I've been told that this is the best study bible and that anyone suggesting a different study bible is better is...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

biblegateway.com/

There isn't actual agreement as to what verses should be included. The manuscripts disagree with each other and it would be just as blasphemous to include a verse that some random person decided to insert into an old manuscript at some point.

I've always wonder what the closest translation to the original text was. What do scholars say, what do the Jews say?

Go to hell dirty papist shill

>I've always wonder what the closest translation to the original text was. What do scholars say,

See textual criticism. There is an entire field dedicated to trying to work out what the original text was. Currently there is a debate in the field split between scholars that say it will be impossible to know what the original text was and scholars that claim it is still possible.

As to what translation is closest I guess that would be a matter of opinion even amongst scholars. I am unaware of any particular translation that has a majority opinion saying it is the closest.

I wish people like you didn't bother coming on Veeky Forums. There are plenty of boards for shitposting on.

Interesting stuff. What do most people read or agree on? What's the most popular?

reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html

bump

?

You'll have to explain the relevance of this.

>What's the most popular?
The one tainted by Satan, of course.

Catholic shills get triggered by it
It calls on the Jesuit order to mercilessly massacre those who don't worship their idols

Which is?

Good stuff. I'll keep that in mind when I'm talking to a Catholic.

I'm not a Catholic btw.

Anything that isn't the KJV

It's probably easier to give you an example of something scholars can't get to the bottom of what is right, like the ending of Mark.

Oops, meant to post a quickie link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

KJV + whichever your sect agrees upon.

Wow that's pretty interesting. How does something like this happen? What is the majority opinion of scholars on the matter the short or long text, what do you think?

Anything that isn't KJV is tainted by Satan?

I think it probably originally ended at Mark 16:8.

Wait, KJV plus what is agreed apon is most popular or is wrong?

I'm pretty sure KJV is the most popular one in English, because so many English-speakers are filthy protestants.

It doesn't seem to end abruptly like a lot of people say. It seems to have ended fine. The additional verses do seem to fit in with the rest of the passage although. Either way nothing groundbreaking missed or added

Absolutely, I completely agree (so long as you aren't one of the zany, minor denominations into snake handling!). It's just interesting as to what the correct translation should be.

Haha and yes I agree it would be nice to know.

From my understanding, KJV is a translation from the original Aramaic/Greek, whereas Douay-Rheims is a translations from the Vulgate. So it's a choice between a translation and a translation of a translation.

It's not even close
most popular is the NIV

>not owning multiple bibles

I'm not sure that is true. I guess it depends on the metric you use.

christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html

post your bibles then faggot

skepticsannotatedbible.com/ Snarky, but usable.

>nothing more than a "protestant faggot"
That's funny, because the Catholics are the ones who don't give a shit about Scripture, and adjust theology around their contemporary political and philosophical needs

>Jesus clearly indicates that he's inferior to Yahweh in knowledge, power, and holiness throughout his entire ministry
>"Nah bro, one God in three persons! Jesus has to be Yahweh's equal, or else those fucking Christ-killers would be right about him not being God. If Jesus wasn't always God, we're cut off from Salvation! Also we did more than anyone else in resisting the Holocaust"

>Christ wasn't God

'And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."' - Mark 14:62

When will this meme end?

He didn't say he was God in that verse, nor was he referring to himself when he said "the son of man". It wasn't until Paul that Jesus began being associated with the "son of man"; which was now being retitled as "one who is the son of humans" (i.e. son of Mary, as well as son of God), instead of the origional definition of "coming cosmic judge". It also helps to know that Jesus was executed for saying he and his 12 apostles (including Judas, because he didn't know Judas would betray him) would be seated on 12 thrones by the "son of man" at the coming of the kingdom of God in their lives, and not for saying he was god's son; which he wouldn't have been the first Jew to claim in second temple period Palestine, nor would claiming so have been considered blasphemy at the time.

Props for at least not using John to base your argument, a gospel that Catholics have hoped their entire divinity argument on, despite it being completely divorced from the synoptic gospels in narrative and having no basis for being in the NT other than "muh theological poetry"

>He didn't say he was God in that verse

He is implying that he is just as powerful as God.

> nor was he referring to himself when he said "the son of man"

Kek. 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised' - Luke 9:22

>It wasn't until Paul...

Ahmed, stop.

> he didn't know Judas would betray him

LOL. He wasn't going to stop in the middle of his ministry and say 'Yeah Judas, sorry mate, but you're going to betray me.' It makes perfect sense he would include him as a judge.

>Props for at least not using John to base your argument, a gospel that Catholics have hoped their entire divinity argument on, despite it being completely divorced from the synoptic gospels in narrative and having no basis for being in the NT other than "muh theological poetry"

What the fuck are you even saying? John is unique because it represents a tradition separate from that of Peter's (which is the foundation of the synoptic). John, if anything, is the most reliable gospel since it is pure eyewitness testimony.

casual reader here

Ive spent around ten hours comparing passages from various versions, looking up each clear discrepancy in my concordance

the KJV is closest to the concordances literal definitions, in fact it very rarely varies at all compared to the other versions, specifically NIV, american standard, living translation

its a fairly important distinction, having a 'paraphrase' or a rewrite that is appropriate for your language, will discard any second or third meaning which might be found in the original arrangement of the words

a metaphrase, a more literal word by word translation, which the KJV is closest to, is the best choice, since you can apply your own reasoning to what the words mean

That's interesting stuff.

