/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Bin reading the books of moses and josua during the last month.

Trying to be done with the old testament until Christmas

I've been going through this Bible reading plan daily which gives you an equal part of OT, NT, and a Psalm/Proverb.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/reading-plans/

Also, sometimes I'll be listening to the Bible in the background, not that this should be a substitute for actually reading the Bible

https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=J7nZGR4-3pY

Horrible. Been saved for years but haven't read enough. I know a few chapters from the prophets s fairly well–Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi. Jeremiah is also interesting. My most well read book is probably Proverbs. Haven't read the New Testament well at all. I tend to spot read on chapters that interest me. Its a bad habit but better then not reading at all.

Whenever I try to jump on a reading plan I fall of it after a few days.

>>541267

Try listening to the Bible, I started by listening to the Bible in my car during my daily commute and I think that helped me a lot. It's difficult to break into the Bible so I know how dejected you feel but don't give up, remember every day you live is a gift from God, so He blesses you each day and is being merciful to you. Try different English translations. I agree that KJV is the best translation, but it isn't the only translation. MEV is based on the same textus receptus so you can give that a try. Other good translations are EXB, ESV, NIV (old version), and NET (read with footnotes). I've read the Bible a few times by now and it's much easier for me to read the Bible, don't give up! Remember that faith without works is dead.

>>541277

I will only ever read the KJV. I'm seen enough horrible perversion in the modern versions to turn me away from them. Some examples.

1.) Confusing Jesus and Satan

=KJV

>name for Jesus (bright and morning star)

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

>name for Satan

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

EXB

>name for Satan

Isaiah 12:How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, even though you were as bright as the rising sun. In the past all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down.

>morning star

>MORNING STAR

Unacceptable. A lot of other versions do this. Another common example is changing Genesis to say that women are made in the image of God. Not what the Bible says.

>>541284

Yep, the MEV has a few problems in it as well compared to the KJV.

>Psalm 12:7 removed the word "forever"

>2 Corinthians 2:17 changes "corrupt the word of God" to "peddle the word of God"

>1 Peter 1:23 changed "incorruptible" to "imperishable"

>Isaiah 26:2 "who keeps the truth" removed

>Isaiah 29:18 "a book" instead of "the book"

>Isaiah 48:8 only a rebel not a transgressor

>2 Samuel 21:19 & 1 Chronicles 20:5 now contradicting

>Romans 1 completely butchered

>1 Kings 15:12, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 1:7 sodomite agenda

>Philippians 3:2, Revelation 2:9 ZOG agenda

>Micah 5:2 and Titus 2:5, lessening the deity of Christ

>>541284

>>541361

why not base authority on the Legate tho, like Catholics do? this way, no matter the error of the translators, God's word is preserved!

or do you believe in double inspiration?

>>541365

>God's word is preserved!

Not in its original language.

Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 make it clear that those words will always be preserved in their language, yet the Latin Vulgate had none, it was in Latin. Meanwhile, the KJV is based on the known originals.

>>541370

ok, so then the known originals have inspiration, whilst the KJV does not, right?

>>541371

The KJV is a valid translation of them, so it's also inspired. Because it says the same thing as its sources, which are inspired.

On the day of pentecost in Acts 2, were the translations of the word of God only inspired if they were the original? Or were people saved by hearing the same word in their language?

>>541379

>The KJV is a valid translation of them, so it's also inspired.

Wrong, there is no such thing as "double inspiration", that's un-biblical.

>Because it says the same thing as its sources, which are inspired

So the Vulgate was translated much nearer to the time of the originals, and wish much closer manuscripts at the same time, does this not mean the Vulgate has more precedence over the KJV in terms of translation? For uh, "inspiration".

>>541389

>there is no such thing as "double inspiration", that's un-biblical.

I agree.

>and wish much closer manuscripts at the same time,

Where are they? If they were the original word of God, where did they go? God promised his original words would never pass away. Not a Latin translation only.

When you say "closer" manuscripts, this troubles me. Do you mean the word of God has been gradually corrupting over time? That would mean 1 Peter 1:23-25 is wrong. Do you think this?

>>541379

>On the day of pentecost in Acts 2, were the translations of the word of God only inspired if they were the original? Or were people saved by hearing the same word in their language?

I agree with the King James translators that every translation is the "word of God" if it is faithful to the original languages. Which means modern bibles are the word of God because they are faithful to the original.

>>541396

>Which means modern bibles are the word of God because they are faithful to the original.

Which we only found in the 1870's.

>>541403

Do you believe the original text was found in 1516?

>>541409

We have had the originals on which it is based, since the time the New Testament was first spoken and first written down. And the Old Testament is of course preserved as well in the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

All original-to-modern-language Bibles were based on them, until the late 19th century when the Alexandrian text appeared. The only odd exceptions before that time are non-originals like the Vulgate (and Septuagint), even though these agree in places with either. For instance, literally everyone included the full 1 John 5:7 until the alexandrian manuscripts appeared, and now only the KJV does. So you either believe the word of God changes or there isn't much alternatives for you.

