His voice is relaxing and precise as well.

Indeed

Best there is in my opinion

Excellent ASMR qualities.

She could stand to lose a pound or two.

I agree! In fact it agrees more with the Dead sea scroll (DSS) unlike the Masoretic Text (MT)

AMEN!

They disliked it because of Ego and people being people they are never satisfied. This book i have found has helped me with my faith . I wonder what would Jesus think of those Christians who are complaining about this bible

Costa Keith "relying far too heavily on the NKJV." You are absolutely correct. And that's an issue with nearly all these newer translations. The ESV, for example, only departs 6% from the RSV. There are numerous places where it in no way corresponds with the UBS 27 it is purported to reflect, even repeating well known RSV translation errors. And then there's the MEV which uses the word _reward_ for what the NASB/ESV/RSV/ASV all render as _rear guard_ Look at Isaiah 52:12 But how could this happen? Here's how: the KJV has the word _rereward_ here: an Early Modern English word which means rear guard. I need not explain to you what happened here; what level of laziness (and ignorance) produced this. It'd be laughable if it was an error in something other than God's word. These men are in it for the mammon. End of. (note: even all the other translations' following of the KJV by inserting _rear guard_ is clearly the fruit of laziness. "Good artists borrow, great artists steal." but it least those thieving artists had enough sense to double check an archaic word's meaning so as not to get caught.

@Eremias Ranwolf As long as it has the full canon

@Eremias Ranwolf That only has 66 books though? It’s not the whole orthodox bible.

What orthodox translation would you recommend?

Thanks, Fred. Almost 700. That's about 690 more than I thought I'd have.

I would love to see the whole version! PLEASE POST IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Walter, what is your opinion of it? Thanks

@@Jonathan-A Is the otherdox Bible different from kjv Bible? I just guessing you got the book by now

@@VampireHub616 Hi - yes It came a good while ago. It is very good, and the commentary is exemplary. The New testament is NKJV and the Old Testament is The Septuagint - this is the major difference between it and the KJV, whose Old Testament is Masoretic. I can thoroughly recommend it.

Jacob Foster Agreed, I find myself always watching late at night for a nice calm review. Yep, ya gotta grab your popcorn before sitting back with an R. G Jones vids😉

Thanks for the encouraging words! Hope you feel better soon. I'd say that at least a third of my Bibles are hardbacks. I actually prefer hardbacks for the larger study Bibles. I intend to review the Tolle Lege 1599 Geneva one of these days. Before I do, I'd like to compare it with the 1560 and make a table showing a few places where the two translations differ.

To Airik111: Those videos beat warm milk and melatonin!

R. Grant Jones 😄😉

Thanks for those encouraging words, Quantum Modality. (By the way, quantum mechanics was my favorite subject in graduate school.)

@@RGrantJones Thank you for the reply. I understand and share the same view about QM. That is why I am doing a little education in the field of NMR spectroscopy. :). After all the basic units of Existence itself bears the mark of our Creator and it is really awe inspiring to gaze into it and behold His Creative genius.

Who is the Orthodox scholar who says it is a disgrace?

So which Bible would you recommend for the Orthodox faithful?

The point is that the Orthodox Study Bible's Old Testament is supposed to translate the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. But it doesn't do that consistently. The Greek and the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) agree with each other -- the NETS is an accurate translation of the Septuagint. But the Orthodox Study Bible often fails to translate the Greek. When it does so, it agrees with the NKJV, which is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Norman Dennis there is also the Lexham English Septuagint (which has also been reviewed on this channel)

Thank you for the comment, Father John. I thought that the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" was included to deny Marcellus of Ancyra's heretical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15.23-28. As I understand it, Marcellus believed that the Son would be dissolved into the Father at the end, when he shall have "put all enemies under his feet" and ceased to reign. So it would seem to me that the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" is not directed against any particular view of the kingdom -- one that asserts that Christ will continue to reign from the right hand of the Father without ever setting foot on earth again, or one that asserts that a phase of Christ's kingdom will include a lengthy period where He is personally present on earth, or any other possibility -- but against any view of the kingdom that asserts that Christ will cease to reign when all enemies are under his feet, death is destroyed, and God is "all in all". But, as in all things, it's possible that I'm mistaken regarding that historical background, and the fathers of the Second Council did mean to condemn the millennial views of Irenaeus of Lyons and others, rather than to safeguard against Marcellus's theological error.

