Want to read the king james bible for literary merit

>want to read the king james bible for literary merit
>order the standard collins one from amazon, looks pretty nice
>"A handsome leather edition of the bestselling King James Version translation."
>turns out paper is unbelievably thin and shitty and all the edges are stuck together
anyone else get memed into this edition? what the fuck, it's literally the worst quality book i've ever owned

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Winn
forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=2803#post25053
forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1287#post8118
ignatius.com/Products/DBIB-H/the-didache-bible-with-commentaries-based-on-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.aspx
answering-christianity.com/craig_winn_doomed_in_debate.mp3
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

bibles are usually cheap

this was more expensive than most books i buy though!

Look for the Everyman's Library 2 volume old and new testament. The paper is what you'd expect from their hardcovers however the font is a bit smaller.
Look for single column/paragraph bible.
Penguin Classic and Oxford also have King James. Most bibles are printed printed cheaply. Read reviews first before buying.

shouldve bought this one like me OP

Thin pages are a common thing to do to restrict book size. This is particularly important for christians as they will want to take it with them.

My complete Shakespeare volume is much the same.

Go for a bigger book.

this is great advice except i already bought this one, oh well

>king james
>not just learning hebrew and koine to hella experience the texts
Pleb

These are the sorts of books best bought in an actual shop as there are so many varied printings you need to see before you buy. Complete Shakespeare are often really cramped text on the page or otherwise cheaply printed.

Should have bought the Barnes and Noble edition.
Only $20, but looks like it's $500.

It has 200 Gustave Dore illustrations, gold lining and a bookmark.
It's a work of art.

Agree with the user who said that most Bibles are printed cheaply - I would recommend finding your local "Christian Book Store" and buying a copy in-person. Those places often sell study Bibles with comparative translations on the same page as well.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA you paid for a late edition print of a bible no wonder it sucks balls. i got a leatherbound for like 2 dollars shit is made of alligator skin HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA later gater

Nice play on words. 10/10 tbqh familia

So return it genius

I can't even joke about this. Everyone who's ever translated The Bible has put their own era's bias into it. If you're not reading the original Hebrew, you're not reading The Bible, and you're not a Christian.

>I can't even joke about this
Just goes to show you don't know until you try.

well, as the user said, Biblical Hebrew for the OT, Koine Greek for the NT

decadent desu

There are a couple online books I read that made me realize this same point. They relied heavily on the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls and Masoretic texts and approached them with new translations that used dozens of the best Hebrew sources and dictionaries along with the sophisticated Logos program for translating, and when you compare his translations (which are painstakingly accurate and nuanced) to any other English translation, his blow their out of the water. Mostly because he didn't care about preserving tradition, cutting down book size, or ignoring the revelatory discoveries that ran contrary to old dogma, for fear of pissing off fundies or cutting sales. They're great books and I highly recommend them. The scholarship is insane.

www.anintroductiontogod.com
www.yadayah.com
A small section from the book, just compare:

“And (wa) you shall render as smoke, becoming enveloped and transformed (qatar) , accordingly and in proximity to (‘eth) , the entire (kol ha) lamb (‘ayl) upon the altar (ha mizbeah) . It (huw’) rises up (‘olah) toward (la) Yahowah (יהוה) as the spirit of soothing acceptance (reyach) . The adoptive Mother who purifies, enlightens, and elevates (‘iseh/‘isah) serves as a counselor, reconciling the relationship, bringing appeasement (nyhoah) for us on behalf of (la huw’) Yahowah (YaHoWaH).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 29:18)

Against the King James: “And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it [is] a burnt offering unto the LORD: it [is] a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” Qatar does not mean “burn.” ‘Olah means “rises up,” not “burnt offering.” There is no basis in the text for “the LORD” once, much less twice. “Sweet savour” misses the entire point of nyhoah, and suggests that Yahowah is more interested in “smells” than “reconciliation.”

You can see how such a small passage can skew your perception of God. If you lose the purpose of the blood sacrifice, all you can infer is that Yahowah just loves blood. Without articulating the spiritual underpinning, you're left with what can only be described as a primitive practice. Now consider that the entire bible is translated like this. So many things are outright changed (Yahowah's name is replaced with Lord (which is Baal in hebrew), around 7000 times), and others are poorly translated (Torah is often translated as Law, when it is better translated as Instruction, Teaching, Guidance and Direction). Then you have other problematic things like how there isn't even a Hebrew word for Obey, but "Obey the Law of the Lord" is all throughout scripture. It's much more accurate to translate it as "observe and consider the teachings and instructions of Yahowah".

