/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>777504

The NAB.

>>777504

NIV

>>777510

>>777508

Care to spell it out for me there? I am Apostate, not a Christian.

>>777504

>I like the orthodoxy more than anything

Get you an OSB (Orthodox study Bible)

And remember OP

don't drop the soap

>>777513

Alright, thanks and don't worry nobody does that kind of shit in county (read: jail, not prison) unless they want their asses kicked and ribs stomped into jelly. :)

>>777522

I've never even heard of this, but now I have it. Thank you, man.

>>777522

Tobit and Sirach are great.

>>777504

I'd want an accurate but easy to read translation (you can't Google words or verses you don't understand while in jail), so the KJV wouldn't be ideal unless you're very familiar with it. I'd personally go for the RSV2CE, however in your case, I believe the Orthodox Study Bible would be more appropriate.

OSB is nice in that the notes always point back to Christ. But it lacks 4 Maccabees and 2 Esdras.

NRSV has the whole Eastern Orthodox canon, not a bad choice for personal reading.

NKJV is obviously the classic but you'll miss on a lot of scriptures that aren't included.

Honestly if I had to go to prison I would just take my Bible (in French, the TOB) and the 4 volumes of the Philokalia translated in English so far.

>>777533

I see…can I ask what you think about Serbia in the 1990's? What side are you on?

>>777535

Kek, don't worry about it. The truth is they probably wont let me take any materials into jail. However, I wouldn't mind some reading material when I take my hermitage after my time is up.

>>777546

Based

Pidgin

Oh, sweet! It's today's edition of "Bible Fight"!

>>777512

NIV means new international version

Orthodox here, but KJV. As much as I like the OSB, it's notes are goofy at times. I prefer no notes at all rather than have one thing taint a bible.

>>777533

Orthodoxy based as always.

>>782857

They quote the fathers alot, I'd hesitate to call that 'goofy'. The New Testament of the OSB is NKJV anyway.

OP, can you request a priest visit? I'd do that if I were in your shoes, discussion is as good as reading. But I'd also go with the OSB as I noted above for a Bible, it has icons in it as well.

>>777504

Just curious, do they not provide religious literature in jails and prisons in your country? Around here you can bring in any book you like, but you it must remain behind when you get out (unless it is your religion's sacred text). I realize this is probably not a universal practice, but I'd still expect that most countries (at least those that are nominally Christian) would provide a copy of the Bible to those in jail.

>>782991

I'm the anon there.

Some of the stuff is harmless, but goofy nonetheless. Like the size for Goliath in the Septuagint is stated as "4 cubits" (about 6'9"). But the Masoretic has him at 6 cubits (9 feet!). The Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus also have him at 4 cubits. But the OSB notes say "9 feet" (even though the scripture text itself properly translates it as "4 cubits"). So I assume the note writer just put something in there from his standard Masoretic based Protestant scholarship… and didn't even read the actual Septuagint. This is the definition of "goofy".

But that's "harmless". There are more harmful forms of goofiness. Like giving the late date for the Exodus (1200s.. rather post 1400s BC). This kind of thing was from mainline Protestants who cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible.. because shifting the timelines has now made it impossible to synchronize with Egyptian history. And they can play dumb and say "we don't see any achaeological evidence for an actual Exodus" and have written it off as a myth for the past 50 years. It's true that there is no evidence for an entry into Israel in the 1200s (but there IS evidence for earlier, more traditional dating). Well meaning Christians like these Orthodox writers accidentally get entrapped in the Protestant scholarly world, not knowing it was created to destroy trust in the scriptures.

The Bible itself attests in multiple places that it was in the 1400s BC (like in Kings, where it says Solomon built the temple 400 years after Israel entered the promised land. Or in Judges, where one of the leaders says it been 200 years since they entered the promised land. Multiple other passages lead to an earlier Exodus date).

