New to christianity, whats the definitive version of yhe binble to read??

Proselytizing on 4chan should be treated like any other form of ideological spam: mocked, banned, and deleted on sight. It’s not an exchange of ideas—it’s a soft invasion by cowards too afraid to face real debate. These people aren’t there to argue, they’re there to convert, which means they enter threads with a smug sense of superiority and a refusal to actually listen. They don't adapt to the culture—they try to overwrite it. It’s the digital equivalent of knocking on your door uninvited to save your soul, except now it’s in the middle of a thread about hentai or geopolitics. It’s disruptive, sanctimonious, and profoundly tone-deaf.

Letting proselytizers linger is like letting Jehovah’s Witnesses run your rave. It kills the atmosphere. These zealots are just cultists in disguise, clutching their holy books, Bibles or otherwise, and pissing on the last place left where raw thought can exist without filters. They’re parasites feeding on the openness of the space while trying to close it off for everyone else. 4chan exists precisely because the rest of the internet got colonized by moralists and ideologues. Ban the preachers—not because they’re wrong, but because they’re boring, invasive, and against everything the site was built for.

>yhe binble

>Proselytizing on 4chan should be treated like any other form of ideological spam: mocked, banned, and deleted on sight. It’s not an exchange of ideas—it’s a soft invasion by cowards too afraid to face real debate. These people aren’t there to argue, they’re there to convert, which means they enter threads with a smug sense of superiority and a refusal to actually listen. They don't adapt to the culture—they try to overwrite it. It’s the digital equivalent of knocking on your door uninvited to save your soul, except now it’s in the middle of a thread about hentai or geopolitics. It’s disruptive, sanctimonious, and profoundly tone-deaf.
>
>Letting proselytizers linger is like letting Jehovah’s Witnesses run your rave. It kills the atmosphere. These zealots are just cultists in disguise, clutching their holy books, Bibles or otherwise, and pissing on the last place left where raw thought can exist without filters. They’re parasites feeding on the openness of the space while trying to close it off for everyone else. 4chan exists precisely because the rest of the internet got colonized by moralists and ideologues. Ban the preachers—not because they’re wrong, but because they’re boring, invasive, and against everything the site was built for.

>>>/int/211898183
>>>/int/211898183
>>>/int/211898183

>>17776613
>>17776618
bolg on

>>17776610 (OP)
By reading it in a dream

>>17776610 (OP)
NRSV or ue if you like it a bit pozzed

>>17776610 (OP)
KJV.

Rolling up pages of di jamiekan nyuu testiment (JNT) binble into thin spliffs and stuffing them down my Japs eye

>>17776610 (OP)
Make sure to read the Tanakh!

>>17776677

>>17776610 (OP)
KJV

> Christian
>hasn't read the bible
A classic combo

>>17776610 (OP)
There isn't one of course. Due to textual variants, there's not even a definitive version of the orignal, untranslated books.

>>17776610 (OP)
KJV is the only valid Bible.

Most scholars and modern Seminaries recommend the NRSVUE

>>17776610 (OP)
KJV is the definitive English language Bible. GNV is also a good choice. NKJV or ASV are the best contemporary English translations if you really struggle with the older language in KJV/GNV, but I would suggest 1) reading an old + new translation in parallel, 2) using a KJV study Bible, and 3) taking your time to really contemplate the word of God rather than simply looking for an easier to read translation of it, especially since a lot of newer translations (ESV, AMP, NIV, NRSV, etc) insert the theological biases of the translators into the text. Pray for a stronger back, not a lighter load.

>>17777835
Terrible post and terrible advice. The KJV isn't even based on any perliminary texts, its textual basis is a translation of a translation and it absolutely does contain biases because it was made specifically for the Church of England
>especially since a lot of newer translations (ESV, AMP, NIV, NRSV, etc) insert the theological biases of the translators into the text.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The NRSV was written by and vetted by a team of scholars from multiple backgrounds specifically to avoid biases and is based on more recently discovered primary texts for example. Other translations like the ESV are largely based off of the NRSV too

>>17776613
>>17777841
Good posts.

>>17777841
>NRSV
>gender neutral language
No thanks.

>>17777835
Read the KJV if all you want to read about is hell.

>>17777841
>The NRSV was written by and vetting by a team of scholars
>Gender neutral language
Compare the translations:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(2 Peter 1:21 KJV)

"because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
(NRSV)

>>17778219
Here's one more example specifically about the NRSV:

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."
(John 7:39 KJV)

"Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
(NRSV)

As you can see, the NRSV is a highly heretical translation which denies that the Holy Spirit is co-eternal as a Person of the Triune God in its translation of John 7:39.

More examples like these can be pointed out as necessary to make the point.

>>17776610 (OP)
Wtf is yhe binble?

>yhe binble

>>17778484

>>17778484
>>17778487
Fanny Schmeller

>>17777841
KJV hate is so retarded. I don't know anybody who would suggest you use it for study, but for devotional purposes there is nothing better in the English language. It's beautiful, simple as.

the version you throw into the trash

>>17778505
A lot of it is Unintelligible.

