This is the best study bible, prove me wrong

This

>Every time

Fucking Protestant KJV shills

I unironically love the JSB, and the Jewish Annotated New Testament, not even trolling

KJV for the beauty of it's prose.

Cathlaholics and anglotard bigots get out.

>bigots
Kill yourself

>Creationists unironically think this is scientific fact
>They're still confused about why we don't take them seriously.

As if a huge part of KJonlyism weren't apprehensiveness against anything foreign, you guys are literally one step away from claiming the bible was written in English.

Are you literally saying the bible is not the word of God?

Yeah and that a very similar Communist Satanic Catholic Jewish New Age Gnostic text from Alexandria with slight differences is.

youtu.be/xJrptikLjq8
youtu.be/hwe_nxeVwE0
youtu.be/UNGa_dRTNMo

The Bible is not the word of God.

Jesus is the Word of God and the second person of the trinity.

The bible is a verbal icon.

Jesus is a self insert fan fiction, the only real bible is the old testament.

Just make sure you read the Samaritan version or the Greek translation which follows it closely and not the doctored Masoretic version.

>studying the bible

>Greek translation
The septuagint ?

>not studying the bible
Are you one of those morons who thinks that Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer are equally dispensable, and continually bitched to your calculus and chemistry teachers that you would never use that stuff in real life, so why bother learning them?

Ignorance is not something to aspire to. If you want to be literate in a Western culture, you need to learn the Bible.

Yup
archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren

>uses gender-neutral translation of gendered language to pander to political correctness
Dropped

King James is based, Catholics don't actually have any criticism of it except "it's too literary!" It's literary because Biblical prose is, and properly translated comes off as such; it doesn't use complex language, it just sounds like that because it's archaic; the vocabulary of the entire King James Bible is actually much, much smaller than the vocabulary of Shakespeare's plays, because it uses the limited vocabulary of the Bible.

That one isn't Orthodox, if you want a Septuagint translation, at least use an Orthodox one

orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

>In producing this English version of the Septuagint all of the previous English translations have been consulted, from that of the American scholar and Secretary to the Continental Congress of the USA, Charles Thomson, in the revision of C A Muses, to the very latest, by the Oxford Jesuit Fr. Nicholas King.
>Among them, Sir Lancelot C L Brenton’s translation of 1851 was very helpful because Brenton obviously kept a close eye on the King James Version.
Plus this translation is only a few years old Brenton's has been the best translation of the Septuagint for the longest.

All Muslim believe that bible is the word of God. But, why the church have edited the word of God as they like. I'm rely sure God not going to like it.

>All Muslim believe that bible is the word of God.

You all hold to a historically inaccurate dogma that our scriptures (and those of the Jews) were tainted. Textual analysis from secular third parties do not back up this claim.

>But, why the church have edited the word of God as they like.

It hasn't, and the bible isn't, nor will it ever be, the Word of God. It's a long compilation of books. Perhaps written with divine inspiration, but certainly not the Word itself.
>Catholics don't actually have any criticism of it except "it's too literary!"

The KJV is a translation produced without modern scholarship or source. It's OK for light reading, but a critical edition, or an edition in the original languages, will always be superior.

>modern scholarship
Yeah, we need to poz our bibles, great idea Mordecai!

>It hasn't, and the bible isn't, nor will it ever be, the Word of God.
You don't believe the Bible, you aren't Christian

This is what papists actually believe
You all deserve to die

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. None of the church fathers attest to the bible being the incarnation of God (i.e: God his very own self).

I am a christian. You are a bibliolater.

Where is the ridiculous notion of sola scriptura found in our holy texts? Or the idea that God is somehow present within them, or that they are to be read without concern for genre?

You are making an argument ex nihilo that the bible is divine, when the bible itself state thus.

"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, kαὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, kαὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 2 Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, kαὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, kαὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 5 kαὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σkοτίᾳ φαίνει, kαὶ ἡ σkοτία αὐτὸ οὐ kατέλαβεν."

"1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
2 hoc erat in principio apud Deum
3 omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
4 in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
5 et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt."

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

I'm not a papist. I'm an orthodox christian.

Well to care what the Bible says, you have to assume what is says is true
Your "argument" is incredibly legalist, hinging on the fact Christ is called Logos, and thus elevating calling the Bible the word of God to idolatry. When, in reality, it is simply a way of saying it is divinely inspired and inerrant.
Other leg of the statue

>divinely inspired and inerrant

I did say that the bible was divinely inspired. I deny that it is divine. Identifying the bible as the word of God explicitly indicates that one who stated this believes it to be some form of qur'anic revelation.
It's a good thing Christianity didn't die until a bunch of western europeans protested in the middle ages.

