/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The divinely inspired Bible is the Latin Vulgate. The blessed English translation of the Latin Vulgate is the Douay Rheims version.

What other people read isn't really important. I read the Knox. I have a 50 year New American Version that I've had since I was a teenager, but I'm not sure I trust it.

I'm not a "Bible shopper" who looks for a Bible that I can believe says what I want to say

>>848335

Jerome himself did not think the vulgate was inspired, because it's not an autograph or even a manuscript. It 's a translation.

On what basis do you believe that, and where did you learn it from?

>>848338

The Church declared it so. Pope Pius X in Praestantia Scripturae. Everyone of the faith has to accept the Authority of the Decision of the Biblical Commission.

Was Vatican II a real council and are Popes who refused the oath against modernism actually Popes? Probably not so it is not wise to bet your soul on an unsure Bible.

>>848340

Can I get a quotation?

>>848341

Not sure I want to aid anyone making a list of heretical Bibles not approved by the Holy Mother church. Real Bibles have a imprimatur in them. Bibles before 1962 are not suspect.

>>848330

I mostly read the KJV+NIV

Yes, the NIV. I like more literal approaches like the ESV and NASB as well, but I favor the NIV because I think God is using it the most. If this is the most popular translation that is getting through to the most people, I'll use it. I'm just seeing Providence at work here. God must be behind it's success.

It takes the middle ground approach well at least (I also think the Catholic NAB does this well, but I'm not Catholic). It also has the most broad translation committee containing a lot of scholars over the years whom I've respected, which also helps. I like that it included Wesleyans and Anglicans among them too, since I'm one of them. I know there's a lot of I.F. Baptists who think this immense success is the Devil's work instead, and it's all a scheme of the New World Order, but I can't be bothered to care what cults think. I'm happy with the Southern Baptists who favor it (like DA Carson or Mark Strauss), but couldn't care less about IFB (like the fraud Baptists on this board). I care about actual scholars from non-cult like denominations.

I also use the KJV because of it's legacy. I think all English speakers should be familiar with it. Yet even the KJV isn't as literal as some claim. Idioms and sentence structure in the original aren't always "literal" even in the most formal translations. If things were actually literal, subjects and predicates might be mixed up, and there'd be strange word order. You can see what "literal" actually looks like in an Interlinear translation. It's not always readable. This even happens if you literally translated some modern languages. Not everything follows the same grammar. That's just a given. And the KJV sometimes replaces the original idioms too. Phrases like "give up the ghost" are not in the Hebrew. It just says "died" in the Hebrew. But KJV translators dressed it up in their own phrasing. Same with "God save the king". That's never in Hebrew. The actual Hebrew is simply "May the king live." In Matthew 27:44, the KJV also has the thief next to Jesus "cast the same in his teeth". That's another Elizabethan idiom that isn't in the original. It just says he reviled Jesus, like the rest of the crowd. These are just some examples of the KJV replacing idiom with their own. And by their own admittance, the KJV translators say in their Preface that they don't want to translate the same underlying words with the same corresponding words in English. They preferred variety. In this sense, even the NASB and ESV are more literal. I think some interesting things get lost when the KJV does this too. Take the opening of 2 Corinthians, 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."

Every word there for "consolation" is still "comfort" which was mentioned at the opening of the passage. It's one of the quirks of Paul's style.. he has a way of getting lost on a single word and playing off of it multiple times. He does it throughout his epistles. In this instance, the NIV is strangely more literal, which uses "comfort" all throughout and gives a clear picture of Paul's style:

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort."

>>848343

So no, you can't because that document doesn't say what you claimed

>>848344

Why would you choose NIV over ESV or NET, or even NRSV if broad or ecumenical use is your motivation?

>>848353

Ecumenical is not what I said exactly. Broad, yes. But broad in the Christian sense. I'm not interested in being ecumenical with non-Christians. NRSV has a share of agnostics and degenerates on their board. Even the Editor (Bruce Metzger, who was respectable) had to ward off their worse impulses. They wanted "Father-Mother" for God. Thankfully, he put a stop to that, but it shows how far they wanted to go originally. And Bart Ehrman was his personal assistant, and worked on the NRSV too. He's a damned atheist. Besides, all of this, the external study materials associated with the NRSV are just bad. They're all of the agnostic, higher critical school. I can't even read a commentary associated with Oxford or other publishers that cater to NRSV readers without laughing. These people don't believe in anything.