>>17777835
>>17778230
>If the translation doesn't support my preferred doctrine then it must be biased

>>17778597
It doesn't take very long to acclimate yourself to the language. I'm biased though, I hear it every Sunday.

>>17777761
He said he was new to Christianity, probably as in studying it. You retards really cannot read, can you?

>Wtf is yhe binble?

>>17778597
Do you have any examples of verses or vocabulary from the KJV that is unintelligible? It is the same language as we are speaking now, modern English. The "thees and thous" are easy to get a grasp on if you understand that some of the older pronouns are specific to either the subject or object of the sentence. There are around 250 common (to this day) idioms that can be traced to the KJV.

Read the hebrew and greek texts

>>17776610 (OP)
KJV sucks. ESV is fine and simple. There's no one perfect translation.

>>17779153
Why not both? I use ESV for study and KJV for devotional purposes and memorization. They serve different purposes.

>>17778219
Okay, why does this trigger you? The gender neutral language is consistent with the orignal text and also makes sense since there are some female prophets in the Bible, .e.g. Deborah.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

>>17778619
Damn, and apologists will say that none of the manuscript variations affect major doctrines.

>>17778505
Duoay-Rheims

>>17778219
The term used is ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, "human beings from God", which is gender-neutral in Koine Greek (as is the English adjective derived from it: "anthropic").

>>17778075
>>17778219
>>17778230
If "muh gender neutral" (aka more accurate) translations trigger you, then get the ESV, the ESV is literally just the NRSVUE but less "woke"

>>17776610 (OP)
The King James Version is the only one worth reading. The others leave out verses and pack in lies.

>>17779343
>The gender neutral language is consistent with the orignal text
No, it's not. You're lying.
>Deborah
Didn't write a single word of the Bible. You're braindead, and lying.
>>17779375
Enjoy Hell.

>>17779375
I've never read it, myself. How much does it differ?

>>17779525
https://www.bartehrman.com/most-accurate-bible-translation/
>ESV
>Essentially literal translation; Scholars participating in the translation process were all evangelical Christians
>The ESV has a great emphasis on doctrinal purity which means that in the cases of variant readings, theological accuracy is the “measuring stick.” Needless to say, this kind of “theological favoritism” reveals an important devotional bias that can reduce the quality of the translation.

>>17779765
>Remove 45 verses
>Essentially literal translation

>>17779901
>>17779525

>>17779463
>The term used is ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι
The text here is «οἱ ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι», see screenshot from Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1604 editions. It means "holy men of God" and is written with a definite article in this instance.

The word θεοῦ here in 2 Peter 1:21 is given in Genitive case, in the sense that they are God's. It's the same Genitive case word used in "Son of God," in other passages, as well as "will of God," "kingdom of God," "temple of God," "commandment of God," or even the more generalized "things that be of God" (τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) in other passages. The article and other three words in the aforementioned phrase in the received text of 2 Peter 1:21 are Nominative case. Compare this to 2 Peter 3:2 which has «ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν» (words of the holy prophets). The word προφητῶν is masculine.

>The term used is ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, "human beings from God"
The critical text differs from the received text here, and has the words «ἀπὸ θεοῦ» instead, which modifies the preceding verb "ἐλάλησαν" (spoke, thus meaning "spoke from God"). The construction is substantially different since there the genitive θεοῦ, signifying ownership, is applied to the verb "spoke" rather than to the men who were being moved by the Holy Ghost.

I am of a mind to think that "speaking while being moved by the Holy Spirit" (i.e. affected by the "inspiration of God," as Paul called it in 2 Timothy 3:16) is already speaking from God, since the Holy Spirit is God.

>>17776610 (OP)
Da Jesus Book

>>17776610 (OP)
Nrsvue or oxford study bible

>>17776610 (OP)
>Matthew 6:10 Set the world right; Do what's best - as above, so below.

>>17776610 (OP)
Translations are paraphrases no matter what you choose. What's definitive is studying concepts from the original languages. So just investigate common options and pick what will be motivating

>>17776610 (OP)
>yhe binble

>>17776610 (OP)
Nobody gave you an actual answer so here goes:
I'd you mean English translation: NRSV
when reading it, keep in mind that the book of revelation almost didn't make it in so it's up to you if you consider it valid or not

That's it really.


Avoid KJV like the plage, it's written in old Shakespearian English so you won't understand dick and also it's based on random medieval manuscripts they had around, usually translations of translations, AND it's edited to be more pro-monarchy

>>17780699
>it's written in old Shakespearian English so you won't understand dick
Only ESLs have this problem.

>>17780699
> AND it's edited to be more pro-monarchy
Give literally one example of this please.

