>"PFFFT KJV? That version is bullshit. Here. You're going to take home this NIV student Bible. It's the word of God."
Why is the average Christfag a tacky heretic?
These religion threads are getting out of control tbqh
/rel/ when
>>883334
>Not reading it in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
It's your own fault damn it.
>>883334
Because most Christians say they're Christians without having a single clue what the bible says, or where their religion came from?
All they know is what "Muh Preacha sayd"
>>883334
Wait does anyone actually prefer NIV to KJV? I mean I've heard of wacky evangelicals who think that the KJV is the literal word of God himself, but why NIV? It's the walmart of english translations
>>883354
This.
We need to appeal to the mods on /qa/: Christcucks are getting out of control. I want to come on this board and see historical threads - instead, I get a catalog filled with religious devotion idiocy ("it's Lent, I'm giving up beef, u? xDD" and "I'm Christian and proud!").
>>883375
Are you using the report function?
Since you're too dumb to ignore the thread, I have to ask.
It's self-evident why you cannot completely dissociate humanities from religion. Context matters, and this thread has nothing to do with religious devotion or advocacy.
>>883369
People don't really look into it. Growing up, my church used NIV. I didn't even know other versions existed until I went to a church in a different synod.
>>883334
Man, you're right. When I'm following a book written by Middle-Eastern prophets (and the oral tradition of several generations), I make sure it's only written from the viewpoint, translation skills, and context of medieval England.
>>883503
We can discuss historically importaint books without treading into /lit/ territoity and discuss how philosophical ideas are relevant in the modern day while staying out of /pol/
If someone wants to discuss how Augestinian theology affected the middle ages, the historical Jesus, or the philosophical ramifications of a certain dogma (say sin) it can be done in a historical or philophical setting. That is to say it can be discussed without saying whether the religion is true or false.
Christfags will not do this. If you mention that the bible contains eras and want to discuss Q source they will scream heresy. If you want to discuss the historical Catholic church it's a pissing match about whether Catholics are "real Christians" if you want to discuss Nietzche's critique of Christianity it becomes even uglier. If you want to discuss any non-Christian religion it quickly becomes an arguement about "which God is real".
These are not humanities or historical discussions it's shit-posting. Let them have their own board where they can argue about whether God exists or if he really is present in the Eucharist. History is discussed without assigning truth values to religions.
>>883334
mustve been in the same area of peru i was cause i had the same exact hat though
>>883334
At least the NIV doesn't start editing verses right at the beginning of the Gospels. Clearly, the KJV authors knew better than Mark which is why they changed Ἠσαΐᾳ from "Isaiah" to "The Prophets".
