/christian/ - christian

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology


New Reply[×]
Name
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
Captcha*Select the solid/filled icons
[New Reply]


John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


akko_shocked.gif
[Hide] (1.2MB, 500x281)
The Majority Standard Bible - MSB (www.MajorityBible.com) © 2023 by Bible Hub and Berean.Bible.
https://biblehub.com/msb/matthew/1.htm

The MSB is the 'Byzantine Majority Text version of the BSB,' including the BSB OT plus the NT translated according to the 'Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority Text' (byzantinetext.com).

The MSB includes footnotes for translatable variants from the modern Critical Texts (CT) such as the Nestle Aland GNT, SBL GNT, and Editio Critica Maior.

Major variants between the Majority Text (MT) and Textus Receptus (TR) are also noted. For a few passages not included in the MT, the TR translation is denoted with [[brackets]] and also footnoted.

This text is a first version draft and is open to public comment and translation recommendations. please send all corrections and recommendations to the Berean Bible Translation Committee through the contact page at Berean.Bible.
>>23175 (OP) 

Thanks for posting this, this is awesome news!  There needs to be more Majority Text translations out there.  Up until now, at least in terms of Bibles with both the Old and New Testments, the WEB translation was the only game in town (not counting Majority translations of the New Testament alone.)
Replies: >>23182
>>23175 (OP) 
Thanks Anon. Nice way to start the new week!
>>23175 (OP) 
>>23178
After posting OP I also found out about another Majority Text (New Testament) translation that came out in the past two years:
https://archive.org/details/tcent
Replies: >>23189 >>23210
>>23182
Neat, thanks Anon.
Guy goes out and buys a new dead sea scroll from the some israelis, makes a new translation. 

One day you'll find a "translation" from a "scroll" that fits your belief. Biblegateway has over 60 English Bibles to choose from.
Replies: >>23245 >>23255
>>23182

Aye, there are a few translations of the Majority Text New Testament by itself out there, like the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (EOB):

https://www.amazon.com/EOB-Orthodox-Testament-Patriarchal-extensive/dp/148191765X

But complete Bible translations that have both the Old and New Testaments together, with the NT based on the Majority Text, are few and far between.  Until this MSB was announced, the WEB was the only Bible translation like this.  So it's really exciting that for those who prefer the Majority Text, they not only have a highly literal translation in the vein of the NKJV and NASB to use (i.e. the WEB,) but they now also have an NIV/CSB equivalent based on the Majority Text now (i.e. the MSB.)
>>23196
its insane, new bible translation into English is last thing we need
Replies: >>23255 >>23478
>>23196
It is a potential issue in the future but I see few signs of it today for the most part. I think if you swallow your own pill and check the verses, you'll see they are quite coherent statistically across translations. Nuance and shade of meaning come out more clearly across different ones. This is a good thing at this stage, IMO.

But again, granted. The Bible itself claims that false teachers will arise. 
>"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires." [1]
That's easily seen already. And conceivably this phenomenon could even extend to future, so-called, 'translations'. We've already seen some inkling of this in attempts at elevating extra-Biblical texts alongside the scriptural canon. 
>tl;dr
Pray for wisdom from the third Man of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit for wisdom and discernment. We're going to need it! :^)

>>23245
Heh, why's that friend. We certainly don't understand all the Truth to be found in scripture yet. This is (and always has been) an ongoing process. There's always more to know from the one-and-only living book, the Christian Bible.

1. https://www.biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm (BSB)
King James ONLY
Replies: >>23262
>Heh, why's that friend.
any translation will be grasping at the wind. There are already many adequate translations but if you really want to understand the bible you're better off learning the original languages than having a gazillion translations to cross reference which probably exist, especially the modern ones, to make money or justify a sects doctrine than as any act of devotion to God's scripture.
Replies: >>23261
>>23260
>any translation will be grasping at the wind.
Hardly. Are you one of those "Latin-only!" types who would have coordinated and approved of William Tyndale's martyrdom at the stake?

