/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Having the correct timelines is a good indicator that they're not gay at least.

Seriously.

I'm not a Protestant, so I'm always a bit disappointed that they have stripped down canons, but a few of them are in "neutral good" territory at least. The kind that are conservative in nature, don't push one form of eschatology (Evangelicals generally favor premillenialism), and generally stay away from a lot of theology (and instead present good backgrounds on archaeology and context).

>>748052

Sounds like you just described the ESV Study Bible. Not a bad choice, although the RSVCE is better imo.

>>748070

I'd prefer the RSVCE much more.. The RSV was the first Bible I ever grabbed off a shelf and changed my life. But I tend to stick with KJV (with Apocrypha).

>>748074

Which Apocrypha to you read?

>>748124

The original KJV version. I mostly use a Cambridge Paragraph Bible (with included Apocrypha). It's kind of perfect to me. It has no notes, or even maps, and is in single column format. I can just pay attention to reading scripture.. and if I want references, I just use seperate books.

i bought a douay-rheims like half a year ago when i first started going to Mass regularly, but tbh, i find the bible to be boring and i don't know how to interpret most of the stuff and i don't want to wind up with misconceptions. i like the little context footnotes at the bottom, but there are only a few per chapter, is there one with like a whole explanation for each chapter?

>>748524

You need separate commentaries to fill that amount of space (which I recommend anyways). If you're Catholic though, I heard the Didache edition of the RSV has copious amounts of notes. I'm not Catholic, but I do like the RSV at least.

https://www.theologicalforum.org/Category/124/Product/516/The_Didache_Bible_RSV2CE_Hardcover

The Douay Rheims is nice in parts, but it used to be even worse. The original DR was apparently disliked in it's own day by Catholics themselves. The DR in it's form now was revised in the 1700s, and flows a little more like the KJV, but still lacks some proper syntax (it pays more attention to underlying Latin sentence forms rather than what flows properly in English).

>>748047

The only study bible I trust is the (Catholic) NABRE because the commentary is overseen by the church and has to be approved by a number of boards. Others (pic related) don’t have the necessary tools, traditions, and personell to get an acurate perspective and many are just the opinions of random people

>>748535

I like parts of the NABRE, but the commentaries are apostate. Not Catholic. They barely can even argue for Jesus' divinity (Isaiah 7.14 is translated as "young woman".. and then the notes further say it was an afterthought by Christians because of the Septuagint). This is not Catholic, but academic Historical-Criticism's approach. And it's rife with many things like this.

Like I said at the very first reply, "dating" and timelines is a good indicator of just how pozzed a Bible scholar is. If they believe the Exodus was in the 1200s BC, they've been compromised especially.

>>748535

NABRE is the best.

>>748579

It’s amazing on everything else.

>>748585

>It’s amazing on everything else.

If they could clean up their commitee of these agnostic/academic influences, it'd be on it's way to greatness. Just my 2c.

>>748047

Basic doctrine=saved by grace through faith(believing in christ alone=salvation)

Biblical prophecy/timeline=what to expect in the future & key thematic events i.e; third temple…etc…etc.

pretrib rapture=most evident in kjv

good luck and God Bless

>>753266

>pretrib rapture=most evident in kjv

Read your KJV more. And stop worshipping Jews.

>>748124

>>748125

Some of the KJV's apocrypha only had Latin sources to rely on. It was when Brenton's Septuagint was published that translations from Greek texts may have first been made. The apocrypha of the Revised Version which is related to the non-apocrypha having ASV was the fist to feature Second Esdras. All of these use archaic language.

Among more recent translations to feature deuterocanons, aside from the popular RSVCE is the NETS edition which says it's based on the NRSV while avoiding the use of gender neutrality.

KJV Apocrypha

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

Septuagint Bible w/ Apocrypha

https://www.biblestudytools.com/apocrypha/lxx/

Revised Version with Apocrypha (1895)

https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

To the Reader of NETS, by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/00-front-nets.pdf

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

>>753357

I also overlooked the DR apocrypha. Curious how much it may differ if at all from the KJ's.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/rhe/