Your performing mental gymnastics to trick people into not believing the Bible so that they can reconcile your unbiblical devil church

>It's a good thing Christianity didn't die until a bunch of western europeans protested in the middle ages.
Christ's true church has survived in all true believers.

>Christ's true church has survived in all true believers.

There were no true believers from the time of the council of jerusalem to 1,500 CE?

>Your performing mental gymnastics to trick people into not believing the Bible so that they can reconcile your unbiblical devil church

God loves all of his children. The Church is valid because the church has apostolic deposit and succession. Sola scriptura is unscriptural.

>'devil church'

what

>There were no true believers from the time of the council of jerusalem to 1,500 CE?
Yes there where
>CE
Nice try, Schlomo

>Yes there where

Then why are there no records of most branches of modern protestant theology in the writings of the church fathers?

>Nice try, Schlomo

What?

You've outed the fact you're a Jew

I go to an Orthodox church weekly, user. I have a prayer rope at arms reach right now. I don't see how using secular dating conventions outs me as a 'jew'.

/pol/ack please go.

>I have a prayer rope at arms reach right now
Hang yourself

>>I have a prayer rope at arms reach right now
>Hang yourself

You've never actually seen a normal prayer rope have you user

No because im not fucking pagan

What is pagan about a prayer rope? The point of a prayer rope is to train you to be in constant prayer, which Scripture commands (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

The prayer rope is not like a rosary, the prayer is simply, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner."

Neither am I user.

The best translation out of the popular versions is probably the American Standard Version/Revised Version.
The thing is that most of the notable translations follow the King James text anyways and make as few changes to it as possible unless it's to bring it more in line with the critical text readings without attempting to retranslate the text more accurately. Anyone who has delved into biblical translation will know that there will often be room for improvement to be found. The King James version isn't a bad translation but it has some issues such as the translation of Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus together as hell and other terminology that has become obsolete or shifted in its meaning in modern interpretation unbeknownst to most bible readers today.
In any case it would be wise to use a version that uses archaic 2nd person plural and singular pronoun distinction since the source texts distinguish these as well, don't fall for the "street language" argument.

Now say the "Thank you Jesus" pray
"Thank you Lord Jesus Christ, for saving me, a sinner."

I am not saved. I am being saved, as are you.

This is the best Bible.

>The KJV is a translation produced without modern scholarship or source.
What do you mean "source"?

As for scholarship, what words do we see meaning different things today than they did then?

>What do you mean "source"?
They didn't have the oldest manuscripts available or the insight of experienced textual scholarship to select the best manuscripts.
>what words do we see meaning different things today than they did then?
It's more that they were translating different words than we are today.

>They didn't have the oldest manuscripts available
They used the actual manuscripts, not the modern forgeries. the KJV is infallible.

>It's more that they were translating different words than we are today.
>current year

>They didn't have the oldest manuscripts available or the insight of experienced textual scholarship to select the best manuscripts.
So you mean they used the NT used by Christians for well over a thousand years instead of a reconstructed one that never had wide readership?

>uses the Babylonized square script
>purposeful doctoring to remove as much inferences to Christian doctrine as possible.
>removed deuterocanonicals, apocrypha, and the additional psalms

watered down/10
see

Actually the one they use probably never had any readership, it's a synthesized version.

>purposeful doctoring to remove as much inferences to Christian doctrine as possible.

citation needed

Dead Sea scrolls, the Vulgate and the Septuagint all say, for instance, that after being put to death, the Messiah will see "the light of life" (a term used only elsewhere in Job, to mean being saved from the pit of death). The Masoretic text completely removes that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch#Comparison_with_other_versions

>Dead Sea scrolls

Interesting.

>the Vulgate and the Septuagint

Utterly irrelevant.

Sure thing Chaim.

just learn old hebrew and koine desu.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch#Comparison_with_other_versions

Interesting read, but as an outsider the differences sound pretty insignificant, and don't seem to suggest doctoring to remove references to Christian doctrine (rather than say differences brought about due to the considerable span of time between their authorship). The claim seems highly spurious to me anyway, as the Jews would need only point at the vast chunks of prophecy left unfulfilled by Jesus to reject Christian doctrine, rather than doctor their holy book.

