I have in my possession the King James version of The Bible.
What is the best way I can go about reading it in a secular, academic fashion?
What do you want to study in a secular-academic fashion? The Bible or The King James version of it?
>>8107222
yes
>>8107214
Gospels, Genesis, Exodus, Revelations, Ecclesiastes, Job. Then just explore from there, check out Psalms, Romans, Isaiah etc.
>>8107231
Sorry I couldn't make myself clear. Studying bible itself is different than studying King James version of it.
For example If you want to study NT, or say letters of paul you should never open King James in the first place, you should optimally learn greek. If that's not possible you should use a better bible that is more close to the Greek itself than King James.
I wouldn't open King James unless I studied Christianity in England or something tbqh.
>>8107246
Interesting, I actually didn't know there were significant translations issues in the King James version. The reason I stated that I had it was that I was under the impression that it was a fairly comprehensive and trustworthy version.
>>8107261
No its not. You can find tons of writings (many from biblical scholars) about why King James is not good. King James is hardly used by biblical scholars, It is not even substituted for English version (Bart Ehrman for example uses New Revised Standard Version). Nevermind the fact that King James is a translation of a translation (from greek to latin to james).
It's just praise is because of the american protties' "muh tradition" meme.
>>8107285
praise is*
>praised
Try using this instead.
If that is your intent, you would be counter-reading it according to the last lines of John.
>>8107214
>>8107294
Thanks. We never would've figured that out.
Why are Christian and Jewish fags scared of Sharia law but not Biblical law, specifically Leviticus 20:13?
>>8107285
What version, in English, is most accurate/trustworthy?
What exactly is wrong with the King James Version? I'm reading this now along with the New English Translation. I like KJV better for the olde biblical language though :^)
Pastor here, I'd suggest getting a few commentaries to help you with through it. The person who said to get the NRSV version is right, that's much closer to the Greek.
Pentateuch is long and sometimes silly, maybe just read a short piece on Moses.
Everything in the Hebrew Bible after that isn't worth it unless you really want to impress people. Know who David, Solomon, and Daniel are and you'll be set. Read Isaiah and any minor prophet. Maybe read Job because it's GOAT.
For gospels, read Luke first. Matthew and Luke expand upon Mark a lot but tell the same thing. Read Matthew 5-7, too. Read John.
Read acts and know that it kinda tells you what Paul is like, but kinda paints him like a weird superhero. Read Romans. Romans was Paul's last letter (that we know of) and is mostly him correcting misconceptions about his beliefs. Read 1 Timothy but know it wasn't written by Paul. Read 1 Corinthians 12+13. Read Colossians which was also not Paul but that's where a lot of the pro slavery and pro subjugation of women stuff comes from.
Read 1 John, James, and revelations.
Boom, better knowledge than most Christians.
Alternatively, there is a Yale class by Dale Martin on YouTube and a Hebrew Bible class, too. Check those out and read along if you don't want a commentary. Those classes will compare to what is offered in seminary (at least as far as overviews go).
>>8108190
KJV was written to support Protestant theology at the time. Some words aren't fair translations. Read NRSV or buy an accordance software and keep parallel versions up to notice discrepancies
>>8108201
Tell me about God and your life
>>8108201
How accurate is the New English Translation?
>>8108201
Father, what are you doing on 4chan?
Genuinely interested, I figured this place must be the unspoken 11th commandment
>thou shalt not shitpost on 4chan
>>8108201
Forgot to add, know who Elijah is. Also, if you just do a short story of Moses rather than the Pentateuch, know Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Aaron, and Malchizidek.
For NT, if you don't want to read it, know Jesus (spend some time reading Kierkegaard or Caputo who will help you really know Jesus, too). Know Peter, Judas, Mary, and Paul.
Even if you just Google the people I've mentioned, you'll be doing alright.
>>8108219
>>8108211
4chan is fine, I think. It's what you do with it that matters. The truth about Jesus is that we aren't supposed to just profit off his death, we are supposed to live like him. It's so much less about a rulebook and so much more about living a life that promotes love, peace, and grace. God cares about changing your heart, not scaring people into belief or refraining from masturbation. That's what Jesus Christ is talking about.
My life is good. I've been blessed with friends, a good job, and a lot of ease. I mostly write sermons, visit people who are trying to get through their issues, and counsel people.
