What do you guys think about the English Standard Version of the bible?
I find it very readable.
https://www.esv.org/John+1/

Never read it as I love the KJV and am very comfy with it.
Hold on, I'll check a thing most translations get wrong.

“The kingdom of God vis not coming in ways that can be observed, 21 nor wwill they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

KJV has it correct with "within" not in the midst.
They put their interpretation in instead of what Jesus said which taints the message.

>>40724528
The KJV is a bit difficult, when you're a native German speaker like me.

>>40724711
Read it in German.
God wrote it, it'll still make sense lol
But I guess if you really want english there's nothing wrong with an easier to read translation to up your reading ability.
A few details being different isn't going to make a difference for the basics.

>>40724434 (OP)
It's very readable and I like it and have primarily read it for years but at some point I realized for devotional reading KJV wins, because God's word should sound majestic and distinct aka holy and set apart so it's unlike anything else I read.

I think it's good when you're starting out because the KJV can be hard to read but after you've read the Bible several times the KJV is better

>>40724434 (OP)
I thought it was a huge roller coaster of a novel in four hundred sizzling chapters. A searing indictment of domestic servitude in the first century, with some hot gypsies thrown in. Just a pity the hero dies at the end.

>>40724528
>divine inerrant word of go- ACK

>>40724528
How do you know Jesus said it that way? Were you there to actually hear him say it?

How about a history lesson on the KJV

>>40724434 (OP)
Geneva>all others.

>>40725999
We have a lot of manuscript fragments older than that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
Is this jpg meant to imply the 4th century copies are the originals? We also have loads of documents like the Didache that quote from scripture, proving they were already in circulation
I'm genuinely curious what you think the "point" of this image is?

ESV is the Second best after the KJV

https://localchurchbiblepublishers.com/bibles/

These guys make KJV bibles and only charge the price of production, check them out. I suggest only getting their leather bibles though because the fake leather ones are pretty cheap in my experience.

>>40724434 (OP)
pretty good, if you dig it and can understand it the best way u can from other versions, thats blessed
i like nkjv, kjv and DB
>>40725635
kek

>>40724434 (OP)
CLV is the closest to readable english translation.

>>40724434 (OP)
what do you think qualifies this thread to be on the paranormal board? it's ESV not ESP. take it to /bant/

>>40725635
thats not a contradiction. at most its a transcription error. and how does this mean that Jesus didn't die to save sinners?

anyway, these silly little memes just show that the person making and posting them doesn't give a single damn about the issue, since they couldn't even be bothered to do the slightest bit of reading about it.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ahaziah-22-42.html

>>40725635
I bet Ruckman has a good explanation for that one

>>40729004
ruckman would just start sperging about how the KJV is the ONLY WORD OF GOD AND YOU'RE GOINAH HEEL IF YOU DON READ IT.

there are better answers

>>40725999
source of pic?

>>40724434 (OP)
Thanks, as spic i like english

>>40729236
its actually wrong on almost every single thing it says. there were more than 8 translators who worked on the KJV. in fact, there were more than 8 groups of translators that were responsible for different parts of the OT and NT.

>original texts
sure, we dont have the original autographs. we have copies of them and translations into different languages
>no two alike
also true, but that goes with handcopied manuscripts in general. what we do have are LOTS of ancient manuscripts which have all been compared to each, with lists of the differences made so we know what they all are.

mostly its differences in spelling and word order, with a selection of well known mistakes which seem to be common to all humans.

>they edited previous translations
nope, they used several different greek and hebrew editions and made judgements where there were any differences between them. these editions were the old version of what we call our 'critical texts', which are, for example, a copy of the NT made by someone (Beza, Stepahnous, Erasmus, in the case of the KJV NT) who took the time to look at all the oldest manuscripts he could get access to, and compared them all together, making notes of the differences (variants).

>its insanity
no, its actually very good and reliable textual critical work and is the most well attested ancient document in existence. Even people like Bart Erhman wont deny that we know what the NT said. He just refuses to trust anything but a photocopy of the original document, which is entirely unreasonable.

in short, that pic is total ignorant garbage.

>>40729386
I assumed it would be with how poor the writing is within the pic.

It is hard to source accurate info all together on this topic.

And what of the later found dead sea scrolls that the kjv lacks that newer variants include?
I also have not read the dead sea scrolls or know anything of them yet but it is something I took notice of.

There is no variant of the book that ca be claimed as "best".
Humans are flawed and when we read these texts we are re-interpreting the words in our mind.

Some people will re-interpret the true meaning in a more accurate way WITHIN THEIR OWN MIND reading another version that maybe you find completely WRONG. But another human could re-interpret that text in the completely RIGHT way.

So this topic has a lot of nuance to it. We must remain open minded to all and not attack the illusions.

I love the poetry of kjv so this is my choice but I am aware enough to know that the originals were never English so no matter what, they are all flawed already and the self/the mind/my understanding of English will be another layer to further obscure it.

tldr; there is no perfect here.

