/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Yes the church fathers and every generation since have made commentaries.

I'm a fan of the expositor's Bible commentary for a recent work. Biblehub is great because it shows you a number of commentaries side by side for each passage. You might be interested in the CSB ancient faith study bible

>showing that the words for rock and Peter were originally the same

lol

>turning the other cheek as an assertion of equal standing

I've never encountered this outside of that imageboard screen cap that gets shared on halfpol

>>836918

Do any of you ever do word studies? Like go back to the Hebrew or Greek and dig? This has been very enlightening as of late. Please Share if so inclined.

>>836914

Have you tried to download the blue letter bible app? Great resource for original Hebrew and Greek. Also shows a ton of commentaries- definitions, etc. Love it!

>>836925

I do and biblehub is again the best tool

>>836926

blue letter bible is a close second

I use it on android for it's audiobook function

>>836927

Hmmmm - I will certainly check that out!

>>836927

Got it! Thank you! Can’t wait till the mornin’ to trst drive it!

>>836914

church fathers are good but they weren't linguists so you won't get the scientific and historical analysis of the text, they may have known multiple languages but still doesn't compare.

>an assertion of equal standing thing

If you don't believe in anything higher than asserting oneself, why get involved in Christianity? There are better alternatives for your kind elsewhere, you don't need to slap the label 'christian' in your will to power.

>>836918

The CSB bible is of the kind of thing I had in mind. Thanks, man.

>>836930

How did you like it? The NASB non dramatized is the best

>>836968

That's partially why I wanted to stick with the KJV.

>>836914

I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but a good supplement to it… in my humble opinion.. is Adam Clarke's commentary. Short enough to be practical, long enough to be a serious commentary as well. Matthew Henry is the other classic commentary that was a little more meant for the "every man", while Clarke had a little more meat.

>>836968

That's just an idiom. The modern translations are using man in the sense of "mortal" correctly here. Why don't you actually read why these scholars choose what they do instead of slander them for it? You actually think they're all in cahoots and conspiring in journals and shelves full of books for hundreds of years now to enact some Satanic NWO conspiracy by changing the meaning of "man"? Because you can go back quite far on those definitions. Even in 19th century lexicons meant for the KJV. It's retarded conspiracies like this that makes psychopaths like Gail Riplinger say that you can't trust those old dictionaries either. That "everyone" has been in on it for that long. Do you really want to be like her?

Don't answer that. I don't want to know.

Even the KJV translates some idioms in a loose way itself and isn't as literal as some think. It just depends on where. One translation might be more literal with an idiom in some areas, while loose in others. That's the only difference in translation style among the myriad translations, when it comes down to it: How much one retains the original idioms and sentence structure or not. The KJV is great for being mostly literal, but take one example here: Romans 6:2 has "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?". "God forbid" is not in the Greek. The original is "let it not be". The KJV translators were astute enough to not be so literal at times and translated into a corresponding English idiom. It's actually that naughty word: "Dynamic" translation. They did this in numerous places. In this case, the NASB is more literal and has "may it never be". The RSV goes with "By no means!" Which isn't bad either. They reflect the Greek more than the KJV's "God forbid", which is highly idiomatic (the Greek doesn't use the word "God" at all here).

>>837122

Thanks be to God!!! Just found a Russian site with what appears to be the full commentaries of Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid. Just have your browser translate it. http://feofilakt.ru/

> What are some legitimate commentaries and supplements explaining the historical context or interpreting it?

KJV Study Bible.

> Have the great Fathers of the Catholic and Orthodox churches written anything of this sort?

No, because the KJV didn't exist 1,600 years ago.

>>837130

>KJV Study Bible.

You all can do better. That was put together by Liberty University and Jerry Falwell and friends.

>>837149

and that's a good thing because liberty is great

>>837124

The guy you're responding to is just signalling the meme books. It isn't a serious attempt to defend biblical integrity.

It is true however, that later editors have been less circumspect in preventing their own mental preconceptions from creeping into the text. The kind of thing that would too easily overlook such examples as this. It doesn't have to be on purpose. The problem is that the most heterodox and downright heretical people were the ones who were also the most motivated to make neo-translations; after the KJV got everything right, all the right-believing people didn't see the need to alter what was accurate. They weren't making new translations. So when looking among the modern translations, you have a huge disproportionate overrepresentation and sample bias of people who just want to do their own thing and make their own translation. The same kinds of people are bound to be lazy and let their presuppositions creep into the text, and to just generally produce a poor quality translation since accuracy to the source isn't actually their concern (or else they would be happy with the accurate translation).