So yes, I don't like having crap that doubts the scriptures…. within the very scriptures I'm reading. This is why modern Catholic bibles suck too.. they've been completely duped by modernist interpretations (NAB, for example). Just a hundred years ago, the Douay Rheims notes were fairly based.

Lastly, you can read better stand alone commentaries, or directly from the Church fathers.

>>783026

>But the Masoretic has him at 6 cubits (9 feet!).

First of all the original Hebrew has him at that. Second of all, everyone has the Egyptian at 1 Chronicles 11:23 at five cubits, which is around 8.5 feet tall.

Thirdly, everyone has the giant at 1 Samuel 17:5 whose coat of mail (not counting other armor) weighted 156 pounds and his spear weighed 18.75 pounds.

Fourthly, the Hexaplar Septuagint gives Elhanan as the one who killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 yet it says it was his brother he killed at 1 Chronicles 20:5. The original Hebrew actually says the same thing in both places, while the Hexaplar Septuagint mistranslated it in the first spot, not understanding the grammar and thus creating a contradiction since David was the person responsible for this.

>Like giving the late date for the Exodus (1200s.. rather post 1400s BC).

It's extremely straightforward to show from the Authorized version that the Exodus took place sometime between 1569 and 1547 B.C., if you assume the first year of Cyrus' reign was 539 B.C.

>like in Kings, where it says Solomon built the temple 400 years after Israel entered the promised land.

Actually 480 years but yes.

>So yes, I don't like having crap that doubts the scriptures…. within the very scriptures I'm reading.

Did you realize the NKJV has many footnotes that cast doubt on the veracity of scripture? For instance at there is a footnote at Mark 16:9 that says "Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text."

The NKJV also adds thousands of footnotes throughout the New Testament that give contradictory or opposite meanings. For instance see footnotes at Mark 1:2, Acts 2:30, Acts 8:37, Romans 11:6, Philippians 2:6 (an especially satanic inversion), Colossians 2:18 (omits "not").

Also the NKJV changes Titus 3:10 to contradict Luke 12:51, it adds the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3 and the NKJV changes "narrow" to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14. These are just a few examples of the alterations it makes to the original scripture. So bottom line yes, very good choice not to use the NKJV.

>>783324

I know the original Hebrew does. I said it myself. I'm just saying it's goofy that the note writers followed that, but not the very translation they were writing for. Call me obsessive, but these sort of things annoy me.

>>783324

>Did you realize the NKJV has many footnotes that cast doubt on the veracity of scripture? For instance at there is a footnote at Mark 16:9 that says "Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text."

>

>The NKJV also adds thousands of footnotes throughout the New Testament that give contradictory or opposite meanings. For instance see footnotes at Mark 1:2, Acts 2:30, Acts 8:37, Romans 11:6, Philippians 2:6 (an especially satanic inversion), Colossians 2:18 (omits "not").

>

>Also the NKJV changes Titus 3:10 to contradict Luke 12:51, it adds the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3 and the NKJV changes "narrow" to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14. These are just a few examples of the alterations it makes to the original scripture. So bottom line yes, very good choice not to use the NKJV.

Unfortunately, I agree. I think Thomas Nelson originally convinced them to keep the NKJV, but they need a full break and use the Patriarchal/Byzantine text.

I really like the idea of the OSB, but I think it could be so much better. In lieu of that, I'm fine with the KJV/Apocrypha. I have Brenton's LXX to compare readings there as well.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Accurate translation in modern English.

The Message is the only YES tier Bible.

>>783442

Based and YES YES YES pilled

>>783455

I am writhing in pain reading this.

>>777504

If you like Orthodoxy, get the Orthodox Study Bible, and read and pray the Psalms in it.

>>783467

Or they could just get a plain Bible. And a psalter specifically for prayer. It's more of a recent American Evangelical thing to think we need scriptures in these pre-canned forms (and you see how tacky that is). Case in point:

>>783455

>>783461

>I am writhing in pain reading this.

Here I thought I was being harsh for pointing out some errors in the notes of the OSB. I clearly give /christian/ too much credit.