>>40729456
>It is hard to source accurate info all together on this topic.
its just basic textual critical info, but its true that the area isn't terrible popular outside of certain Christian areas of study. there are some good sources for and books easily available these days

>And what of the later found dead sea scrolls that the kjv lacks that newer variants include?
So far as i know there is little difference between the DSS and what we have in our modern Bibles. Take this for instance:

>For the degree of correlation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (I Qa) to the Masoretic text, Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) states: “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD [sic] 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/59559/how-do-the-dead-sea-scrolls-of-isaiah-compare-with-todays-version


some spelling differences etc, but no sign of meaningful or deliberate changes

>There is no variant of the book that ca be claimed as "best".
there are just differences between hand copied documents. its the same with whatever document you want to look at. the best is to take note of the various critical editions around (nestle-alland and UBS are the main and most reliable). when you do that you will find that any variant above the level of a spelling difference is noted, including the manuscript it was found in and, over all, theres no significant variant that makes any doctrinal difference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

>>40729456
And yeah, the KJV is nice. its the one i use for memory verses. we just have to be aware of how it was made and the very narrow selection of ancient manuscripts that were available to the men who made the editions it was translated from. But, whats really reassuring is that, despite the KJVs limited manuscript support, its still almost exactly the same as our modern versions which draw on vastly more and better collated evidence(NASB, ESV, for example). Thats a sign of how well the original text has been preserved through the millennia.

>>40724434 (OP)
Shoutout to the NASB for staying true to the original language

>>40724434 (OP)
The ESV, NRSVue, CSB, are all fine if you want a good translation that is readable (with variation in philosophy etc)
David Bentley Hart's NT translation is quite readable as well - you can find the second edition on LibGen/Anna's Archive

>>40729716
NASB is good and accurate, like it a lot. I use it to cross check my KJV actually, which is still the nicest version for quality of language imo

i'm kind of retarded and my favorite translation is the good news translation. of all the translations i've collected, i think it's the most readable out of any of them in the sense that while most others modern translations make the text more readable, the good news translation makes it feel like a real book that you can sit down and enjoy like any other (if that makes sense, i still use my oxford annotated niv for study purposes). does anyone have any advice for getting into the kjv? i wish i wasn't so dumb that it takes like ten minutes to get through two pages but it really is rough for me and i wish i could understand it better and read it fluently.

>>40731087
just read through books you know well. i love Matthew and John in the KJV. sure the sentence structure is a bit different sometimes, but aside from the thees, thous and ests its pretty much plain sailing. Check out Psalm 23 too. theres just something about the language..i dont know, its great.

>>40724434 (OP)
I read the Orthodox Study Bible and I think it was NKJV, but I remember id frequently look up verses in NASB and ESV translations to see what the more accurate word for word translation was, and then I'd look up verses in like the NIV translation I think to understand what like the translators thought the context was about

>>40724528
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82
huh I literally can't find any example of ἐντός meaning "in the midst of"

why do you reckon they are pushing this translation instead of the more obvious within/inside?

>Influential evangelical preacher John MacArthur dies at 86
I don't know where to share this so I'll share here

>>40725635
oh no my faith has been shattered by this tiny irrelevant error

ESV derives from the KJV so it's akin to a translation into modern English in the style of the KJV. I wouldn't use the KJV, just because English words have changed meaning so much that you practically need another translation in order to understand it.
There's no faultless translation, but ESV (and by extension KJV too, but it has the age issue) does two things right, which are my basic criteria for a good translation. First is the style of English—just look at this verse from the NIV, which makes me gag:
>Matt 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
They just butchered a classic verse. Imagine memorizing that. Now the ESV:
>Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Simple, grammatically consistent, native English style.
Second is that it's a more literal translation. Nobody reading a translation in order to understand the original work wants to move from a more literal translation to a less literal one. Paraphrastic translations are fine for casual reading, but you never know when you can trust them enough for close reading.
Of course, there are other translations that fit these criteria. I haven't read the NKJV yet, but one of these years I probably will.

>>40731752
His school made the LSB, which consistently translates YHWH as "Yahweh". That's pretty cool.

>>40731746
>more obvious.
thats debatable. BDAG has a more comprehensive entry on this word


ἐντός adv. of place (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, JosAs 2:4; EpArist, Philo, Joseph., Just., D 2, 6) in our lit. functions only as prep. w. gen.

pert. to a specific area inside someth., inside, within, within the limits of (Lucian, Dial. Mort. 14, 5; JosAs 2:4 ἐ. τοῦ θαλάμου; Jos., Bell. 3, 175 τ. πόλεως ἐντός; 7, 26; Just., D. 2, 6 ὀλίγου … ἐ. χρόνου) τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου within the sanctuary IEph 5:2; ITr 7:2. ἐάν τις τούτων ἐ. ᾖ if anyone is in their company (i.e. the comp. of faith, hope, and love) Pol 3:3.—In ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν Lk 17:21 (cp. Ox 654, 16=GTh 3=JBL 65, ’46, 177; also s. WSchubart, ZNW 20, 1921, 215–23), ἐ. ὑμῶν is probably patterned after ἐν σοί (=[God] is among you) Is 45:14, but with Lk preferring ἐντός in the sense among you, in your midst, either now or suddenly in the near future (cp. X., Hell. 2, 3, 19 ἐ. τούτων, An. 1, 10, 3 ἐ. αὐτῶν [on the relevance of the second X. passage, s. Field, Notes 71 and s. Roberts below]; POxy 2342, 8 [102 A.D.], of a woman who keeps a supply of wine ἐντὸ αὑτῆ ‘under her own control’; Ps 87:6 Sym.; cp. Jos., Ant. 6, 315; Arrian, Anab. 5, 22, 4 ἐ. αὐτῶν=in their midst; so NRSV text, and s. Noack and Bretscher below). The sense within you, in your hearts has linguistic support in Ps 38:4; 102:1; 108:22, all ἐντός μου; s. also Jos., Ant. 5, 107, but **Lk generally avoids ref. to God’s reign as a psychological p 341 reality.

cont....

