Why is /lit/ opposed to the Bible so much? Why can't you

>>9012951
Is this your first day here?

>>9012954
This

>>9012954
Reee, etc.

I'll survive without 'getting' some pointless biblical references in other fiction

>>9012951
Almost everyone here recommends to read the King James bible.

>>9012978
Which like all advice here, you should avoid. Don't read Protestant bibles, lads.

>>9013021
this, dont fall for those heretics dogs lies.

>>9012951

Because it's boring.

>>9013021
Which is the best Bible, most true to what was intended by God's prophets? (I don't mind annotations). I want to start one, but /lit/ induced this fear into me that I'll make a wrong choice in picking which version to read.

>>9013050
Get the Oxford Annotated with Apocrypha.
makes Infinite Jest look like a novella, but it's everything you'll ever need

>>9012951
/lit/ is probably the most Bible friendly board there is.

>>9013050
One used by russian orthodox, anything else is plebian garbage that has been modified to suit current social values.

>>9013068
>has been modified to suit current social values.
this is exactly what I don't want.

>>9013054
looks interesting. seems like the kind of version that includes all and everything though, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but im not sure its good either. especially the wiki line i read about secular perspective is not something im interested in.

>>9013021
KJV, despite being technically Protestant, has a surprisingly low amount of Protestant bias in translation. That's not to say it has none, but it's one of the more commonly recommended Bible's even among Orthodox scholarship.

>>9013127
>has a surprisingly low amount of Protestant bias in translation

Except for all those books that were taken out.

>>9013144
That's definitely a very valid point, I was referring to the content it actually has. Someone who wants to study the Bible in a truly unbiased way will need to read several translations anyway. I just think getting scared away from the KJV because of bias is a mistake.

>>9012951
Alright lads, what about this one: The Catholic Revised Standard Version (RSV)?

>>9013021
Don't read the KJV for theological or religious purposes. King James gathered the most talented poets of his Tim together to craft a beautiful piece of English literature. Read it like you would the Iliad.

>>9013161

I personally prefer the RSV-2CE but there's not much of a difference. There's some little things that annoy me like the wording of the Lords prayer but beside that it's very clear and easy to read. The Didache bible has some good commentary.

>>9013021
The King James Bible is the one that influenced all subsequent English literature. Don't read a different translation unless you are reading non-English/Catholic literature

>>9013189

How did the translation itself influence literature in any meaningful way?

>>9013177
Thanks mate. I would prefer a Catholic view. After what little I've read so far ITT and through a couple of google searches I am leaning towards your suggestion.

>>9013204
The influence was linguistical mainly. Like Shakespeare's works, KJV invented many phrases and metaphors that entered the common language and remain in use even today.
Then there are specific writers who were highly influenced by it and its language - Herman Melville is definitely the most notable example.

>>9013250
this, there's hundreds of idioms that it created
here's what I assume to be a comprehensive list http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html

>>9012951
Is this your first day on this board? The Bible is held in high regard on its literary merits here

>>9013214
Why are you a catholic? You don't believe in papal infallibility do you?

>>9013333

The bigger question is why don't protestants believe in papal infallibility.

>He who receives you receives me

>Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Then after the resurrection Jesus commanded Peter to:

>Feed my lamb...tend my sheep...feed my sheep

>>9013388
dude he just didn't want his sheep to starve to death

>>9012951
lel /lit/ used to be filled with christian threads
don't know what happened to them maybe they immigrated the other chan

>>9013127
>>9013150
>reading archaic translations
It's rarely if ever attractive or powerful, and definitely isn't the Bible to read for comprehension purposes.

>>9013388


>hades
fuck that translation

>>9013388
>btw all of your successors are going to be able to interpret scripture "correctly" and also the church teachings can't be wrong even though they change throughout history haha lol

Why'd you leave that part out?

>>9013029
Protestants by definition cannot be considered heretics by Catholics.

>>9013050
they are ALL intended by god's prophets. every single one of them.

ezekiel 23:20

>>9013676

That's literally in the verse that was quoted. On this rock I build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Here's the keys and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

>>9013091
Secular perspective is butthurt for historical-critical, which is how the bible is read by scholars today. Even if you go to an ulfraconservative seminary they teach to work around historical-critical problems

>>9013050
The Septuagint since it's the most contemporary.
Douay-Rheims for the best poetic translation.

I'd say the opposite is true. I'm not aware of anyone not recommending the Bible. Even non-Christians recommend the book.

Because the people who like reading the Bible tend to have a completely retarded literalist interpretation of it

>>9013056
/pol/ moreso

>>9016025
Can can /pol/ be more friendly to the bible when they have never read it?