But whenever you bring up to the layman that man's translations were and always will be insufficient compared to understanding in the original language, they rarely accept the premise.

i'm not a christian and i'm interested in the era in which the kjv was published tbqh

Leviticus 20:13. "No sacred prostitution" becomes "no gay sex at all".

You can get bibles for free my man

That is normal man.

>spending more than 10 bucks on a KJ Bible
just go to your local Christian bookstore. Guarantee you have at least one.
Rows and rows of Bibles in every translation, from paperback to leatherbound, way cheaper than bookstore prices. Plus the employees are always really nice.

Also I've seen paperback KJV's at the dollar store.

Great post user, thanks for this. I've always known I'd missed some of the original meaning to translation, but I never knew just to what extent.

Can confirm, I have this version and it's basically a charitable giveaway for the quality.

The Barnes and Noble deluxe editions in general are just really top quality stuff.
The only negative you can say about them is that they sometimes use shitty or outdated public domain translations (like for Homer, Dante, etc.)

But other than that, they're just really really good looking books.

I also have the complete Shakespeare and HP Lovecraft editions.
The Shakespeare is great because the plays are organized chronologically instead of grouped by tragedies or comedies (which is how I prefer it at least). The Pelican and Oxford versions don't do that.

So which version do you recommend?

What's the best bible for a good Catholic?

Greek orthodox

Anything with an Imprimatur is technically fine. (notably, that means *not* the KJV)

A lot of people will say Douay–Rheims, but that's an English translation of a Latin translation of the Bible (i.e. the Vulgate). Modern translations directly deal with the available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

If you're in the US, then you should use the NAB or NABRE, since that's officially approved by the USCCB both for use in Mass and private study. That may or may not be relevant to other English speakers, but the NAB/NABRE is considered excellent by Biblical scholars. The NJB is popular outside the US.

If you want to be technical, the Vulgate is the only one used in the Vatican and in official Catholic capacities.

Having read through some of this...I'm not really convinced. Just seems like any number of a independent nutters who think their interpretation of the Bible is absolute.

He kind of uses a circular reasoning (similar to KJV-only thinkers) that "older = better." The main problem is that his major source -- the Dead Sea Scrolls -- is nowhere near complete enough to get his readings on any verses he lists. I don't know where this guy is getting his shit, but it's baloney.

I should check out their other stuff.
I don't care too much about the translations since I'm not Anglo. I only buy books in English if that's the original language.

Good goyim don't read the bible.

Original Hebrew and Greek.
Otherwise Jerusalem Bible.

I'm Catholic, but while it's conveniently "adapted" for heresy, the KJB is still the most Veeky Forums in English.

>He kind of uses a circular reasoning (similar to KJV-only thinkers) that "older = better."
I don't know where you're getting that from. If you think "he's just basing this off the dead sea scrolls", you're only showing that you haven't really read much of the book. He goes at on at length tracing the changes through all versions of the Hebrew, citing exactly which Codices introduced which phrases and where certain things like vowel points were introduced, using the DSS where he can because, as he points out, there is tremendous evidence of Masoretic Rabbinical tampering (which is explained ad nauseum in the book) The Dead Sea Scrolls is not complete, but what we have lines up considerably with the Masoretic text. That was one of the biggest revelations of the discovery of Qumran—that the Old Testament has been wonderfully preserved.

The Masorites added vowel points to their Hebrew to "make sure the pronunciation didn't get lost", and this was a sect of Jews who denied the Messiah hundreds of years after his death. Their authority on "what the vowels are/were" is incredibly suspect. And it is this version that all of our translations derive from.

By adding vowels, they pinned all those words to their interpretations and their traditions. One such belief of theirs, which is not existent in the Towrah, but rather exists in the Talmud, is that "God's name is too holy to be pronounced or written."—So, like in pic related, they scrubbed out his name thousands of times. They are by no means the authority and they were obviously a sect that was very anti-christian and thus, anti-messiah.