I'd be willing to overlook most of the flaws in this Bible if it had been a careful attempt to translate the Septuagint. I was very disappointed when it was finally published, many years behind schedule.

I have one also that was a gift. I have an Ancient Faith Study Bible I recently purchased and a Sir Lancelot Brenton LXX. I prefer them over the OSB .

Thanks! I'm not familiar with the Revised English Septuagint. (The results of an internet search tell me that it's a modernized edition of Brenton's translation.) "Invisible" is the word the NETS chose; Charles Thomson also. That's also the definition in my copy of the second edition of Bauer's lexicon. My guess is that Brenton went behind the Greek to the Hebrew and chose an English word which he thought better reflected the meaning of the original.

@@RGrantJones What about the Lexham English Septuagint?

@@clouds-rb9xt - I believe that I wrote the comment above about a year before the LEB was published. The LEB 2nd edition uses 'unseen' there.

Thanks for the question, Stephono. The OSB provides the books and sections that are outside the Hebrew canon, which are absent from the Ancient Faith Study Bible (AFSB). It doesn't quote from patristic sources as frequently as the AFSB does. I haven't checked the two side-by-side, but I would be surprised if they often cite the same sources in the same locations. The OSB, which used the NKJV as its starting point, is more literal than the AFSB, which relies on the CSB. The OSB often shows the influence of the Septuagint; the CSB much less so.

@@RGrantJones That makes sense, Grant. Thanks a lot for getting back to me!

There is an ancient faith edition of the OSB, so if you want the best of both worlds, you could get that

I believe you're correct. But as to why the OSB fails to translate the LXX, as it often does, I don't know. The OSB fails to conform the NKJV to the LXX frequently in Genesis and Exodus.

@@RGrantJones Thanks for the quick response. I am very much enjoying learning about the differences between the MT and LXX, and it gets unduly complicated when I don't have accurate English translations. Fortunately Brenton and NETS got it right. Thanks again.

No, as far as I know it isn't available without the notes. The New Testament is the NKJV, of course, and I believe NKJV New Testaments are in print. But the Old Testament translation is unique. Thanks very much for the encouraging comment!

There’s an Orthodox copy of the New Testament

Thanks for the comment, Peter! My list isn't thorough by any means. I grew tired of listing them early in Exodus, and I may have missed a few along the way. If you send me an email at ignatios_antioch@hotmail.com, I'll be happy to email you a copy of my OSB review from 2009. It's a .htm file.

@@RGrantJones will do. Thank you so much. Also keep doing your great and wonderful videos. They are greatly appreciated. Thank you again.

@@RGrantJones I just found your list of correction for the OSB that go all the way into Jeremiah. Did you do a full list of corrections now for the OSB or is it still incomplete? I literally just found it on Duck Duck Go. Can't find it on Google. Let me know. Thanks.

@@peterpapoutsis496 - no, I ran out of steam at some point, so it's incomplete. My hope was that the editors would pursue it further, resulting in a corrected edition.

Hello Grant. I'm just checking in to see if you ever found out why the OSB left out Genesis 25:34? This looks like a mistake, but IDK. Let me know if you know.

I don't know that anyone does what you ask. But there is a Bible that uses a slightly modified KJV text with pronouns for deity capitalized: the Third Millennium Bible. I intend to review it within the next few weeks.

Thanks for the question, David! I haven't reviewed my copy of Rahlfs yet (the small blue volume). But I will some day, God willing.

Thanks for the question, David! I haven't reviewed my copy of Rahlfs yet (the small blue volume). But I will some day, God willing.

@@RGrantJones Awesome! I look forward to it 😁 Have a blessed day!

Jay - it contains more books than the average Catholic Bible. I show a chart that compares the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant canons at about the 9:00 point. The Orthodox Study Bible includes all the books listed in the Orthodox canon.

@@RGrantJones awesome! Thank you so much sir. I'll definitely be getting myself a copy

The New Testament is the NKJV New Testament. For the books of the Protestant canon, the Old Testament is the NKJV Old Testament adjusted to agree with the LXX. However, the corrections weren't made with sufficient care. As a consequence, there are places where the OSB reads like the NKJV where it shouldn't. For the books in the OSB Old Testament that aren't in the Protestant canon, the OSB follows the Septuagint.