ESV is not as broad as it could be. Lots of Reformed representation and not much else. William Mounce is great and edited the NT - but he's also the NIV editor now. I don't think one could go wrong with either. But I think Crossway has poorer "external" materials (the ESV study bible is bad in places, which teaches Wayne Grudem's "eternal subordination of the Son").

I like the NET.. but funnily, it's own editor (Daniel Wallace) is now on the NIV board. All the better. It's kind of like Mounce hopping from the ESV to NIV. Same with it having some older translators of the NASB (Bruce Waltke). Among others.

>>848356

I appreciate how careful you are with your choices

I'm a fan of Wallace but for that reason i would go to net before NIV, still the NIV is much more popular like you pointed out

I downloaded a document recently criticizing the NIV choices in the gender issue, maybe I talked to you about it in a different thread. My childhood megachurch used 1984 niv

>>848357

http://www.waynegrudem.com/an-evaluation-of-gender-language-in-the-2011-edition-of-the-niv-bible

Here's where that document is found, from the council on biblical manhood and womanhood

>>848357

I don't think I've talked about gender issues and the NIV on this board yet. I will say that it's not explicitly "gender neutral". It uses a mix. Sometimes, it uses mankind, sometimes it use humankind. Their philosophy in the Preface is that they're just following Collins Bank of English, which tracks English usage. This is why it will use both "mankind" and "humankind" at different spots. Simply because people are currently using both of these. Same goes with singular use of "they". It seems to be more common in English than it use to be, so the NIV just follows that. It's not as outright gender neutral as the NRSV or even the previous TNIV.

Interestingly, you might like this interview Daniel Wallace just made recently on his favorite translations (NET and NIV are among them, of course).

>>848359

Yep I've watched that exact video already

>>848352

Make stuff up if you want. I can't stop you from lying to yourself.

>>848365

ok

Is this the document you said declared that the vulgate is inspired? https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10prasc.htm

>>848330

>What do you read

For the Bible? The (Authorized) KJV 1900 and sometimes an interlinear of the same when the situation calls for it.

>and why?

Because it's not corrupt. If you read the versions based on the critical texts used today, you will find that thousands of sentences are entirely removed or altered. These are actually meant to get people off from reading the original Holy Bible and onto a version that is weak on sin. They also have contradictions in them, but whether this is actually intentional or just an inavoidable result of tampering with the Bible, I am not sure.

See 2 Corinthians 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God”.

>Is the apocrypha scripture?

If it is apocrypha that means it is not inspired. It goes with the other things like the maps and calendars in the front or back.

>Formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, or somewhere in between?

Accuracy is more important.

>>What are the most reliable manuscript sources?

Well, you have the so-called "received text" that has been unaltered throughout the centuries, down from the original manuscripts. We can rely on God much more than men, in my opinion.

>What is the ideal reading level for my use?

I would not want to use a less accurate translation just because it does not contain anything that challenges me to learn. The reading level thing is just being used as an excuse to sell people on modern versions (which they already want, for other reasons they are apparently not willing to admit) though.

>>848340

The church moved away from Vulgate primacy since Pius XII's Divino afflante Spiritu. The Church considers the Vulgate to be inerrant with respect to faith and morals but not in a philological sense.

Tradlarp and crypto-Turkic translation worshippers just want to obscure authentic Christian heritage.

At the present it would probably be more fruitful to discuss ways on how to improve existing translations than debate which of them is the best one since they all have aspects that could be improved in one way or another.

>>848486

The "critical" texts have logically had to have been around throughout all of the New Testament's existence. That individuals in certain parts of the world weren't aware about them at one time doesn't imply that the communities who have faithfully used texts with the those readings for ages also weren't aware.

The existence of so many witnesses with relatively minimal variation compared to other literary works, is a compelling avowal for the consistency of the Bible's transmission through time.