>>17781068
Its entire existence is based on the fact that the Geneva Bible was a study bible used by scholars that had clear anti-monarchy notes and margins and questioned their authority. King James called the conference of Bishops that would almost begrudgingly agree to a new translation of the Bible, which is spearheaded and dedicated to a monarch, in order to subtly align the imagery of endorsing and supporting a national church, of which he was the leader, and the forward literally calls him the “prime author and mover”. This essentially places him in direct parallel equality with God. So yes, the KJV is extremely pro-monarchy before even reaching INSIDE the text to find mistranslations, added passages, or removal of words such as tyrant because the king didn’t want the public to associate those words with the monarchy.

>>17781208
>had clear anti-monarchy notes and margins and questioned their authority
No, the Geneva Bible's notes said that kings are subject to the authority of God, not that kings don't have authority.

>>17781221
Which is the exact type of power struggle that has gone on for centuries between state and church figures. If the church has direct authoritative power from God to teach and make decisions on Earth, that authority is also over any monarchy on earth as well. What King James did was align himself, as monarch AND head of church, as both spiritual and earthly authoritative force to the people. He did not see any church as allowed to have authority over any monarch, so he changed the dynamic of power for his own benefit.

>>17777835
>especially since a lot of newer translations (ESV, AMP, NIV, NRSV, etc) insert the theological biases of the translators into the text.
Where do you feel theological bias of the translators is inserted into the text of the ESV?
>>17781230
Note that the Geneva was the bible of the Puritans. They didn't believe the Church had authority over monarchs, Christ did. The spiritual and the temporal are two different spheres of Christ's kingdom, and the Puritans absolutely believed Caesar's temporal authority extended over the Church, even to ensure its purity of doctrine and practice (and they said as much in the Westminster Confession).

>>17776610 (OP)
>yhe binble

>>17780361
>The word προφητῶν is masculine
It's in the plural, so the word "prophets" here could include only men, or alternatively 1 male and a hundred female prophets, as is the rule of mixed gender groups in Koine. Nothing in this particular verse excludes women from being counted as one of the intended prophets.

Your reliance on defective late Medieval manuscripts is not even worth commenting on.

>>17781068
The KJV doesn't use the word "tyrant" or "tyranny" once, unlike the GNV.

>>17781278
>defective late Medieval manuscripts
Those aren't manuscripts, they're printed texts. He is a King James Onlyist.

>>17781208
>margins, notes, foreword
Who the fuck cares? Is any of that even in modern printings?
>>17781300
Thank you anon.

>>17781311
Yes, printed texts that accurately reflect the original manuscripts, the accurate ones that have never been lost. Not corrupted minority texts like Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

>>17781278
>It's in the plural, so the word "prophets" here could include only men, or alternatively 1 male and a hundred female prophets, as is the rule of mixed gender groups in Koine. Nothing in this particular verse excludes women from being counted as one of the intended prophets.
This bad faith is all the proof I need to know that you are antagonistic against God and the Bible. You only seek to corrupt and confuse people about God's word. I don't even know why you are bothering the rest of us here. Some of us actually do believe in the Bible and are legitimately interested in learning about it, unlike you disingenuous shills.

>>17781247
>Where do you feel theological bias of the translators is inserted into the text of the ESV?
John 1:18 obviously.

The corruption to John 1:18 found in the ESV, NASB (2020 ed.) and some other translations, was used primarily or entirely by the Gnostics and later the Arians, such as at the Second Creed of Antioch in AD 341. The Arians taught the idea that Jesus Christ was a mere sub-deity, and denied that He was consubstantial with God the Father. Outside of this gnostic usage, one can also find the ESV's phrase for John 1:18, "only begotten god," in a single interpolation placed in Irenaeus' fourth book. That's it. Otherwise, all of the Trinitarian writers in their writings appear to uniformly use the term "only begotten Son," as found in the legitimate form of John 1:18.

Historically it is only the heretical Gnostic (later, Arian) writers who rely on the "only begotten god" reading of John 1:18. Nevertheless, the ESV/NASB reading, which is unattested among received manuscripts for John's Gospel, is placed in a few modern Bible translations.

>>17779140
This is ideal, but as a Christian learning Greek is probably sufficient. The Septuagint was what the early Christians, and some of the proto-Christian Jewish elements like Philo of Alexandria, were working with.
It's an older translation done by Jews shortly before the time of Christ (when they were still the chosen people, if you consider that a factor) and much more accurate to the Hebrew than any English translation.
It's crazy how Muslims just learn Arabic if they wanna read the Quran, Hindus just learn Sanskrit for their hymns, but no Christians really use the original Greek for Liturgy (besides the Greek Orthodox), much less the Hebrew. There's a power in preserving a text in its original form, and Christians abandoning that is a bad move strategically if nothing else.

>>17782921
>It's crazy how Muslims just learn Arabic if they wanna read the Quran, Hindus just learn Sanskrit for their hymns, but no Christians really use the original Greek for Liturgy (besides the Greek Orthodox), much less the Hebrew.
The Bible in Acts chapter 2 implies that God's word can be preached in any language. All anyone really needs is an accurate translation to do this.