That's actually rather awesome. I've been looking for a book which contained the NKJV NT, but also had the apocryphal books in the Septuagint's format so that I could read them just as the early church fathers (as they didn't have a specific canon yet from what I understand). Sounds like an amazing Bible rebind candidate as well since the updated version has the bound spine. I think I'll buy the newest ancient faith hardcover and have it professionally rebound and use that for a long time. Thanks!

Thank you, gypsy.

I count 12 color icons. I don't believe there are any other illustrations - no diagrams, black-and-white maps, tables, etc. - at least I don't recall seeing any.

The decision to remove them was made by one of the Bible societies in the early nineteenth century to save money (a smaller Bible is less expensive to publish). Other publishers followed their lead. So while in the eighteenth century, most King James Bibles were printed with the Apocrypha, by the beginning of the twentieth century, an English Bible intended for Protestants with the Apocrypha included became very hard to find.

Thanks, Hector.

Gerald Parker -- Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, my objection is to the Bible’s misinterpretation of 1Constantinople, not to its rejection of a millennium characterized by a return to the Old Testament law. People can disagree about eschatology without distorting history.

I'll be interested in the response as well. I knew an Orthodox priest who used the Oxford RSV Annotated Study Bible, but that was before the OSB was published. The Third Millennium Bible is another option. For the New Testament, there's the Eastern Orthodox Bible. I haven't heard when or if the Old Testament will be published. The EOB New Testament is a rather large paperback. I hope to review it in a few weeks.

My instincts were correct it seems. I am new to Orthodoxy, but no stranger to the Holy Bible. I have a few different translations. My copy of the OSB was a gift, and mainly was used for praying the Office (I’m Western Rite and pray the English Office Noted), though these days I use an app on my phone that has the KJV with the “Apocrypha,” which is basically the rest of the canon. The OSB mainly is used for the footnotes, which offer little snippets of insight.

Most Orthodox will tell you that no Bible/translation is sufficient on its own other than actually using the Old Greek OT and the 1904 Patriarchal Greek NT. I use a variety of translations and Bibles. Another option for the Orthodox OT canon, although problematic, is the NETS. It used the NRSV as it's base rather than the NKJV like the OSB. The NRSV, and by it use of it, the NETS, are ecumenical and "liberal" translations. The benefit is that it is the whole canon and even includes 4 Makkabees (which the OSB does not). Some people also like to use the Brenton Septuagint, but I find it too archaic like the KJV or ASV. Most Orthodox just use a common but "literal" translation for the NT; typically the RSV, ESV, NKJV, or NASB.

I am also new to the faith and the father at my parish recommended this version. I will, however, tell you that when I study the Bible I prefer to have a concordance, dictionary, and several other books at hand.

@@piquant7103 You obviously are not orthodox based on your statments but a hypocrate

Is the paper better quality on the leathersoft cover one?

@@catlorecj424 the paper is great quality man in my opinion

It's almost identical to KJV in this verse besides middle English and modern English differences like OSB says "vultures" and KJV says "fowls"

I normally measure the thickness of the text block and divide by the number of sheets. The problem with this book is that heavy pages are inserted frequently, and the sections of light paper between them are too thin for me to measure accuracy. (After I have the sheet thickness, I multiply that by a density -- based on a set of Bibles with advertised GSM values -- to arrive at paper weight. The procedure is inexact, of course, since paper density varies and my measurements are imperfect, but I've found I'm generally within about 10% of the advertised paper weight.)

The OSB Old Testament includes material from the LXX, but it doesn't do so consistently. Thanks for asking!

R. Grant Jones thanks for the reply! Do you know what the rest is if it’s not the Septuagint? And how much of the Septuagint was used in the OSB?

@@witchf4ce310 - It looks like the NKJV, which is based on the Masoretic Hebrew. I don't have a good idea of how much LXX material they left out. You can take a look at my written review (linked in a pinned comment) for a lengthy but far from comprehensive list of examples. Of course, the Deuterocanonical / Anagignoskomena books are entirely from the LXX.