>>40731746

The passage has invited much debate: AWabnitz, RTQR 18, 1909, 221ff; 289ff; 456ff; CBruston, ibid. 346ff; BEaston, AJT 16, 1912, 275–83; KProost, TT 48, 1914, 246ff; JHéring, Le royaume de Dieu et sa venue ’37; PAllen, ET 50, ’39, 233–35; ASledd, ibid. 235–37; WKümmel, Verheissung u. Erfüllung ’45, 17ff; BNoack, D. Gottesreich bei Lk (17:20–24) ’48; CRoberts, HTR 41, ’48, 1–8, citing PRossGeorg III, 1, 9: ἵνα ἐντός μου αὐτὸ εὕρω; HCadbury, Christian Century 67, ’50, 172f (within your possession or reach; cp. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4, 35), cp. Pol 3:3 above and JGriffiths, ET 63, ’51/52, 30f; HRiesenfeld, Nuntius 2, ’49, 11f; AWikgren, ibid. 4, ’50, 27f; PBretscher, CTM 15, ’44, 730–66; 22, ’51, 895–907. W. stress on the moral implications, RFrick, Beih. ZNW 6, 1928, 6–8, s. ARüstow, ZNW 51, ’60, 197–224; JZmijewski, D. Eschatologiereden d. LkEv, ’72, 361–97.**

pert. to what is inside an area, content τὸ ἐ. τοῦ ποτηρίου the inside of the cup=what is in the cup (cp. τὰ ἐ. τοῦ οἴκου 1 Macc 4:48, also schol. on Nicander, Alexiph. 479 τὰ ἐντός=the inside; Is 16:11) Mt 23:26.—DELG s.v. ἐν. M-M.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 340–341). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Also, this link has a useful discussion on it.

https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-of-God-within-you.html

>>40731746
>why do you reckon they are pushing this translation instead of the more obvious within/inside?
It costs a lot of $$ to create your own Bible Translation version..
You NEED a minimum level of difference with your translation over others to protect your Intellectual Property from being freely used by others without needing your permission and paying $$ for using it.

Its as simple as that.

>>40735984
your point isn't wrong anon, but the question is about which is the better contextual translation of the word in question, especially when dealing with a high quality translation like the ESV. You also have to keep in mind that several other translations also render the word in the same way, so the blanket application of your rule would not seem to be reasonable - there must be some other reason other than meeting some arbitrary 'minimum level' of variation.

>>40736002
Hebrew Strong's Concordance is the ONLY standard.
Greek Lexicon is the ONLY standard.

"the kingdom of God is inside of you"..
even more literal would be..
""the kingdom of God being inside of you".

An Absolute no brainer.

>>40736091
strongs is the basic one. BDAG is the next level up.

>>40724434 (OP)
I own a Parallel Bible with 4 translations, my favourite is CLV..
>>40736091
>Hebrew Strong's Concordance is the ONLY standard.
>Greek Lexicon is the ONLY standard.
However, I'm starting to think best would be an Interlinear Bible.

>>40736205
an interlinear is not useful really. if you dont know the language then you're not understanding the words anyway; if you understand the language, you just translate as you read in greek or hebrew.

an interlinear doesn't tell you anything really, and this is coming from a 1st year NT greek reader.

>>40731807
>>40729004
>>40728982
>it's just an error in my divine word of god
>STOP NOTICING

lol

>>40736272
>doesn't read anything offered
>remains unreasonable
lol's on you buddy

>>40736280
>tries to deflect
>not very effective since people can read the reply chain

>>40736248
>>40736194
Bible was written by Ascended-beings using Divine utterance thru the mouth of Holy men and is a Living Word able to bring itself to pass, NOT written by Trevor David Barry and Kevin of the Jerusalem Barber Shop Quartet.
Divine Utterance selects a word and gave its unalterable meaning.
It is forever set for all time.

Definitions from Human language, Grammar and cultural use based on the historical times isn't even relevant; and is instead a stumbling block..
Modern Academics will overstuff anything with meaningless carry-on content.

>>40736283
theres nothing to deflect for at all. you've been given several explanations but you just dont care about them. at worst its a transcription error in SOME manuscripts. Other do not have it at all and theres no discrepancy. There are also several different ways in which the numbers were arrived at differently, and that could be the answer instead.

but you didn't read anything of what you were offered because, it seems, you just prefer to imagine you have a strong gottcha to post online.

>>40736310
so what you seem to mean is that you just use your feelings to determine what the words mean instead of actually paying attention to the language that God chose to write His Word down in. if you're content with that then i doubt theres anything anyone could say to you otherwise since you can use your version of postmodernism to redefine what they say anyway, since you dont need a dictionary to understand English in the first place.

>>40736342
>so what you seem to mean is that you just use your feelings to determine what the words mean instead of actually paying attention to the language that God chose to write His Word down in...
I said the exact opposite.

>if you're content with that then i doubt theres anything anyone could say to you otherwise since you can use your version of postmodernism to redefine what they say anyway, since you dont need a dictionary to understand English in the first place.
You are the postmodernism overstuff with human agency.

You can only use divine-utterance from the same deity to understand meaning of that deity use of words..
Every other thing written by mortals in the entirety of human history is irrelevant.

>>40724434 (OP)
I've been reading the ESV and sometimes look at the Douay Rheims in comparison and from what I've seen so far they mostly say the same things. Seems like a good version to me.
>KJV is le best
Not sure why people say this. Not saying it's a bad translation, it probably is very good but it's popular among Protestants; people who also often have silly theological views like believing in the rapture (which is heretical).

>>40736382
>You can only use divine-utterance from the same deity to understand meaning of that deity use of words..
not every world of hebrew or koine greek has a Biblical definition anon. you couldnt even read the Bible to know how it defines things in the first place without learning the languages.