>you're better off learning the original languages 
Perhaps. But the fact is that I don't speak or read either Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic, nor Biblical Greek. Few do. And in fact during my process of beginning to learn those languages has caused me to relish having literally dozens of translations in my mother tongue English.
Replies: >>23263
>>23258
Just like Paul the Apostle used?
>>23261
>Hardly. Are you one of those "Latin-only!" types who would have coordinated and approved of William Tyndale's martyrdom at the stake?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale#Betrayal_and_death
Reminder that William Tyndale was killed for political reasons by King Henry VIII, the founder and leader of the Anglican Church. 

Perhaps you meant "English-only!"??
Replies: >>23264
>>23263
>Reminder that William Tyndale was killed for political reasons by King Henry VIII, the founder and leader of the Anglican Church. 
Your own link suggests otherwise. And no, "Latin-only!" was my intent.
Replies: >>23267
>>23264
"Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."
Seems to be a reference to the King of England...
Replies: >>23270
>>23267
His eyes were opened showing that God answered Tyndale's prayer.
Replies: >>23284
>>23270
He knew King Hank set him up to be killed.
Biblia_Sacra_Vulgata_Gigachad.jpg
[Hide] (80.5KB, 828x821)
With these six million Bible translations why don't you invest your time and money and just learn Latin, Koine Greek, Aramaic or Old Church Slavonic? You will never rely on a translation again.
>>23354
There are multiple Latin, Greek, and Hebrew manuscripts with different text. It doesn't solve the problem.
>>23354
Catholics believe by Papal encyclical that the Latin Vulgate is the Bible. That has been affirmed by various Church counsels, the earliest being the Council of Toledo 400 & 447 AD. "The Bible" by definition, includes the new and old testaments and the original cannon of books. Anyone who says otherwise is an anathema. 
The Douay-Rheims is a English translation that bears the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1899
If you want to read the Bible, all you need to learn is Latin.
Replies: >>23360
>>23357
>Council of Toledo 
Not ecumenical, not binding.
Replies: >>23366
>>23360
Every Bishop was invited. I think you're wrong. It went out to the whole church. 
But I only gave the Earliest. Here's two more.  

Council of Trent, Session IV, 
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Cannons of the Catholic faith Pope Pius IX
"if anyone shall not accept the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their divisions, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them as canonical and sacred, or denies that they have been inspired by God, let him be an anathema. ''
 
The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics and the and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America. 
Knox, NAB, and others made after Vatican II and not based on the Vulgate not so much.
Replies: >>23374 >>23396
>>23366
>The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics
Which Latin Vulgate? The Nova Vulgata of 1979? The Benedictine Vulgate commissioned by Pius X? The Clementine Vulgate of 1592? The Sixtine Vulgate of 1590? The 1547 Leuven Vulgate, published immediately as a response to Trent? The Codex Amiatinus of the 8th century, the best preserved early medieval Vulgate manuscript? The Stuttgart Vulgate reconstruction of Jerome's earliest text? Jerome himself made three editions of the Psalter: the Romana based on the Old Latin Psalter, the Gallicana based on the Greek Psalter, and the juxta Hebraicum based on the Hebrew Psalter, each with different content. Which one of these is authoritative? There is no one Vulgate: it is a text that has been adulterated. Which is the pure Vulgate?

>and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America
And there are two authorized Douay-Rheims versions. The original version of 1582-1610, which was accosted for sticking too close to the Vulgate, and the revision by Challoner of 1750. However, Challoner's version wasn't a revision at all, but an adaptation of the KING JAMES VERSION to conform to Vulgate renderings. Yet nobody uses the original Douay-Rheims over an embellished Protestant text, not even the foremost of conservatives:
https://originaldouayrheims.com/

>Knox, NAB, and others made after Vatican II and not based on the Vulgate not so much.
The Knox Bible was published in 1945, years before Vatican II.
>>23374
>Which Latin Vulgate? 
Please see the post to which you've responded under Council of Trent, Session IV.

They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time. 

The rest of your post is kinda, irrelevant. The Latin Vulgate is the Christian bible. 