>There's a power in preserving a text in its original form, and Christians abandoning that is a bad move strategically if nothing else.
Yes there is. There have been people in every era who preserved the original language texts and we have received them via the received text today. Christ said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." And He was right. The Bible itself also teaches this throughout.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
- Psalm 119:160

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
- Isaiah 59:21

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

>>17782647
>printed texts that accurately reflect the original manuscripts
You think Stephanus and Beza had their hands on the autographs?
>Not corrupted minority texts like Vaticanus
Vaticanus is the vatican manuscript Erasmus was attempting to get his hands on, incidentally.
>John 1:18 obviously.
Ok, there's a lot of errors which follow this and I will try to correct them. First of all, John 1:18 is not a translational difference between the KJV and ESV, it is a textual difference. That is the underlying Greek text for the ESV reads monogenes theos at this verse, all the translators did was faithfully translate their Greek text. Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.

Now, I don't believe you can give me any evidence monogenes theos is distinctly Gnostic (or distinctly Arian, now that's an absurd one). We know that the term "monogenes" is the name of one of their aeons in their theogony (as is logos; the use of such established Gnostic language in John while teaching things totally unacceptable to them clearly marks the Gospel, in particular the prologue, as a polemic against Gnosticism, but I digress), but this appears with both versions. The version of monogenes theos is used by a number of orthodox writers in the early centuries, despite your ignorant claim otherwise (e.g. the Diatessaron, Clement of Alexandria, and Epiphanius).

(cont.)

>>17782647
>>17783690
This reading, which is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts, obviously provides a much stronger witness to the deity of Christ. Note that modern scholarship interprets monogenes as meaning only or unique, rather than only-begotten (this is also how it is rendered in the ESV, so you have miscited it), so we should understand John here as saying Jesus is the unique God, the one and only God, He who is true God and not "god" in any worldly or pagan sense, but Jehovah Himself, and yet He is "in the bosom of the Father" and "revealed God", how? Because they are two persons sharing one selfsame divine essence.

>>17779171
KJV is too flowery and tries to insert poetic phrasing when the Bible is already poetic in the intent of the word. It's like putting make up unnecessarily on a perfect being.

>>17783690
>Vaticanus is the vatican manuscript Erasmus was attempting to get his hands on, incidentally.
Actually, according to a paper, he got his hands on some readings from it and didn't accept it.

The TR editors were well aware of minority or Alexandrian readings, for instance from Codex Bezae. They rejected those manuscript readings as being unsupported by the evidence, and were correct to do so. Of course, you can speculate which corruptions were a result of trivial error (whether easily detectable as such or not) and which corruptions were the result of theological bias or error. The Alexandrian manuscripts on the whole clearly exhibit a theological bias.

Even if this is not accepted, there is also conclusive evidence which can't be explained away which shows that those particular manuscripts are also actually back-translations of the coptic versions into Greek, since they have a statistically significant number of examples of this, as pointed out by Hoskier in his book "Codex B and its Allies."

>all the translators did was faithfully translate their Greek text.
They chose the wrong text. Period.
>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases. Interestingly, since it was pointed out that only non-trinitarian writers used or referenced that minority reading of John 1:18, other modern translations, even ones that have egregious errors in other places, are now backing away from that reading of John 1:18. That's why only the ESV and a few others even switches to it. (1/2)

>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
What is dishonest on their part is picking and choosing which readings from which text they want. That is supremely dishonest.

>>17783690
>Now, I don't believe you can give me any evidence monogenes theos is distinctly Gnostic (or distinctly Arian, now that's an absurd one).
While the Marcionites used a corrupted form of Luke's Gospel, there was another Gnostic group known as the Valentinians which used a corrupted form of John's Gospel.

'John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it “Son” and “Only-Begotten God.” In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity.'
-Writings of Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic (Layton, Bently, 'The Gnostic Scriptures' p. 316)

'We believe, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe, from whom are all things. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God, by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father...'
-Arian Creed, Council of Antioch AD 341

>>17783692
>This reading, which is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts,
No it isn't.

>Note that modern scholarship interprets monogenes as meaning only or unique, rather than only-begotten (this is also how it is rendered in the ESV, so you have miscited it),
I'm talking about the source text right now obviously. If I brought that up you would instantly try to correct me by saying that's only a translation difference. I'm not focused on that right now, but it is also yet another error and also absolutely false. Error piled on another error.

If they were honest, they would take the longer version of Matthew 27:49 and add that into their versions. The longer reading of Matthew 27:49 is found in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; they've used that reason to overturn all kinds of other readings. They are inconsistent in choosing source texts for individual verses.