Meant for I'm probably less Jewish than you.

and then there's the Palestinian Targums, the Peshitta, the Coptic bible, the Ethiopian, bible, the Church Slavonic, Armenian.....

Well, no, I just mean that the Masoretic text disagreeing with various Bibles doesn't make much difference, but it disagreeing with something like the Dead Sea scrolls is more significant.

That said, they honestly just sound like differences in translation brought about of the different ages of their authorship, rather than an intentional effort to remove references to Christian doctrine, since that would be the height of pointless.

Well considering the Peshitta may have drawn influence from the Targums, and the Dead sea scrolls seem to agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and the NT, both in the readings and texts that were used, coupled with the purgeful tendencies of rabbinical scribes I think all this adds weight to the authority of these earlier witnesses against the compilations from later medieval periods.

It doesnt matter as this is the canonical bible that has had an enormous influence on the world.
You can show me older non jewish stories(like the epic of gilgamesh) which the bible borrowd and made modifcations to and it wont matter because, again what matters is the historically important cannonical bible.

Again, I just consider the claim spurious because it would be unnecessary. All Jewish scholars need to do is point at the prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill to reject Christian doctrine.

You're right, you're not saved.

Study bibles are generally pretty superficial. They exist to clue in the average dumbass in the pew, not for any serious study. What you need is a bible with a good cross-referencing system, and then get yourself some really good commentaries and a concordance. Knowing the biblical languages would be ideal, but even most people who have seminary degrees are unable to sight read the original languages, it takes a really long time and isn't in the average layman's best interest. My current favorite study bible is the ESV Study Bible. The Thompson Chain Reference Bible also has a pretty neat system.

Instant salvation and eternal security aren't scriptural. Protestantism is a meme.

>you're not saved

It's good to hear you're the arbiter of the universe and representative of the one godhead.

>Christ lied to the good thief

I owe my salvation to God and His son Jesus Christ alone, He (God) gave me the intelligence to search for and find the truth by opening my mind to His word and receiving in my soul His grace which then revealed to me the truth of the written word of God.

I believe the word of God and it is why I am today a christian and why I profess the Reformed faith which is I truly believe the faith of the apostles and of the church as Christ intended and restored to its uncorrupted foundation by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century.

>Implying that God can't do what he wants

>implying that the particular judgement isn't a thing

wew proddie

>I believe the word of God and it is why I am today a christian and why I profess the Reformed faith which is I truly believe the faith of the apostles and of the church as Christ intended and restored to its uncorrupted foundation by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century.

If the reformed faith is the faith of the apostles

then why did literally none of the apostles or their successors write anything partway pertaining to it.

We don't teach instant salvation or eternal security. We teach justification by faith and perseverence unto eternal life.

In practice that's the same thing

I have seen multitudes of quotes from various church fathers that describe the 5 solae and TULIP, from both pre and post Constantine.

Why aren't you quoting them?

The only church father who supported anything resembling a reformed vantage point was Augustine. And I hardly think you want to quote him. He is the most heretical saint there is.

Quite the opposite. It's why we're not Baptists. We don't have altar calls, we don't have the Sinner's Prayer, and we withhold the Sacrament from those in unpenitent, overt sin. We don't encourage people to talk about "when you got saved" and we preach that one must work out his salvation with fear and trembling, and live a life of continual repentence, self-examination, and sanctification.

Because i don't have them
I have seen them posted here and elsewhere. They were sourced.
Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

If they exist, please provide a source. The burden of proof is on you, not I.

>you only quote the Fathers when they agree with you, and that's heresy
>we only quote the Fathers when they agree with us, and that's A-OK

St. Augustine is the Doctor gratiae, and you eastern schismatics are woefully handicapped without him.

St. Augustine believed that sex organs were heretical, and avowed something not dissimilar to calvinism. You're the schismatic, friendo.
The holy spirit proceeds from the father. The pope is not infallible, he simply holds a place of primacy.

You can find weird sexual hangups in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and probably a bunch of others. The Fathers were all over the place on eschatology, and a number of other doctrines. Expecting anyone to take everything from the Fathers without a grain of salt is madness. Just like you shouldn't take everything ever said by every single saint or bishop seriously -- trying to reconcile all that will literally drive you insane.

>you eastern schismatics are woefully handicapped without him

I don't deny that Augustine is a saint. I just said that he shouldn't be the prime source for a person investigating majority christian viewpoints from the great church, something which we agree on.

What are your thoughts on Arminianism?