The bible is a book

>The bible is a book
nope

editions of the oxford annotated*

true how could anyone consider garbage paper a book

...

Get the Orthodox Study Bible. The Old Testament is a translation of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation produced a few hundred years before Christ. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament are of the Septuagint. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts come from 600 years closer to our time. Where the NKJV translation aligns with the Septuagint, the NKJV translation is used. Importantly, the Septuagint includes the "deuterocanonical" books which are removed from post-Reformation translations because certain reformers didn't like them. The New Testament uses the NKJV translation.

It is filled with footnotes drawing from the Church Fathers, and has other informative articles on various topics of theology and doctrine. The NKJV translation is very readable and one of the better English translations out there.

The Oxford Annotated Bible is a meme that people on Veeky Forums took seriously. Because it has "Oxford" and "Annotated" in the name. The NRSV pure adulteration and sanitization. The notes are from "scholars" who spend most of their time trying to undermine the texts more than the translation already does. The quality of the book itself is offensive. Picking it up feels like picking up a big block of jello. The paper is so thin that you can read 20 pages ahead.

In summary, The Orthodox Study Bible is the least adulterated Bible you can get in English, because it has the Septuagint. It's easily readable without being sanitized. If you decide you don't want that, get an ESV or a regular NKJV. Do not get the Oxford Annotated "Bible". Do not get an NRSV.

There are two Oxford Annotated Bibles. The New Oxford Annotated Bible has the NRSV translation. The older Oxford Annotated Bible has the RSV translation and is fairly popular among English-speaking Orthodox. Both are in print currently.

What do you want out of it? Do you want to read it in its religious context, translated in that manner? Do you want to read it in the "scholarly" context in which things will be deliberately translated so that they contradict and denigrate Christian beliefs? There isn't some unbiased translation out there.

Pretty much this.

only vulgate is permissible for a real intellectual,
if you really have trouble with latin go for douay rheims which is a literal translation - word to word from vulgate, but i don't recommend that
just learn latin
KJV is larp (I won't even start about other translations)

Well what are you reading it for?

To read the life lessons and parables in it, and possibly awaken any spirituality i may have.

But I dont want to feel like a brainlet who has to have the moral literally spelled out in front of me while i do so.

My post only applies to the NRSV NOAB. I've never looked at the RSV OAB, so I can't speak to the notes, but the RSV is on the level of the NKJV and ESV. It doesn't have a Septuagint OT, though, which is my biggest criticism of all of these. The Orthodox Study Bible is the best option in English for Orthodox Christians and people looking for an "unadulterated" Bible.

A little more context for you guys:

I am agnostic and I'm looking to read the bible mostly as literature, but I do want to be able to think about what it's actually saying and internalize it to become a better person. My mother is a non denominational christian who takes us to the wh*te people churches where they basically have a concert for an hour and then the pastor gets up and says "be a good person" and throws in a quote from the NLT Bible. It felt really dumb to me.

I also read a little of the KJV Bible but I found the language too flowery and dated for my tastes.

Which version is the best for becoming a better person without having the morals crammed down my throat?

>posting le meathook man
Ortholarper detected. I give you a few months before you give up on trying to bastardize Christianity and become and become a pagan.

>being this mad that someone who is Orthodox is also interested in Codreanu

lmao ok bud.

The only Veeky Forums English translation of the Bible is the King James.
>Which version is the best for becoming a better person without having the morals crammed down my throat?
The Orthodox Study Bible because the notes and articles in it will help you understand what Christianity is. If you approach the Bible from a non-denom background without any instruction in Orthodoxy, you will get almost nothing out of it.
It's not too late for you to accept that Jesus is the Christ, you know.

cepher bible

cepher has septuagint and non apocyrphal texts like book of enoch

Using the Septuagint isn't some sort of universal Orthodox tradition. The Vulgate uses the Hebrew OT, for instance. It is within the bounds of Orthodoxy as it was prior to the Great Schism.

NEW AMERICAN
E
W

A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N

The Syriac Peshitta also used the Hebrew OT.

I'm surprised they haven't canonized Vlad the Implader.

I'm surprised they haven't canonized Vlad the Impaler.