>>17784005
>The TR editors were well aware of minority or Alexandrian readings, for instance from Codex Bezae
Is Codex Bezae representative of the critical text?
>They rejected those manuscript readings as being unsupported by the evidence
Codex Bezae, not what you find in a modern critical text, they were unaware of the bountiful evidence we possess now and the people who work on that text today are doing the exact same thing they were back then.
>They chose the wrong text
What would be the right text? The Textus Receptus? Which one? Or would it be the specific readings selected by the King James translators that are "the right text"? What is the basis for deciding that the textual critical scholarship of 400+ years ago is the standard for all time? It's because that's what was used by the King James Version, right?
>They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases.
So I have yet to hear where the translators inserted theological bias into the text, instead we have a completely baseless accusation that the ESV translators are Valentinian Gnostics, and that this is apparently the only reason they would actually translate their Greek text.

>>17784005
>Interestingly, since it was pointed out that only non-trinitarian writers used or referenced that minority reading of John 1:18, other modern translations, even ones that have egregious errors in other places, are now backing away from that reading of John 1:18
The delusional self-aggrandizing fantasies of KJVonlyists are fascinating. I will note at this point how you also completely ignored the refutation of this claim.
>Writings of Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic
Now this does not begin to satisfy my challenge, which was for something which showed it to be *distinctly* Gnostic as you claimed, rather than merely quoted by them. And I suppose that since this text also calls Him Son, you shall surely object that this vocabulary too is Gnostic and must be rejected? But I noticed something interesting, which is that I had already read these exact words shortly before posting my reply. That is because the source for which we even know of this text is because the document was quoted and rebutted by Epiphanius in a book called the Panarion which I used for researching this issue. In this book Epiphanius himself uses the phrase multiple times in multiple different contexts, and does not object to its use by the Gnostic; indeed, contrary to your claim that this was a citation of a Gnostic edit of John, Epiphanius recognizes it as the authentic text of the Gospel, and objects only to the exegesis of it.
>No it isn't.
Yes it is.
>I'm talking about the source text right now obviously
No, sir, you were supposed to be talking about the ESV nor shall I be silent about your overt dishonesty. Do you not know you will be judged by a holy God who hates a lying tongue?

Why are Christians I meet IRL always surprised when I tell them I read the King James Version of the Bible? For me it's pretty easy to read, then they recommend a version made for 1st graders

>>17784313
because youre not in the bible belt?

>>17784148
>Codex Bezae, not what you find in a modern critical text, they were unaware of the bountiful evidence we possess now and the people who work on that text today are doing the exact same thing they were back then.
If you look at Stephanus' apparatus of 1550 you see plenty of Alexandrian readings, but they were all rejected. If you want to look up what those sources are, go ahead, but Bezae was labeled β and Regius (Codex L) was labeled η in Stephanus' original apparatus. He had fifteen named manuscripts and an unknown number of unnamed sources. Most have been identified today, but two of his named sources were ones that apparently only he had and we do not.

>they were unaware of the bountiful evidence we possess now and the people who work on that text today are doing the exact same thing they were back then.
No, absolutely not. "Higher criticism" did not develop as a school of thought until the time of Semler and was later applied directly to Biblical criticism by Lachmann. They were practicing a new kind of reconstructionism method based on the idea that the original form of Scriptures was lost and they were "recovering" it. The idea that these precepts can be projected backwards on scholars like Stephanus or like John Fell and John Mill is anachronistic.

It's exactly the kind of fallacy (a very self-serving one at that) which they want to fool the world into believing. When they try to claim they are similar to Stephanus and Beza, they muddle up the actual study of legitimate Biblical scholarship, purely because of their own vainglory.

The people making stuff like the ESV are practicing a kind of postmodern school of thought called "higher criticism" in the school of Semler and Lachmann primarily, not of Stephanus or Mill.

>What would be the right text?
Obviously what it says in the received text. That's what we've always had.

>>17784148
>So I have yet to hear where the translators inserted theological bias into the text
They chose to use a minority form of John 1:18 that was used in certain gnostic and arian circles. This is what I originally said, but it seems not to have been registered.
>instead we have a completely baseless accusation that the ESV translators are Valentinian Gnostics,
I said they chose to use it because they have the same theological biases as the Arians and Gnostics, not that "they are Valentinian Gnostics." Read my post again. Because you are now putting words in my mouth falsely, a 9th commandment violation, I request you to stop twisting my words, anon.

>Now this does not begin to satisfy my challenge, which was for something which showed it to be *distinctly* Gnostic as you claimed, rather than merely quoted by them.
I already stated that there are no non-trinitarian sources in an even earlier post already. >>17782647 You are being increasingly disingenuous, you are ignoring what I already said, and you have been putting words in my mouth as well. I do not know whether your ignorance of what I said already was deliberate or out of lack of reading comprehension.

Depending on how you choose to respond, I may continue to use these posts as a springboard to get more information out to other readers, but at this point I do not know if anything I add will actually get through to you. You can demand for me to say what I have already said again and ignore or pretend that I haven't said what I already said, but that is nothing but a waste of my time.