What are the differences in the NIV and Strongs that you have found?

>He is implying that he is just as powerful as God.
No he wasn't. And in the Luke verse he wasn't implying he was the son of man either.

Also John wasn't written by the apostle "John". Like the other 3 gospels it was written anonymously, many years later, in a language neither Jesus nor the other apostles ever spoke (Greek), in a completely different part of the empire, by someone who had little to no experience of Judaism or its culture.

You couldn't be more wrong, Kevin. Even Muslims have a better grasp on Christianity than Catholics now I guess.

LXX for old testament ( koine greek )
Patriarchal text or majority text for new testament ( koine greek )

Also use masoretic text in parallel to study it. ( biblical Hebrew )

Also I should let you know that only 2 authors of the NT ever met Jesus, James and Peter. Making only 2 or 3 NT books written by actual eyewitnesses (depending on how many of Peter's were later forgeries for political expedience)

>In the Luke verse he wasn't implying he was the son of man either.

How can you possibly get that? He describes everything that will happen to him. I'm pretty sure you're trolling right now.

>Also John wasn't written by the apostle "John"
Why are you putting John in quotation marks? That was his name.
The author claims to be a disciple of the Lord. We know from Luke that John ran to the tomb with Peter. In John we get the same story, though you're right it's anonymous. Anyway we can infer that John wrote his gospel from the double-attestation.

>Even Muslims have a better grasp on Christianity than Catholics now I guess.
Confirmed troll

James
1 and 2 Peter
John
Jude

Also Luke knew James almost certainly other apostles too (the author claims as much). If you won't believe that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus, you have to at least accept that Paul knew Peter. The author of Hebrews also claims to be in contact with a 'cloud of witnesses' (Hebrews 12:1). So even from a most liberal standpoint you cannot deny that the NT has a significant amount of eye-witness testimony. I'll accept that you think it's distorted or otherwise unreliable, but that the NT was composed by or among eyewitnesses is beyond doubt.

bump

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence

>anyone suggesting a different study bible is better is nothing more than a "protestant faggot"
Funny as Ignatius Press publishes other study Bibles, including the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament that is simply awesome for English-speaking Catholics.

>Before Abraham was, I AM

Boom

but is the didache the GOAT?

>Why are you putting John in quotation marks?
>The author claims to be a disciple of the Lord.
You're an absolute fucking liar, the anonymous gospel began being associated with John by early Christian communities who wanted to legitimize the "John" narrative over other less accurate ones; the same situation with "Mark", "Matthew", and "Luke". These communities had no evidence that these particular figures had anything to do with writing these gospels, but "inferred" it based on half-assed connections within the story.

>We know from Luke that John ran to the tomb with Peter.
That's not what happened in "Mark" and "Matthew", which gospel is the one that's correct? Or are you trying to glue all the gospel narratives together to create a Frankenstein story that not a single gospel writer ever claimed to happen?

For example, "Mark" claims Mary saw only one young man at the tomb (before she ran away in fear without telling anyone what happened, until a later scribe added "Mark" 16:9-20 so that the ending would make sense), "Matthew" said she say an angel, and "Luke" said she saw 2 young men. Catholics try to reason this out by saying she must've saw 2 angels at the tomb, despite not a single gospel claiming such. All 4 gospels have radically different narratives, starting with "Mark" (the earliest, most accurate, and most simple), and evolving into "John" (latest, least accurate, and most edited to fit a desired narrative).

>Anyway we can infer that John wrote his gospel from the double-attestation.
1. You have no idea what that term actually means.
2. No we can't.

>The author of Hebrews also claims to be in contact with a 'cloud of witnesses' (Hebrews 12:1). So even from a most liberal standpoint you cannot deny that the NT has a significant amount of eye-witness testimony. I'll accept that you think it's distorted or otherwise unreliable, but that the NT was composed by or among eyewitnesses is beyond doubt.
1.The only eyewitnesses are James and Peter

The actual Didache is just a document from a Jewish Christian community.

It's typically dated to the 1st century

>Also Luke knew James almost certainly other apostles too (the author claims as much).
Well if he claimed as such, who can possibly refute that evidence?
>If you won't believe that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus
No serious person does.
>you have to at least accept that Paul knew Peter. The author of Hebrews also claims to be in contact with a 'cloud of witnesses' (Hebrews 12:1). So even from a most liberal standpoint you cannot deny that the NT has a significant amount of eye-witness testimony.
I don't think you realize that Person A meeting Person B four years after Person C has died, doesn't make Person A an "eyewitness" to the life of Person C. Besides, Paul spends almost all his time discussing the "resurrected Christ Jesus" and almost none talking about Jesus' actual life. His entire theology is centered around Jesus' rising from death, and what that now means for everyone, especially now that the end of the age is imminent. Look it up, you couldn't fill out a single notecard with everything Paul said about Jesus' lifetime and ministry.
>but that the NT was composed by or among eyewitnesses is beyond doubt.
Again, we only have James and Peter, no matter how much you try to lie it'll never change that truth.

>You must be an epin trole xddd
I seriously wanted to let you know the world would be a much better place if you were dead. You're just another fucking liar trying to help out team Jesus.

talking about OP's pic