Can we have a bible thread? Questions, comments, criticisms, that sort of thing

RC and I suppose by definitive I mean whatever the pope would use.

I've noticed the poetic/academic divide myself, but it would be lovely if there was a happy compromise between the two

What do you mean, a definitive canon or a definitive English translation? Because it doesn't exist for either of those.

The Church Fathers, like St John of Damascus wrote on taxonomy, im sure the bat/bird problem was resolved centuries ago. Why u read skeptards like they are any authority on theology?

This is pretty funny if you haven't seen it before. Sam Harris demonstrates how seriously he researched Christianity and scripture before writing numerous books on the subject.

youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8

David Woods is great. I died of laughter on the Naik vids.

i've been meaning to read the bible now that im at the level of literacy where i can actually understand the books i read
thanks for this, i think i'll get the NRSV-CE or NJB

If you're reading for cultural and literary purposes, you have to read the King James version

What's a good Bible guide that explains each book in a concise and non-academic way?

Great stuff

The books by Scott Hahn are the best. He wrote the commentary for the Ignatius bible which includes all of the New Testament and he's currently releasing individual commentaries for Old Testament books. He's eventually going to release all of them in one book but he hasn't finished yet.

I've read the Didache bible, the Oxford, and a few of the Navarre bibles and Hahns are by far the most complete and thorough.

Yeah, that's what the first priest told me. I'll probably just pick that up then.

Disprove this..
The old testament is a tale of jewish nationalism.
Why the fuck would a god chose a certain race to spread his message ?

That's nonsense. The King James version is garbage. If you want I could start listing out a few verses that are horribly rendered which no doubt have led a lot of people astray. When you hear atheists talking about unicorns, cockatrices, and (some instances) of dragons they're talking specifically about the King James version because no other bible aside from the Coverdale version has it, which is the source of these non existent creatures in the KJV.

If you want an Early Modern English translation go with the Douay-Rheims. That one at least isn't missing books.

>Douay-Rheims
>reading a translation of a translation
How about no

>Why the fuck would a god chose a certain race to spread his message ?

Before you begin to make such a position, just know that tthe entire basis of your god is faulty and thus is not worthy of analysis and of any use.

Unless of course, we cherry pick nice sounding rules which doesn't have a taint of hate from your 'all-loving' god.

What do you think you're doing with the King James Version? Tell me where mistranslated "cockatrice" come from in Jeremiah 8 if it wasn't copied directly from the Coverdale bible?

Well the entire religion is based on cherrypicking bits that suit the narrative.

Read King James is not about getting a particularly accurate understanding of the Bible, it's about reading the version of the Bible that many of the great poets and authors have used since the 17th century. It's an important cultural artifact.

What do you mean? Would you like to know why Christians follow some rules in the bible but don't follow others? We have a reason for doing this. The early Christians didn't just huddle together and decide to selectively disregard things in an effort to build a religion suited to their taste.

I wanted to let you know that I'm rolling my eyes so fucking hard right now.

Dante read the Vulgate therefore we should also read the Vulgate. For what purpose?

King James is bad. Douay-Rheims is even worse.

Can anyone be the muse for God's word anymore?

The pope probably reads the Latin (vulgate) bible. At least Catholics used to use this one.

Big question here, noticedit sometime ago:
In the german lutheran bible revision from the 1912 in psalm 51 verse 6 (verse 4 in the king james version and probably in other american bibles, like the [n]esv) it says: "An Dir allein habe ich gesündigt und übel vor Dir getan, auf dass Du recht behaltest in Deinen Worten und rein bleibest, wenn Du gerichtet wirst."
It roughly translates to:
Before you alone I sinned and did wrong things before you, you shall be right( meaning true) in your words and you shall stay pure, when you are judged.

My question there is: To me the psalmist obviously speaks to and about god and his word. But how in the world can god be judged? Who judges god?The 2017 revision reads: "[...] and that your word shallbe right and that you shall stay pure, when you are judging."That seems good to me.
The ESV reads: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. "
Seems good to me also.

So is the revision of 1912 false in text? Is there an ERROR in this bible, which was my first one? It would devastate me, because idk how often I prayed this psalm, I used the "right" version more often because I early noticed: something is odd about this.

Impressions appreciated.
Similar occasions?

Unfortunately, my son, your Bible did indeed have an error - all those times you prayed using that psalm only angered God. He will smite you down one day for your ignorance, unless you repent.

My bible has "when you judge" not "when you are judged"

People still read the Vulgate all the time. You can buy it on amazon

All the English translations I have (nJPS, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NABRE) have it as God judging, not being judged.

Sounds like a simple translation error.