>>17784155
>In this book Epiphanius himself uses the phrase multiple times
Yes, anon, twice, both in sections refuting gnostics. The first time it is just a quotation of them. The other instance is nothing like what you describe; but I see no need to make that case as it hasn't been proven not to be an interpolation. I already mentioned that there have been interpolations, such as that of Irenaeus. A few philosophers from Alexandria also used the term, which makes sense since it's Alexandria where the corruption to the text came from.

>I will note at this point how you also completely ignored the refutation of this claim.
Which is what, exactly? If you read the post before, I said, "They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases."

>rather than merely quoted by them
Every reference barring a couple of interpolations was made by Arians or Gnostics, who are non-trinitarians. I already quoted where it was included in the Arian Creed, Council of Antioch – which I guess was ignored.

The point is, this was a non-trinitarian reading that modern translations wanted to place in their representation of the Bible because of their biases, so they latched onto it. It also explains a lot of their other choices, in choosing what they translate from and also how they construct critical texts. It's very arbitrary and ad hoc. For John 1:18 only some actually went as far as to put it in their translation, and that's why I brought it up since someone asked about the ESV.

I notice there is no response to the direct charge that these people are picking and choosing what sources to use. They are making a kind of patchwork quilt of different fragmented Greek sources for each translation and source text they make every year. The field created by "higher criticism" grows ever more divergent over time. This divergence is quite the opposite of what scholars did when the TR was made. After Erasmus' early attempts, they quickly converged on the received text.

>if a translation doesn't agree with *my* theological biases, then it must be biased, part 2

>>17784433
I only want the accurate originals, anon. That will be the Scripture that we've always had. Not something that Tischendorf dug up in 1844.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
- Matthew 24:35

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

>>17784441
>"That will be the Scripture that we've always had."
>using scripture to justify the defend the authenticity of your preferred version of scripture.
Yup, no theological biases distorting your reasoning here. None at all.

>>17784447
*using scripture to defend the authenticity

>>17777809

It's literally missing seven books.

>>17776610 (OP)
Wait for the New Oxford Annotated Bible 6th Edition, because it incorporates the NRSVue. Then read it with the Oxford Bible Commentary.
This is what they read in seminary, translated by scholars, and not injected with doctrine into the translation.

>>17778657
>joins the cult
>hasn't read the book
~*~ ChRiStIaN "lOgIc" ~*~

>>17779901
>removes verses
Yeah, the ones that weren't in the earliest versions of the writings. Those were added later.

>>17784313
>Why are Christians I meet IRL always surprised when I tell them I read the King James Version of the Bible?
Because it's a translation from the 1600s. We know more about the languages than anyone in the 1600s.

>>17776610 (OP)
the 66 binble, obviously

>>17784787
>Yeah, the ones that weren't in the earliest versions of the writings.
Verses like Acts 8:37 and quite a few others were, in fact, in the originals.

Some people removed some of these verses in some corrupt copies. But for each removal, they could never remove the original text out of all of them, or of the copies that people used, so we still have it today.

I should also say for those who are interested in the subject, there are also times where an older manuscript will be more corrupt than a later manuscript.

This will often be due to the fact that the later manuscript was copied from a more faithful manuscript and copyists at the time knew what they were doing, while the older one (that later scholars eventually recover centuries or a millennia later) was left to rot in a scrap heap like the one at Oxyrhynchus, which is why it was abandoned and not used because everyone knew it was heretical and corrupted.

Don't get me wrong, these fragments are interesting in their own right, namely as case studies on how people (in Egypt) have tried to alter scripture, or were just lazy and made a ton of mistakes.

>>17784908
>the originals
Nice fucking joke. We have 0 of "the originals".

>>17784912
The original words are accurately preserved in the received text today. That's all that matters really when you get right down to it.

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

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
- Proverbs 30:5-6 Amen.

>>17784917
Also one more verse.

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
- 2 Corinthians 2:17

The "many which corrupt the word of God" would be all those throughout history who have tried through various devices to promote corrupted forms of the Bible that are against the Received text. The word used by Paul here is defined in the Lexicon of W. Greenfield as, "καπηλεύω. (either an innkeeper or a retailer, huckster; and as these persons, in ancient as well as modern times, seem to have had the reputation of increasing their profits by adulteration, hence:) to corrupt, adulterate."

As we see, Paul compared those who corrupt God's word to a type of businessman who would shortchange customers by corrupting or adulterating their food and drinks. He says they "corrupt" the word of God, meaning by (knowingly) adding anything that is uninspired and by attempting to remove what is inspired.

Despite this activity, which was already going on in Paul's time, God's people have always had the original form of the inspired Bible. And it is still available for us today. This is true even though satanic forces have attempted to block it. Historically, we are also objectively successful and prosperous whenever everyone studies and knows an accurate translation like the KJV which is based on the uncorrupted form of God's word. Things start to go bad whenever the accurate word of God is taken away from them. This is part of why satanic forces have such a strong motivation to curse and oppose an accurate translation for some strange reason. And why they want so bad to promote inaccurate versions, despite many of them openly not even being believers. The accuracy of the truth we have hurts them.

