Is there an English version of the bible that orthodox Christians read?

>Orthodoxy
>doesn't believe in the trinity

They don't, they're Semi-Arian.

...

>worships images
Wrong, worships depiction and meaning of the image, not the material.
>Doesnt believe in holy trinity
What? Nigga get your facts straight, they even cross with three fingers to symbolise the holy trinity. Eis to onoma tou PATROS, tou IOU kai to AGIOU PNEUMATOS (in the name of the father, son ajd holy spirit)
Now fuck off with your bullshit, Catholicism is greed, the Orthodox condemned it for a reason when they advocated change in script.

>facts are bait
They believe the Son is God only insofar as He relates to the Father.
>worships depiction and meaning of the image, not the material.
That's exactly how the pagans responded to Augustine.

Stfu you absolute retard, the pagans worshipped objects believing they held actual power and influence of the Gods. And as hard as you try to make the Orthodox look like heretics, the fact is that they were the distributors of the faith and the Catholics the distorters.

>the pagans worshipped objects
They said they worshipped their gods through the images
"'We,' they say, 'do not adore images, but what is signified by the image.' I ask what images signify, I ask what the image of the sun signifies; nothing else but the sun, surely?"
-Augustine, Sermon 198
>make the Orthodox look like heretics
They ARE heretics. See afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/john-behr-on-the-trinity/
>The Father alone is the one true God
That statement is plainly against the Christian and Nicene faith.
He further states
>When Paul states that God bestowed upon the crucified and risen Christ the “name above every name” (Phil 2:9), this is an affirmation that this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH.
That last bit, "without being YHWH", is a denial of the historic Christian affirmation that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. This necessitates the Semi-Arian interpretation of homoousios that is given
>It is also important to note the essential asymmetry of the relation between the Father and the Son: the Son derives from the Father; He is, as the Nicene creed put it, “of the essence of the Father” – they do not both derive from one common source.
Thus, the equality of the Father and the Son is denied, they are made to have different though similar essences, that of the Son derived from the Father. This, against the historic declaration "homoousious", which states that the essence of the Father is absolutely one and the same as the essence of the Son; there is no Father-essence, no Son-essence, there is only the essence of God, shared equally by both.
This heresy concludes by saying "there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God."

>Catholics constantly come up with new bullshit and invent clearly non-Biblical shit like papal infallibility
>Orthodox autistically never change anything, still chant in 1000-year-old languages
Gee, user, which one is more likely to be heretical? The one that always "evolves" or the one that tries to adhere to the original as much as possible?

>Gee, user, which one is more likely to be heretical?
The one that denies the trinity.

catholic holocaust when? these heretics need to go

But who will shill for more refugees and socialism when their gone?

There's the NETS translation of the Septuagint. It cites earlier translations such as Brenton's and the KJV as influences. Many of the popular Bible translations are likely influenced by or based on the KJV.
Here are two versions of Brenton's Septuagint with Apocrypha. One is a photo copy of an original print and the other an ebook text version. Not sure if there are any differences in their inclusion of books.
archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren
archive.org/details/OCLXXTranslationOfTheGreekSeptuagintIntoEnglishBySirLancelotCharlesLeeBrenton1851ebible.org

I prefer archaic English since it preserves the second person plural and singular pronouns distinction which exists in all relevant Biblical languages.

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't deny the Trinity, you mongoloid. They say the Creed at services.

...

>Never changes anything

I guess contraception and being able to get remarried up to 3 times don't count.

gibs money

orthocucks on suicide watch

Is no one going to respond to

Check out antiochian/western rite.

No, it's the one that spread faster because it can appeal to more people.
Orthodox is like a broken housewife that gets beaten in the east.

Responding to idiots is kind of pointless. Claiming orthodoxy is heresy compared to Catholicism disregarding the history of the church. Catholicism deviated from the early church, not Orthodoxy.

There's western orthodoxy too, bud

That's get beaten by Catholics in terms of converting people.
Geez user, be smart for once, Catholicism spread across the world faster and can adapt to changing situations while still teaching the basic principles.

nice

So because it converts more it's not heresy? That's a shitty argument. So protestants are the second least heretical, amirite?

No, it's because God favors the Catholics and wants us to spread the word of Christ.
Pr*ddys are mislead heretics.

By your logic, Islam is the true faith.