>unadulterated version

The New Testament is all in Koine and it's a simplified Greek dialect. Greek was the somewhat universal language in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aramaic was a more tribal language. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke along with Acts were likely oral stories that were originally in Aramaic. John probably was originally Greek because it's more mystic. The Epistles were likely to have been originally written in Greek.

biblegateway.com/versions/Easy-to-Read-Version-ERV-Bible/

The Old Testament was in Hebrew. The New Testament was in Greek. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic.

you'll never find the original copy. It was never even said that it was in that language. Even the old testament was written during the time of Jesus.

The latter is factually wrong, you idiot. It most certainly wasn’t.

Both were great people and if we did not have the current corrupt leaders that slave for the EU jew these two should have been sanctified.
I have actually talked to ortodox romainian priests and the good ones not the corrupt rich ones.All came to the conclusion that the legionary movement was sacred and that the captain should have been sanctified as a martyr of the romainian people.

if you weren't there there is no way for you to 'certainly' know you domagtic foul-mouthed whore.

The King James (Authorized) Version is a popular Anglican (and Protestant) Bible. The KJV is the most poetic and has had the biggest impact on the English language. It's really nice and has a cool old timey vibe. Don't bother with the NKJV or the 1611 version, just get a regular KJV (the one with updated standardized spellings from the 1700s). The problem is, the KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Mesoretic Text, which was produced by the Pharisees, the #1 enemies of Christ and Christians, and they edited the OT text to remove or minimize prophecies that proved that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God. God knows what else they worked in there. So the the KJV's OT was basically passed through a kike filter. If you just want the Bible as literature, go ahead and read it. You'll have a primo aesthetic experience, and you'll learn the sources of idioms and catch allusions in other works, but don't base any theology on that version's OT. You'll miss out on the Apocrypha as well, since the Protestants tore that out of the KJV in the 16th century.

The Douay-Rheims Version was the Roman Catholic Bible in English. Rather than the (((Masoretic Text))), the DR's OT was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was first translated from the Greek originals NT and the Greek Septuagint OT by one of the Church Fathers (St Jerome I think), so with the DR you're reading the translation of a translation (...of a translation in the case of the OT). The aesthetics of the language is about on par with the KJV, but the DR wasn't as influential.

The Orthodox Bible mentioned above was translated from the Septuagint, which itself had an OT translated into Greek from Hebrew, so with the OT you're again reading a translation of a translation, but the NT is translated straight from the original Greek. Like the DR, the Orthodox Bible has the bonus of not being derived from the Masoretic Text, and includes the Apocrypha.

All the modernist Bibles are trash contaminated by manuscripts dug out of Gnostic libraries in the 20th century, or edited to insert politics into the text, ranging from Zionism to feminism. Run away.

Avoid a reference Bible or a study Bible. Just read the actual text. You don't need a commentator shoehorning in his agenda.

Get large print if you can. Avoid "Bible paper" if you can.

>you'll never find the original copy.
>original
>copy
Pick one. We don't need the original because we have abundant copies.

>It was never even said that it was in that language.
What? The NT was certainly written in Greek. It wasn't originally written in Aramaic. Apparently the Gospels used a list of quotations from Jesus that were in Aramaic, though, and some Aramaic dialogue remained in the Greek versions.

>Even the old testament was written during the time of Jesus.
No, the OT certainly predates the birth of Jesus by centuries or millenia depending on the book.

according to a faceless church that lost control over its followers centuries ago

>You'll miss out on the Apocrypha as well, since the Protestants tore that out of the KJV in the 16th century.
The KJV was translated in the 17th century and included the Apocrypha.
>Rather than the (((Masoretic Text))), the DR's OT was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was first translated from the Greek originals NT and the Greek Septuagint OT by one of the Church Fathers
The Vulgate OT was translated from the Hebrew. Lol, you have no clue what you're talking about.