R. Grant Jones Okay thank you so much!

That’s a hard question to answer. I wish I could say the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS), since I like their overall approach. (They take the New Testament’s understanding of Old Testament texts seriously and render them accordingly). But the SAAS simply strays from the LXX toward the Hebrew too often. (SAAS is the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible.) I think the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is generally accurate, and I use it frequently. It also packs a great deal of useful, scholarly background information. The font is somewhat small, but larger than that in the standard edition of Brenton’s translation. Some people dislike the fact that NETS transliterates names from the Greek (Moyses instead of Moses), but that doesn’t bother me. The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is good also. I generally liked the second edition, though some of the language was too informal for my taste, and some of the renderings too loose. LES has the advantage of a relatively large, dark typeface and a wide margin in which corrections can be written. Unhappily, the text block is glued, as is that in the next translation. Brenton’s translation is still a very good choice. I disagree with some of his renderings, but I’ve found him to be generally accurate. This edition also includes the Greek text alongside the English, which makes it easy to check. My chief problem with it is the tiny font for the English text. Charles Thomson’s translation is also generally reliable. Unfortunately, the edition I’ve seen includes only 39 books. So, if I could have only one, I would probably chose NETS. But I make frequent use of SAAS, NETS, and Brenton.

@@RGrantJones thanks so much for your reply, I am looking to buy an English translation of the Septuagint,I didn’t know of SAAS,was only familiar with Brenton,Thomson and NETS,so I didn’t know which one to get,your answer helped a lot,thank you. Love your Bible reviews.

I really want an English Septuagint....what is your opinion on the best one? I'm looking maybe NETS vs LES?

Yes. You can see the difference in Old Testament canons at about the 09:00 point. Thanks for commenting!

I think so, Cynthia. This one has the same ISBN: www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594

This exactly

No, not I.

@@RGrantJones I just bought a very large thick Bible entitled Holy Bible Ethiopic Version. As you know the Ethiopic Bible was an early translation from the LXX. After evaluating it, I was very surprised to find that this Bible is a Mesoretic based translation. It's also only the Old Testament and does not contain the three Ethiopian Maccabee books. It's a hybrid of MT with added Apocrypha, 1 &2 Enoch, and Jubilees. Not what I was expecting. I'm debating whether or not to return it. Thanks to you showing me the hundred less known variants between the LXX and MT, I was able to pick it out pretty easily. Thanks again Dr Jones.

No, it isn't. Thanks for the question!

Your geocities page has been hacked. Every time I clicked on the link a "you won a prize" page pops up.

Sorry to hear that, Thomas. The link still works fine on my computer. No pop-ups.

Pls suggest me perfect Bible version

Thank you for your work! I'd be immensely grateful if you could reply to my comment below

First let me thank you for what is a thorough review of the OSB on your website …. can you recommend what you feel is the most reliable English translation of the Septuagint? thank you Robert

Yes, it is missing. Nice catch!

@@RGrantJones I was wrong. Upon research, it was left out because it is not in the Septuagint. This bothered me because the verse was left out of their newest edition. As such, I went to the original text. I should have done this instead of thinking it was a mistake.

@@kingpatriarch224 - Are you sure you were wrong? Rahlfs' Septuagint includes the following between Gen 25.33 and 26.1: Ιακωβ δὲ ἔδωκεν τῷ Ησαυ ἄρτον καὶ ἕψεμα φακοῦ, καὶ ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν καὶ ἀναστὰς ᾤχετο· καὶ ἐφαύλισεν Ησαυ τὰ πρωτοτόκια. That translates to 'And Jacob gave bread to Esau, and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and he arose and departed; so Esau slighted his birthright.' The verse is in Brenton's LXX, the New English Translation of the Septuagint, the Lexham English Septuagint, and Thomson's Septuagint. I also checked the Cambridge Septuagint, which is Greek only, but which has a decent apparatus listing textual variants. There is no indication there that LXX manuscripts omit this verse. I recall verifying all that when I saw your comment the first time. I just looked at the Patriarchal Text of 1904/12 and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. Genesis 25.34 is present in both.

I have a couple of copies of the older NAB, but I haven't bought an NABRE yet. When I do, I'll review it. As a translation, the NAB is fairly free, but much more literal than the Jerusalem Bible. I haven't used the NAB very much recently. My recollection is that it has a tendency to employ as few words as possible, and I like that economy of expression.

Thank you for your quick response.

I recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z7mdnJmVkti0k40.html

@@RGrantJones Thanks, I will try this out. I personally think that Catholic Bible looks solid too.

@@hassanmirza2392 - I understand your reasons for preferring a Catholic Bible. For myself, I like the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) with the Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version. While the NRSV uses modern gender neutral language, the RSV is mostly in mid-twentieth century standard English. The RSV uses archaic endings when God is being addressed, and that seems more reverent to me. I like having the books in the Eastern Orthodox canon, and I fact that the RSV NOAB places the Apocryphal books at the end, rather than between the testaments.