That's why they always produce such poor quality modern translations. It doesn't necessarily have to be intentional. It's just their bad lazy translation that just doesn't really care and drops easily missed details.

>It's retarded conspiracies like this that makes psychopaths like Gail Riplinger

This is like letting the time cube guy live rent free in your head. It doesn't even matter.

>say that you can't trust those old dictionaries either. That "everyone" has been in on it for that long. Do you really want to be like her?

I just said it doesn't have to be intentional mistakes. Also who says there's something wrong with the old dictionaries? Modernists, that's who.

>Even the KJV translates some idioms in a loose way itself and isn't as literal as some think.

Yes of course but it is more accurate however.

>>837176

I can't find anything to disagree with exactly. I'm probably a little more open as to what the motivations are for modern translations - I think many of them come from a place of sincerity and mission work - but you're right, it's gotten out of hand and isn't always about accuracy. I'm personally happy with a KJV and some study materials, but I'm not a KJV onlyist either. I feel compelled to correct them as well (although I probably shouldn't let some live rent free in my head, as you say).

>>837190

>>But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces.

>These verses make more sense in Hebrew than English, unless you already know what "beasts", "owls", "satyrs", and "dragons" are. It isn't just idiomatic, poetic, or a turn of phrase.

Those are garbled translations too, half of the time. If you want to be literal, things like the "screech owl" of Isaiah 34:14 (for one example) would simply be "Lilith" (the lilitu demons of the Sumerian/Middle Eastern world. Not Hollywood's Lilith. The original is plural). I believe the Vulgate/Jerome went for Latin equivalents, like Lamia (a related pagan/demonic entity, but not the one from the ME context).

>>837190

>I don't know who that is but guilt by association is fallacious reasoning. Most of your post is reacting to an image you have of me in your mind instead of what I actually wrote.

Because embracing conspiracies about modern scholarship will eventually lead you to this madness. That's all my point is. I'm just mentioning one of the nutcases you can research, and asking if you really want to be like that. I'm hoping you don't.

>>837179

See, the problem is that you try to make valid arguments for why modern versions are all making the same mistakes, you try to explain a valid position for integrity of Scripture and you just get called a KJV onlyist and twenty different retarded strawmen that you never said gets projected on you if you don't accept that there are multiple disagreeing versions of Scripture that have to be equally valid including the modern versions that take out entire verses and phrases whole cloth. You try to argue that, you get called KJV onlyist even if you're not. It's like a record looping on repeat.

The people you're feeling compelled to correct probably aren't actually the straw man position sometimes called "KJV onlyist" or if they seem to be it's because they haven't fully articulated their view in a way that uncharitable individuals wouldn't jump to conclusions about them simply because they want to have a changeable Bible, so they have to attack anyone that disagrees on that point. They will find the easies way to do that by simply creating a straw man position to denounce.

>>837216

People reading the Bible need to take everything in context. Of course how are people supposed to anticipate the fact uneducated people wouldn't know that dragon is used interchangeably with serpent. Do we have to dumb everything down to account for every possible way someone who doesn't know anything might misinterpret some word? If you want to know about Isaiah 13:21-22 why not do some research on it. Find out the context for yourself rather than just sitting there immediately assuming it must be something absurd and not looking any further. The reason people do that is because they really don't want to understand. They just want some excuse not to look further into it and in those cases they will easily find it no matter what you do because they have bigger problems then not understanding Isaiah 13:21-22.

>>837190

>oftentimes you have to consult translations from the Septuagint tradition

Eh, I would just go with the Vetus Latina or maybe some other received-text ancient translations for word equivalencies when I can get them. Although the guys that made the English Bibles (Tyndale, John Rogers, Great/Bishop Bible translators, Geneva Bible translators, KJV translators) did a great amount of research into this very thing, especially the last two groups. They also were so influential that the English language itself has since defined itself to agree with the 1611 translation. The only way to get more detail is to do research into historical English usage and into foreign languages to find out more, of course that also requires avoiding poorly informed and/or biased sources such as modernist or papist sources. Origen's edition of the septuagint might be interesting but we also know it was inaccurate in places. I'm glad the KJV didn't use those sources and that we got the real version of Psalm 2:12.

