/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>717427

Start with whichever one is most comfortable for you. For English speakers new to the Bible, I recommend the NIV.

Orthodox Study Bible is good. I also suggest the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision.

>>717427

Thou = singular

Ye = plural (y'all)

Thee = singular, an action is done to them

You = plural, an action is done to them

The conjugations should be easy from there.

I use the ASV or the NASV. It's a very literal translation of the bible that still maintains readability. Some people find the sentence structure awkward but it doesn't bother me

>>717427

ESV for prot, RSVCE for cath, OSB for ortho

>>717427

Koine Greek interlinear

GO BACK TO ROOTS

ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE

But seriously what >>717482 said.

i use the kjv.

>>717482

i agree with this too

>>717497

Kjv omits entire books

>>717566

appending books to the Bible is a sin, anon

>>717481

ASV is my favorite, but I'd prefer some modernized KJ or the RSV to the New American Standard Bible. I believe the translation quality to be less precise.

>>717570

>translate vulgate to English

>skip the books you don't like

>it's the original that's heresy

Try again

>>717573

what evidence is there that Paul or early Church fathers considered the deuterocanon, apocrypha, the Ethiopian canon or gnostic gospels as canonical?

Athanasius' canon has been quite thoroughly preserved, and Catholics can use non-Vulgate sources (Divino afflante Spiritu)

>>717602

Well they quoted them constantly for one

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/

>>717608

there are books not canonical to Catholics that are also referenced, does that make them canon for everyone too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

>>717617

Of course not. The canon was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 under the direction of Pope Damasus I and guided by the Holy Spirit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

>Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

>Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

>Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

>The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

>Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle

>>717602

Clement of Rome cites Judith and Wisdom

Irenaeus cites Baruch and Susannah

Polycarp cites Tobit

And other fathers like Cyprian, Clement Alexandria, Origen…etc do cite them in the same way Scripture is cited

Even Athanasius does this

>>717624

That's the papist canon, not the Athanasian canon (he's called the Father of the Canon for a reason) nor does it resemble the Early Church collection.

NT Apocrypha was treated by some as scripture for a while but now is generally not viewed as part of the Bible by Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox.

>The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers)

>The traditional explanation of the development of the Old Testament canon describes two sets of Old Testament books, the protocanonical books and the deuterocanonical books (the latter considered non-canonical by Protestants). According to this theory, certain Church fathers accepted the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books based on their inclusion in the Septuagint (most notably Augustine), while others disputed their status and did not accept them as divinely inspired scripture (most notably Jerome).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Appealing to the Holy Spirit as just cause for changes to the Church and development of the canon is also an appeal for Protestantism too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees

but this reaffirmation of canon that holds the Vulgate as the authoritative text for translation is undermined by Divino afflante Spiritu

The canon changed and developed a lot over time, Gelasius decided his own Apocrypha after the Council of Rome. Luther and Protestant declarations are continuations of the development of the canon, if you're willing to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in that then what faith do you place in the Holy Spirit during the councils or the canons that predate the councils?

>>717651

>Pope Damasus I, the Bishop of Rome in 382, promulgated a list of books which contained a New Testament canon identical to that of Athanasius. A synod in Hippo in 393 repeated Athanasius' and Damasus' New Testament list (without the Epistle to the Hebrews), and the Council of Carthage (397) repeated Athanasius' and Damasus' complete New Testament list

Athanasius affirmed Pope Damasus list. However it should be noted that Athanasius was only a Bishop, he didn't have authority on his own to set canon. Also only Protestants call him the "father of the canon", because Protestants are ridiculously self serving and only accept those church fathers and history that share a vague resemblance to protestant doctrine and ignore all the parts that show Protestantist doctrine is mostly heresy that the church fathers would've denounced. Can you really appeal to Athanasius as your champion when he would declare your particular denomination as heretics who do not follow the true faith?

>The canon changed and developed a lot over time

The canon was set in 382 at the Council of Rome. That's simple fact.

>>717651

>Luther and Protestant declarations are continuations of the development of the canon, if you're willing to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in that then what faith do you place in the Holy Spirit during the councils or the canons that predate the councils?

Isn't the answer this obvious? You can only be the continuation of the true church if you accept that the church you schismed from was legitimate. Protestants deny that the Catholic church was ever the true church, they deny the authority of the councils, so they cannot be the continuation because they were a novel strain of Christianity created in the 16th century

>>717651

None of these support your Protestant canon as true because of the sheer fact that the same Athanasius includes as Inspired Scripture,

Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Greek Ezra, Susanah, Tobit, Wisdom and Sirach entails that he is aiming for 22books because of an established tradition of following the 22 letters of the Hebrew. Had Protestants say 66book canon but also acknowledge the deuterocanon or some of them as inspired Scripture too, this is fine and in line with the variety in canon lists, but none of these are the case at all.