BTW, even if, all you would have done is a fallacy fallacy. Hope this helps.  There is only one Catholic Bible per the council of Trent and Pope Pius iX
Replies: >>23392
>>23375 
>They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time. 
They didn't have one standard edition, that's why the Leuven Vulgate and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate were produced. 

>In 1546, the Council of Trent had decreed that the Vulgate was authoritative and authentic, and ordered that the Vugate be printed as correctly as possible. 'No standard edition of the Vulgate officially approved by the Catholic Church existed at the time.' Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate began: Pius V appointed a commission to produce an official edition of the Vulgate. However, his successor, Gregory XIII, did not continue the work. 

>The Leuven Vulgate or Hentenian Bible (Latin: Biblia Vulgata lovaniensis) is an edition of the Vulgate which was edited by Hentenius (1499–1566) and published in Louvain in 1547. This edition was republished several times, and in 1574 a revised edition was published. 

>On 8 April 1546, at the Council of Trent, a decision was made to prepare an authorized version of the Vulgate.[3] No direct action was taken for the next forty years, and many scholars continued to publish their own editions. 'Among these editions, the edition prepared by Hentenius served almost as the standard text of the Catholic Church.'[4] 

>The first edition of Hentenius was entitled Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigata and was published by the printer Bartholomaeus Gravius [nl] in November 1547.[5] Hentenius used 30 Vulgate manuscripts to make his edition.[6] Hentenius' edition is similar to the 1532 and 1540 editions of the Vulgate produced by Robert Estienne.[7] 

>After the death of Hentenius in 1566, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis continued his critical work and prepared his own edition; the edition was published in 1574[8] in Antwerp by Plantin, under the title: Biblia Sacra: Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, paulo post indicatur.[9][10][11]  

>In 1586, Sixtus V appointed a commission to produce an official edition of the Vulgate. However, he was dissatisfied with the work of the commission. Considering himself a very competent editor, he edited the Vulgate with the help of a few people he trusted. 'In 1590, this edition was published and was preceded by a bull of Sixtus V saying this edition was the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it.

>Three months later, in August, Sixtus V died. Nine days after the death of Sixtus V, the College of Cardinals suspended the sale of the Sixtine Vulgate and later ordered the destruction of the copies. In 1592, Clement VIII, arguing printing errors in the Sixtine Vulgate, recalled all copies of the Sixtine Vulgate still in circulation; some suspect his decision was in fact due to the influence of the Jesuits. In November of the same year, a revised version of the Sixtine, known as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate or Clementine Vulgate, was issued by Clement VIII to replace the Sixtine Vulgate. 

>In January 1592, Clement VIII became pope. Clement VIII resumed work on the revision to produce a final edition;[18] he appointed Francisco de Toledo, Agostino Valier and Federico Borromeo as editors, with Robert Bellarmine, Antonius Agellius, Petrus Morinus and two others to assist them.[19] "Under Clement VIII's leadership, the commission's work was continued and drastically revised, with the Jesuist scholar Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1624) bringing to the task his lifelong research on the Vulgate text."[20] 

>The Clementine Vulgate was printed on 9 November 1592,[29] in folio format,[30] with an anonymous preface written by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.[d][29][19] 'It was issued containing the Papal bull Cum Sacrorum of 9 November 1592,[32] which asserted that every subsequent edition must be assimilated to this one,' that no word of the text may be changed and that variant readings may not be printed in the margin.[33] 

>This new official version of the Vulgate, known as the Clementine Vulgate,[29][35] or Sixto-Clementine Vulgate,[35][14] became the official Bible of the Catholic Church.[29][36] 

>The text of the Clementine Vulgate was close to the Hentenian edition of the Bible, which is the Leuven Vulgate;[21][23] this is a difference from the Sixtine edition,[21] which had "a text more nearly resembling that of Robertus Stephanus than that of John Hentenius".[2][21] The Clementine Vulgate used the verse enumeration system of Stephanus and the Leuven Vulgate.[43] 

>The Clementine edition of the Vulgate differs from the Sixtine edition in about 3,000 places according to Carlo Vercellone,[33] James Hastings,[21] Eberhard Nestle,[47] F. G. Kenyon,[49] the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[50] and Bruce M. Metzger;[29] 4,900 according to Michael Hetzenauer,[17] and Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman in their co-written book;[51] and "roughly five thousand" according to Kurt and Barbara Aland.[52] 

>The Benedictine Vulgate, Vatican Vulgate[1] or Roman Vulgate[2] (full title: Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem, tr. Holy Bible following the Latin vulgate version faithfully to the manuscripts) is a critical edition of the Vulgate version of the Old Testament, Catholic deuterocanonical books included. The edition was supported by and begun at the instigation of the Catholic Church, and was done by the Benedictine monks of the pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City.  

