What Bible does Zig Forums recommend?

Hey guys, I just got saved. My pastor gave me a King James Version of the Bible but tbh the old English isn't as comfortable for me to read. I heard there were other versions though, which is the best? Are they in regular English? What's the best Bible?

Attached: I figs dis me mayk u nise to muma u _b8b3c240e1ea918170c0a00e5249f795.jpg (957x621, 61.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Start with whichever one is most comfortable for you. For English speakers new to the Bible, I recommend the NIV.

Orthodox Study Bible is good. I also suggest the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision.

Attached: 4A038109-D6A3-47A6-8B00-809FD704A0CA.gif (379x387, 229.49K)

Attached: aaabe0024a5ac94f22eec6e4fabff97c9f492277567abecfadf88c15c3702408.jpg (661x716, 149.96K)

Thou = singular
Ye = plural (y'all)
Thee = singular, an action is done to them
You = plural, an action is done to them

The conjugations should be easy from there.

I use the ASV or the NASV. It's a very literal translation of the bible that still maintains readability. Some people find the sentence structure awkward but it doesn't bother me

ESV for prot, RSVCE for cath, OSB for ortho

Koine Greek interlinear

GO BACK TO ROOTS
ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE

But seriously what said.

i use the kjv.

Stick with the KJV user, you'll get used to the wording and will appreciate it later on as you get used to it. Plus, the other versions omitted, changed some things there and there and changed the meanings

Attached: Different Translations in the BIble.png (6144x2328, 1.66M)

i agree with this too

Kjv omits entire books

appending books to the Bible is a sin, user

ASV is my favorite, but I'd prefer some modernized KJ or the RSV to the New American Standard Bible. I believe the translation quality to be less precise.

Try again

The RSV-2CE is the perfect translation

Attached: Ignatius.jpg (400x400, 27.1K)

what evidence is there that Paul or early Church fathers considered the deuterocanon, apocrypha, the Ethiopian canon or gnostic gospels as canonical?

Athanasius' canon has been quite thoroughly preserved, and Catholics can use non-Vulgate sources (Divino afflante Spiritu)

Well they quoted them constantly for one

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/

there are books not canonical to Catholics that are also referenced, does that make them canon for everyone too?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Of course not. The canon was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 under the direction of Pope Damasus I and guided by the Holy Spirit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

Clement of Rome cites Judith and Wisdom

Irenaeus cites Baruch and Susannah

Polycarp cites Tobit

And other fathers like Cyprian, Clement Alexandria, Origen…etc do cite them in the same way Scripture is cited

Even Athanasius does this

That's the papist canon, not the Athanasian canon (he's called the Father of the Canon for a reason) nor does it resemble the Early Church collection.

NT Apocrypha was treated by some as scripture for a while but now is generally not viewed as part of the Bible by Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Appealing to the Holy Spirit as just cause for changes to the Church and development of the canon is also an appeal for Protestantism too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees
but this reaffirmation of canon that holds the Vulgate as the authoritative text for translation is undermined by Divino afflante Spiritu

The canon changed and developed a lot over time, Gelasius decided his own Apocrypha after the Council of Rome. Luther and Protestant declarations are continuations of the development of the canon, if you're willing to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in that then what faith do you place in the Holy Spirit during the councils or the canons that predate the councils?

Athanasius affirmed Pope Damasus list. However it should be noted that Athanasius was only a Bishop, he didn't have authority on his own to set canon. Also only Protestants call him the "father of the canon", because Protestants are ridiculously self serving and only accept those church fathers and history that share a vague resemblance to protestant doctrine and ignore all the parts that show Protestantist doctrine is mostly heresy that the church fathers would've denounced. Can you really appeal to Athanasius as your champion when he would declare your particular denomination as heretics who do not follow the true faith?

The canon was set in 382 at the Council of Rome. That's simple fact.

Isn't the answer this obvious? You can only be the continuation of the true church if you accept that the church you schismed from was legitimate. Protestants deny that the Catholic church was ever the true church, they deny the authority of the councils, so they cannot be the continuation because they were a novel strain of Christianity created in the 16th century

Attached: faithgoldy.JPG (1348x714, 93.64K)

None of these support your Protestant canon as true because of the sheer fact that the same Athanasius includes as Inspired Scripture,
Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Greek Ezra, Susanah, Tobit, Wisdom and Sirach entails that he is aiming for 22books because of an established tradition of following the 22 letters of the Hebrew. Had Protestants say 66book canon but also acknowledge the deuterocanon or some of them as inspired Scripture too, this is fine and in line with the variety in canon lists, but none of these are the case at all.