Islam spreads by the sword, meaning it's forced by man.
Catholics don't spread by the sword.

>islam is monolithic

Christianity was also forced on others. Unless you want to ignore history.

But it's not in the doctrine to kill non-believers and force them to pay a heavy tax for the crime of not converting.

Yet non believers were still killed. It historically has never played nice with other religions in it's sphere.

Maybe they should of converted? Not my fault they wanted to follow a false God.

I'm going to kill you and force you to convert to my neo-pagan faith, how's that?

>My made up tale is real but yours isn't
Why switch from the religion and tradition of your ancestors for some crazy jewish cult where you think somebody rose from the dead.

>and
See that's the problem, you can't kill someone and then convert them.
Point is they had a choice, those who wanted to follow a false god picked wrong.

but m-muh biblical infallibility, it says so in the bible, fucking heretics

Because ancestors are barbarians that didn't know better and we live in civilized times?

And how were Romans and Greeks barbarians in the sense you are trying to use? And if you actually new history in antiquity, Celts, Persians, Carthaginians, etc.

name 3 pagan bitch

Because they worshipped pagan gods?

So how does that make them uncivilized?

Learn english

It makes them uncivilized because they don't worship a monolithic God.

O hey, a shit definition for civilization.

Lol ðis troll

>Responding to idiots is kind of pointless.

How is that poster an idiot for raising an argument about the Orthodox understanding of the trinity?

> Claiming orthodoxy is heresy compared to Catholicism disregarding the history of the church. Catholicism deviated from the early church, not Orthodoxy.

Issues regarding the understanding of the Trinity caused the first schism of the early church.

The schism was more due to the Patriarch of Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction. He viewed himself above all other patriarchs.

Because St.Peter was told to go found his Church

am Orthodox Christian and I sometimes read from it instead of the one in my own language, ive got no problems with it

>How is that poster an idiot for raising an argument about the Orthodox understanding of the trinity?
Maybe because it's completely irrelevant to the OP's question?

>The schism was more due to the Patriarch of Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction. He viewed himself above all other patriarchs.

Not at all there were two schism over Christs nature (and nothing to do with the Pope) - the Nestorians and The Miaphysites both happening close to 600 years prior to the split between the Western and Eastern Churches.

Do they not count?

Doesnt make that poster an idiot anymore than the person responding to him, or indeed even yourself.

The pope's view of his jurisdiction was a huge contributor to the great schism.

>The pope's view of his jurisdiction was a huge contributor to the great schism.

So you are just going to pretend those earlier schism did not happen and that roughly 30% of all Orthodox Christian could be considered heretical by other Orthodox despite the fact they have the same claims of Apostolic Succession that can directly be traced back to Christs ministry?

Dealing with the issues raised in is still important as these other schisms show that having an ancient history does automatically = East Orthodox.

>Orthodox are heretics
Yes, the ones who have stayed true to the early church are the heretics, not the church that adds random shit.

Atheist here, I didn't know the Bible was different depending on the denomination
Is it just different translations/interpretations or straight up some parts cut off or added?

>Yes, the ones who have stayed true to the early church are the heretics

Didnt say they were, only that the earlier schisms (particularly the Oriental Orthodox) challenge the East Orthodox having the sole claim to that true Church.

Of course this raises ugly questions like the one in that earlier post (which still hasnt been refuted or responded to) as it means one cant just take East Orthodoxy being true by virtue of its pedigree as others share it.

>not the church that adds random shit.

Like allowing multiple marriages and divorces as well as contraception? Or how about a realm between heaven and earth in the sky were people get tested by demons manning toll booths?

Likewise even the the oldest liturgies used emerge form about 300 years after the death of Christ and the more commonly used ones 600 years after.

Probably only the NJKV or the RSV as these are some of the few editions with the apocrypha

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table

From my knowledge the churches initially approved of 'apocrypha' but were skeptical of latter NT texts such as Revelations and some epistles.

From wiki on the Luther's canon:
>Luther did not include the deuterocanonical books in his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.

In the West the situation reversed and excepting Catholics the Apocrypha is considered non canonical and the disputed texts of the NT are accepted as scripture. Eastern churches include them in their bibles but don't make use of them in liturgy or service.

The Revised Version has a version with Apocrypha. Apparently the ASV is mostly the same translation.