Chart thread does anyone have the religious one?

>>9852052
Bump, I'm also interested.

>>9852052
>>9852067
http://imgur.com/gallery/U4OHY

stop making these threads.

File: TYcqpRZ.jpg (23KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x346px

>>9852125
Not everything is in there, doofus.

File: 1501902719459.png (328KB, 642x565px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 642x565px

>>9852132
well, idiot, google and find archives like I did.

>>9852052
All the charts are in the wiki asshole.

Take 10 seconds to think before you pollute the catalog

>>9852150
>>9852160
There are new charts being made/found constantly, samefag.

File: hmm.jpg (64KB, 670x503px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 670x503px

>>9852052
Why do we always have chart threads but never chart making threads?

It's shitty that we've never come up with a sequel to the Resume with the Romans chart (instead we made a prequel to the Start with the Greeks, which I didn't think there was much demand for), but I don't know enough to make one myself t b h, so can't complain too much

File: DGWu_n3XsAAx4hw.jpg (204KB, 864x1152px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 864x1152px

>>9852164
stop shitting up the board, like the other guy said, look at the wiki. Saged.

File: Capture.png (2KB, 358x70px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 358x70px

>>9852164
>samefag

No, however there are quite a few people who could all agree that you are a lazy asshole who doesn't do any research or puts any effort into making a thread.

>>9852174
It literally takes 5seconds in paint to do that. I kept my eye on unique ips

File: 1485993141430.jpg (54KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 345x336px

>>9852182
>I kept my eye on unique ips

File: Screenshot 2017-08-05 at 9.00.48 AM - Edited.png (46KB, 452x236px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 452x236px

>>9852182
lol

File: 1501490406577.gif (537KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 480x270px

>>9852193
>>9852202
gonna have to try harder

File: 1501506649057.jpg (1MB, 2000x2820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2820px

>>9852052
>does anyone have the religious one?
This one? There's another one just for bibles.

File: 1498088551843.png (71KB, 1570x1016px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1570x1016px

>>9852239

File: 1501940883878.jpg (2MB, 2396x4680px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2396x4680px

>>9852052
Here you go, anon. Just got it myself.

>>9852239
>recommending the PC and gender inclusive NRSV bible instead of the RSV

>>9852243
>again the NRSV
Why did I get the feeling women made those charts?

File: 6667.png (17KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1920x1080px

>>9852369
> gender inclusive
That's its only flaw compared to other versions and it has more benefits. No need to be as sensitive as justice warriors are.

>>9852406
Which are the benefits if compared to the RSV? I've looked into it and the only real difference between the two was inclusive language. I just don't see a reasen why the NRSV gets memed so hard.

>>9852414
Didn't NRSV draw on older, more accurate texts for some of its parts? I thought that was the reason why they even made NRSV.

>>9852420
I looked into it before buying mine to get the best for my needs, but as far as all the catholics have told me, the inclusive thing is the main difference.

And honestly if the only other difference are two, three words which are now more precise, I woudl rather just mark them myself instead of constantly getting the inclusive language, which ibviously isn't more accurate.

>>9852441
That whole inclusiveness thing seems to have a legit point, no?

"making it clear where the original texts intend to include all humans, male and female, and where they intend to refer only to the male or female gender."

If that's true, it should only add to the accuracy.

>>9852451
>"making it clear where the original texts intend to include all humans, male and female, and where they intend to refer only to the male or female gender."
That was clear from the beginning anon. "Man" never was seen as "male human". The only people believing that also thing that history comes from "his story". If you want to tell me that having to make something like that clear which isn't just to make feminists happy, you can just as well buy babies first bible with added pictures.

>>9852459
that's a bit of an overreaction though, don't you think?

>>9852468
Nah, I don't really care if which edition people read, I'm not even religious myself but this constant need to appease certain groups and the fact that /lit/ sadly has a strong base of said group rustles some jimmies. What's even worse are the excuses given, like that above. Why not just make it clear that it's the femcomfy edition instead of going out of your way to make it seem as the superior and more up to date edition, which it isn't? Honestly is all I'm asking for.

>>9852475
Shut the fuck up idiot. You have zero (0) knowledgement about theology and exegesis AND you aren't called by God and have none of talents.

shut up pagan american burger ignirant piece of shit
Fuck Trump, same fate of Nero and hitler for you, worms destined to the fire lake.

Shut up, political rager.

>>9852475
Translation: "Why not put a trigger warning on it for me?"

From the NRSV preface:

>Following the publication of the RSV Old Testament in 1952, significant advances were made in the discovery and interpretation of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew. In addition to the information that had become available in the late 1940s from the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk, subsequent acquisitions from the same area brought to light many other early copies of all the books of Hebrew Scriptures (except Esther), though most of these copies are fragmentary. During the same period early Greek manuscript copies of books of the New Testament also became available.
Written by Bruce Metzger, one of the most influential Bible scholars of all time, not some anonymous laypeople.