>In 1907, Pope Pius X commissioned the Benedictine Order to produce as pure a version as possible of Jerome's original text after conducting an extensive search for as-yet-unstudied manuscripts, particularly in Spain.[3] 'This text was originally planned as the basis of a revised complete official Bible for the Catholic church to replace the Clementine edition.'[4] 

>In 1933, Pope Pius XI established the Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City to complete the work.[8] 

>By the 1970s, as a result of liturgical changes that had spurred the Vatican to produce a new translation of the Latin Bible, the Nova Vulgata, the Benedictine edition was no longer required for official purposes,[9] and the abbey was suppressed in 1984.[10] Five monks were nonetheless allowed to complete the final two volumes of the Old Testament, which were published under the abbey's name in 1987 and 1995.[11] 

>The Stuttgart Vulgate or Weber-Gryson Vulgate (full title: Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) is a manual critical edition of the Vulgate first published in 1969.

>The Stuttgart Vulgate is based on the Oxford Vulgate and the Benedictine Vulgate.[3] The Württembergische Bibelanstalt, later the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), based in Stuttgart, first published the critical edition of the complete Vulgate in 1969. The work has since continued to be updated, with a fifth edition appearing in 2007.[1] The project was originally directed by Robert Weber, OSB (a monk of the same Benedictine abbey responsible for the Rome edition), with collaborators Bonifatius Fischer, Jean Gribomont, Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks (also responsible for the completion of the Oxford edition), and Walter Thiele.

>The Nova Vulgata (complete title: Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, transl. The New Vulgate Edition of the Holy Bible; abr. NV), also called the Neo-Vulgate, 'is the official Classical Latin translation of the original-language texts of the Bible published by the Holy See.' It was completed in 1979, and was promulgated the same year by John Paul II in Scripturarum thesaurus. A second, revised edition was published in 1986. It is the official Latin text of the Bible of the Catholic Church.  

>The Nova Vulgata is not a critical edition of the historical Vulgate. Rather, it is a text intended to accord with modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek Bible texts, and to produce a style closer to Classical Latin.[4] 

So would it be fine to use the Vatican II Vulgate?
Replies: >>23398
>>23354
Learning a language is a substantial investment, excessively so just to access a particular kind of media. The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language.

>>23374
Correction, D-R and KJV both influenced each other; the original D-R influenced KJV, which then influenced the Challoner revision. You could debate the particulars (eg D-R NT obviously had far more influence than the OT, given the time-frames), but it was an exchange going both ways.

>>23366
>The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America. 
would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision.
Replies: >>23399 >>23481
>>23374
>And there are two authorized Douay-Rheims versions. The original version of 1582-1610, ...
Since The United States of America didn't exist in 1582-1610, then to answer the question of which Douay-Rheims is the approved English Translation in America must be the American edition of 1899.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, your knowledge is impressive, but the point is there is one Latin Vulgate approved at the Council of Trent.
>>23392
>>They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time. 
>They didn't have one standard edition, that's why the Leuven Vulgate and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate were produced. 
The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. 

>So would it be fine to use the Vatican II Vulgate?
If you're not Catholic, no one cares. If you are Catholic, you use the one from the Council of Trent. Seems easy.
Replies: >>23409
>>23396
>would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision.
I have no idea about the Confraternity Bible. 
Father made me toss out this one Bible I had because I bought it before I learned the faith and it was a protestant Bible. It was really kewl, leather cover but the best part was that it had maps and stuff in the back so I could see what they were talking about. 
If your priest says it has to go, say that it's not the Bible to you, but a family heirloom. I'm guessing he'd be merciful and let you keep it, especially if you say it would seem a sinful dishonor to your grandparents to part with it.