>>17784935
>The accuracy of the truth we have hurts them
What hurts me is how annoying it is that Christians on this board like to redefine "truth" to mean what they just decided to believe one day (or were taught to believe one day) based on questionable evidence. A book saying something is not by itself proof of that thing.

>>17784917
>The original words are accurately preserved in the received text today.
The earliest bibles are different from each other. The books in the bible aren't even complete works. They are a hodgepodge of other sources that are now lost that have been spliced together.

>>17784941
Also, I'd be really interested to see if anyone ever stumbles onto a very early copy of Paul's letters, because from reading them I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were chopped up and interpolated all over the place so he could be safely absorbed in a growing "orthodoxy." The canon itself admits that our form of Paul's letters are confusing and seem to contain many ideas that contradict orthodoxy (though they can usually be resolved into a muddle of doubt about what he means if you include enough "context," perhaps as intended)

From 2 Peter (commonly considered to be a later forgery):
"So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

So yeah, as said, I wouldn't be surprised if an early enough collection of Paul's letters would throw everything about Christian orthodoxy into doubt, though the churches themselves would probably just formally declare the discovery a fraud and call it a day.

>>17784941
In the Gospels and book of Acts, people are often described as believing based on what they heard Jesus or one of the apostles preach to them. All they needed to do was hear the word, not necessarily see any miracle, and of course some people that saw miracles in the Gospels had their faith tested beforehand, while others who demanded it were denied.

This is in line with what Paul said in Romans as well. He said, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17). You find similar descriptions in other parts of the Bible like 1 Thess. 2:13, Acts 2:40-42, and so on.

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

And of course, Jesus also said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37). And He taught similarly in John 8:47 and John 10:1-5.

What this means is that we have the same inspired word that those crowds did in the 1st century, and the same basis of faith. The word is self-evidently true, and this is confirmed by the Spirit of God for all those who are of the truth, as Jesus said in John 18:37. To quote it again, He said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

>>17784949
>The books in the bible aren't even complete works.
I can say with certainty you don't know what you're talking about here, anon.

Most likely, you have an idea that has been placed in your head by modern, anti-Christian scholarship through its use of cleverly devised fables that are meant to make you draw such a conclusion.

>>17784951
>So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters.
Actually, anon, that's an inaccurate translation. More accurately, he said the following:

"Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
- 2 Peter 3:15-16

So as you see here, Peter describes the epistles of Paul specifically as "scriptures," in verse 16. And there is a separate word for more generic "writings" which he did not use here. This is a recognition of Paul's letters as being inspired, as well as the fact that the New Testament itself is considered to be part of Scripture, a fact which is sometimes denied quite irrationally by some people.

Also, according to the Bible, this epistle (2 Peter) was actually written by Peter, since it has his name in the first verse. To deny that then would be no different than rejecting the Bible.

>>17784968
>that's an inaccurate translation.
I don't know on what basis you're claiming that. It's the NRSVue. And, by my reading, "Peter" implicitly calls Paul's letters scriptures in both of our translations, which is actually one of the things that academics consider to be fairly suspect about 2 Peter.
>To deny that then would be no different than rejecting the Bible.
People who are interested in truth over religious faith are obligated to maintain a level of uncertainty about many of the claims in the Bible.

>>17784975
>And, by my reading, "Peter" implicitly calls Paul's letters scriptures in both of our translations, which is actually one of the things that academics consider to be fairly suspect about 2 Peter.
I don't see how that singles it out, considering that Paul also says that Jesus Christ was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, in 1 Corinthians 15:4. Or where Paul calls the Gospel of Luke scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes directly from Luke 10:7 right next to a quote from Deuteronomy. Or where Paul says that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16, and also claims to be himself inspired by God in Galatians 1:11-12.

I guess the "academics" would have us believe none of those are legitimate either because of that reason.

>People who are interested in truth over religious faith are obligated to maintain a level of uncertainty about many of the claims in the Bible.
The problem is that if you start with the presupposition that it is false, then you never even gave it a chance. It could be true and you would never know since you just assumed from the beginning that it was false. That's exactly what these people are doing.

>>17784917
It's odd, every time I search online for one of those verses and why it was removed, the answer is always that it's not found in the earliest known versions of those writings.
It's almost as if being a KJV-onlyist is the problem.

>>17777835
Isn’t the NIV Bible pieced together from the oldest manuscripts available?

bros, i have no idea how to escape lust and im terrified for my soul.
im horny all the fucking time and trying to quit masturbation and porn. the problem is that since i refuse to jerk off, when i fall into lust i just keep watching porn for a long period of time until my sexual energy is completely drained, which cannot be good for my brain.
what the FUCK do i do? im praying the rosary every day and i still keep falling into it. i feel helpless.
pic unrelated

>>17786424
Totally off-topic post, but if you start intentionally watching porn, you already lost. Better to just have quick fap before that point to minimize the brain damage.