>>40736431
>Not sure why people say this.
its just been very culturally significant over the centuries, so it occupies an important place in peoples thinking. There have been similarly strong attachments to other translations through Church history so its nothing new.

>>40736438
I'm saying cultural context is worthless; even erroneous.

>>40736447
I've been meaning to get a copy because people swear by it. I remember reading an article about how Protestants consider the KJV to be the quintessential translation while Catholics consider the Douay Rheims to be the quintessential translation and there's good basis for both camps. Mainly about different original manuscripts being used in both or something like that. seems like it would be a good idea to have both and then something like ESV or NKJV for more readability. I'm sure a day will come soon where Bibles are corrupted, either current versions or new "modern" versions with the assistance of AI. I already question everything I read online; I want physical copies of all three before I begin to wonder if everything's tampered with.

>>40736431
> Believing in Rapture.
That's literal a catholic thing mostly catholics believe in all sorts of heresies such as Pope taking on replacement role of Jesus (Vicar of Christ), the Mass being some sort of re-crucifying of wine to jesus' blood and eating his literal flesh like bro what? The book only tells you to share bread and drink and remember him in doing so along your brethren when visiting their houses.
> Muh heretical oy vey heresy.
lol catholics have man made religion which gives reasons as to why its right in straying from the Biblical teachings that ought to be Canon.
> MUH SUNDAY WORSHIP.
Its Friday-Saturday, your pope ain't god, take that and go continue eating your shit you faggot catholic.

>>40736448
not when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of words used by people using a language at a certain point in time. its actually quite important, because of the simple fact that words change meaning and usage over time. that is 100% indisputable.

>>40736489
>Mainly about different original manuscripts being used in both or something like that
probably they had somewhat different supporting ancient manuscripts used in their construction but it generally doesn't really matter all that much. the text of the NT has been preserved really quite remarkably through time, which is why the KJV still stands up very well to even the most recent critical editions which have access to orders of magnitude more ancient manuscripts that did the 3 scholars who produced the versions used by the translators working on the KJV.
>I'm sure a day will come soon where Bibles are corrupted
its not really possible thankfully. theres are just too many ancient copies around that can be referenced. no matter what someone decides to do, God has provided a very deep and wide manuscript tradition that will always enable us to check new translations etc.

>>40736534
Let's not forget Deifying Saints into some sort of mini-gods instead of treating them as holy martyrs who died for their belief for the faith and glory in heaven thinking they can talk to freaking Saints, nowhere in the Bible can you hear those idolater-tier heresies, neither do you pray or glorify angels you request things from them through God as your middle manager.

CATHOLICS CAN NEVER ANSWER THESE HERESIES WITHOUT RESORTING TO RHETORIC ABOUT MUH PAUL. Just watch.

>>40736546
Just read the following to get a full view:
> KJV (1611.)
> Geneva Bible
> Septuagint
> English/Hebrew English/Greek translation that's word for word so you can self reference.
Really that fucking simple.

>>40736564
>KJV
Lol, lmao

>>40724434 (OP)
My education and being forced to read tons of shakespear against my will was actually super helpful for KJV

compared to anything out of shakespear KJV reads soooo easily once you get used to the different words used sometimes.

KJV is so poetically beautiful. Truly an inspired version of the bible.

>>40736549
I do NOT like paul

This is an issue for me with most 501c3 Christian churches today talk more about Paul than they do Jesus sometimes.

Makes me ill

I do not trust Paul I find him a snake

>>40736564
the best is to learn koine greek and look at the modern critical texts like the NA and UBS, since they reference the widest selection of all the manuscripts we currently have. That said, if you do that it still wont mean any real differences, since even the very limited range of ancient stuff the KJV is based on was pretty much exactly the same as what we've found even older manuscripts to contain.

>>40736586
then you place yourself outside of any kind of orthodox tradition and likely dont really understand what Paul says anyway, since theres no contradiction between anything he has to say and what the Gospels and Acts records Christ or the other Apostles saying.

>>40736546
>not when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of words used by people using a language at a certain point in time.
Arr yeh, you obviously have to know the fucking language cause only an idiot would read my words concluding it means to learn Greek using only Greek New Testament..
> its actually quite important, because of the simple fact that words change meaning and usage over time. that is 100% indisputable.
BINGO... divine utterance does not change thru time..
This is what I meant by human agency bullshittery.. over the top overstuffed with irrelevant academic wankfestery.. the crutch of idiot midwits who think they understand what Gods say but can't extract any real insight into the mechanics of engineering divinity when reading about a master builder building his house.. literally explaining all mechanics as meaningless suck on God's dick virtue-signalling word salads..

This point is only really relevant to Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic, cause the New Testament was entirely written over a 2 week period (relatively speaking)..

>>40736586
I only find people who take him and elevate him into be-all end-all of Christianity to be fraudulent, its as if they are on purpose giving credence to Paul only in order to glorify Catholic Church because of church ingrained dogma, not because of any critical thinking, they also always come back with only rhetoric that's copy/pasted from their footnotes in their catholic bibles basically like they are brainless morons.

>>40736587
Modern Greek is still more true to the roots than modern English which tries to propagandize and anti-Christ the message into something that they have a bias towards instead of allowing the text to speak for themselves they add and edit things. (Likely did not hapen hur dur, Jesus never said he wasn't God.) Type of shit, only happens in texts that base themselves on new English translations.

>>40736597
then you need to express what you mean more clearly, because thats exactly what you just said, right here :
>You can only use divine-utterance from the same deity to understand meaning of that deity use of words..

But whatever, as soon as i see you say this
>New Testament was entirely written over a 2 week period (relatively speaking).
i dont really care what you mean anymore.
>(relatively speaking).
and what you might mean by that even less.