This also excludes the fact that even before Athanasius, we have instances of Deuterocanon cited as inspired Scripture. Protestants like to point to Melito but Melito uses Greek Septuagintal terms for his OT list, that would itself entail that he could easily include Baruch and Jeremiah's epistle as part of the books he listed down

So if any, Patristic canon only leans more in favour of Catholicism, not Protestantism because of the sheer fact that deuterocanons even if not considered canon are still seen as Inspired. John Meade knows this and also notes this in many of the early canon lists but when speaking to Prots, he doesnt want to let that basic fact out. Why? Because he knows if he does so, it only give Catholics more room to say that some fathers dont see the deuterocanon as Canon but still nevertheless see them as Inspired. And guess who does this? Athanasius and Origen

>>717657

she's a cat tho

>>717668

Kruger can only resort to playing "presuppositionalism" on the issue. He acknowledges that the early Christians dont hold to the modern Protestant canon but says that the true 66book canon is the case set in stone by God eventhough people may be mistaken on it

>>717671

…Let me guess, you never actually read the book, but heard about it by James White.

You too should the read book, even for Roman Catholics, it's a good read to brush off the dust once and a while.

>>717675

I did and guess what? Kruger focuses on the NT canon exclusively rather than the canon as a whole and here's the thing, Kruger posits that the "Roman Catholic" view is that which doesnt place the Canon determination on God but on Church, as if trying to state that Catholics dont think God is working through his church. But even then his own model can be used against him because a Catholic can simply state that the deuterocanonical books also have the "interior" markings of Scripture and Inspiration which the reception in church history proves. After all Kruger accepts that his canonical model does not mean we discard external data

>>717689

>gaired

geared

>>717689

Look at my point again, even Kruger's own model speaks against him and I pointed out a strawman he makes of the Catholic view of the canon which is simply as if he came here and saw a Catholic say "Church decided the bible".

Kruger's canonical model includes one requirement of "Providential exposure" which he states that the Church cannot respond or denounce any book it does not know of;. God enables the Church to know which is his canon in this requirement. The problem? Many Church Fathers take the deuterocanon, to varying degrees as Scripture, so by this very requirement Kruger lists, it is possible to argue for the inclusion of the deuterocanon as Scripture

Also, many Church Fathers show Middle Platonic background or usage such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. They use this background to articulate the Logos. Some even use Stoic philosophical ideas such as Stoic mixture theory in Irenaeus. These show it is silly to dicothomize east and west.

People's Parallel Edition: KJV/TLB

The majesty of the KJV side-by-side the simple street talk of TLB.

Examples:

>KJV (1 Sam. 24:3) "And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave."

>TLB (1 Sam. 24:3) "Saul went into the cave to go to the bathroom."

>KJV (1 Sam. 20:30) "Thou son of a perverse rebellious woman."

>TLB (1 Sam. 20:30) "You son of a bitch."

Also, not technically a Bible, but The Complete Sayings of Jesus by Arthur Hinds [1927] strips away all the baloney and just focuses on what Jesus said in chronological order (with a bit of context).

Once you have a solid understanding of the story, then you can dive into then see >>717456

>>717693

And my point is he didn't make a strawman because his content didn't deal with Catholic's view of the canon.

>Kruger's canonical model includes one requirement of "Providential exposure" which he states that the Church cannot respond or denounce any book it does not know of;. God enables the Church to know which is his canon in this requirement.

Okay you seriously need to read and reread the section on how the Holy Spirit guides all the members of the church and how the apostles/prophets demonstrate their reliability of their letters to the congregation once they receive

>Many Church Fathers take the deuterocanon, to varying degrees as Scripture

L. O. L. Kruger mostly just deals with the New Testament.

Unless Catholic church has a new set of heretical development in her hands by adapting gnostic books the canon, you should read his book on how we actually obtained the NT. The answer might surprise you. .

>Also, many Church Fathers show Middle Platonic background or usage such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria.

leading towards Aristotle's philosophy. Especially when Docetists are in the room.

>They use this background to articulate the Logos.

That's more influenced by the ideas of Philo and Heraclitus than Plato and Aristotle.

>These show it is silly to dicothomize east and west.

Do you think this will stop me or anyone from silly-posting?

>>717696

Kruger literally engages with it when discussing and critiquing other canonical models like community reception. So yes he engages with it and ends up only attacking a strawman of it. He is even clear on what the Catholic model entails.

Saying Kruger only discusses the issue of the NT canon is irrelevant to my point. I even noted that basic fact. My point is, even by Kruger's own standards a case can be made for the Deuterocanon as Inspired, proven by the numerous Fathers and councils that include them as Inspired. This therefore entails by that first criterion in his Canon model I outlined, they are canonical because as Kruger himself says, if the book goes missing or is rejected due to its contents, it's a sign that God didnt include those as Canon.

And for the Fathers and Middle Platonism and Stoicism see basic monographs like "Clement of Alexandria and the beginnings of Christian Apophaticism", Lashier's "Irenaeus and the Trinity".

Also every scholar virtually considers Philo as Platonist, so you only show yourself as severely ignorant on this.