I anticipate getting asked a lot, but I'm about to go to bed. Just know that God loves you no matter what. When I say no matter what, I don't mean no matter anything except the excuse you have of why God doesn't love you. "God loves you!" has no asterisks, but an exclamation mark.
If you want a church that's open to more intellectual types and is less fundamental, look into Disciples of Christ or PCUSA (if you like Calvin). Church doesn't have to be about hate.
Night, lads. Keep up the reading.
>>8107214
By acquiring an NIV, CEB, ESV, MSG or by going 1000 years in the past.
>>8108267
>>8107214
What about just reading the stories and taking everything at face value?I'm the only one whose ever done this, aren't I ;_;
>>8108168
I go for the New American Edition myself
I am trying to get back into faith and Christianity. Which edition should I get? Preferably one I can get on the kindle.
>>8107214
You have the best version.
Don't get spooked by that Semitic garbage, though.
>>8108201
>Yanks advocating their terrible modern/simple English translations
Every time. When will they learn that there is truth in beauty and beauty in truth?
Start with Genesis, keep going until you reach the end of Revelations.
>>8110044
So do you recommend KJV?
>>8110066
Well, it's the best one.
>>8110069
It's not complete.
It's missing the gospel of Judas and Thomas
>>8110069
>imblying
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/30/emoji-bible-arrived-god-king-james
>>8107214
Start with the New Testament, then the Old Testament (you can skip a number of books in there). After that, the writings of the Primitive Church and the Apocrypha. You'd be best served with an educated apologist's commentary that you can reference while you read.
>>8107285
This guy is a shill, KJV is fine. It is, however, outdated. There's only a couple serious translation issues. Most of the errors in the KJV are in all versions (e.g. the time of Christ's death is uncertain).
>>8110113
Yes it is.
>>8110114
Apocryphal.
DR > KJV
>>8110180
Yeah that's why Oxford University Press makes its annotated Bible using the NRSV. Because Oxford and the Catholic, Jewish, and secular contributors are all secretly Southern Baptists from Arkansas.
start by burning it.
>>8108107
>>8110234
Why would you want to read it in a secular fashion? Don't you respect the religious truths the book presents?
>>8110262
>religious truths
>>8110266
>non argument
>meme image
Blocked.
>>8110266
>Anno Domini MMXVI
>being an edgy Atheist
Are you going to be at the Reason Rally this month too, Anon? Bill Nye is going to speak about how stupid religions are lol :^)
>>8110262
Read the Quran for truth.
Read the Bible to see how screwed truth can get.
>>8110128
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-Version-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199535949/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1464804919&sr=8-4&keywords=oxford+bible
Would this be a good edition?
>>8110311
You don't understand how cultures and countercultures work. The next generation will be drawn to religion in search of meaning against their Atheist parents and a largely Atheistic Zeitgeist. Conservatism is back on the rise, and as the West grows more and more resistant against militant Islam, Christianity will see a resurgence.
>>8110311
How naive you are. Poor boy.
>>8110319
Secularism is on the rise all over. A huge percentage of people who identify as religious are part of some essentially secular liberal denomination. Yes, countercultures happen, but the conservative ones that aren't just a regional (declining) mainstream are secular alt-right stuff.
>>8110322
>le worldly and wise Christian sage on 4chan
>>8110319
>Conservatism is back on the rise
Define conservatism
>>8108267
>protestants
>>8110327
>le smug and intellectual atheist kid on 4chan
>>8110188
nice
>>8108001
>>8108201
Gender language
In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.[2] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neuter word. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]
>>8110340
Is that a problem?
>>8110340
>waa waa why aren't things that aren't gendered in the original language not all gendered to masculine in the translation
It's okay to admit that you value Christianity for reasons of worldly power and control. Just be honest about it.
>>8110346
Yeah, it doesn't include nonbinary genders.
>>8110350
I'm not a Christian and don't value religion very much. The Bible's existence is only justified by its philosophical and aesthetic value, so crudely manipulating its language in order to pander to modern social beliefs makes this version of inferior quality. Modern Christians are a joke.
>>8110375
It's for linguistic accuracy.