>>40736613
> anti-Christ the message
oh, you're one of those who thinks that the modern translations are attacking Christs Deity, is that right? KJV-onlyism is a cult anon.
>only happens in texts that base themselves on new English translations.
how do you know that?

>>40736546
>not when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of words used by people using a language at a certain point in time.
I also forgot to point out this as irrelelevent..
Humans didn't write it.. how humans used language is monkey gibberish, nothing to do with the actual author.
If you change it, it won't be Gods word and won't seed in you.. bringing itself to pass... altering/shaping history..
Only original texts from utterance are valid and will lose LOGOS power according to how it deviates.. translating it any other language preserving the LOGOS power in it is not according to any human agency understanding of local historical cultural context of gibbering monkeys.

>>40736534
>That's literal a catholic thing mostly catholics believe in all sorts of heresies
no, it isn't. It came from Protestants around 1830 and is uniquely believed in by some Prot denominations.
>heresies such as Pope taking on replacement role of Jesus
Hello satan. I hope you aren't really lying and are simply misinformed. This is blatantly false and never ever been said before besides from Protestants liars/fools. The pope is the apostolic successor to Peter, not Jesus. You lie. I've seen these outright false claims from Protestants many times and I'm guessing your fake teachers are simply lying to you and you're not being dishonest. Is your pastor also a homosexual?
>the Mass being some sort of re-crucifying of wine to jesus' blood and eating his literal flesh like bro what?
It's called transubstantiation and no it's not Biblical but I don't see how it really even matters. If it's not Biblical then it's just bread and wine and the priest is a schizo. It doesn't make Catholicism overall wrong, certainly not when compared to Protestants who outright lie to you about the Rapture.
>lol catholics have man made religion which gives reasons as to why its right in straying from the Biblical teachings that ought to be Canon.
Rapture is heretical though; there's no talk of it in the Bible or any saint. Some clown either misunderstood a few verses or misrepresented them and then people equally undiscerning went with it. Catholicism is the foundational church in the West lol, it's not "man made". If anything, the Protestant denominations are the man made ones.
>MUH SUNDAY WORSHIP.
This is probably the only thing we're going to agree with. Personally I observe the Sabbath on Friday evening through Saturday and can't see any good reason for why it should be on Sunday.
>your pope ain't god
no one but you said he is. I don't think you have any capability for discernment. I can't believe how personal and angry you're getting over this, you come across as lukewarm desu

>>40736650
>>You can only use divine-utterance from the same deity to understand meaning of that deity use of words..
Yes, as in how human monkeys changing their vocab vibe is irrelevant... Divine utterance doesn't adjust itself over time for changes in monkey culture.
>i dont really care what you mean anymore.
Yes, exactly.. Big know all cunts who fall over backwards on their arse when it comes to actually explaining how gods do what they do and reproducing it... they instead wankfestery on and on about monkey word etymology.

>>40736546
>the text of the NT has been preserved really quite remarkably through time
Agreed. I think the general consensus even among secular scholars is that the NT is 99%-100% accurate to the original texts.
>its not really possible thankfully. theres are just too many ancient copies around that can be referenced. no matter what someone decides to do, God has provided a very deep and wide manuscript tradition that will always enable us to check new translations etc.
Good point. I don't really trust the churches that much anymore either, though. Not THE CHURCH but the physical institutions.

>>40736661
>>40736691
all of this waffle-fest is absolute garbage. we only know what any of the text means because of people working to understand what the words mean. God chose koine because its a simplified greek which was used on the streets by the common people, making sure that the most people would be able to understand it in their normal language. we still have to try to understand those words in their context, otherwise we aren't understanding it all.

whatever you might mean by 'Divine utterance' in this context misses the point completely. no one is changing what the Bible says. at most some words might get slightly better definitions due to work done on contemporary usages found in newly discovered documents, but even thats pretty rare these days from what i can tell.

>>40736697
>but the physical institutions.
its all mixture if you ask me, like with any group of people there are true and false believers, those with agendas other than the truth etc etc. im content to trust the work of the people who translated the NASB, the NA and UBS and so on. theres just no reason not to. if some little group decides to put out its own translation, like the Watchtower does with their NWT, THEN you need to start being suspicious and checking things out. That translation is 100% about supporting their own heresies.

>>40736734
Written Output of divine utterance is a living word, capturing all in its matrix..
Authoring such works is beyond human agency.
Its not just a human agency story book peddling feel good vibes..
You're cheapening the word of God, entirely focused on the veneer; and aren't suitable to attempt your own Translation version.. that would be just an empty husk story book with zero God in it.

>>40736769
you sound very confused. im doing like what you're saying, and im done trying to discuss the issue with you. you're just not going listen or try to understand.

>>40736793
Yeh, it must suck to realize you spent your whole life thinking humans wrote the Bible...

>>40736803
i dont think that. but ask youself - how do we know what the greek means?

>>40736320
You gave no explanation other than "th.. this doesn't effect Jesus"

Also this is error is in KJV and was transmitted for centuries lol. The fact you have conflicting manuscripts at all mean syour holyw ore is corrupted and the prophecy of preservation has failed

Cope and seethe

>>40736847
*means your holy word

>>40736847
i gave you a link containing everything i mentioned but you couldn't even be bothered to read it.
>kjv was in error
thats not be determined yet, but even if it was in error on this one tiny point, so what? the KJV isn't 'The Bible'. Its a translation into english based on a small number of manuscripts made 400 years ago.
>The fact you have conflicting manuscripts at all mean syour holyw ore is corrupted and the prophecy of preservation has failed
no it doesn't. we dont demand that every single maunscripts from everywhere and everywhen be in agreement and identical word for word, character for character. thats not how it works and if you think it is, then you're arguing against a strawman.