>>541420

I don't believe any reading of scripture has ever been lost. We have had all the original readings available somewhere since the text was written. The point of textual criticism is that we have multiple readings available for certain passages, and we're just seeing which one is traceable back to the 1st century. What was dug up in the 19th century was not the long lost original, it was evidence that readings we already had were the original.

>God promised his original words would never pass away. Not a Latin translation only.

Neither an Anglican translation 1500 years after the arrival of Christ.

>When you say "closer" manuscripts, this troubles me. Do you mean the word of God has been gradually corrupting over time?

Do you think a translation can carry the official inspiration of Scriptural canon? It can not.

>>541432

Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls (with the last decade) confirm the KJV "apocrypha" was part of the Torah of Christ's time, meaning it is real, authentic parts of the Christian's Bible.

Any real Bible will have all 73 books.

>>541435

It does no such thing, and all historical evidence contradicts that. Those books were not layed up in the temple, the Jews did not accept them.

>>541439

What historical evidence? And are we ourselves Jews of the Torah, of the Old Testament? What if they threw it out of the Torah after 70 A.D., then what does any Christian care?

Are you a Talmudic Jew?

>>541432

>available somewhere

Don't you mean buried somewhere? After all, during that time the false version with over ten thousand interpolations, famously 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37 and Revelation 21:24, managed to spread over the whole world until around the 1860's when the true gospel was finally uncovered, which are what every single critical text Bible without exception use as a basis for performing those thousands of deletions. And then a subsequent change in theology can be observed.

>>541433

>Do you think a translation can carry the official inspiration of Scriptural canon? It can not.

Alright, let me ask you this one basic question. Do we all need to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew to be Christian?

>>541435

The Dead Sea Scrolls only included fragments of the Pentateuch in Greek, and also included things like heavily revised editions of Isaiah (along with the more famous unrevised one).

It also included the book of Enoch.

The cult that deposited those scrolls was a weird jewish sect that was even more extreme than the Pharisees in interpreting washing rituals. So extreme, they had to move away from the Pharisees.

>>541451

>Alright, let me ask you this one basic question. Do we all need to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew to be Christian?

You're applying your own dogma of sola scriptura to me, it does not apply to me because I'm not a protestant.

>The cult that deposited those scrolls was a weird jewish sect

Odd, wouldn't the Pharisees be opposed to throwing out bits of the Torah then? When did the Jews throw out the "Apocrypha"?

>>541442

>What historical evidence?

Josephus.

>What if they threw it out of the Torah after 70 A.D.

It was never in the tanakh. Josephus tells us there were 22 sacred writings. The number 22 comes from the fact the Jews counted the Minor Prophets as one book, they counted the books of Samuel and Kings one book, Ruth and Judges as one book, and Lamentations and Jeremiah as one book. This means the Jews held the Protestant canon of the OT.

>>541447

That's a lovely caricature, it just directly contradicts what I said in the post you're responding to.

>>541485

Ah, that makes sense. So what if the Jews were just, you know, wrong?

>>541488

hmm..actually the Jews were wrong about lots of things now that I think about it, anyone else agree

>>541488

Then Paul was also wrong when he said the Jews had been entrusted with the oracles of God.

>>541501

So the Jews were right to kill Christ?

>>541501

>>541509

I also think there was some clause where God was angry that they killed his oracles a lot, that's in the Bible (KJV) right?

>>541509

Anon, do you not know the difference between knowing what books are the word of God and murdering the incarnate Son of God?

>>541512

The term 'oracle' sometimes means prophet, sometimes scripture. In the context, Paul means scripture, that the Jews were blessed with the duty of preserving the scriptures. Obviously, God cannot entrust His oracles to their care if they don't know what these are.

>>541516

>Anon, do you not know the difference between knowing what books are the word of God and murdering the incarnate Son of God?

But have you not heard it said, that the Jews are blind and hard-hearted? I think God Himself may have said that; is it really so hard to believe that the people who murdered their own messiah have struck the authentic Word of God from their own Torah?

They killed their own oracles…they killed their own messiah…and they lost sight of what the true Word of God is, that's a logical proposition, no?

>>541516

They obviously didn't know what they were, if they killed their own messiah, no?

And the apocrypha still passed on to us, and were still considered parts of scripture until Martin Luther went to Talmudic Rabbis for their opinion, why do the people who killed Christ still get to have a say in what is authentic scripture?

>>541053

>>541284

Listen to KJV dramatized version, really good. I listen to it on 1.5 speed, recently got saved and listened to whole Bible in 3 months.

>>541524

>They obviously didn't know what they were, if they killed their own messiah, no?

No. That does not follow, and it contradicts the scripture.