To be accepted even by the Novus Ordo/FSSP, it has to have a 'Bishop's imprimatur', which is found in the front. 
Anon 252fd8 said mentioned that my Knox Version should be acceptable to me because the Knox version came out before Vatican II, in 1945. While 252fd8's knowlege of Catholic and Quasi-catholic bibles is impressive, this Knox version bears the Nihil Obstate of Father Cowan and Imprimatur of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who was born in 1945 and couldn't have anything to do with a pre-war Knox version.  

I don't really care about the history of various Latin Vulgate versions. I just get the right one and I'm done. Once I've made sure I got the divinely inspired Bible, what remains is to read and study it.
Replies: >>23400
>>23399
this makes sense, thanks. it's a fine book, hardcover with gold-edged pages, illustrations, and has family records, so it's definitely an heirloom. I just checked, and it has a nihil obstat from a censor librorum, and an imprimatur from an abbot-ordinary. I wonder how well that measures up?
Also, Confraternity text is Genesis-Ruth, Psalms, and NT, while the rest of the OT is Douay-Challoner.
My understanding is that the Confraternity Bible is the last traditional Catholic version before Vatican II, so that's why I asked. My version is from 1960.
>>23398
>The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. 
They declared that the Vulgate was the authentic and authoritative text, which is not the critical point of controversy. Rather, the question is over the fulfillment of their intention to disseminate an edition that was free from errors:
>Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

>And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

Several editions were subsequently approved. Since the latest edition by the Vatican II church is a counterfeit that doesn't deserve the name, and the previous traditionalist revision was never fully completed, is Clement's the de facto optimal edition? Was the idea of attempting to revise it at all defective?
>>23245
True, there are still 350 million people with their language untranslated
Replies: >>27762
Polish_boy_got_courage.jpeg
[Hide] (79.8KB, 639x425)
>>23396
>The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language.
My friend, you cannot compare weeabooism with dedicating your time by understanding the mysteries of God better. You think that Latin and other ancient languages are dead while you could not be further from the truth. These languages are alive eternally because they are tied to a past we do not know, to a time and to a class of people that understood and were closer to God. As God never changes, so never do liturgical languages, while vernacular languages die and born again every once in a while.
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (234.8KB, 345x515)
>>23354
I mean, it's not a bad idea to learn the actual source but to what end? It's not like God Himself is limited to just speaking Hebrew and/or Latin. I find Blue Letter Bible to be sufficient where I can dig into the individual words themselves and the actual raw text to get better contextual understanding, but sometimes it's not really the text itself but rather being led by the Spirit.
Replies: >>27772
>>23478
I find this statistic to be disingenious. Those "350 million" might not have a bible available to them in their main language, but they almost certainly know a language that the bible is translated into, or else their main language has no written script equivalent.

