/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Which looks nicer sitting in a bookshelf? Is one more dust-resistant than the other?

Is it kinda silly to use doth/hath in modern translations?

Good luck, Challoner-chan!

>>575022

GOLDEN WIN!

Oh, you better believe I fugging LOL'D

>>575129

Mostly the fact that most cathbros, or people who claim to be such, don't read it.

>>575385

As tempting as being a DR-onlyist is, I believe the Baptist KJV heresy has been allowed to prosper as an example.

Knox Bible, DR, RSV-CE are really great options for Catholics.

>>575153

Is there any e-book or other .pdf scans for pre-challoner version?

>>575129

Comes from people who are butthurt that catholics don't interpret the Bible like they do.

>>575436

https://archive.org/details/nevvtestamentofi00mart

Also, check this link for OT

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index_talk:Douay_Rheims_Bible_1635_edition.pdf

>>575462

Nice, many thanks.

>>575016

Considering all the dispensations that Americans get, I'm surprised there are people there who actually care about Bible translations.

>>575022

Baptists confirm once again that they're the bant masters.

>>575434

Between DR and RSV-CE, why would you ever need anything else?

What is the Knox bible like? At first glance, I greatly prefer DR.

http://catholicbible.online/

>>575639

…so you're saying the Knox Bible and RSV-CE claim that Jesus never claimed to be God?

>>575639

What in the name of damnnation are you takling about? Becuase there is a inconsistancy in the original transcripts, thats the translators fault? All modern translators are liberals trying to push a agenda? Are you slow?

>>575987

RSV-CE? Absolutely. Have you even read the Bible you're defending? The footnotes are there to lead you to rejecting the Trinity. They're promoting the idea that only the Gospel of John claims Jesus is God. These same scholars promote the idea that the authorship of John is dubious. Ergo, Jesus never claimed to be God.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1&version=RSVCE

>>575978

>(((original manuscripts)))

>Are you slow?

damnation*, inconsistency*, that's*, translator's*, an* agenda. You speak English well. I almost thought you were a native speaker.

>Becuase there is a inconsistancy in the original transcripts, thats the translators fault?

They insert inconsistencies. Pay more attention. Read the footnotes.

>All modern translators are liberals trying to push a agenda?

Not all translators, but virtually all Bible scholars. You should only trust KJV, Douay Rheims, and other Bibles which the faithful have traditionally held to be reliable. My logic is the same logic that's used to back up papal infallibility.

They deliberately mistranslate OT verses differently to make NT references to said verses seem incorrect. It's an agenda to undermine the claim that Jesus is the messiah. Trusting modern Biblical scholarship is literally the same as getting advice on God from atheists.

>>576042

The footnotes are there noting a discrepancy of claims among these "ancient sources". Is this a lie?

You cannot claim they are denying the Trinity by these foot-notes, that's illogical. The Trinity is Catholic Doctrine, they cannot out-right deny it.

> My logic is the same logic that's used to back up papal infallibility.

Although I appreciate the ecumenism here, we do have tradition and the magisterium here, under the "same logic", nobody is going to read these foot-notes and doubt the Trinity.

>>575987

>All modern translators are liberals trying to push a agenda?

Yes. How long have you been living under a rock?

>>575639

>Whatever's in KJV is what God wanted Christian fundamentalists to read. Whatever's in DR is what God wanted Catholics to read.

So uhh… Whatever is in the OSB is what God wanted Orthodox to read?

>>575987

>All modern translators are liberals trying to push a agenda?

Yep, that's why they removed 1 John 5:7 from the Bible, because it's the only verse that proves the Trinity. In fact, my brother had an encounter with a Mormon a while ago who said that she converted to Mormonism after she read the new translations that simply say "for there are three that testify" and she took that as meaning 3 separate gods.

>>575462

This is very neat. I like all of the notes and annotations.

>>575579

Pretty much this; maybe using the RSV-2CE. Something like the Didache Bible:

https://www.amazon.com/Didache-Bible-Commentaries-Catechism-Catholic/dp/1939231140

>>576231

Which modern translations don't have that verse? Sage for double post.