So if the Bible does/will support faggotry and communism what will have caused that change? How will they sneak it in? You can say it's infallible but the same was once said about the Pope, using the Bible to back that assertion as a matter of fact. The spiritual walls of Catholicism are crumbling down but I don't want to run to Protestantism only to experience it right before its fall.

>>848514

The probability of gay sex being condoned by scripture is virtually inexistent considering the multiple proscriptions against it found in scripture which would all have to be unanimously overturned.

Your concern over Protestantism and Catholicism are overall a concern over western Christianity but regardless there are still churches like confessional Lutheran ones. Classical apostolic churches also aren't sermon centric either so their main purpose is for the partaking of sacraments.

I've been raised Catholic all my life and I think it's time I get through the Bible in its entirety. What's the best translation for me? I've been thinking of reading the New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition.

I read the Douay–Rheims Bible

You can download a free ebook or pdf version here

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1581

The pilgrims included the apocrypha and the original king James bible also included it and contained citations to the apocrypha from the New testament, inlcuded Jesus

>>848530

The pilgrims took the Geneva bible, not the kjv

>>848512

The population of people who knew about it was zero, until Constantin von Tishendorf discovered it in 1859 and published it some years later. Don't misrepresent history.

What's relevant however is that God's people will be able to recognize a corruption like the gnostic gospels or the koran version of what the Bible says. This is even if millions believe in it. Those versions are corrupt and contain numerous contradictions both within themselves as well as against the received Scripture that we have always used. For instance, the critical "Eclectic" texts in Mark 1:2 claim that a passage from Malachi 3:1 was "written in the prophet Isaiah" when it is not to be found among any chapter or verse of that book: it is only in Malachi. This is an example of objective error being introduced in the critical text.

Another example is where the passage Mark 10:24 in the critical version removes the words "for them that trust in riches," thus changing the teaching of Jesus completely. Similarly to Matthew 5:22 where the words "without a cause" are removed.

>Mark 10:24 Authorized: But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

>Matthew 5:22 Authorized: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

The modern versions completely removed the underlined text from their version, thus, fundamentally altering the doctrine and furthermore creating contradictions. The change to Matthew 5:22 contradicts where righteous anger exists, it simply says all anger is inherently sinful no matter what, a very modernist teaching. It makes Jesus contradict his own teaching elsewhere - as well as contradicting the received New Testament Scripture as just given above without the underlined words removed, by its unwarranted and modern, highly corrupted and outright damnable, provably wrong changes.

>The existence of so many witnesses with relatively minimal variation compared to other literary works, is a compelling avowal for the consistency of the Bible's transmission through time.

What does this have to do with the point? If you introduce one error in that is one error too many, if this is what you are getting at or trying to imply with this statement. See the three examples above. Your statement is puzzlingly vague and does not seem to relate to your post.

>>848539

watch the video, he has the original Geneva bible and it has the apocrypha

>>848519

I don't like how you ignored communism.

>>848542

Neat

I didn't see the video from my app

Yes people should read the apocrypha also. Which translation of the apocrypha is best is a good second question.

I do not find the argument in this video compelling if he intends to say the apocrypha is valid because of this connection between Matthew and esdras. Jude cites Enoch, which is outside dispute for most Christians as canon. He goes on to vaguely suggest that the Jews removed esdras somehow because they didn't like the christology of it, pretty silly imo.

This is a topic for a whole other thread though

>>848554

NAB apocrypha isn't bad.

>>848529

Anyone? Is this a good translation?

>>848563

If you're limiting your search to explicitly catholic options consider the ESV catholic edition

I found this catholic guy who did a quick review of it https://catholicbiblestudent.com/2018/03/review-esv-catholic-edition-bible-esvce.html

As far as I'm aware this is the most formal equivalence option.

>>848565

I can't seem to find it digitally. I have a hard time reading on paper but I'll put up with it if no one knows where I can get a digital copy for my Kindle. Thanks anyway!

>>848565

The ESV is based on the modern "critical" version, as delineated above, which removes the parts of the verses mentioned here: >>848541

In addition to this, it changes John 1:18 from "only begotten Son" to "only God." See the comparison.

>Translation of Original: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

>ESV: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

There are thousands of changes like this found in the ESV which are only found in modern versions. I am not sure why you would recommend something that has corrupted the original and not just use an accurate translation of the original sources.