Furthermore, it's only with relatively recent developments in education that literacy is widespread. For most of Christian history, and for better or worse, the bible was taught to the illiterate masses by a literate clerical class. Reading the bible is not a requirement to understand it. Though for those of us who can read and with a translation available, we have no excuse not to read it for ourselves. Just the thought of salvation being denied people because they don't have a print bible in their language is absurd.
Replies: >>27772
>>27754
The primary value of learning the biblical languages is to access the original version of the text. This is valuable because you will be doing your exegesis immediately on what God said, and has immense apologetic value in those cases when unbelievers and heretics attempt to play word games with the original text.
>>27762
>it's only with relatively recent developments in education that literacy is widespread. 
That is a common myth, literacy rates were high in the ancient world and in the Renaissance. But it is also a category error, because it conflates literacy with intelligibility. A congregation only needs one literate man to hear the scriptures, but it won't matter if the entire congregation is literate if they don't have the scriptures in a language they can understand.
>For most of Christian history, and for better or worse, the bible was taught to the illiterate masses by a literate clerical class.
Taking into account the category error, no, this was only true for a relatively short aberrant period in church history, and the outcome was disastrous; giving way to the tyranny of the papacy and the Babylonian captivity of the Church. The word of God is and ought to be the foundation of all religion. It may be technically possible for people to be saved without access to the bible, but the word of God is to fix all their doctrine and practice and be the center of their worship (for which reason I add not only should a bible be available in their language but a metrical translation of the Psalter) which cannot be without access to the bible.
Replies: >>27773
>>27772
Thanks for your response, it's clear to me that you are sincere and adamant about learning the original source texts, to avoid being led astray. It really isn't easy, but I guess that is what Jesus described it as the narrow and straight road. Do you consider yourself fluent in the original source materials? What resources would you recommend to a newcomer to start learning the original source texts, if any?
Thoughts on the NetBible?
https://netbible.org/bible/Matthew+1
Replies: >>27789
>>23354
Because I would rather be led by the Holy Spirit in my understanding through the miracle of hearing the Word in my own language, like in Acts 2. I shall test whatever translation I read according to the fruit it bears, and not its roots. Neither can you convince me of things such as "Acts 2 is meant to be like a sampling. Those men would have still been called to learn the original Hebrew and Greek."
Replies: >>27787
>>27786
This.
>>27781
I've heard good things about it, I think it was technically the first "open-source" Bible and drafted back in the year 2000 (time flies!). Also knows for its extensive footnotes. I should make it a point to read NET sometimes, I primarily read ESV.
Replies: >>27856
>>27789
Interesting! I generally read NKJV but I wanted to venture out in reading other versions. I think I might actually pick up a physical copy.
>>23175 (OP) 
Sorry, not interested.

http://bibleprobe.com/falsebibles.htm
Replies: >>27878
>>27874
Sorry, not interested.
Replies: >>27882
>>27878
It's your soul you're throwing away. Go ahead and choose Satan, I'll be choosing the Lord and you can follow or be left to die the Second Death. Your move, heretic.
Replies: >>27884 >>27886
>>27882
Leave the Catholic/Orthodox church before you're destroyed by being partakers with them. They practice blatant idolatry and paganism. Making statues, bowing down to them, kissing them. God hates this stuff, and it's what he warned you not to do 1 million times in the Bible.

Revelation 9:20
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

And the pagan celebrations they adopted like Christmas and Easter are abominations in the eyes of God. He explicitly says not to learn the way of the heathen but the Catholic/Orthodox church took pleasure in it. And teaching the Sun god day Sabbath they inherited from Rome is exactly the problem the Messiah had with the Pharisees:

Mark 7:6-7
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

If Catholicism/Orthodoxy was the true church of God then they would have the sign of the everlasting covenant between God and his people, the Sabbath (Exodus 31:16-17), which is on Saturday, but they don't, and Jude 1:3-4 and 3 John 1:9-10 warned you about the wolves who infiltrated the church and kicked out the real apostles. 

So, quit relying on men when God gave you his word. The church is not the author of the Bible, God used them to preserve it, and they even threw out books like Enoch and Jubilees that are quoted several times in the New Testament. Yeshua, the Messiah, taught obedience to his Father's commandments, you don't get to eat pork, break the Sabbath, and do pagan idolatry now. You have to repent from these sins or you'll end of in the lake of fire.
>>27882
>Your move, heretic.
It is a heresy to suggest that salvation comes through a specific biblical translation. Salvation comes from following Christ, doing what He asks of us, and living a life of repentance. This can be accomplished even without ever reading the Bible. If you have a particular translation you like, good, read it. But do not come around here condemning others with your heretical beliefs.
>>27884
>Yeshua, the Messiah, taught obedience to his Father's commandments, you don't get to eat pork, break the Sabbath, and do pagan idolatry now.
Jesus kept the Mosaic law in order to be a flawless, perfect sin offering on our behalf. While the New Testament admonishes us to keep ourselves from idols, there's nothing similar regarding pork or the Sabbath. The Mosaic law was given to a specific people group: the Jews. It was not given to the gentiles. Abraham married his half-sister in violation of Leviticus 18:9, yet Abraham is called a friend of God. You will say that the law didn't exist yet when Abraham was alive. This is because the law is not eternal.
>"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians 3:23-25
>>27884
It would be helpful if you would not cherry-pick scripture without understanding the context. Also, your interpretation regarding paganism and idolatry hinders the exegesis you are attempting to put forward. The onus is on you to show how God hates His people kissing His image and His saints. That is your claim. As for God hating the kissing of pagan gods, absolutely, and nowhere is that done. We already know that God allows images to be depicted, because the Temple itself was full of realistic depictions, and the earliest Churches and Synagogues had images, so obviously it can't be that. Perhaps think on it a bit more, and you will understand what God is really upset with. This post might give you a hint >>26911. 

