Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
The First Ecumenical Council of /pol/ 2017-07-13 09:55:24 Post No. 133538058
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The First Ecumenical Council of /pol/ 2017-07-13 09:55:24 Post No. 133538058
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 784f225be3c7f13e95ca64c953161e8e--ecumenical-council-byzantine-icons.jpg (340KB, 736x780px) Image search:
[Google]
340KB, 736x780px
What are the most accurate English translations of scripture?
I have been trying to collate the best English versions together in order to edify my historical and theological scholarship and would like to hear the views of others.
This is what I have so far with rationale:
New Testament: Eastern Orthodox Bible
Old Testament: Douay-Challons and New English Translation of the Septuagint to fill in the missing books
NT: Eastern Orthodox Bible is the only clear choice for the new testament as it a very recent work by theologians in the Orthodox Church in America with Imprimatur (Bishop stamp of approval). It is based on the patriarchal text which is the official Constantinopolitan text and considered the gold standard. The Douay-Challons would be the next in priority, however it is a very old translation and is based on St Jerome's Translation rather than the original greek, so it won't be as accurate.
OT: Unfortunately the EOB OT has not been released and looks like it won't be released. One would think Orthodox Study Bible then, however the OSB is just the KJV masoretic text checked against the Septuagint. A wholly original translation based entirely off the Septuagint is preferable. Hence Douay-Challons is the best we have at the moment. However Douay-Challons lacks the Eastern Deuterocanonical texts like 3 and 4 Maccabees, which is where the NETS Septuagint comes in to fill the gaps. Why not just use NETS you say? NETS is produced by secular and jewish scholars without the Imprimatur, thus we do not know if it is trustworthy or not.
I am looking for the best translations of the books of the Ethiopian Coptic Church like 1 and 2 Enoch, also the Writings of the Church Fathers and the rejected gospels like the gospel of thomas and any other gnostic texts. Your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.
>>
http://www.ccel.org/
>>
>>133538637
You recommend just for their writings of the church fathers? Do they have the seal of approval from the church? Is the translation trustworthy?
>>
>>133539991
Rejected gospels and gnostic texts do not have the seal of approval from the Church.
>>
>>133540513
I know, but the Church Fathers writings are accepted by the church.
Not all texts that aren't included in the canon are outright rejected by the church, some are regarded as having historical significance which is what I am interested in.
>>
>>133538058
Reminder that the Catholic church is fallen.
Sola Fide is correct and also the Lords Supper and Baptism are symbols, not magic doodads that do anything. Only belief in Christ will grant you salvation
>>
>>133538058
May the lord bump this thread
>>
>>133541268
>Sola Fide is correct and also the Lords Supper and Baptism are symbols, not magic doodads that do anything. Only belief in Christ will grant you salvation
Why is it that all of the earliest churches disagree with you?
>>
>>133545009
Don't feed the protestants. The theology is already settled on that subject. There are new pastures to explore
>>
Are there really no catholic bible scholars here?
>>
>>133547176
If you're looking for a Catholic bible use the New American on the Vatican website.
>>
>>133548139
Catholic bible-scholars is what I meant. Not specifically roman catholic either.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1