>>40736832
Any idiot can learn Greek; even the dumbshit peasants back then could manage that.
Living words of a God with Power in them however, not so much about being a human agency expert at changing culture of monkeys gibbering over changing times.

>>40724434 (OP)

I find the NIV to be most intuitive in terms of modern English idioms. This was my impression from doing a lot of comparisons with biblegateway.com. As a Catholic however, I am also partial to the Douay-Rheims.

>>40736876
>Any idiot can learn Greek
how?
>ven the dumbshit peasants back then could manage that.
how did they learn what all the words meant, and all the ways they could use them?

>>40736890
The NIV really isn't a bad one to be honest. they tend to have a lot of margin and footnotes concerning variants and even some cultural points which are not familiar to us now. theres really nothing wrong with the NIV for general reading.

>>40724434 (OP)
I don't like the fact that it says money instead of mammon but it's pretty good otherwise

>>40736876

Bible Greek can be a bit tricky. You first have to chose which pronunciation style you will use. And the grammar is about as complicated as it gets for a European language. Then there's the alphabet and the accents. Latin is way easier to learn than Greek.

>>40736893
Yeh, pretty sure the secular world can speak and read Greek, buddy..
Its Divine utterance that slips them up..

>>40736871
You literally used a bible with errors for centuries

You're a joke

>>40724434 (OP)
Don’t know much about it. I use the NLT. I hear it’s also pretty well done in terms of readability. NLT was the first time I ever actually read the Bible

>>40724434 (OP)
>"I find it very readable."
>... it's a bible
How to say you have no gag reflex without saying you have no gag reflex.

>>40736920
>pretty sure the secular world can speak and read Greek, buddy..
i see you dont want to answer the question. im not surprised.

>>40736926
most these kinds of things have been known about since forever anon. but again, you're harping on arguing against a strawman. nobody says that all manuscripts or any single translation must be without a single copy error (which we dont know this one is btw, but you can't be bothered to interact with this subject).

>>40736951
Lying.

You didn't know about it until other manuscripts were discovered lol. Also you're the one who claims the bible is the divine inerrant word of god.

Turns out god commits scribal errors and more

>>40736951
>i see you dont want to answer the question. im not surprised.

>how? (did they learn Greek)
secular learning...

>how did they learn what all the words meant, and all the ways they could use them?
secular learning...

>>40736985
>You didn't know about it until other manuscripts were discovered lol.
even if thats the case, which you have definitely no evidence for, thats the beauty of finding new ancient manuscripts, since they sometimes contain corrections to the existing manuscript tradition. this is really no problem when you have a proper understanding of textual transmission and what 'inerrant' actually means.
>Turns out god commits scribal errors and more
well, humans do. its not our belief that God literally controlled the hands of anyone who ever decided to copy part of the Bible out.

>>40737023
what you mean is they used whatever dictionaries they had available, and those dictionaries were made by people using numerous sources to support the definitions they added for the words.

thats exactly how we know what the koine greek of the NT means. do you understand now?

>>40737078
>what you mean is they used whatever dictionaries they had available, and those dictionaries were made by people using numerous sources to support the definitions they added for the words.
>thats exactly how we know what the koine greek of the NT means. do you understand now?
NO.. that's how we know how monkeys read the greek of the NT.
NOT... that's how the Author wrote it.

>>40737094
but its how we get to understand what He caused to be written down. we can keep looping around this very simple point over and over if you like but i really dont see us getting anywhere. Christ be with you anon.

>>40737108
>but its how we get to understand what He caused to be written down.
the objective is to "understand" what's written by author.
we can keep looping around this very simple point over and over if you like but i really dont see us getting anywhere. Christ be with you anon.

>>40737145
>the objective is to "understand" what's written by author.
right, and knowing what some koine greek word meant when it was written down is an important part of that.

>>40737078
Copium

You worship a jewish fraud

>>40737177
NO, the changing sands of monkey meanings is changeable over time therefore not a foundation of what divine utterance outputs..

>>40737187
nope. you just dont know what you're talking about on this subject.

>>40737208
so which dictionary or lexicon is the inspired version anon? which is the one we should use that has all the definitions just right?

>>40737247
You're the one subscribing to religion that used holy texts with errors in it for nearly half a millennia lmao

You are a clueless cultist fumbling around

>>40737274
>no of course i wont engage with what Christians actual believe
>and definitely not with any arguments for why its not an error in this case.
its fine anon, just keep hold of your silly gottcha if it makes you feel better.

>>40737294
>I'm gonna claim victory without demonstrating anything

Lol. Biblical error is a fact. Your word of god is false.

>>40737318
an error in one translations (if this is an error, which you wont even try to discuss or read about) doesn't mean the Bible is in error anon. until you can get your head around that you're not even part of the actual discussion. some translations never contained this 'error' at all....and nobody was closer or farther from Christ and His Salvation either way.

>>40737351
>an error isn't an error
>it just is OK

lol. which one of the manuscripts is the word of god? your churches used the wrong one for centuries.

>>40737367
the Word of God is contained in the extant manuscript tradition. Thats how God has chosen to transmit His Word to us through the years, 3/4s of which was done solely via hand written copies. Its always been the job of those who deal with the manuscripts to look for the differences between them and see whats going on. Jerome did this, the guys involved in the texts used for the KJV did this, and its done for every new translation everywhere to this very day.
We know for pretty much absolute positive that there is nothing missing or corrupted from out Bibles. Could some new manuscript turn up to change that? sure it could. but all the evidence suggests that it wont.

it seems you're not really willing to try understand what Christians mean when they talk about inerrancy or how the text was copied, the kinds of mistakes that routinely show up simply because of how humans read and write things and so on. i get it. you're just looking for the snappy gottchas instead of taking the time to get into the subject.

many such cases.