I agree that "older = better" is wrong, but when there is reason to believe tampering has occurred by a biased sect, all we can do is compare and contrast all the extant versions we have. Don't dismiss this book because you "don't know where he's getting it from", because these two books, there is over 4000 pages of research and scholarship. He is constantly, methodically citing his sources. To read the intro and dismiss it because you think he's only using the Dead Sea Scrolls "because they're older" is a poor and hasty judgment of a dense, careful work.

>He kind of uses a circular reasoning (similar to KJV-only thinkers) that "older = better."
I don't know where you're getting that from. If you think "he's just basing this off the dead sea scrolls", you're only showing that you haven't really read much of the book. He goes at on at length tracing the changes through all versions of the Hebrew, citing exactly which Codices introduced which phrases and where certain things like vowel points were introduced, using the DSS where he can because, as he points out, there is tremendous evidence of Masoretic Rabbinical tampering (which is explained ad nauseum in the book) The Dead Sea Scrolls is not complete, but what we have lines up considerably with the Masoretic text. That was one of the biggest revelations of the discovery of Qumran—that the Old Testament has been wonderfully preserved.

The Masorites added vowel points to their Hebrew to "make sure the pronunciation didn't get lost", and this was a sect of Jews who denied the Messiah hundreds of years after his death. Their authority on "what the vowels are/were" is incredibly suspect. And it is this version that all of our translations derive from. By adding vowels, they pinned all those words to their interpretations and their traditions, many of which stemmed from the Talmud and conflict drastically with the Towrah. One such belief of theirs, which is not existent in the Towrah, but rather exists in the Talmud, is that "God's name is too holy to be pronounced or written."—So, like in pic related, they scrubbed out his name thousands of times. They are by no means the sole authority and they were obviously a sect that was very anti-christian and thus, anti-messiah.

I agree that "older = better" is wrong, but when there is reason to believe tampering has occurred by a biased sect, all we can do is compare and contrast all the extant versions we have. Don't dismiss this book because you "don't know where he's getting it from", because between these two books, there is over 4000 pages of research and scholarship. He is constantly, methodically citing his sources. To read the intro and dismiss it because you think he's only using the Dead Sea Scrolls "because they're older" is a poor and hasty judgment of a dense, careful work.

>buying a bible.

Nigga, just go to a fucking Motel 6 and swipe a dozen of 'em.

>He is constantly, methodically citing his sources.

...where?

There are no citations in either link or any of the pages in the links. He just repeats himself to death and types up the independent research he's done himself.

That, along with the repeated implication that *every* (and I mean EVERY) English translation is "bad to horrible" pretty clearly means the guy is a fucking nutter looking for a following.

I honestly kek'd when I saw that this guy had a podcast.

do they even make paperback bibles?
i think i've only ever seen hard cover or leatherbound

>There are no citations in either link or any of the pages in the links.
I think you just don't like his conclusions, honestly. He specifically cites the codicies and origins of these texts, and always provides the Hebrew words, and lists all the sources he uses for translation and scripts. I provided it in my first post. He cites the Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Leningradis, the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Text, The DSS, Papyrus 72, etc. He always cites his sources. That they aren't written in an academic style is irrelevant. If you disagree with his research, write him a letter. He always dutifully responds, and has re-written his books over and over again.

An introduction to God is meant to be a simplified version for the layman. It's not meant to be an academic text. But I will say, when I looked into it many of his claims myself, they checked out. Not that I have been able to look into every single niggling detail; I don't have the time. but this is someone who has poured over $20,000 into the Logos software, which is by far the most extensive biblical research tool in existence. It's mind blowing how deep that program can go, how easily it cross-references everything, digitally preserving every extant version of every scripture ever written if you buy the libraries. You can type in a verse and see every single instance that it was ever commented on by biblical scholars in history, and every bit of corroborating archealogical evidence, and countless historical documents that provide context.

The aim wasn't to be the greatest biblical scholar or translator to ever walk the earth. The goal was to clarify what exactly is the word of God, by using the most reliable and consistent manuscripts we have, with a deep understanding of Hebrew grammar and tradition, in attempt to root out errors and provide what he believes is the closest, most accurate version, given the context of historical changes and different translations through time. Do I agree with all his grand conclusions? No. I disagree here and there. But does he support his argument and provide fascinating details along the way? Sure. Do his claims fall apart when independently researched? Not from my experience. There is also a forum you can go to where he actively and openly invites criticism. This is not a "fucking nutter looking for a following." He is just a normal, christian dude trying to figure shit out. He actually wrote a book on Islam in the wake of 2001, to show how it was a false religion, which forced him into deeper Hebrew studies. And yes, every English translation is bad to horrible. I'd like to see your proof otherwise. To say "he repeats himself over and over" in a 1500 page book that covers dozens of topics is like...what? I think you're too quick to discredit him. If you disagree with his conclusions, you can offer your scholarship in return. He's been working on these books for over 10 years, and re-written them over and over in wake of new evidence.

