What version of the Holy Bible do you read, Veeky Forums?

What version of the Holy Bible do you read, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

biblegateway.com/versions/Russian-Synodal-Version-RUSV/
answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/apocryphal.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

biblegateway.com/versions/Russian-Synodal-Version-RUSV/

NIV because I'm not an autist

Original Hebrew.

The King's lad.

>וְהָיִיתָ לְשַׁמָּה, לְמָשָׁל וְלִשְׁנִינָה--בְּכֹל, הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר-יְנַהֶגְךָ יְהוָה, שָׁמָּה.

The king James version pure Cambridge edition because it is perfect in the English language and is the word of God

RSV2CE. I'll probably get a Douay-Rheims at some point as well.

Jerusalem Bible

The original vinyl, you philistine

King James on the Gameboy, the way God intended.

King James. I'm not a godfag, but I love the meter and rhythm of the KJV.

Is it thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder?

...

What is the best version for a Roman Catholic? No, I do not speak Latin.

Not Kill

Either, but it doesn't mean killing full stop.

NJB (or NABRE if you're a burger)

Douay-Rheims for traditional English, it's based on the Latin Vulgate

RSVCE is nice

The Knox Bible is interesting as well, it's a newer translation (1950) based on the Vulgate

>gender neutral translations

Pleb af

I don't read the bible, I let my priest interpret it for me.

Currently working my way through the King James Version, because it's one of the major achievements of English literature and probably the most widely referenced. I plan to pick up the Oxford Annotated Bible when I eventually re-read the Bible.

God-tier footnotes. currently in the process of rereading the OT ever since I found this in a used bookstore a few months ago.

I don't know how to read :(

...

get an OSB for that sick septuagint translation plus christological OT notes.

This for the Old Testament. Greek for the New Testament.

Goddamn it, I threw my back out a couple days ago and you made me laugh really hard. Fuck.

KJV when I want to hear some top quality English
NRSV for scholarly or academic endeavors

KJV

It says kill and means murder

G-d-tier*

KJV is fantastic

*wrong choice of words

succinctly magnificent

>Want to read Biblos
>Too many choices
>Don't read biblo
Fuck off.

New revised standard version

It's the standard academic translation

>ITT
>which non authentic fan fiction is most authentic?

As spaniard I use "Biblia de Jerusalén" (useful for the explanations and notes) and Reina Valera Contemporánea, that is really nice to read.

For the record...
NRSV flaws?

This one

...

Reminder that the Non-Inspired Version (NIV) was written by satan and you're not saved if you're believing in it.

The KJV is the infallible word of God

What is the best Bible version in German?

Lutherbibel

ESV is best translation

The one who tells the true story, it's called the Quran.

That's a funny way of spelling Bible.

Quran = real story

Kek

Quran plagiarized the Bible. Without no Bible, there would be no Quran.

>Quran plagiarized the Bible
Proofs?

New JKV

Read both.

I have. Still waiting for proofs

Not him, but the general narrative is taken from there, and the "special" details are taken from the apocrypha
answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/apocryphal.htm
(inb4 >answering-islam
Yeah, i know, but it's the most comlete thing with serious sources i could find with a quick search on google)

>Not him, but the general narrative is taken from there
Nope. It can be said that it is inspired, but not plagiarized. Many of the Prophets have different details to their stories, not to mention many prophets not mentioned in the Bible and the completely different method of writing (and different language, for that matter)

Plagiarism isn't the correct word by any means

Fair enough.
The apocrypha are still super-plagiarised, though.

>The apocrypha are still super-plagiarised, though.
Again misusing the definition of plagiarism. I read your source--how would Muhammad, who we all agree was unlettered, be able to quote the specifics of the Arabic Infancy Gospel & the like, whilst his city was either pagan (Mecca) or Jewish (Yathrib/Medina)?

There are verses in the Quran which unapologetically 'plagiarize' from the OT and NT, but it is referenced in-text.

Were you born blind?

Nice quads. No, thank God, I have 20/20 vision. But insulting me isn't proving your stance on this.

Quranic verse 7:40 reads:-

Indeed, those who deny Our verses and are arrogant toward them – the gates of Heaven will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Paradise until a camel enters into the eye of a needle. And thus do We recompense the criminals.

Now compare it with Luke 18:25, which reads:-

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

and, Matthew 19:24, which reads:-

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Yeah, okay.

I have buddhist texts in my house.

I don't know any buddhists.

How is that possible?

Cultural osmosis from non-mainstream christian groups, which Arabia had no lack of, and cultural exchange via trade, basically(more or less succesfully, see Mary, the Trinity and Collyridianism).
He may have been illiterate, but he was smart.
The details presented in the Quran are too strikingly similar to, say, the Infancy Gospel, to be mere coincidences or inspiration.

Good, then you can read this:

The one that says the bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is the Messiah.