@@RGrantJones Many people keep saying that Catholic Bible is more complete, makes sense. Orthodox ones are not standard either in West. The Oxford Bibles are mostly humanist ones. I don't like it either. They keep saying that Bible stories are all legends and not real stuff. They bring their own secular biases in foot notes. A believer's Bible is better than a Secular Bible.

@@hassanmirza2392 - Just a word of warning in case you haven't discovered this fact yet: Some Catholic Bibles are also humanistic.

Thank you! I'm glad you like my voice, but many people find it annoying. I wonder how the same voice can induce such different reactions.

cant talk, 2 major car accidents unfortunatly

@@BlackMetalSchecter *_I NEED TO TALK TO YOU._*

That's an optimistic thought! But I suspect they're from people who are loyal to this Bible, for whatever reason, and don't want to hear that it has flaws.

Could I ask your view on the Dakes?

@@radical7663 - I haven't examined it in detail. I saw one in a used bookstore once. It was overpriced and I was discouraged by the small font, so I left it there.

If you ever think to do a Dake's review, @@RGrantJones, please do so. There are still sincere believers in the U.S. who swear by it, despite the Dake's support for the Gap Theory, and some allegations of racism.

@@IndianaJoe0321 - if I come across a copy at a reasonable price, I'll purchase it and review it.

Thank you for the kind comment, Don! I reviewed the Companion Bible a few years ago -- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r8iVgqVlqrGZn40.html

I agree. I went into this question in more detail at the 22:47 mark in this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/adJmjJd7y56tj5s.html .

No, they aren't.

I'm no expert, but given Dead Sea Scroll alignments with the Septuagint, that seems like a real possibility.

@@RGrantJones have you interacted with Doug Woodward's 2 volume work Rebooting the Bible? Thanks!

@@1Immanuel8 - No, this is the first I've heard of it. Looks interesting. Thanks for mentioning it!

@@RGrantJones really enjoying your reviews! Thanks. My Greek is pretty rusty. I'm a former Baptist pastor. What Septuagint materials do you recommend? I think I read somewhere Rahlfs's Reader and Brenton for English. I also have the LXX interlinear on Logos software though my aging eyes work better with books.

@@1Immanuel8 - I use Hendrickson's two-volume reader's edition, with NETS as a crutch. I reviewed the Hendrickson edition in a video on this channel -- it has good paper and decent-sized print. Thanks for the kind words about the videos!

My copy is definitely glued, not sewn. But it was printed in 2008. While it's possible that the editions available today are sewn, Christian Book Distributors also sells the OSB, and they say their copies have glued bindings (www.christianbook.com/the-orthodox-study-bible-hardcover-edition/9780718003593/pd/003590?product_redirect=1&search_term=orth&Ntt=003590&item_code=WW&ps_exit=PRODUCT&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP ).

@John Ritter The Orthodox Study Bible reviewed in this video is the 2008 edition published by Thomas Nelson, which is glued. The OSB published by Ancient Faith Publications in 2019 is smyth sewn and available in hardback and leathersoft (faux leather). Apart from the addition of pre- and post-communion prayers, the AFP version has exactly the same contents and layout.

They don’t have an ‘official’ NT (English translation, at least). As far as I can tell they aren’t really hung up on translation. Liturgically only a few select are approved but for use it’s not a big deal. I think a lot of Protestant converts just think it is.

OrangeCola Juice Then please explain why the New Testament writers used the Septuagint.

They did use the Septuagint, @@davidfigueroa8188, but not exclusively. There are times when a quote comes from Hebrew and there are times when a Pauline quote comes from an unknown source. Knowing this, it should inform one's "doctrine" of inspiration -- which most evangelicals don't understand.

@@IndianaJoe0321 Both Jesus and the apostles quoted the LXX more than the Hebrew OT.

@@piquant7103 The Qumran scrolls actually confirm the LXX more. You must have misunderstood something. Besides that, Jesus and the apostles quoted the LXX more even when it differed from the Proto-Masoretic Text. Just deal with it.

@@piquant7103 I guess I've misunderstood then. I thought you argued for the MT and against the LXX. To be fair we don't have a full LXX from before the time of Christ. However, 300 AD (Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus LXX) is way closer to Jesus than 920 (Aleppo Codex MT) or 1008 (Codex Leningradensis MT).

@Elizabeth Shaw no there isn't unfortunately.