>>17786424
>pic unrelated
>no pic posted
What did the gooner mean by this?

>>17786394
The NIV is based on a piecemeal of different sources that the translators chose. For example, in Mark 1:41, in the passage where a leper was kneeling before Jesus, the words "Jesus was moved with compassion" are changed to "Jesus was indignant" based on the translators who liked the alternate reading, so they put it in the NIV. Compare the difference below:

"And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean."
- Mark 1:40-41

[[ A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” ]]
NIV version of Mark 1:40-41

Notice the difference. In the NIV version it says "Jesus was indignant," which means "affected with anger and disdain." The same word is translated "wroth" in Matthew 18:34. The NIV translators chose this reading because they found it in a corrupted source. Most translations do not have this "indignant" reading in Mark 1:41, but the NIV stands apart from the others because the translators liked it. They picked and chose their own source: they liked the "indignant" reading. That's literally the only reason it's in there. Not because of fidelity to a particular source or anything like that.

>>17786371
We have the original words and the original forms of all these Bible books and passages, anon. The Bible directly states that God will preserve them.

>>17786479
>they liked the "indignant" reading. That's literally the only reason it's in there.
Anyone interested in learning about the many actual reasons why they believe "indignant" to be the more original version can read about them here: https://books.google.com/books?id=_YtWAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>17786563
>more original version
There is no such thing as "more" or "less" original, anon. There is the original and then there are corruptions.

"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"
- Proverbs 22:20-21

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
- Matthew 24:35

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
- Matthew 5:18

>>17786432
It's pretty much the same pattern for all addictions. You have to set yourself up before the act.
E.g. an alcoholic might allow beer in the house. It doesn't matter if they use willpower against it for some amount of time because they will still fall for drinking eventually.

>>17784790
What version would you recommend?

>>17784790
>We know more about the languages than anyone in the 1600s
No, you don't.

>>17786371
>older=better
You're retarded. No, literally.

>>17784917
Great image.
>>17784949
Nice "facts". Care to form an actual argument? Or you just going to spew more dubious trivia?

>>17786424
Go to Confession Anon and pick yourself up again. You can do this.

>>17776610 (OP)
Ignatius Bible is the one I'm currently using and I really like it. Would recommend.

>>17786860
>>17786843
>confession
>Ignatius Bible
Have fun burning. You fully deserve it.

>>17786875
Okay Mr. Christian, assuming you aren't a troll, what Bible version and Church should I join instead of the one founded by Christ?

>>17786479
>We have the original words and the original forms of all these Bible books and passages, anon. The Bible directly states that God will preserve them.
lmao, no we don't. We have nothing from the first century at all, and only scraps of chapters at that. It's not for over 100 years after the reported original writing of the NT, do we even have what would be considered an actual gospel.
It's even worse for the OT, where there's hundreds of variant verses, that we have no idea what the "original" written version would say. Though, with the OT, the "original" written version isn't even going to be the "original", since these were stories that were spread through the oral tradition.
>>17786697
Already did recommend in this thread. I said hold out for the New Oxford Annotated Bible 6th Edition(2025 or early 2026), because it incorporates the NRSVue. Then read it with the Oxford Bible Commentary: New Edition(2013). As that's the most common way that the Bible is taught in seminary. If it's good enough for your preacher/pastor/priest/etc to learn from, then it should be good enough for you to learn from. The only other common recommendation for seminaries is the HarperColins Study Bible, though I wouldn't recommend it over the NOAB, just giving you full disclosure. The current HCSB is going to have the NRSVue translation, if you can't wait until the NOAB 6th release.
>>17786769
>No, you don't.
I don't, sure. I don't know those languages at all. The PhD holding scholars that do translations? Absolutely they do know more about Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek than the people doing translations 400 years ago.
>>17786771
Older is generally viewed as better for these things. That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery was such a big deal. Unless there's a reason to not trust an older source. Though, you have no reason to do so, beyond thinking that "more verses = better".

>>17787086
>Older is generally viewed as better for these things.
No, not for "these things" because as you yourself already pointed out, these older Bible translations are not necesarily closer to the original source, since older sources are still bein discovered. The KJV is based on a translation of a translation of already dubious quality

>>17787086
>we have no idea what the "original" written version would say.
Then you're lost.

We know exactly what the original says because God both inspired, and preserved, His word.

>Though, with the OT, the "original" written version isn't even going to be the "original", since these were stories that were spread through the oral tradition.
Wait a minute, in the previous sentence you just said you have no idea. Now in the next sentence you tell us your garbage ideas, knowing full well you just said a minute ago, in the very previous sentence, you "have no idea" what the original said. So you've admitted it, you have no idea what you're even talking about now – you have no right to say anything further about this subject now. You should either 1) learn from those of us that do know what we are talking about, or 2) at the very least, make a graceful exit and stop openly telling lies to everyone here, because you've now admitted in front of everyone that you "have no idea" what you are talking about on this subject, meaning you're just coming up with nonsense when you speak, not fact.