>>8110375
>The Bible's existence is only justified by the way it was translated and used for the past couple of millenia and not before
>accuracy of translation is secondary to making sure women know their place, even in a scholarly work
>>8110387
>>The Bible's existence is only justified by the way it was translated and used for the past couple of millenia and not before
That's correct though. It has cultural value because of its past role in the foundation of Western civilization and its beautiful verse and prose, but I wouldn't assign it much significance beyond that.
>>accuracy of translation is secondary to making sure women know their place, even in a scholarly work
Accuracy of translation, especially in a work of fiction like The Bible, isn't a) possible, or b) important compared to the translation's aesthetic value. If somebody wants to be a Biblical "scholar" then they need to learn Ancient Greek and Hebrew, not read feminized translations sapped of beauty so American protestants can swallow them more easily.
Also I don't know why you're getting so upset about women being oppressed; you're the one who believes in nutjob shit like 1 Timothy 2:12.
>>8110443
I'm a fedora myself. I'm just literate enough to understand the difference in gendered words in Greek, Hebrew and English. Nobody's burning the KJV or "feminizing" anything. They're just translating the original gender neutral words correctly.
Not a feminist either. I just don't need mistranslations of the Bible to do that.
>>8110443
>its beautiful verse and prose
really now
>>8110462
>They're just translating the original gender neutral words correctly.
But they're not, that's simply impossible to do in English. You can awkwardly alternate between He and She, but the effort put in by the author to be as inclusive as possible will reek through and either distract or earn the smug approval of its reader.
>>8110506
I know, right? It's a pretty ridiculous meme that everybody's afraid to deny because it's stood for so long and people will accuse them of wearing unstylish hats.
>>8110518
Change "men" to "people" where the original language means "people." That's a more accurate translation. You've clearly never even read a single line of the NRSV you fruit.
>>8110543
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/21.htm?x=x
>>8108146
Because the Leviticus was in Christianity never seen as a law which they must obey. It was a Jewish law.
View Christians have on their sacred text is different from Muslims. Grouping the two up is wrong.
>>8110331
My reaction basically, yeah.
It's cheap spiritualism barely different from new age.
>>8110462
>They're just translating the original gender neutral words correctly.
Bullshit. They changed "brothers" to "friends" or "believers" or "brothers and sisters". It's retarded.
>>8110543
Men and people is a synonym.
Men is also more accurate as virtually every language of importance in history has more male gender words.
>>8111321
>>8110708
>that example where neither the translation he likes nor the one he criticizes is actually accurate but he sides with the one that fits his own preferences
Pot calling the kettle black T B H
>>8111237
So the frequency of male pronouns in everyday speech that's been influenced by biased translations means we MUST keep the same bias in future translations. Great thinking.
>>8112001
>an entire language should change to fit my feelings
>>8112014
The Bible wasn't written in idiomatic English from te 17th century. If you value the way English scholars translated it because you like the way that sounds, good for you, but it's pretty disingenuous to pretend it's some underhanded trick to steal yor penis when someone points out that you could translate it with different gendering in places and arguably more accurately.
>>8112082
Using the words "man" and "mankind" have long been used as genderless terms for the human race. The argument can be made exactly the other way that it's disingenuous for women to pretend that the words are some underhanded trick to oppress them. The text was not changed for accuracy, it was changed deliberately to appeal to an audience.
Are you next going to blame languages that use the male plural to refer to a mixed-sex group of people?
>>8112098
>The argument can be made exactly the other way that it's disingenuous for women to pretend that the words are some underhanded trick to oppress them.
Wow you sure have a lot of integrity.
>>8112120
>Like wow um can you not? ugh.
>>8112134
I mean I'm not going to stop you from making bad arguments but they're not going to help you.
>>8112098
Why do you care why a translation avoids a certain set of idioms if it's still accurate? English changes over time, and this translation is just meeting it where it's at.
>>8112098
Choosing to use masculine-gendered language to refer to important things that don't actually have genders when neutral language is available isn't even underhanded, really.
>>8111218
it still doesn't answer that part of his question related to jews... these laws are scared to them
also any translation which translates brothers as brothers and sisters can go straight into the garbage bin, it's not a translation, it's rewriting
>>8112200
incorrect
>>8112200
Good thing such a sinister translation doesn't exist.
>>8112200
This logically makes no sense.