:)

It has old Testament....

sorry to bother but do you think esv is a good bible? i’m kinda young but i wanna read the truth

@@meklit3130 Long story short be humble and use your own judgment. Nothing is perfect, not even ones own interpretation which is why one would need to ask a priest or preferably a more traditional one than modern one since 1/2 the church is against the other half. Modern priests vs traditional priests I assume. One has to use judgment for everything and be humble enough to feel one is wrong despite you can feel the other is. Christ did not come to make the bible but the church. And the Church was Greek first since Ancient Greek views are similar to what Christianity preaches which is why it flourished in Greece. Also the fact that Greece had the majority of the places even where Christ was born and the apostles spoke Greek, many of them went to Greece which is why most in the New Testament are locations in Greece, and the official old and new are Greek. Their is a lot that the priests do not know but better than most but just like when doing to see a doctor for medical advice best to ask a 2nd opinion since every priest seems to interoperate differently. The Orthodox church has apostolic succession and was in control of the original churches when the counsel was in order, and had the majority when getting rid of the pope since he declared himself above other which is a sin since even Christ said their is no one above others and everyone is equal. Which is why the Orthodox church has the ecumenical patriarch called first among equals. The Key this this story is Greek has the original which one can not learn the ancient Greek well enough, but even if they do one needs the guidance of a priest since self interpenetrating can be an issue for most despite hard enough for a priest which has more knowledge on the matter due to their theology degree. But One has to use common sense with everything even the Greek or the ESV. I go with what is online and if i have a question I ask a priest online or in person if they have time.The Orthodox study bible is kind of better than most but some passages I feel are anti Greek since they interoperate the world Greek as non Jewish which their is a world for that already which means gentile which the Study bible gives the wrong info on that basic thing. A anti Greek view is anti Christianity since no other nation has spread Christianity for 2000 years as proper as them, and even when the Greeks went to see Christ Christ said the hour has come for God to be glorified. Christ and the apostles ate bread not including Job since its not allowed for a jew to eat bread during Passover. The apostles went to Greek terrines to preach since they knew Greek despite some say they did not know Greek, St Katherine stated that the Greeks were the ones to first predicted Christ would arrive, The church reads the linage of Abraham to begot Joseph the husband of marry to begot Christ which is not true since that goes against immaculate conception and presented to show a lineage to Abraham but if that was true then they would state how the Virgin Mary is but they don't since their seems to be non and the be of Jewish one has to be of Abraham descendants. No church would state that. Does that sound logical? Point is like every profession one must think to feed themselves information than be fed. The study bible is better than most English version but again Christ did not come for people to read the bible since the church put it together and a assistant to the church. But most bibles are from the perspective of protestants so. Even modern Priests are trying to look like protestants maybe to slowly merge churches which I assume they will merge Catholics with Orthodox to rename the pope as a new ecumenical patriarch if they were the merge. Protestants have done more hard to Christianity than help of this feel good mentality than truth. I am not expert but I state what I hear from others that know more. The Russian Orthodox church lately has their things in order and not pressured by politics as much but I dont know of any book they have. Politics affect everything from the food you eat, the cloths you have, what the priest is not allowed to state, etc. You can read them and listen to a priest but ask question to try to make sense of things. But dont questions too much since many get upset. You would need to ask a priest. I prefer one with that is more traditional than modern that has a long beard and hair that looks like a priest if they have the time. Just my opinion.

@@trench01 thank you very much!!! i’ll be doing more research

26:59

Alexander Albano do you know any good books with writings by the church fathers? I belong to and go to the Orthodox Church because I’m greek but I honestly haven’t believed in God up until last year... and I would love some good information on the Orthodox Church in text if possible! Thanks 😄

Lol. That's what the publishers want me to do!

My voice won't last if I speak loudly. Thanks for commenting!

Thanks! I'm sure you're right about the cross. The rounded look at the ends of the crossbar and the top of the vertical beam is characteristic of the Greek cross, isn't it? But didn't Orthodox Christianity start in the Holy Land in the first century?

Its an Orthodox Cross, all 14 Jurisdictions use it.

Orthodox Christianity began in Jerusalem, not Greece and certainly not Russia. Also, "copied"? Do you think that Christ is for the Greeks and Russians only? Was Christ a Greek or a Russian?

The 3 bar cross originated in Russia around 500 years ago by Ivan the Terrible. You'd be hard pressed to find one atop a church in Greece. Or other non-Slavic Orthodox churches, like Georgia.

Rahlfs' Greek text reads, "μελαινα ειμι και καλη."