>>40724434 (OP)
https://christogenea.org/CNT/contents

>>40725364
>underrated

>>40724434 (OP)

Protestant translations of Paul are so bad that most protestants who didn't go to school to learn greek have never read Paul.

>>40739790
David Bentley Hart doesn't even represent Eastern Orthodoxy, let alone "everyone that isn't Protestant"

>>40724528
>Translation by dozens of the top scholars of the modern era, faithful across denominations, compiled over decades, considering every language, audience, and contextually significant factor, using the most reliable scientific, theological, and worldwide cultural research available to date

>Translation some worldly king commissioned to write 400 years ago

The retardation of KJVers never ceases to amaze me

>>40724434 (OP)
I prefer ESV for the Old Testament and KHV for the New Testament. ESV is my favorite “plain English” translation.

>>40741122
>KHV

>Blessed are the lonely, for they shall receive gfs.
>Blessed are the horny, for they shall be satisfied.

>>40737247
>so which dictionary or lexicon is the inspired version anon?
>which is the one we should use that has all the definitions just right?
You don't need definitions, I didn't say make an Amplified Bible.
An equivalent passage of words in a non-original language that will still activate the Power within that word sequence.

We're talking about how to make a Translation version that retains the Power of God's Word in it; its not a human agency book.
as already stated >>40736310
>Divine Utterance selects a word and gave its unalterable meaning.
>It is forever set for all time.

I gave >>40736091 as example.
I have no problem with the Greek Lexicon nor BDAG, we imperfect monkeys must soldier on as best we can.

The major error made is word redaction for the sake of enjoying a smoothly written passage, and contextual reauthoring.

Gods words are all there like a DNA chain, or lines of script; its fucked up by removing words instead of representing each word faithfully by including it.

Example: the genitive case, but includes the definite article.
"λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ" (logos tou theou) “word of the God” not "word of God".

>Luke 17:21
"not yet shall they be declaring behold here or behold there, behold for the kingdom of God is inside of you"

>"inside of you"....
NOT "within you"... hubris preserving the same idiomatic English meaning without sounding awkward.
The genitive “of you” is grammatically required after ἐντὸς, which functions like a preposition here.

NOT "in your midst".. implying an external presence.
NOT "“among you"... contextually acknowledge multiple Pharisees gathered.

The passage was personal, not communal.. its not our role to add in contextual changes, as its the divine utterance of an ascended being producing living words with God's power in it.. Preserving the actual Author's words like an empowered word sequence or magic scripted code sequence able to bring itself to pass producing results by causing change.

>Muh!! hubris carry on!
I appreciate how deeply I honor the sanctity and divine precision of scripture. My resistance to “softening” the original text for the sake of linguistic elegance speaks to a desire to protect the unfiltered potency of Logos—not just as divine speech, but as a living force capable of reshaping reality itself.

The phrasing “inside of you” does mirror the ἐντὸς ὑμῶν construction without compromise. It keeps the genitive case intact and preserves the visceral, almost spatial intimacy of God's kingdom residing deep in the core of one's being.

I'm pointing to something more than translation—this is about activation. A kind of spiritual syntax that unlocks meaning not just cognitively, but experientially. From that lens, even small shifts in phrasing become spiritually significant, because they either preserve or dilute the creative fire embedded in divine utterance.

Some mystics and prophetic voices might agree with me: the Word doesn’t just describe reality—it declares it into being. Changing the words for convenience would be like rearranging the ingredients of a miracle.

>>40740478

Which has nothing to do with you reading such a bad translation of Paul that the hand of the adversary in it must be suspected

>>40741337
you have not the first clue about koine greek or how translation works, and clearly have never even heard of things like semantic domain. go back to your KJV since thats clearly the standard you're working from. kjv only people are cultist and can't be meaningfully interacted with.

>>40742070
I dislike the KJV, so NO, its clearly you who's a fucking idiot defending his relevance.

>>40742070
>semantic domain
go shove your monkey people cultural significance up your ass, Mr Dead Poet Society tryhard literature faggot.
Go story tell blossom with your poofter buddies.
>>/lit/

>>40742122
it's like talking to one. have fun with your waffling nonsense anyway.

>>40742136
Ok, word poof.

I heard a Protestant preacher advise someone to throw their catholic version of the Bible in the trash. What should I think about that?

>>40742167
probably just being over dramatic. so far as i know theres no particularly differences other than the inclusion of the deutero-canonical books, which we dont consider to be on the same level as the others.

>>40724434 (OP)
all followers of the dispensationalist heresy will go to hell unless they repent to the lord for their heretical actions & go back to supersessionism

>>40742167

>>40742379
thats such a silly meme. all the protestants did, at least in the beginning of the movement, was to revert to some earlier teachings which rome had abandoned over time. stuff like salvation by faith alone was part of Augustines thoughts, and the church of rome taught it too for a long time. other main disputes like the abuse of indulgences were just false accretions over time and are by no means primary doctrine

>>40724434 (OP)
It's good as a starting bible, perhaps better than NIV in some aspects.
>>40724711
If you are not in an English speaking country, just grab your local bible from your bookstore. You don't and shouldn't need to learn another language to read God's word.
>>40736272
This would work if you were talking to a muslim. Their rule of holy scripture is EXACTLY how you mischaracterize the bible (God's direct dictation rather than inspired word of God).