And then says that Jesus is not God, as written in the book; that Jesus is not the Messiah, as written in the book; that Jesus did not die, as written in the book; that Jesus was not crucified, as written in the book; that Jesus did not rise from the dead, as written in the book.

Books that Mohammad had. And wrote about. Upon the whisperings of an angel, or at least one who could take the appearance of an angel of light, six centuries after the facts.

Sura 7:156-157:
"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them.

Sura 53:36:
"Nay is he not acquainted with what IS IN THE BOOKS OF MOSES."

Sura 5:46:
"But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which IS the command of God."

Sura 5:50:
"And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious."

Sura 5:71:
"Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything UNTIL you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord."

Sura 3:93-94:
"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Torah was revealed. Say, `BRING the TORAH and READ it, if you are men of truth.' If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to God, they are indeed transgressors."

Sura. 28:48-49:
"But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say: `why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?' Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They say: `Two kinds of magic (the Torah and the Quran) each helping the other!' And they say: `Verily! In both we are disbelievers.' Say (to them, O Muhammad): `Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these TWO (the Torah and the Quran), that I may follow it, if you are truthful.'"

Remark: Notice how Muhammad is commanded to defend both the Quran and the Torah of Moses that was available to him as a guidance from God. No mention of textual corruption whatsoever.

Sura 32:23:
"We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: Be not then in doubt of its REACHING (THEE): And we made it a guide to the Children of Israel."

These verses presuppose that an uncorrupted Torah and Gospel exist which both Jews and Christians are commanded to study and adhere to.

Well you live in the 21st century and are literate, from what I can gather. It makes sense you have an ease of acquiring Buddhist texts, but you don't also have the Herculean task of being illiterate and having to make religious poetry and somehow being able to plagiarize without someone reciting Gospel to you, and therefore accusing you of plagiarism, ending your whole relgion.

Allow me to type the tafsir (interpretation) of that verse from "The Study Quran" by Sayyed Hossein Nasr:

>The image of the camel passing through the eye of the needle is a metaphor for something so difficult as to be impossible and is similarly used in the Gospel (Matt. 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25). Camel here translates to jamal, and many commentators consider the term to mean exactly that. Some, however, note that the term could be read as juml, meaning a thick cable woven of many strands, such is used to secure ships.

>Some Biblical commentaries, such as the Geneva Study Bible, similarly suggest that the term "camel" in the Gospel account may reefer to a thick cable, although most indicate that the image of a camel (or in some cases, an elephant) passing through the eye of the needle was a *well-known metaphor*

The metaphor predated the NT. Are you accusing Jesus of plagiarism? Or perhaps we are in agreement that its an apt and beautiful metaphor describing the difficulty of the Herculean task of reaching Paradise.

>not reading the bible purely for enjoyment

Are you trying to tell me that the quran was written before Mohammad died?

Because that is not what Islam teaches.

Islam teaches that 4 men had memorized the quran, and in the war for succession after Mohammad died, one of those men was killed. The rest realized they had better reduce it to writing before the other 3 died too, and all of Mohammad's nonsense was lost. And then one of those men wrote what we now call the quran, and Mohammad's ruthless successor brutally eliminated everyone and everything that did not agree with his decision.

Do you not believe the official story?

Do you not believe the official hadith?

>"But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did. O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;
Quran 5:13-15

It is undeniable that Noah and Moses and Abraham and Jesus Christ, blessed be their names, however considering them as prophets is simply not plagiarism. Islam teaches that by some form, the texts have been distorted from the original meaning (it is hotly debated on whether it is by translation, or by human manipulation, but nevertheless the Quran supercedes both the OT and NT in Islam.

Hearkening to what came before (the stories of the Prophets) is hardly plagiarism, and you desperately need to google the definition of plagiarism, because the Jews can accuse the Christians of plagiarism by that same logic.

It's evidence of the quran copying from the bible, and not just from the apocrypha, and not just from the gnostic gospels, and not just from the infancy gospels.

Although those heresies did find their place in the "eternal" quran.

When are you going to realize that Mohammad was lied to be satan?

When are you going to realize that satan wants to be worshiped as god?

And fyi, in the bible, the eye of the needle and the camel are quite literal, and meant to convey something that is impossible. Hence the despair of the apostles upon hearing it, as they thought rich people were blessed by God.

>but nevertheless the Quran supercedes both the OT and NT in Islam.

And nowhere else.

>Are you trying to tell me that the quran was written before Mohammad died?
Where on earth did you get that from?

No, I am calling into question *how* Muhammad would have even gone about plagiarizing the OT and NT without anyone noticing. He couldn't read the Arabic gospel for inspiration, so he'd have to have someone read it to him, and there are no accounts of tat happening, as it would be plain to everyone that it was plagiarised. And to what end?

I see you're out of arguments. Shame. Well, God bless and have a merry Christmas.

Islam does not insist it is bringing anything new to the table. It insists that it is the primordial monotheism, in that it does not preach racial superiority (as the Jews do), nor does it ascribe details/partners to God (as the Christians do).