This also excludes the fact that even before Athanasius, we have instances of Deuterocanon cited as inspired Scripture. Protestants like to point to Melito but Melito uses Greek Septuagintal terms for his OT list, that would itself entail that he could easily include Baruch and Jeremiah's epistle as part of the books he listed down

So if any, Patristic canon only leans more in favour of Catholicism, not Protestantism because of the sheer fact that deuterocanons even if not considered canon are still seen as Inspired. John Meade knows this and also notes this in many of the early canon lists but when speaking to Prots, he doesnt want to let that basic fact out. Why? Because he knows if he does so, it only give Catholics more room to say that some fathers dont see the deuterocanon as Canon but still nevertheless see them as Inspired. And guess who does this? Athanasius and Origen

she's a cat tho

Before you make up your mind, you ought to read the the canon revisited by Michael Kruger. He demonstrates the holy approach on the canon, not only on a historical level but also on a theological one.

The answer is the ESV, it utilizes the dead sea scrolls.

Attached: CanonRevisited-cover-334x270.jpg (334x270, 20.06K)

Kruger can only resort to playing "presuppositionalism" on the issue. He acknowledges that the early Christians dont hold to the modern Protestant canon but says that the true 66book canon is the case set in stone by God eventhough people may be mistaken on it

…Let me guess, you never actually read the book, but heard about it by James White.
You too should the read book, even for Roman Catholics, it's a good read to brush off the dust once and a while.

I did and guess what? Kruger focuses on the NT canon exclusively rather than the canon as a whole and here's the thing, Kruger posits that the "Roman Catholic" view is that which doesnt place the Canon determination on God but on Church, as if trying to state that Catholics dont think God is working through his church. But even then his own model can be used against him because a Catholic can simply state that the deuterocanonical books also have the "interior" markings of Scripture and Inspiration which the reception in church history proves. After all Kruger accepts that his canonical model does not mean we discard external data

The early church father were accustomed to the western traditions than Platonist east, Vlad.

Attached: Thosedamndogestants.png (1348x714, 509.81K)

geared

Look at my point again, even Kruger's own model speaks against him and I pointed out a strawman he makes of the Catholic view of the canon which is simply as if he came here and saw a Catholic say "Church decided the bible".

Kruger's canonical model includes one requirement of "Providential exposure" which he states that the Church cannot respond or denounce any book it does not know of;. God enables the Church to know which is his canon in this requirement. The problem? Many Church Fathers take the deuterocanon, to varying degrees as Scripture, so by this very requirement Kruger lists, it is possible to argue for the inclusion of the deuterocanon as Scripture

Also, many Church Fathers show Middle Platonic background or usage such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. They use this background to articulate the Logos. Some even use Stoic philosophical ideas such as Stoic mixture theory in Irenaeus. These show it is silly to dicothomize east and west.

People's Parallel Edition: KJV/TLB
The majesty of the KJV side-by-side the simple street talk of TLB.

Examples:

Also, not technically a Bible, but The Complete Sayings of Jesus by Arthur Hinds [1927] strips away all the baloney and just focuses on what Jesus said in chronological order (with a bit of context).

Once you have a solid understanding of the story, then you can dive into then see

And my point is he didn't make a strawman because his content didn't deal with Catholic's view of the canon.

Okay you seriously need to read and reread the section on how the Holy Spirit guides all the members of the church and how the apostles/prophets demonstrate their reliability of their letters to the congregation once they receive

L. O. L. Kruger mostly just deals with the New Testament.
Unless Catholic church has a new set of heretical development in her hands by adapting gnostic books the canon, you should read his book on how we actually obtained the NT. The answer might surprise you. .

leading towards Aristotle's philosophy. Especially when Docetists are in the room.

That's more influenced by the ideas of Philo and Heraclitus than Plato and Aristotle.

Do you think this will stop me or anyone from silly-posting?

Kruger literally engages with it when discussing and critiquing other canonical models like community reception. So yes he engages with it and ends up only attacking a strawman of it. He is even clear on what the Catholic model entails.

Saying Kruger only discusses the issue of the NT canon is irrelevant to my point. I even noted that basic fact. My point is, even by Kruger's own standards a case can be made for the Deuterocanon as Inspired, proven by the numerous Fathers and councils that include them as Inspired. This therefore entails by that first criterion in his Canon model I outlined, they are canonical because as Kruger himself says, if the book goes missing or is rejected due to its contents, it's a sign that God didnt include those as Canon.

And for the Fathers and Middle Platonism and Stoicism see basic monographs like "Clement of Alexandria and the beginnings of Christian Apophaticism", Lashier's "Irenaeus and the Trinity".

Also every scholar virtually considers Philo as Platonist, so you only show yourself as severely ignorant on this.