>>837243

>See, the problem is that you try to make valid arguments for why modern versions are all making the same mistakes, you try to explain a valid position for integrity of Scripture and you just get called a KJV onlyist and twenty different retarded strawmen that you never said gets projected on you if you don't accept that there are multiple disagreeing versions of Scripture that have to be equally valid including the modern versions that take out entire verses and phrases whole cloth. You try to argue that, you get called KJV onlyist even if you're not. It's like a record looping on repeat.

>The people you're feeling compelled to correct probably aren't actually the straw man position sometimes called "KJV onlyist" or if they seem to be it's because they haven't fully articulated their view in a way that uncharitable individuals wouldn't jump to conclusions about them simply because they want to have a changeable Bible, so they have to attack anyone that disagrees on that point. They will find the easies way to do that by simply creating a straw man position to denounce.

I'm only that way at this board. It's often flooded with KJV Onlyists on the Protestant end (or Latin speaking/Sedevacantist larpers on the Catholic end). I gave up on my first approach long ago (which was giving people more benefit of the doubt that they were genuinely interested in discussing scripture more seriously). I'm different elsewhere, because people act more civilly and rationally nearly everywhere else in the world. I don't have my guard up like I do here. It's only here where I know that my first assumption should be that I'm probably talking to a psychopath, a neo nazi, faggot, or a cultist.

That all said, I'm more than happy when I'm proven wrong and actually have a conversation with a rational person (especially Christians) on 4/8chan.

>>837362

Actually in the KJV you don't have snakes. You only have dragons, vipers, serpents (such as the serpent in the garden), adders and cockatrice. I'm sure that satanic things can happen with animals, we saw that with legion in the Gospel, and that's all we need to know. It's also interesting to note that goat, satyr and devil co-occur from one and the same underlying word. It's clear that depending on the context in the KJV it was called devils such as in Leviticus 17:7, 2 Chronicles 11:15, elsewhere, goats, and the English word "satyr" is simply an equivalent to the root word in Hebrew which we know is pronounced very similar (shin-ain-resh). It can also be used in a sentence as an adjective where it means "hairy"

Where one or more word choices was possible, the KJV translators chose words that kept the prosody of the sentence in balance. This is because the Authorized Bible was "appointed to be read in Churches," by its original design and as stated on the Title page. This meant that without sacrificing accuracy they spent a great deal of effort making the translation read well and clearly when spoken aloud. This is of course completely ignored as well as accuracy, and especially proper textual criticism, in all modern versions I have ever found.

>>837281

Not sure if you're sarcastic. But just look at this place. It's a disaster. You can't blame me for being cynical. You don't even have to dig far to find garbage threads. Every day there are more fringe topics.

>>837374

In some cases, this is OK, but it's another reason why the KJV isn't as literal as some claim. You lose some important aspects of "literal-ness" when you use multiple words for the same underlying Hebrew/Greek words.

Although these things with creatures aren't really much of a concern to me. I think the KJV shows it's flaws more in the New Testament with this. One distinctive aspect of Paul in the Greek is he goes on funny tangents with single words. He does this numerous times. You kind of lose it in the KJV. For example:

"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation." - 2 Cor 1:3-7

What I mean to point out is that "consolation" is the same underlying word for "comfort" here. The KJV starts off using comfort, but then breaks with it and starts using "consolation". You'll see that even the NIV, of all things, reflects Paul's quirks better. His strange thought process on single words comes out clearer, and isn't dressed up. It retains "comfort" in every instance.

Actually, in the case of creatures, I do have one major beef: cockatrice. That's absolutely appalling and goes beyond being a mere flub in translation. It's just plain stupidity. There is no such a thing as a cockatrice (apparently some kind of chicken headed serpent chimera from the middle ages. A bogeyman for dumb Europeans). The original word is just an adder. Even Isaiah talks about them burrowing in holes. They're not Giant Chicken Snake Dragon things.

>>837481

>The chimeras in the Bible are historical. Their depictions are contemporaneous with written accounts and murals across Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. The remnants of these people were taken on tours around the world as late as the 1900s being photographed, filmed, and interviewed. This is one of the less controversial points tbh.

Middle Eastern chimeras aren't relevant in this case. Cockatrices are specific to VERY late Middle Age European stupidity. There's nothing biblical about them and not even Mesopotamian.