>I honestly kek'd when I saw that this guy had a podcast.

>A guy who wrote a book about the Torah and the Bible has a podcast where he talks about the Torah and the Bible.
Such hilarious dude I'm kekin right there wit u.

Shoulda got the Oxford World Classics edition senpai

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Winn

That's the guy btw if you want to read more about him.

forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=2803#post25053
forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1287#post8118

And those are running lists of all the correspondence that's ever been sent to him regarding questions about his research and conclusions. If you think he's a crazy faggot who is just making things up out of nowhere, call him so. He'll probably respond.

Seconding this. Its very nice. Here in my country it was more expensive, but still worth it, considering it is the kind of book to keep for life. One of the reasons of me always dropping The Bible was as OP said, that thin-ass paper, it is so bad to read... but reading this edition feels very damn good, I'm reading pretty fast and consistently. Also, Doré's illustrations give a whole new experience reading it.

I'm very happy with my Allan Longprimer Sovereign

Try to remember that the Bible has a lot of books in it and that you might be going back to your copy repeatedly for years. Spending a few hundred bucks for a half-decent Bible is not a bad idea.

Just make sure you get the right translation. I got a KJV and now I'm Catholic. lol

>looks like it's $500.

...no it doesn't

looks like $50 tops

>reading a protestant version of the bible
ISHYGDDT

this
Catholisim or dead

D I D A C H E
I
D
A
C
H
E

ignatius.com/Products/DBIB-H/the-didache-bible-with-commentaries-based-on-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.aspx

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES

>taking Craig Winn seriously
answering-christianity.com/craig_winn_doomed_in_debate.mp3

pic related is all you need

pic related comes in paperback format

Does it have actual bible paper? Looks way too thick and that would explain the cheap price. That ornate bullshit is profane and ridiculously theatrical, it's like some sort of stage prop. But I do suppose that edition is a good recommendation for someone seeking "literary merit" in the Bible

this is fucking hilarious

>answering-christianity.com/craig_winn_doomed_in_debate.mp3
Thanks. That was a pretty interesting conversation.

>Jalal: Show me one quote from the qu'ran that says kill women and children wherever you find them
>Craig: Well this quote defines everyone who accepts Jesus as God to be an infidel, which would include women and children. And this quote here says "kill all infidels."
>Jalal: You are wrong. You don't speak arabic.
>Craig: I used five different published translations
>Jalal: You used wrong translations. They don't speak for Islam. They just translate. That other quote you had was wrong because you left out the context. It is only about killing people when they are against you, specifically in war time.
>Craig: To answer that, from the context of the quote I said in the 8th chapter of the Surra, the Qu'ran defines what it means for someone "to be against you", it reads: "etc etc etc" [interrupted before he finishes reading and can't even begin explaining the context of it of why he chose this quote]
>HOST: Craig hold on we gotta take a caller:
>Caller: Craig, on page x of your book you left out an important line of context after this quote from the Qu'ran, framing it in a false way, how dare you be so disingenuous"
>Craig: I actually cover that entire Surra (and thus the full quote) in its own chapter, let me pull from that chapter, and use the Qu'ran itself to explain this context to that caller: I'll be reading from this Qu'ran translation by xx published in 1993 and it says "etc etc" [Cut off before finishing reading the quote again ooo we're outta time~~!]

If you think that was "a clear demonstration of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about", I disagree. The thrust of that entire debate was framed in such a way that forced him to be on the defensive. He had to play by the rules of engagement Jalal set out for him, which was to "show him a quote" for killing women and children wherever you find them. This forces Craig's response into a difficult task —he has to first explain what an "Infidel" is, and why it includes "women and children", and then when he presents the quote, he is told "you're misrepresenting it, it says xyz", and Craig retorts with more scripture to prove his point but doesn't get to finish. And several times he is simply met with "you don't know Arabic", which honestly, is true. He says he used 12 separate translations. But Jalal is right, he doesn't speak Arabic. Jalal will always have more authority. It's like debating Torah with a Hasidic Jew if you don't speak Hebrew. You can't win, even if he's wrong.