Muhammad would have to be one of the smartest men alive to not only memorize Biblical narratives without formal education and living in a pagan town, but would have to make it rhythmic and poetic as the Quran is. And why? At the advent of his prophethood, he was heavily persecuted by the natives. Only until a decade later, he began to live comfortably, towards the latter part of his life.

>Islam teaches that by some form, the texts have been distorted from the original meaning (it is hotly debated on whether it is by translation, or by human manipulation
The Monk--Do not say something you can't prove, because, in the end, you will be ashamed, like that one who prefers to cover the sunlight. Tell me, Abu-Salamah, how many years had passed from the Christ until Mohammed?

The Moslem-- I don't know.

The Monk-- I give the answer: from the Christ to Mohammed, six hundred and some more years passed.

The Prince--You're right, Monk. That is what we found in the history.

The Monk-- Were the Christians, then, in the whole world?

The Moslem-- Yes, they were.

The Monk-- Like in the present time?

The Moslem--Yes and more (then they are now).

The Monk-- Could you count (the number of ) the Gospels which existed (in that time) on the earth (in the world) in various languages?

The Moslem-- We couldn't.

The Monk-- Let us suppose that some people in the West had altered their Gospels. So, how did they reach those who are at the end of the earth in the East? Same thing for those who are in the North towards the South. It's impossible. If that was possible you were, then, founding the apocryphal Gospels with a part of Christians. While if you pay for a trip over the whole world, you will find the Gospels in various languages analogous to those received from the Apostles of our Lord the Christ. No difference between any of them, even in one letter, except the particular traits of each language. I, hereby, give you an example which lets you believe me: If someone comes and shows a Koran different from that known to you now, and says, " this is the Koran inspired by the Prophet," while it is not, will you accept it?

The Prince-- No, on the contrary we shall kill him and burn his book.

You know it took decades after Christ died for the NT to formulate? Not to mention much longer for the spread of Christianity. Or, the fact the original Aramaic Jesus spoke wasn't the "Biblical" language instead of Koine Greek?

Perhaps the NT was never truly told properly.

You're telling me Mo was illiterate.

I'm saying Mo did not read or write the quran.

We are saying the same things.

And yet, if you're not a native Arabic speaking muslim from birth, your "understanding" of the quran can never be correct.

I'd say that's pretty racially specific.

>Vowels
for what purpose

Not really. You're saying he plagiarized it, and I'm asking you how that's feasible. You've yet to answer satisfactorily.

Arabic can be learned, like the Jews learn Hebrew. Plus many different peoples, from the Levant to Africa, speak Arabic as a first language. And they are ethnically different, don't let the Pan-Arabism meme fool you. Ethnic superiority has no place in religion

>Written by a Homosexual

And perhaps it was.

I said the quran plagiarized the bible.

The bible was finished 5 centuries before Mohammad.

I showed you a verse found on a quick google search of quran copying verses from the bible.

You still insist on holding onto your lies.

And God knows best. So let's leave our religions to one another and hope we do right by our respective consciences--I think that's a modus operandi which is unfortunately severely underrated, especially in the Muslim world.

Started reading the bible two days ago, mostly because I want to get a grasp on the bible to better understand western literature.

My autism made me choose KJV though because it's 1337 epic maymay cool bro, but being a non native English speaker, it's a bit difficult at times. I'm sure it'll be fine though.

Got fucking surprised that the New Testament is like 1/6th of the Bible though, I always thought it was about half. Also a bit surprised that some of the major themes in the bible that I knew about without ever reading the bible- such as God destroying those cities and Abraham sacrificing his son- were so short. In movies and such, they all seemed so intriquete and developed so I had assumed they would be several pages long.

Not too long into the bible though, still in Genesis. Second time i'm gonna try and get through the bible.

Aye.
>Perhaps the NT was never truly told properly.
Then Allah's religion died in its cradle?
Which is weird since even far-flung reaches of Christendom like India, pretty much have the same things, even for minute stuff, and the first mention of christians ever says they considered Jesus divine.

Again, and from hundreds of discussions, and thousands of years of study, when you show a muslim that sperm does not come from your ribcage, they say that you do not understand the original native Arabic quran, and that the original native Arabic quran somehow explains how sperm comes from your ribcage.

This isn't my first rodeo. I know taqiyya when I see it.

God gave his best. His name is Jesus. And instead of worshiping Jesus as God, you have demeaned him and placed him at a low level with the servant Moses.

You and I can go our separate ways and never meet, but the truth is obtainable.

And I refuted it as it was apparently a common metaphor prior to both books' revelation. The rest were saying "See? They have Moses and Abraham too, so therefore it's plagiarism," which is the Jews' logic for the "goys' false religions" so it's a rather baseless argument.

Why are we playing recap?

Godspeed.

You attempted to refute it, but without citing anything from prior to 32 AD making it "common".

Lies are just lies; they don't refute the truth. They just try to hide it.