Don't be a dick.

I used the "new/right" version when I noticed.

Okay, that's what I thought, how does that come. Like this shouldn't happen, right? It's despising god.

I'm extremely racist. Ive lived around islanders my whole life. Will this book cure me. What part will im not a strong reader.

>To me the psalmist obviously speaks to and about god and his word. But how in the world can god be judged? Who judges god?

Yeah I don't think that German is right. It should say something to the effect of "you(God) are blameless in your judgement" at the end. There's nothing wrong with saying it that way in German if you really want to though as long as you know what it means. It's the interior disposition that matters when you pray, not the words.

The King James Bible is part of our Anglo cultural heritage, you fucking philistine. Passages from it are quoted all over the English and American canon.

Acts and the Pauline epistles might do you good.

Acts 10:34-35
>Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Acts 17:26-27
>He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.

Galatians 3:28
>here is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Did you know that off the top of your head or did you have to google it?

Googling is cheating and God will know if you cheated.

okay I see, thank you mate :)

I checked with an old german lettered version,says"when you'll be judged" as well.
Bible of my grandmother, maybe from 1955.

I did think about it, but in the context of the verses before it still stays a trouble to me.

But I guess you are right ^^.
Thanks :).

>>here is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

This means that Christ is a fulfillment and completeness of all of mankind (and that thus every man has the right and duty to strive towards Christ and God), not the humanist limp-wristed pablum you're thinking of.

Yeah, it's based on the societies beliefs after a certain point, which basically means you have a reason that "evokes a higher power" for whatever bullshit you want

The reason Christians don't follow all of those weird laws in the OT is because they're mostly context sensitive. They're either laws specifically regulating worship in the temple or they're dealing with life in the kingdom. The temple and the kingdom no longer exist so the laws are no longer in effect.

Some laws are in a weird half and half area, like the prohibition against homosexual sex and the punishment that's ascribed to it. The reason we follow the Levitical provision against homosexual sex is that it's reinforced in other areas of scripture which indicate that the rule is not context sensitive but is instead intended for all time and all places. The reason we don't follow the punishment ascribed to it is because that's a law for the kingdom, it's context sensitive.

There is no change or evolution in beliefs. The context for certain laws simply stopped existed. If the temple existed and we lived in the Kingdom we would follow all of those rules.

No, the real reason Christians don't follow all those weird laws in the OT is because the OT is a historical chronicle of man's relationship to God that eventually led to Christ, not a manual on how to life your life.

>not a manual on how to life your life.

But that is quite literally what the Torah is.

His debates are good too. I'm not sure what it is with Muslims that make them so bad at debating but I enjoy the show.

Religion strikes me as pointless bickering.

For Jew(s).

Is there a "fixed" KJV? Something with its level of poetry, but with a more accurate translation?

Early Modern English is not "poetry," it's a dialect. I swear, I could rewrite some bullshit fanfiction in Early Modern English and people would think I'm a genius because they can't tell the difference.

Poetry isn't really the right word, but I do think a lot of the choices made for the KJV are beautiful. Maybe it is just the exoticism of an older dialect, though.

The papacy, or the office of Pope, derives directly from the primacy of St. Peter among the apostles and the leadership for which Christ designated him when he established the Church. While the role of the papacy has evolved through the centuries, it is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, who has the final authority to resolve and clarify matters of faith and morals, and it is the Pope who helps preserve the unity of the Church.

In Scripture evidence for the primacy of Peter is both implicit and explicit:

-All of the Twelve Apostles are listed four times in the Scripture, and St. Peter is name first every time (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13)
-St. Peter was chosen by the father to receive the revelation that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God" (Mt 16:16)
-The angel told the women after the Resurrection, "Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you" (Mk 16:7)
-St. Peter is listed separately as a witness to the Resurrection before the other Apostles (1 Cor 15:5-6; Lk 24:34)
-St. Peter was charged by Christ to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32) and "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17; 10:11)
-St. Peter proposed and presided over the election of St. Matthias as an Apostle and announced the requirements for candidacy (Acts 1:15-22)
-St. Peter was the first to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost, which was accompanied by signs of the Holy Spirit (wind, fire, tongues) and 3000 conversions (Acts 2:14-40)
-St. Peter defended the Apostles before the Sanhedrin (Acts 3:6-7; 5:15; 9:36-41)
-St. Peter exercised his authority to discipline Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon the magician (Acts 5:1-11; 8:18-24)
-St. Peter received a vision of the Lord in order to inspire the Jewish Christians to allow Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-48; 11:1-18)

The accuracy is fine unless you are a pedant, mostly. There really isn't any other English translation thats on the same level, in terms of beauty.