I find it ironic though, that Craig is such an advocate of learning the original Hebrew to read the scriptures, citing the failing of English translations for a thousand misconceptions, yet relies on English translations of the Qu'ran to poke holes in it and "show it to be a violent theology." So, in this respect, Craig Winn is indeed a bit silly.

Continued from In the end, I think the purpose of such a debate is ultimately fruitless, on both of their parts. Many theologies have been misinterpreted at some time or another in the name of cause violence and bloodshed (the Old Testament and New Testament are certainly not innocent here), and can also be re-interpreted into a beautiful thing by selective or discerning eyes. These scriptures, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the New Testament...they take lifetimes of study. And even a lifetime of study will not necessarily bring you to the same conclusions as your brothers. I find Craig's book, Prophet of Doom, to thus be his most useless endeavor. It's simply not worth the time to argue with Muslims about their faith in this way. I find his other goals far more admirable, specifically those involved with his diligent research of scriptural history and Hebrew idiom, in attempt to clarify all the confusion surrounding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and the prescriptions therein, by carefully examining evidence and historical documents in effort to root out corruptions.

Jalal on the other hand, is arguing that Islam has disavowed the actions of terrorists, and he cites times where he personally has done so. I commend him for standing up to the extremists and usurpers of his religion, but there is still the unfortunate reality that many cite the name of Islam, Mohammed, and the Qu'ran in the name of violent acts and terrorist retributions. They claim they DO represent Islam, and who is Jalal to say they do not? His is just another opinion, as is Craig Winn's. Craig's goal with Prophet of Doom was to show how the dogma of Islam itself is indeed one that will inspire violence that will only increase with time and normalization, but I believe this wasn't Craig Winn's book to write, as he can never truly and adequately answer this question without being intimately familiar with the actual language of the Qu'ran, and the traditions of growing up Muslim. This was a book for an insider Muslim defector to write, not a white Christian from America—no matter how thorough the scholarship is.

With all that being said, I did laugh when the Host asked Jalal, who continued to stress that the Qu'ran does not say to kill innocent women and children..."what about innocent men? Are they ok to kill?" and Jalal got caught off guard and stumbled for a moment. I guess the main problem I had with that debate is that they were trying to have an intricate, nuanced theological conversation that could reasonably last three hours, all in the span of twenty five minutes. It's just not worth it. It's like trying to argue "Yahweh is a war God" with a rabbi in s twenty minute window. It's impossible.

Continued from

In the end, I think the purpose of such a debate is ultimately fruitless, on both of their parts. Many theologies have been misinterpreted at some time or another in the name of causing violence and bloodshed (the Old Testament and New Testament are certainly not innocent here), and can also be re-interpreted into a beautiful thing by selective or discerning eyes. These scriptures, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the New Testament...they take lifetimes of study. And even a lifetime of study will not necessarily bring you to the same conclusions as your brother. In that way, I find Craig's book, Prophet of Doom, to be his most useless endeavor. It's simply not worth the time to argue with Muslims about their faith in this way. I find his other goals far more admirable, specifically those involved with his diligent research of scriptural history and Hebrew idiom, in attempt to clarify all the confusion surrounding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and the prescriptions therein, by carefully examining the various codices and extant historical documents, in effort to root out corruptions.

Jalal on the other hand, is arguing that Islam has disavowed the actions of terrorists, citing many times where even he himself has personally done so. I commend him for standing up to the extremists and usurpers of his religion, but there is still the unfortunate reality that many cite the name of Islam, Mohammed, and the Qu'ran in the name of violent actions and terrorist retributions. They claim they do indeed represent Islam, and who is Jalal to say that they do not? His is just another opinion, as is Craig Winn's. Craig's goal with Prophet of Doom was to show how the dogma of Islam itself is indeed one that will inspire a violence that will only increase with time and normalization, but I believe this wasn't Craig Winn's book to write, as he can never truly and adequately answer this question without being intimately familiar with both the actual language of the Qu'ran, and the traditions of growing up Muslim. This was a book for an insider Muslim defector to write, not a white Christian from America—no matter how thorough the scholarship is.