>>848575

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so disingenuous and merely assert that the majority text is right and the critical text is wrong, especially since I am not talking to you and you have already said your piece.

Here is a very thorough examination of the available manuscripts by Daniel Wallace

https://bible.org/article/Jesus-θεός-god-textual-examination

search "John 1:18"

>>848330

The ESV is English Standard Version is the best translation because the King James Version is hard to understand and most of the other translations REMOVE parts of the Bible and reword things to change them from their original meaning, once it is found that something is outdated or wrong according to today's society. The ESV keeps 100% of the original meaning intact.

I like the NAB.

>>848640

You know, it's quite ironic you worship a book as your god and accuse me of idolatry. I worship the God of reality, the actual truth, not the mere assertion fallacy which you and imageboard swine in general mislabel as truth for purposes of manipulation. My God is something much greater than a book. He isn't dependent on forcing people to hold to a certain version of a poorly translated book and leaving them to the whims of the mental gymnastics of pastors. No, my God is a very real Being with quite a lot of power, the most powerful Being there is in fact. He leads His elect to salvation by means of teaching them through reality and sometimes even direct revelation. My God is consistent, just, and doesn't contradict HImself because He is afterall the best Being that possibly can exist. So worship your book and follow it to damnation like the kikes and mudslimes. I'll worship God instead.

>>848629

>That article quotes people as authoritative which do not believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the gospel.

Like who?

>>848643

Ehrman.

It's good that you seem to have reached an agreement here with me. Praise the Lord.

>>848642

>You know, it's quite ironic you worship a book as your god and accuse me of idolatry.

Where?

>My God is something much greater than a book. He isn't dependent on forcing people to hold to a certain version of a poorly translated book and leaving them to the whims of the mental gymnastics of pastors.

You know you are lying about another person right now. One of us thinks God is unable to keep his word straight, and that person believes in a less powerful God. That person is not me, it is you. He thinks that God is unable to do what he said when he told the disciples "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." He thinks that was not a serious statement or that God was actually not able to perform it.

He does not like the statements that God made and prefers a false deity of his own liking instead who he can place words in his mouth. That is the true state of things here.

>No, my God is a very real Being with quite a lot of power, the most powerful Being there is in fact.

You believe in something that cannot preserve its own word. God said that if you reject him and his word, the same shall judge you in the last day. He said that of whoever is ashamed of his words, he shall be ashamed of them when he shall come in his own glory, and of the Father's, and of the holy angels. So think about that before rejecting the true God.

>God is consistent, just, and doesn't contradict HImself

Yes, unlike the statements you make up and claim that they are true over and above the Sacred Scriptures, claiming that they contradict. No my friend, the problem isn't with God and his word, the problem is with your visible rejection of Him. You are not better or wiser than Him. As it says, the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, but to us which are saved it is the power of God. To someone who is saved they recognize the power of God, but to the lost it is foolishness.

So Paul the apostle of the Lord agrees with me. The original inspired words that God intentionally gave to us are important and not to be shrugged off. In fact, Abraham himself said (Luke 16) that "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." I believe that statement is true. People show their true colors when they either accept or else reject the word of God as it is being given out of the Bible, it represents truth and reality. Those who do not like it will hide from it and retreat into their internal fantasies.

>>848649

He is quoting ehrman precisely to show that even the furthest liberal, most critical scholar would concede his point, not quoting him as authoritative

>It's good that you seem to have reached an agreement here with me.

Wow you are obnoxious

There are only two kinds of Bible translations you must trust: traditional Catholic OR traditional Orthodox translation. Examples are the Douay-Rheims and the Russian Synodal translation. The latter contains all Scripture except the book of Enoch. Getting these Bible versions new (even used) is quite hard depending on the vernacular language of your country, especially Catholic Bible in vernacular language. I'd avoid Prot and Evangelical (and obviously meme translation) Bibles entirely. I'd make light exception for Rotherham's emphasized Bible for its grammatical rendering and linguistic footnotes.

>>850845

Why do you feel that a translation of a translation is more reliable than a formal equivalence Evangelical translation like the ESV, which the rcc itself has adopted in India?

>>850849

Signalling. Has nothing to do with knowing the translations.