*Presses play on Rick and Morty*

Your animosity toward the Church doesn't give you an excuse to reject scholarship and reason. Stop reacting with your emotions and start thinking. The provenance of the NT is certainly dated to the 1st century AD, mostly within 40 years of the Crucifixion. This is what the Church says. It's what mainstream secular scholars say. I'm guessing you got the nonsense you're pushing from a YouTube video. Stop repeating things just because they conform to your prejudices. Use your head.

your church is dumb. and your scholars are all baby-boomer filth
>stop
no

>you'll never find the original copy
And? Do you know anything about textual criticism? The oldest full copy of the Iliad is from the 10th century AD, almost 2,000 years after its composition. Can we have any certainty about its contents?

>The KJV was translated in the 17th century
And the first Protestant Bible to remove the Apocrypha was in the 16th century. The KJV followed suit later, in the 18th century. I obviously wasn't referring to the history of the KJV in particular, but to Protestant Bibles in general.

>and included the Apocrypha.
And the KJVs you can buy today no longer include the Apocrypha. See the point?

>The Vulgate OT was translated from the Hebrew.
Not from the Masoretic Text. See the point?

>Lol, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Indeed.

>The oldest full copy of the Iliad is from the 10th century AD
the thing is, there are actual copies of it in attic greek that survived from the era it was written. One whole copy was recorded in attic greek and taken from the bottom of the agean and is now in the smithsonian.

>And the KJVs you can buy today no longer include the Apocrypha. See the point?
I own a physical copy of the KJV Apocrypha. It is still in print, bound with the rest of the books or as a separate volume.
>Not from the Masoretic Text. See the point?
There's no significant difference. Translations also use various sources. Old Testament translations that use the Hebrew will also consult the Septuagint and even prefer the Septuagint reading at points.

The Penguin and Oxford editions of the KJV include the apocrypha, you can buy them on amazon and in book shops. You can also buy the KJV apocrypha separately.

Also the fact that you don't know the textual sources of the translations you're extolling shows that your opinion of them is literally worthless.

The Iliad wasn't written in Attic Greek. But if there is a full extent copy of the Iliad from ~750 BC I'd like to see the source. That would be quite amazing if it were true (it isn't).

...

>I own a physical copy of the KJV Apocrypha. It is still in print, bound with the rest of the books or as a separate volume.
>The Penguin and Oxford editions of the KJV include the apocrypha, you can buy them on amazon and in book shops. You can also buy the KJV apocrypha separately.
*slow clap*
OP wants to read the Bible, not start a library. I recommended against the KJV because editions with the Apocrypha are the EXCEPTION (and not worthwhile exceptions if you look at the other features of the full text editions, which I did when I bought my KJV and KJV Apocrypha seperately).

>There's no significant difference.
There are thousands of differences.

>Translations also use various sources. Old Testament translations that use the Hebrew will also consult the Septuagint and even prefer the Septuagint reading at points.
If I handed you a glass of water and told you that one of the sources was my bladder, I bet you'd drink it.

>Also the fact that you don't know the textual sources of the translations you're extolling shows that your opinion of them is literally worthless.
What are you even blathering about? You know the Masoretic Text isn't the only Hebrew version, right? I already vanquished you on that point. What aren't you understanding? Where exactly do you imagine that you caught me in an error about textual sources of translations? Please point it out and I'll correct your misunderstanding.

>If I handed you a glass of water and told you that one of the sources was my bladder, I bet you'd drink it.
Literally not an argument. Modern translations consult the Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and Targumim as well as the Masoretic Text. They use all available sources to get the earliest readings and frequently depart from what the Masoretic Texts says.

>Please point it out and I'll correct your misunderstanding.
Right here:
>the DR's OT was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was first translated from the Greek originals NT and the Greek Septuagint OT

>Modern translations consult the Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and Targumim as well as the Masoretic Text.
Oh so you're not happy with the piss and want some shit stirred in?

>Right here
Um, actually you're wrong. Portions of the Vulgate OT weren't translated from Hebrew. Several books and portions of others were translated from the Septuagint (as well as Old Latin). Saying the entire OT was translated directly from the Hebrew is factually wrong, and demonstrates your ignorance. You're right as far as Jerome did translate much of the OT directly from Hebrew though, which I failed to state explicitly (because I was highlighting the double translation problem). So I will admit that I can see where your misunderstanding of my position came from, though.