With all that being said, I did laugh when the Host asked Jalal, who continued to stress that the Qu'ran does not say to kill innocent women and children..."what about innocent men? Are they ok to kill?" and Jalal got caught off guard and stumbled for a moment. I might have given off the impression that I didn't like the host with some of the interruptions, but I honestly thought he was very fair and moderate host. I guess the main problem I had with this debate was that they were trying to have an intricate, nuanced theological conversation, one that could reasonably last three hours, in the span of about thirty minutes. It's just not worth it. It's like trying to argue "Yahweh is a war God" with a Rabbi, in thirty minutes of brief exchanges. It's impossible.

>trying this hard to defend craig

>trying this hard to discredit him
I am just talking with you. If you don't want to have a conversation with me, that's fine. But I think Craig does good work, so of course I'm going to defend him. I could go on and on about the strange scriptural factoids I've learned from his books. Some of them seemed crazy, and forced me to look them up independently. I never knew that the story of Jesus and the Woman taken in Adultery ("let he among you is without sin cast the first stone") is not present in the earliest versions of John. Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 do not contain this story, yet are otherwise complete versions of John. They date from the late 100's, early 200's ad. This story also doesn't appear in the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus from the mid 300's ad, but only first appears in the Codex Bezae from the 400's ad, which is also the earliest Latin version we have (the Vaticanus, surprisingly is not in Latin but in Greek).

I learned this from Craig's book, and looked up all the claims to verify it for myself. He makes an argument based on this evidence that since the story took 400 years to become present in history at all, it might not necessarily be scripture. It might be an invention that came about later. Many people cite this scripture in defense of their sinful actions; is it possible that it could be a corruption? Very well could be, but doesn't necessarily mean so. I don't go so far as him as to just chuck it out, but I do hold it in less revere than other, more reliably attested scriptures that have more evidence supporting them. What I mean is, I'm not going to reference this scripture as end all be all when it comes to helping people overcome sin, or even recognizing that sin is a problem. I consider this story "a bit suspect", but not worthless. Either way, I find this stuff very interesting, and slogging through different historical documents without any guidance or direction is difficult. Craig wrote a book where he methodically traces for you the reader (for free I might add), all the important variations in scripture, so that you can decide for yourself whether or not to trust it. I find that admirable.

I find this kind of information invaluable. If you are trying to lead people away from him because you think he's full of shit, that's fair. But I haven't seen it. The above example is only one of many interesting facts I've learned about the development of the Bible, and like many of the things he purports: can easily and readily be investigated by the reader to confirm if his conclusions are correct. I have not personally found him making claims that aren't well substantiated, even though, I do disagree with some of his conclusions, and wish he wouldn't write in such an aggressive way. It can be off-putting to people who are unfamiliar with him. His work on Islam isn't particularly interesting to me, but like I said, I don't think that debate shows anything that discredits him or makes him look "uncredible."

>using 2,898 words or 16,766 characters to respond to 211 words or 1,279 characters
judging by your verbosity you're not only trying too hard to defend craig - you ARE craig

every single bible i have ever seen has always had the tissue paper-like pages. not sure why

>>using 2,898 words or 16,766 characters to respond to 211 words or 1,279 characters
I care. It's simple as that. And theological discussion of bible scholarship is not a brief or easy conversation. I'm just trying to make a clear point about something I care about, because it brought me more nuanced and reliable information on the scriptures than any other book I've ever read. I didn't even know about it, until someone else gave it to me here on Veeky Forums, after he blew me out of the water in a theological debate.

But you can continue on with more ad hominem if you like. Me, Craig...doesn't matter.

I appreciate your consistent post quality in the face of trolling. Good job user.

>the new testament was written in hebrew
well he's not the only one who's not a christian

Between all the Greek texts that exist, there are over 300,000 differences between them. Some of the differences are significant enough to throw serious wrenches into what is considered "the canon."

It's a shame the Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament was destroyed, but the poster's point is the same: a lot is lost in the transition from Koine Greek to English (or Hebrew to English), because those languages are much denser. They convey a lot more meaning in a lot less words. When the English translations choose economic phrasings to save space, they ultimately lose a lot of meaning in their choice of not making every passage go on and on. A more "accurate" translation would add hundreds and hundreds of pages to an already wordy tome. There's always a trade off.

You fucking pseud, you've just been ideologied. Any church has the kjv for free. I can't believe you would spend money for a book that's lit'rally handed out to people. God you're such a poser. Let me reiterate how much of a dumbass you are.