>And the apocrypha still passed on to us, and were still considered parts of scripture until Martin Luther went to Talmudic Rabbis for their opinion

There were two streams, among men who agreed theologically, as to what the status of these books were. This has been so since the early church. At the time of the Protestant Reformation these streams finally parted ways as one was taken by the Protestants and the other by the Roman Catholics. Martin Luther did not go to rabbis, he went the the early fathers, and he went to the scriptures, and he went to those books themselves. He found the evidence stacked against the canonicity of these 7 books and his followers agreed, but they all also taught they were good godly books that were good to read.

>>541532

>but they all also taught they were good godly books that were good to read.

But if they were passed on as the Word of God, then how was he not in error putting them as "apocrypha"?

>good godly books

>but not word of God

then they were just fan-fiction like Enoch?

Also, would Martin Luther himself think the KJV was a double inspiration from the Holy Ghost? Probably not tbh

>>541533

>But if they were passed on as the Word of God, then how was he not in error putting them as "apocrypha"?

Because those who passed them on as the word of God were in error.

>then they were just fan-fiction like Enoch?

Not really, most of the history in them is actually credible

>>541536

No.

4th time in the New Testament. I've read the ot twice. Saved for 2 years. Not good, but I get it.

>>541532

>There were two streams, among men who agreed theologically, as to what the status of these books were.

And then in 1869 a third stream appeared: Westcott and Hort; who said that the Bible has been recently rediscovered with the previously unknown Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, so, out with the old and in with the new!

I'm just waiting for the NIV translators and people to start including Nag Hammadi manuscripts and the Jefferson Bible into their critical considerations as well. Because carbon dating is far more relevant in today's world than God's word on preservation.

>>541536

You are very intent on misrepresenting me right now. I just hope you will realize there is only one word of God and one truth, not many possible truths.

>>541596

Hey man, what's your opinion about the YLT?

>>541598

You failed to respond first, so what am I supposed to take that as? Every single Christian on earth believed 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 existed and you would have us believe God failed to preserve his word correctly. The alexandrian manuscripts are pretty much a cross between nag hammadi and jefferson bible.

It's like in 2000 years someone found a first edition jefferson bible and it was the oldest manuscript they could find so therefore it was correct.

>>541599

I just checked it out— it reminded me of the NKJV in that, for some reason, it changed the tense to "are being saved" in 1 Corinthians 1:18, yet the YLT still translated "are saved" in the correct tense in Luke 13:23 and Revelation 21:24. So it doesn't seem to be consistent between these verses. The KJV has "are saved" in all three.

Otherwise, I noticed the usual choice of terms for sodomites was changed from the KJV, like in most versions. Like Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 15:12 changes it to "whoremonger," yet they inserted the word sodomite into 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

This has further consequences, for instance because Deuteronomy 23:17-18 equates sodomites with dogs and the YLT misses this, you have no real explanation for Philippians 3:2 or Revelation 22:15 where dogs are mentioned as a type of wicked person. And in Romans 1:28, it removes the word "reprobate mind," destroying the link between this and Jeremiah 6:30 where reprobate is defined.

Otherwise, I found the YLT did a good job avoiding putting a name of Jesus into Isaiah 14:12 and avoiding any literal factual inaccuracy in Mark 1:2 and about Goliath's brother.

I was just a little bit annoyed that they removed the term "for ever" in Psalm 12:7, and that some passages I checked were worded very strangely, like Philippians 3:2 and John 6:47. Also Psalm 80:1 (YLT) misses the fact he dwells between the cherubim (see John 20:12).

>>541611

Thanks, brother.

>>542075

Glad to help. If we ever find a newer translation that doesn't tamper with any of the ~50 verses that I usually check, that will be interesting. I might have to give it a readthrough if that ever happened.

A few of the major land-mines that YLT avoided:

<2 Corinthians 2:17 which is, hilariously, changed in almost every other version compared to the KJV

<Galatians 4:7, which they remove the part about inheriting specifically through Christ

<Hebrews 1:8, where they usually obscure the clear statement that the Son is both God AND distinct person from the Father

<Luke 2:33, in which many translations straight up call Joseph his father or his parent (which is incorrect)

<Psalm 91:4 which I just hate to see changed because its my favorite verse in that book

>>541053

Read the entire thing in a year and a half, including the Deuterocanonicals, I'm on my second run and almost done, currently reading Hebrews. It's been only 3 months so this time it's a lot faster.

Fully read the NT, read some of the prophets and most of proverbs/psalms. The law is the hardest stuff to get through and I'm procrastinating in reading it.

Old testament I've reached Psalms.

New testament I'm currently reading through Revelations.

Since becoming faithful as an adult I've read Ecclesiastes (One of the big pushes that got me into the faith), Judith, 1 Samuel, The Gospels, Acts, Romans, and I'm part way through 1 Corinthians now, and rereading the Gospels. I'm undergoing Catechism now and preparing to be baptized hopefully in the coming year. Any recommended books I should read before then that would specifically enrich the experience for me?