read new international because its better than not reading it at all.

We'll find out, won't we? ;)

douay rheims

>MY GRANDPA SAW A TALKING BUSH THATS ON FIRE SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE

also
>a christian's great grandfather
>a Jewish great grandfather with no motive to make up the event
>The great grandfathers of any number of Roman citizens in the Levant

they heard sheep and eat boring shit the fuck else they gunna do. also check out the connection between roman generals and the spreading of christianity

This is what I read from every day: amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Clementina-Vulgata-English-Latin/dp/1905574444

Douay Rheims is a beautiful translation, ignore detractors. Having the vulgata next to it helps you learn Latin and is beautiful in its own, different way.

God bless, anons.

I personally like the KJV but have NIV and NRSV around too. if you want a literal English translation YLT is probably your best bet. matthew henry's commentary is pretty good as commentaries go. Jerome's commentaries are good too.

>they heard sheep and eat boring shit the fuck else they gunna do

>oy i know
>we'll make up evidence to help those Christian heretics!
>It's not like any citizen could just ask their grandfather whether their father mentioned seeing an eclipse, quite the rarity, and a massive fucking earthquake happening
>it's not like we'll be lynched for helping Christians or anything

I have two checks I like to do.

Check 1 Genesis 2:14
Is your bible hiding the location of the Garden of Eden

The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Check 2 Notes of Job, Who is the Lord?
Job was pre-abrahamic, and his references to the Lord should be Shaddai, does it state Shaddai, Lord, or Yahweh. This may be found in the Notes.

you ignored the second half of what i said , go do some research you troglodyte

King James, NIV and a concordance.

I would like some help on this.

I work for a major Bible administration, but I have never actually read the bible. I have read both the Torah and Quran and when I was getting advice inrl everyone told me to go the King James route.

But most of these people inrl are hyper liberals wanting pro immigration, voting trudeau and their daughters are getting blacked. I am very leery about going the King James way. I need some concise convincing on which Bible to read, not an in depth essay.

>you ignored the second half of what i said , go do some research you troglodyte
You didn't take into account the actions of the pharisees like I asked you to either mate. Half of the Romans at the time in government were still adamant Helenic pagans, in any case.

youtu.be/bEDfrBBPZzg

gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html this show that interpretations are crucial

KJV.

THIS is difirent then what's presently taught
God is saying that Eve would desire to rule over her husband, but her husband would instead rule over her. Replacing the mutually interdependent relationship the Lord had created was a desire for one spouse to lead the other. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.

i'd put orthodox above KJV, but you have to learn greek before you get into it. modern greek is good enough, there's not much difference between biblical greek and modern greek besides some dialect shit you can pick up. plus you get to learn a new language, which is always good to do if you're white.

there is the "orthodox study bible", but take "study bibles" with a grain of salt. whilst the orthodox one is pretty good, the traditions and culture of the people back then don't have much to do with the actual words of christ and the apostles. it does help to know the history, though. you don't want to become some fuckin culture-denying weirdo like pastor anderson.

KJV is the best english translation, though.

Mein Kampf

The Vulgate

Skeptic's Annotated

Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna are all translated as the word 'Hell' in the King James version.

Seems dubious

Sure. Different translations have different purposes. Like I said before, the Douay-Rheims is a more accurate translation of the Vulgate since that is what is was intended for. Modern translations are mostly translated from different base texts, which most scholars would argue are closer to the original texts. All translations have different purposes and they have different philosophies on how to best translate, or even just how they should translate that particular version, since there is value in a diversity of approaches.

If you want to argue specific passages, one example is where it speaks of of pouring new wine into old wineskins in the Gospels. In the KJV this is translated as bottles, which is no correct now, nor was it correct back in the 1600s, and it completely obscures the meaning of the parable. Pick any modern translation, and they probably use a better word. Now, that is just one example, but it shouls suffice to say that the KJV is not a perfect translation to the exclusion of all other English translations.

I don't see how being the kimg of England gives him any more authority to publish a translation than anyone else, much less give any authority or accuracy to his translation.

None because it's middle eastern garbage that has nothing to do with European culture.

That's kind of a baseless meme. I used to believe that too, but if you compare the DR closely to the KJV, you'll see that the DR sticks to its original philosophy as a Vulgate translation and differs very significantly from the DR. The modern DR (18th c.) apparently borrows vocabulary from the KJV where appropriate, but it doesn't doesn't just slavishly copy the KJV.

Questions of what is the most original base text aside, I don't view the Vulgate as a necessarily inferior version to the originals solely on account of being a translation. (1) The Vulgate, like other early translations, has its own place as an independent witness. (2) It's the Bible of the Latin West from the Middle Ages through the modern age and decline of the Latin language, so it is important for historical context. (3) I really don't believe that the books of Scripture were each written by one author in one authoritative version, and allow for the existence of inspired additions as well as inspired variants (perhaps even by the original authors but by others as well).

Most of the complaints about the NAB are due to the commentary, not the translation, or people who are not really competent to comment on translation quality. Now, I do prefer archaic sounding English in the Bible, as I prefer a sacred sounding language just as I prefer sacred music such as Gregorian chant in the church rather than, say, a Mozart mass setting, even though I enjoy Mozart in thr concert hall. However, other people prefer reading in more contemporary English, so the NAB is better for them.

>and it completely obscures the meaning of the parable

Reusing an old bottle is efficient, and whilst it doesn't make the wine taste any better, it does save you having to make a new bottle. The parable is still about the positive impacts of tradition, even if it's less effective.

>I don't see how being the kimg of England gives him any more authority to publish a translation than anyone else, much less give any authority or accuracy to his translation.

I would expect that he'd of been able to hire better scribes to translate the Bible. The purpose of the KJV was also for it to be the most accurate English translation.