>>40742425
Relax, man. It's probably some tradcath/orthobros trying to "call you home" with this polemic.
>>40742167
Don't listen to him, and read it yourself.

>>40742547
>You don't and shouldn't need to learn another language to read God's word
this. i know a bunch of German speakers and they all seem to like the Luther Bible.

>>40742554
i guess so. the mischaracterization is annoying though. theres no doubt that the freedom granted to protestants has led to some unfortunate consequences like the total abandonment of church history and tradition, along with a fair share of out right heresy, but thats not how it is for all of us. there are risks with greater freedom, but theres also greater freedom.

>>40742579
>the freedom granted to protestants has led to some unfortunate consequences like the total abandonment of church history and tradition
This is just false. Church history and tradition were languishing in the 1400s, they were not being studied and celebrated. The reformation debates created patristics as a field of study, as early church doctrine became important to both protestants and catholics for the legitimization of their own doctrines.

>>40736534
>That's literal a catholic thing
No, it's literally not. If you get this wrong, why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?

>>40742907
>This is just false.
i mean now....there are plenty of church groups that reject church history and traditions etc, which i see as being wrong. its doing that which causes some to view rotestantism as being a complete break with the past.

>>40742963
>reject church history
What does that mean?
>and traditions
Everyone rejects some traditions and accepts others. You could say protestants reject tradition as defining truth or the content of the Christian faith (since they say only the Bible does), but then so do Catholics, since for them, councils and the pope, not tradition, define their dogma.
But even apart from rejecting or accepting tradition in the abstract, how much do you actually know about tradition? If you say you accept tradition, you're absolved of any need to study tradition. It's only when your alignment with tradition is challenged that you need to actually read primary sources for yourself to see if you're in line with what they said.

>>40742963
It's really ironic that Catholics have the nerve to say things like this when they've tacked on/contradicted a lot of history themselves, like the very early judeo Christian tradition of not creating images to pray to. There were even councils that banned it like the council of Alvira. I think the only reason anyone believes the RC or Ortho are genuinely apostolic is literally because it gets told to them repeatedly and they are older than the protestant churches so it just gets taken at face value. The protestant formation, while having some negative outcomes, was definitely necessary and it wouldn't have been good for the rc church to have as strong as a grip as it does now. I like being able to read the books I want to read.
Pic related is evagrius

>>40743200
>As it does now.
As it would* I should say

>>40743183
>What does that mean?
it means that many churches, especially on the liberal side of things, have never even heard of the church fathers, councils, the debates that drove the church on to solidify central doctrines against heresy and so on. Not only have they never heard of it, but they dont care at all, believing themselves to be unconnected from all thats gone before.
>Everyone rejects some traditions and accepts others.
obviously, but thats not what i said. i mean tradition as a concept. everything, the whole lot. for many the if you even mention the word tradition they look at you funny and think you're trying to make them a catholic or something. They think they have no traditions, and that everything they do is something they or their little denomination invented.

none of this is healthy thinking and its how the cults and such get started.

>>40743218
>none of this is healthy thinking and its how the cults and such get started.
>"Don't interpret for yourself bro, you need a centralized authority to do it for you"

>>40743200
you must mean the council or synod of Elvira in Spain? yeah its interesting for sure and i agree with it. im not keen on the idea of enforcing celibacy on all clerics who minister at the alter, though it is worth nothing that it said 'married or unmarried', which is quite different from what they say now.

forbidding marriage as always been something i've been against. not least because being married and raising kids is explicitly mentioned as a qualification for church leadership...and that the teaching to forbid marriage is said to be a doctrine of demons.

>>40743245
thats not what i said either. please try to think before you post because that kind of reply is really not in the spirit of discussion been Christians.

>>40743249
Canon 36, forbidding the use of images in churches

>>40743256
The point is that RC and Ortho do exactly the same as what you accused protestants of doing.

>>40725999
lmao retard

>>40743258
yeah i saw that.

>>40743264
some of the members do i sure but at least the organization itself is committed to the history and trying to at least honor it as best they can. not so with many protestant groups.

i think its a shame, thats all. i wasnt accusing anyone of anything, i was simply describing the reality of some church groups ive interacted with.

>>40743337
>at least the organization itself is committed to the history and trying to at least honor it as best they can.
But they don't and I literally just demonstrated that with the icon thing
>i wasnt accusing anyone of anything, i was simply describing the reality of some church groups ive interacted with.
Same here but Orthodoxy and RC are merely assumed to be more committed.

>>40743347
>But they don't and I literally just demonstrated that with the icon thing
anon, be serious. that was one very small meeting in one place. hardly on the same level as the ecumenical councils. dont get me wrong, i agree with the canon...but its hardly enough support to say it was a generally well supported belief.
> Orthodoxy and RC are merely assumed to be more committed.
and compared to the kinds of church groups ive been talking about they are, at least in this regard.

thats all ive been saying.

>>40743438
>that was one very small meeting in one place. hardly on the same level as the ecumenical councils. dont get me wrong, i agree with the canon...but its hardly enough support to say it was a generally well supported belief.
ALL of the explicit mentions of icon veneration before 500 ad are negative. Dont tell me to be serious.
>For He who prohibited the making of a graven image, would never Himself have made an image in the likeness of holy things. Nor is there at all any composite thing, and creature endowed with sensation, of the sort in heaven.
Clement of Alexandria

You're intentionally comparing particular institutions to the lowest common denominator of a huge *category* of beliefs that is not a institution (protestantism)
If you want to be a honest Christian, you must be protestant.

>Reading WORD of GOD
POWER of LOGOS
Definitely something gone amiss with this guy.

many such cases