>>8112182
If I may interject something here, there is something that becomes full circle: Hardcore Christians blame homosexuality and the acceptance of it for the downfall of society. Now, they are too ... "turn the other cheek," let's say, to actively stop it. So, the question is: since Leviticus 20:13 is Jewish law--will the blame in the world vs. Islam fight ultimately lie upon the homosexuals for the downfall of society, which is now manifesting as being too reasonable about acceptance of Sharia law, and then the solution will be to exterminate them?
This may be seen as the ultimate solution ...
>>8112324
homosexuality is directly forbidden in the epistles of paul
not like the modern translations don't try to bend and erase it, lol
>>8112360
Well, the problem in Christianity is Jesus overrides anything--every rule, even the commandments; if there is a situation where there is a conflict between following a non-Jesus spoken Biblical scripture, and applying a Jesus-like solution--Jesus is always the correct answer, according to Christians.
Only the those like the Westboro Baptist Church and Michele Bachmann are honest about Christian texts.
>>8107231
see that mountain? Jesus climbed it
>>8112360
Paul was a heretic and the only reason to give him the credibility to ammend Christ's rolling-back of Levitical law is some word of mouth report that Peter agreed with him, and then you have to ask why we think Peter suddenly speaks for Jesus.
>>8112393
>Only the those like the Westboro Baptist Church and Michele Bachmann are honest about Christian texts.
hm... are you a parishioner of the westboro baptist church by any chance
>>8112451
No. I'm an admirer of their honesty.I suck dicks.
>>8112449
I also liken to the "telephone" game--where, even if the apostles weren't unfaithful, things get lost in translation--and bias, especially where the primary source didn't write anything down.
>>8112001
See son that's the point, there is no bias and it's not an inaccuracy of translation.
>>8112166
No, that's how language has worked for thousands of years before your moronic ideology.
>>8112182
I don't know much about the Jewish religion. But it's important to note it has new laws and is younger than Christianity for around 300 years, with the old religion being that of the Hebrews.
>>8112449
Catholic, Orthodox and most protestant churches would say that denying the divine inspiration of Paul is heresy, so your opinion on "teh real Christianity" is irrelevant. Paul is seen as cannon and that's it.
>>8112393
Christianity isn't a bunch of inspirational quotes by a spiritual master you take out of context. It's holistic so the text is always seen in its entirety.
>>8113047
>it's not quotes
Thanks for supporting what I said. Sorry that you thought we were debating, it's not my intention to disappoint you with plain discussion.
Saying that Jesus is holistic supports the idea that Jesus overrides all written text.
People can know Jesus without knowing all of the text as a singular concept. Then that only would be a few-and-far-between scholars.
>>8113047
>translating a neutral word to a masculine one implies nothing of interest.
>old ideologies that shaped language are better than new ones that do the same
>appeal to authority and nothing else
>the church fathers have more authority than Jesus and always will
You're why the fedoras think Christians are stupid.
>>8113110
>translating a neutral word to a masculine one implies nothing of interest.
Yes, as that is how humans speak.
>old ideologies that shaped language are better than new ones that do the same
In this case they are
>appeal to authority and nothing else
Yes, I can always appeal to an institution which knows more than me.
>the church fathers have more authority than Jesus and always will
Yes, as far as the interpretation you retards have where he is some feelgood new age teacher with out of context quotes. Pretty sure a theology with 2k years behind it and hundreds of works devoted to it are the superior here. And even if they aren't that is the interpretation the Church has.
>You're why the fedoras think Christians are stupid.
I'll always know that at least I don't want to change the language to fit a moronic ideology because someone is offended.
>>8113124
>Yes, as that is how humans speak.
And yet it's not how the authors if the Bible wrote. Interesting how you value local tradition over contact with the word of god.
>Yes, I can always appeal to an institution which knows more than me.
Do you appeal to your priest for help with your math homework? Why not?
>Yes, as far as the interpretation you retards have where he is some feelgood new age teacher with out of context quotes.
But it's a whole Bible we're discussing. You're goober who wants to quote him as if he were speaking in the context of ye olde England.
>Pretty sure a theology with 2k years behind it and hundreds of works devoted to it are the superior here. And even if they aren't that is the interpretation the Church has
Thinking is hard.
>I'll always know that at least I don't want to change the language to fit a moronic ideology because someone is offended
A moronic ideology like "let's try to be more like Christ and explore his words and those of his apostles with minimal preconceptions"?