Yeah, it would be dubious if you insisted on only reading the KJV and never looked at the original languages or other translations. But the translators of the KJV were familiar with the original languages (that they translated from). Furthermore, as scholars, their primary Bible would have been the Latin Vulgate, which does distinguish between Gehenna and Inferus and Tartarus.

septuagint + new testament in the original koine greek

Why did they choose to translate them all as the same word? It's misleading and sheds doubt on the idea that the KJV is so great

That's not actually quite true. The hebrew old tesatment, as we know it today, isn't the original. It was either badly preserved or re-translated back into hebrew from another language or something along those lines. The septuagint greek translation actually came about BEFORE the current hebrew OT did.

Douay Rheims is the only sane choice.

Wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

None of them are translated perfectly. I recommend a mix of the New American Standard Bible, New World Translation (best OT, shit new NT), and ESV.

Occasional reminder; Jesus is not God. The Father is. One day, I hope to see a huge wave of non-trinitarian adventists, who accept the grace of God and become his chosen elect.

>non-trinitarian

who cares about your kikery manual burn them all

Huh. didn't know that mate. Thought the first century Torahs were written in Amaraic

this isn't true there a few

>Reusing an old bottle is efficient, and whilst it doesn't make the wine taste any better, it does save you having to make a new bottle. The parable is still about the positive impacts of tradition, even if it's less effective.

The way the parable works is that an old wine skin is worn out, and new wine will cause it to burst due to expansion. I think you're missing the intended meaning.

>I would expect that he'd of been able to hire better scribes to translate the Bible. The purpose of the KJV was also for it to be the most accurate English translation.

If I were going by that reasoning, I would guess that modern translations done by committees of scholars that not onlt have a lot more information, but are generally much more knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew would produce the best translations.

Was "accuracy" (as in slavish literal formal-equialence) the primary goal of the KJV? If so, it probably is not the most successful English translation (that would probably be Young's I guess).

...

C'mon bro, you know I am right. Deut 6:4 is one of the most fundamental principles, echoed in Mark 12:29.

>1 Cor 15:24: "...then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power."

I pop on here from time to time to redpill Sup Forums's Christians. Keep digging bro.

Yeah, that's a valid point. If I were doing my own translation, I would probably translate Hades and maybe Sheol as hell, and transliterate the others in order to keep them distinct. But the KJV translators chose otherwise, and some prominent modern versions still do so even today. That wasn't due to any malevolence on their part. They just thought best to translate into native English words in that case.

This isn't really supported by modern scholarship.

...

Just read Jerusalem bible

He's wrong, but he has a valid point. The use of God as a name is pretty much exclusively used for the Father, and while the word God is applied to the Son in some places, elsewhere the Father is called the "one God." There are some blog posts on this blog that talk about this.

articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-one-god-of-bible-trinity-or-god.html

As far as the New World Translation, I've come to think the actual text is a valid translation. It says "the Word was a God." Interpreted correctly, it means that the Son was a distinct being (I mean hypostasis) from the Father, but a God, i.e. of God substance, i.e. consubstantial with the Father. The use of "a" is not a bad way to convey the sense of the Greek and to prevent modalist readings. Now, of course the JWs beliefs on this are wrong, but their text is defensible.

Greek Septuagint and Nestle-Aland. No spoon fed English SHIT

Only the AKJ 1611 for me. I also miss Pastor Arnold Murray - he got me through many a dark Los Angeles late night in the past...

Classic Pastor Murray:

Shepherd’s Chapel - What God expects you to do
youtu.be/VowDsBkr2f8

Official Channel
youtube.com/channel/UCwX0AEx-qIhQ9kgtlNhyIXw

“Chapter by chapter, verse by verse.”

Yes it is. MT is from like 1000 AD. Septuagint is from 300 BC

There's an early tradition that Matthew's Gospel was in Aramaic (in the "language of the Hebrews"), and the Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission even taught that Catholic scholars were required hold to this position as recently as the 20th century, but most scholars probably do not believe this today. On the other hand, the book of Daniel has a significant portion written in Aramaic, so you're not totally wrong about the Old Testament (just mostly wrong).

The KJV has been pretty much THE English Bible from the 17th century through the 19th century and is the source of most of the common Biblical phrases and sayings in English. There's nothing about it that sets it apart as an SJW translation. Even very left wing and anti-Christian people often appreciate the KJV for it's purported literary merits. If you google, you can find an article from Christopher Hitchens praising the KJV.

That said, the KJV may not be the best translation if you want to read through the Bible. The KJV is great and all, but some might have a harder time reading through it with its archaic style. That's a personal call.

Finally, I recommend setting your starting goal to be to just read the New Testament. Try to read it through in a week or two. That's a much more manageable goal and should give a reasonable basis of biblical literacy. Then you can take the Old Testament at a more leisurely pace.

Amish use the GPS Bible.

King James Bible

youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

Nearly all modern Bibles are based on modern archaeological discoveries with texts that don't agree with anything from the "Majority Text" from the Byzantine-line of transmission which was actually preserved and in use since antiquity.

If you believe in God but somehow think he's so incompetent that he couldn't preserve his own word and has just been waiting for people to find scrolls inside ancient pots buried in sand or hidden inside caves before we could actually know what Jesus actually taught, I have no idea why you would even ascribe to God the power to do anything.

Throw all of these modern Catholic bibles straight into the trash. They're all copyrighted, made for big publishing houses to get money, and deliberately changed to conform to braindead liberal theology and heresy.

NIV is fine desu.

If only English speakers knew how radically different the Greek is from the English. It's pretty sad, desu. "Into the age" bros.

KJV because its from the textus receptus. Read "unholy hands on the bible"