As for Sunday, the Church, as the continuation of the 2nd Temple Israelite religion, turned the focus upon Christ as it should be, and began commemorating the resurrection of Christ on Sunday. It doesn't mean that Saturday is no longer the Sabbath; in fact, it still is with many Orthodox communities serving Divine Liturgy on both days, but the greater focus is on Christ and the Resurrection now. You should already know this, I mean, it is mentioned in the New Testament, in Acts 20:7. This isn't a new thing. 

As for holidays, they have been taken and sanctified. That is what we as Christians are supposed to do with creation. So, no apologies for establishing our dominion to celebrate our Lord on a previous pagan holiday. If you have beef with the secular decay of Easter and Christmas, take it up with the atheists, but traditional Christian Paschal and Nativity services are far from pagan celebrations. I can tell that you are entirely unfamiliar with them. These videos should help edify you. 
Christmas is not Pagan (Scripture)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca_Yx3aMCiE
Christmas is not Pagan (History)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcvJWPTY64
Easter is not Pagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IffNsK_fdoY
Halloween is not Pagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu-5BmAzbrU
Valentine's Day is not Pagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspIMr1klgg

As for the traditions of men ad nauseam argument, be careful you don't find yourself in a contradiction with scripture. For one, you have a complete misunderstanding about how scripture was put together. So, if you accept the current arrangement of scripture, you are accepting a tradition. Most early canons were composed of the scriptures the people had at hand in that community, which is why we see things like the Alexandrian canon and the Ethiopian canon. Regarding your concern with Enoch and Jubilees, they were not "thrown out." They are apocryphal, which is no big deal. Not controversial in the least. You want to read them, go ahead. Let's understand the three categories of scripture while we are at it. Canonical means that it can be read publicly, so within the Church services. Apocryphal means to be read privately, so at home in your free time. Many of these can be edifying and spiritually beneficial, such as Enoch and the Shepard of Hermas. So, feel free to dig in. The third category is heretical, which means not read at Church, and not recommended to be read at home due to being potentially spiritually harmful. The closest example would be the gnostic writings. 