>>576371

- American Standard Version (ASV)

- Amplified Bible (AMP)

- Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

- Common English Bible (CEB)

- Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

- Contemporary English Version (CEV)

- Darby Translation

- Disciples' Literal New Translation (DLNT)

- Easy-to-Read-Version (ERV)

- Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)

- English Standard Version (ESV) (!!!)

- Expanded Bible (EXB)

- GOD's Word Translation (GW)

- Good News Translation (GNT)

- Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

- International Children's Bible (ICB)

- International Standard Version (ISV) (Includes it but casts doubt in a footnote)

- Lexham English Bible (LEB)

- Names of God Bible (NOG)

- New American Bible (NAB) (!!!)

- New American Standard Bible (NASB)

- New Century Version (NCV)

- New English Translation (NET)

- New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

- New International Version (NIV) (!!!)

- New Living Translation (NLT)

- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) (!!!)

- New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) (!!!)

- New Testament for Everyone (NTE)

- The Passion Translation (TPT)

- Revised Standard Version (RSV) (!!!)

- World English Bible (WEB)

>>576379

Just checked, and according to biblegateway it's not in the RSVCE either, and comes with this note:

>This reads as follows in the Vulgate: “7 There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” The “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” as the first sentence is called, is first found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.

It's interesting that the note mentions it being in the Vulgate, which Trent confirmed as absolutely correct, yet it is missing also in the NABRE, which is the approved translation for readings in Mass today in America.

>>576231

Not in a single Greek early source. Not one. Zippy.

>>576409

>St. Jerome had sources that we don't.

Then why doesn't it appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century? Why didn't anyone quote it when defending the trinity in the early church?

>>576420

>Why didn't anyone quote it when defending the trinity in the early church?

Well, to be fair, after the First Council, it was pretty much decided, and the canon of the New Testament was established AFTER the First Council. I'm speculating though. Obviously there's no way to prove it.

>>576409

> that pic

Gotta say, that sounds pretty absurd. Almost like Biblical fanfiction. Maybe the Protestants are right about Sola Scriptura.

>>577361

*post translation addition

Well who cares what Bible they use ultimately as long as you can use your own Bible I don't understand why you're being forced to use the Bible that they want I mean there's lots of other Bibles no Bible is infallible except original text thing the greek latin Hebrew so I just don't I just don't really see what's the point in really caring what Bible has been mainstream Bible when there's so many other options but you're not be forced to use

>>576042

>>575639

>God wants different bible's for different sects.

There is only one Church

>Claiming Jesus never claimed to be God.

John 8:58

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am"

As long as none of them take from the scofield bible to support israel then you might be on track with something.

>>576398

You mean surviving source. And that's where your whole rationale falls to pieces, because we don't require a manuscript dating from the 1st century to know it was from the 1st century.

And also "early" source is a movable goalpost. You can simply place the definition of being "early enough" back to before the earliest source of the thing you don't like, so then if you can find any older corruption anywhere, you can gladly take that instead. And then complain about all the inconsistencies in it and never take it seriously again. That's where we're at.

>>575016

Compare:

Ephesians 3:9

>KJV: which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

>DRB: which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:

>NAB: hidden from ages past in God who created all things,

John 4:42

>KJV: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

>NAB: for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.

>DRB: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.

1 Timothy 3:16

>KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

>DRB: And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,

>NAB: Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh,

1 John 4:3

>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>NAB: and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God.

>DRB: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God:

1 Corinthians 15:47

>KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

>NAB: The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven.

>DRB: The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly.

Stick with 1611 KJ that has Apocrypha included and call it a day. The Bible alone is all you need - the institutions are sources of corruption.

Catholic church is a farce, an arm of satan that perverts scripture for its own profit and politics. It was never virtuous, just, or in line with the Word of God.

>>580587

>The Bible alone is all you need - the institutions are sources of corruption.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.