Oh, and as I said, even within the biblical text itself, the idea of a cockatrice is stupid. They're depicted as simple snakes who burrow in holes. Not giant chimeras. The context itself betrays the use of something like this.

Here's another bad translation of a creature in the KJV: "tachash". Translated as "badger" - such as in Exodus, where it is said to make the tabernacle covering out of "badger skins". This is so bad it just makes me laugh. I'm not even angry about it. It's just funny.

Badgers would not be kosher for a tabernacle. Only silly goy would come up with something like this. I'm only undecided on what is more crazy: Goy tabernacles or cockatrices - or worse yet, the people who defend them.

>>837484

I think you have bigger problems if this is your main issue keeping you from reading the Bible. I'm sure if we explained this, that they would find something even more silly in no time. The issue isn't that some mineral/color name is mistranslated, it's that some people just want an excuse not to read the Bible and to be able to tell others not to read it. They'll find one reason or another, by hook or by crook, even if they have to redefine words just to create errors.

>>837507

Sorry, I just re-edited that post, so now it's below you.

>>837508

>>837509

Sure, just a couple couple things here. Of course people in poetry or other contexts have romanticized various things in their mythologies. There's nothing really wrong with that. People no matter how young or old need to be able to understand the context. In fact I just had from a sermon dealing with this, how you can get so much more based on the more surrounding context of a passage that you know. You can always learn more about one passage, whether it's by word study, comparative scripture, by prayer, meditation, hearing other people's expositions, even just learning more about the historical backdrop of a given time period. Other information, knowledge, wisdom, etc. does inform a better understanding of a given passage. It is up to each person to do this. It is also not up to me to prevent people from being led astray by their lusts into modernist or relativist ideas that completely lead them away from the truth. People will do that. God is in control of protecting them from that. He will guide each saved person into all truth (John 16:13). We can't forget that he opens understandings (Luke 24:45). But I am at least going to tell you what the deal is with these things, and you can do with that information whatever you want. So far I haven't found any legitimate examples of inaccurate translations, just variances that amount to trivial objections and oftentimes based on a misunderstanding of why the word choice was actually more accurate, or in other cases trying to contrive a difference where there really isn't any.

I see the purpose behind these things is to denigrate the translation so as to bolster the Multiple Version Only (MVO) bible position that the vast majority of congregations now hold to and have since roughtly the 1960s. Their argument is that since no translation is 100% perfect (i.e. they can always find something that isn't perfectly up to their standard, not the dictionary or any objective standard, no, just their arbitrary standard) in every single obscure passage, that means we should be using all the modern versions that remove entire verses and phrases, and, to encapsulate the essence of the argument, "it really doesn't matter anymore, just do whatever" rather than encouraging people to study more and gain deeper appreciation of the context of a passage. Someone who has never read any passages before is going to have a harder time, someone who has done word studies and read the 1611 marginal notes, and other materials like this, and read the Bible cover to cover several times will simply know the context better. That's an advantage and should be pursued. But the ultimate thing that's needed is to have access by one spirit unto the Father (Ephesians 2:18) or else as Paul explained in 1 Cor. 2:14, the truth will always remain as foolishness in the eyes of the natural unbelieving man, and they will be as he described in 2 Tim. 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." So then you can start on day one of believing with the word of God and have the one necessary tool of success, as Paul explained 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for certain things, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The underlined word represents the purpose of why the scripture was given, so that the man of God that is the saved man may be perfect, that is, complete with regards to doctrine and all other graces and blessings that scripture conveys as well.

>>837511

>I see the purpose behind these things is to denigrate the translation so as to bolster the Multiple Version Only (MVO) bible position that the vast majority of congregations now hold to and have since roughtly the 1960s.

I think that's reading too much into it. A lot of it is motivated by profit and publishers (obviously, not good). Not any ideological scheme. Some of it is sincere mission work though. And this is what gets me antsy especially with KJV Onlyists. I know I come off like a jerk - and I probably am - but I just can't find any charity anymore with them, once I saw them attack bible societies.

I also think the world of English speakers is simply in a state of flux, post WW2. America took over the mantle of the British empire, and therefore English.. and it's still getting it's bearings on that. It was more straightforward when Britain was the defacto purveyor of all things English. Maybe it'll settle eventually.

>>837547

I don't know everything anon, just what God thinks I need to know. I am a dum dumb. Not smart at all. I would like it if you take back that compliment! You know who it belongs to.