Favored Translation

Which translation is best?

Other urls found in this thread:

saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel 7:13-14
chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The arabic one

KJV and ESV

If you want a good essay on bible translations, from an orthodox point of view : saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm
The Geneva Bible often contained slanted translations with even more slanted marginal notes.

>claims its divinely dictated
>reads like a disjointed series of tweets, no flow, lacks context, ambiguities abound
kek

Did you read it in Arabic?

...

I have muslim friends who speak arab, and they confirmed the same thing I said, they also mentioned it has a lot of redundancy. They quoted a verse about how if you're "open minded" you will focus on the true and clear parts, while those who are mischeavious will overemphasizes the unclear and ambiguous parts.

...

Mormon's Bible+
The old school bible alone feels incomplete

You can actually get a Mormon mega-Bible with all the extra shit

Thanks for posting the essay.

>good essay
>claims KJV to be more precise than NRSV
>smugposter
>advises godawful shit like ESV
neck you're self

In English, the Orthodox Study Bible is the best option, as it has the Septuagint. Without the Septuagint, you’re cut off from the fullness of Scripture.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament produced a few hundred years before Christ. The other Bibles listed here base their OT on medieval Hebrew manuscripts. New Testament quotations of the OT line up with Septuagint text, and differ from the medieval texts.

These reformation-based Bibles have also excised the “deuterocanonical” books, because certain reformers didn’t “feel” they were “inspired” enough.

All that said, I greatly enjoy the King James, it’s the most beautiful translation by far, and I see a place for the RSV.

>>claims its divinely dictated
>>reads like a disjointed series of tweets, no flow, lacks context, ambiguities abound
You could say the same about parts of the Bible.

Do you have any argument against the (quite detailed) opinions in the essay, or just memes?
Did you read the whole thing?
Do you take issue with the claim, to take one, that NRSV having chosen to "insert words that do not exist in the original text, to omit words that do, and to change singular pronouns into plural to avoid words with gender distinctions" makes the text less accurate?
Here, let me quote a little more for the hard of reading:
>"The NRSV also removes the very important messianic phrase “Son of Man” from the entire Old Testament (this being an exceptionally offensive phrase, having two gender distinctions it as it does). And so when we read Daniel 7:13, in the NRSV, we find:
>“As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him”
>This totally disconnects Christ’s use of the phrase “Son of Man” from this prophecy. Fortunately we are spared readings such as “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Human has nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8.20), or “Who do people say that I the Human am?” (Matthew 16:13), but all of the prophetic significance of this term is sacrificed on the altar of feminism."

So, what will it be? An argument or a meme?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel 7:13-14
>The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being.
>MUH FEMINISM

Depends what you're looking for. KJV, RSV and ESV are probably the best from a literary perspective. NASB is great too if you're a stickler for literalness.Richard Lattimore's NT and Alter's partial OT are good for contemporary language. Barnstone's NT isn't bad accept for his printing prose passages like poetry. Same for Fox's partial OT. The Anchor Bible is a good, if expensive, option for very copious notes from a secular perspective.

>And in terms of substance, the text is far worse. For example, contrary to 2,000 years of reading this text in the context of the Christian Tradition, they translation Genesis 1:2 as saying that “a divine wind was being carried along over the water.” That is a plainly heretical translation of the text.
The absolute state of christfags.

You actually couldn't because the bible is not said to be dictated by God and is actually a series of 73 different books, making the disjointed accusation retarded.

There are parts that are said to be directly dictated by God, e.g. the laws in the Pentateuch.

Best audiobook? i.e unabridged and British English pls

Although not British, Johnny Cash reading the New Testament is dope

(might only be the Gospels, I forget)

*except

Alexander Scourby's reading of the King James. You can find it on youtube.

what is the point? doctrine/covenants and the pearl of great price are both super shitty

Pearl of Great Price has the wackiest stuff in it, I quite like it actually.

I've got their triple combination, I don't need another bible.

what about what this nigger says
chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp

lol this, the most boring shit in the Bible is the stuff God himself says.

>divine word of God
>"guys don't let your cow wander into someone else's field"
>"conduct a census but I'll get angry if you do, so give money to the priests to stop me being angry"

Let he who is without retarded scripture cast the first shitpost