You seem zealous for the faith; that is awesome. But please be charitable when you come over here. Many of us are from various denominations, so while we may not always see things from the same theological perspective, we try to remain charitable with each other and share our love of Christ.
Replies: >>27895
Reminder that protestantism is heresy and you should read the full bible not that crap of the NKJV. I suggest the Bible of Jerusalem that was what people of the clergy who studied theology used back in the day, or the bible of Navarre. 
Good afternoons.
>>27884
You are a genuine judaizer, and it is very unfortunate this necessary message comes with such errors. 
1. The Christian Sabbath is not the 7th but the 1st day of the week. I will disregard all allusions to "sun worship" because it is merely absurd. Your criticisms in that respect could equally apply to the apostles, whom we see met and worshipped on the Lord's Day (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10). God is Lord of the Sabbath and has the right to move it to whatever day He desires. The 4th commandment does not mention the seventh day of the week, but the seventh after six days of labor, which would be true of any day of the week. The ancient fathers called the Lord's Day the eighth day of the week, because on this day the Lord completed the new creation and rested at the right hand of God. The Reformed churches keep the Sabbath but we do so on the day which God has appointed under the new covenant to which alone we are bound.
2. All dietary laws were ceremonial laws attached to the Mosaic and Noahic dispensations of the covenant, respectively. These ceremonies were types and figures of Christ and were abrogated in Him, whom we no longer know under a shadow (see Acts 10:10-15). This distinction is not a novel invention of Christian theology nor an attempt to pick and choose from the law, it is in fact retained even by the Jews of today, whose rabbis say no gentile is required to keep these laws, but only the moral law (which they call "Noahide")
3. You confound the law and the gospel by saying those who fail to keep these Jewish ceremonies shall burn in hell. I tell you that heaven will be filled with sinners, for Christ has done all and suffered all in the place of His people, for which reason alone they will be saved.
>>27891
>The onus is on you to show how God hates His people kissing His image and His saints.
>That is your claim. As for God hating the kissing of pagan gods, absolutely, and nowhere is that done
Firstly, the kissing of pagan gods is an element of your church's idolatry, because certain pagan gods have been "baptized" and transmuted into "saints" (eg Barlaam and Josaphat, which are fictional men who never lived, but lifted directly from Buddhism, wherein Josaphat is literally the Buddha himself). But secondly, you basically contradict yourself: in all those places wherein God expresses His contempt for idolatry, the object of His hate is not the name of the image which is worshipped, it is the act of worshipping the image itself which is condemned. He is no less displeased with the worship of images which intend to depict Himself (as the golden calfs were) than other gods, for worship is heaped upon that which is created and ephemeral and not the eternal God. If God hates the worship of pagan idols, He hates the worship of Christian idols too. There are three elements on the matter of images wherein the eastern churches have abandoned ancient catholic tradition for pagan superstitions, while the Reformed churches (whose position is basically identical to the Byzantine iconoclasts and the ancient fathers) have restored it: 1. Images of any kind are not to put up in churches, so that they are not witnessed in the midst of worship 2. Images of any kind are not to be worshipped, as it is totally profane to put God's praise on the work of man's hands, even if the idolater supposes it passes to the archetype 3. Images of any person of the divine Trinity are strictly forbidden in any form or context, including the incarnate Son of God, for it is denigrating to God's invisible glory to trap Him into a visible shape of our design.
>As for holidays, they have been taken and sanctified. That is what we as Christians are supposed to do with creation
Taken and sanctified by whom? There is not one word of scripture that could be raised to the effect that Christians are free to worship God according to whatever whims they feel. The Church does not tell God how He will be worshipped, He tells the Church how He will be worshipped. See Leviticus 10:1-3, in which God in wrath kills the sons of Aaron for the sin of devising unauthorized worship. If a thing is sanctified by men it is not sanctified at all, because it is God who sanctifies. To practice Christmas and Easter is clearly forbidden, not merely because they are pagan worship days shoved most unwelcomely into Christianity (which is bad enough) but because they are not established in God's word. There is no holiday in the new covenant besides the Lord's Day. 
>For one, you have a complete misunderstanding about how scripture was put together. So, if you accept the current arrangement of scripture, you are accepting a tradition.
No sir, not by any means. Scripture is the very word of God. When you read scripture, you hear the voice of God as surely as Moses did when He thundered "ehyeh asher ehyeh" upon the mountain. It is not a mere tradition of men, nor was God dependent in the least bit upon human tradition. The "arrangement" (properly, canon) of scripture is merely the list of the divine books. That list can be correct, or incorrect, but it cannot be anything else. So the question is, does this canon of scripture contain all the divine books, and only them? If the answer is yes, then it is correct, and if no, then it is incorrect, and whether the canon is held out as "traditional" or "ecclesiastical" is wholly irrelevant, for all that matters to the question of canon is the actual inspiration of the books in the list. Neither tradition nor the church could remove Matthew from the canon, nor could they admit heretical trash like the so-called Gospel of Thomas. No man has the tiniest bit of authority to add or subtract from God's words. 
>Many of us are from various denominations, so while we may not always see things from the same theological perspective, we try to remain charitable with each other and share our love of Christ.
It is one thing to be charitable, it is another to be conceited. It is not charitable to encourage others to persist in error or sin. The presence of errors is not to be celebrated, though depending on the degree of error it may be tolerated. It all is to be according to the old Augustinian maxim: "In essential things, unity, in non-essential things, liberty, in all things, charity".
[New Reply]
51 replies | 4 files | 28 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.3