>Oh so you're not happy with the piss and want some shit stirred in?
If your answers are only limited to toilet humour I think we can move on.

>Um, actually you're wrong.
"Um, no sweetie." I can see you desperately checked the Vulgate wikipedia article to try and prove your mistaken point.

No, the Vulgate Old Testament is not a translation of the Septuagint. You literally said "which was first translated from the ... the Greek Septuagint OT". Yes Jerome did use the Septuagint for the deuterocanon, no shit, it only existed in Greek in his day.

>NABRE
>Not Douay-Rheims

>I think we can move on.
I accept your concession.

>Yes Jerome did use the Septuagint for the deuterocanon
I accept your concession.

Haha, ok then mate, the deuterocanon is the entire Old Testament, you got me.

I didn't say the entire OT. I said the OT. See the difference? I didn't specify whether I was talking about the entire OT or parts of the OT. I was indeed talking about parts of OT, because they're the parts relevant to my point about double translation. I made that point in passing among others giving a broad overview of several versions, so I apologize for not clarifying everything to your satisfaction.

Or did you yourself mean "the entire OT" when you said that "The OT was translated from Hebrew"? You didn't specify either. Wouldn't that mean that you didn't know that parts of the OT were translated from the Septuagint, thus by your own standard refuting all of your statements on the topic?

It seems to me you've seized on a single muddy statement that, even after I clarified it for you and apologized for not being more specific, you still insist on your original reading, denying my attempt to guide you to what I actually think. I thus conclude that you're arguing in bad faith. That, much more so than any technical mistake ever could, renders you opinion entirely worthless.

Somebody really needs to create a chart explaining the difference between biblical criticism, theology and religious studies.

For a first reading of the bible, really any translation will do. Most aren't really that different. It's not like in one, Jesus is a guy who hates homosexuals and immigrants. Get an annotated version, though. It really helps with context.

>really any translation will do
>any
Too far senpai.

Christ taught that we should obey the law. That rules out illegal immigration. Christ defined marriage as instituted by God exclusively between a man and a woman, and taught that sex outside of marriage is a sin. That means homosexuality is a sin. Repeating that teaching has landed many pastors in prison or with lifetime publication bans in Western countries. You monsters would try to crucify Christ again if He were here today. This time the charge would be "hate speech." I hope for your sake that you someday actually read the Bible and seek Christ. Until then shut your damned mouth.

>that face when you view the "ladies" sign next to crucified Elmo as Elmo's speech bubble

>yfw this is the average Veeky Forumsard

Christ is an invention of ancient Semites who were as afraid of getting cucked as today's Muslims. All of them are self righteous numales who believe they own women's vaginas. Just like you.

Go fuck yourself sodomite

you forgot your pic of a nailed bitch on a cross

You have to be 18 years old to post on this site, user.

I killed your God and you christians love blaming me for him dying.

I don't believe the Vulgate is outside of the Orthodox tradition. I do think the LXX is superior to the Vulgate OT. I've heard very positive things about the Haydock Bible (Douay-Rheims with commentary from Catholic priest George Leo Haydock). His commentary seems to be the best out there when it comes to referencing Church Fathers. I've been wanting to get one for a while.

I'm not familiar with English translations of the Syriac Bible. Are there any comparable to the Orthodox Study Bible or the Haydock Bible?

There is George M. Lamsa's translation, but it doesn't have commentary.

...

Somehow the dates of "oldest complete manuscripts" entered the new atheist mythos as the dates of composition.

Did it? Or maybe they're just pointing out that there's about 300 years of absolute chaotic underground theology and oral tradition that has been lost to time. Outside of a few vague accounts of Jesus from Roman historians in the 2nd century, we don't actually have much in the way of EARLY CHURCH artifacts, nor a glimpse of how Christianity evolved as an ideology/oral tradition in the first 300 years. This should be interesting to both Atheists and Christians. Atheists see it as an evolution of an ideology from a few small oral traditions about a crucified philosopher into a lasting human tradition. Christians see it as a holy shroud of mystery surrounding something God wants you to have faith in. It is an important time, and we're woefully understocked. We have the shroud, but is authenticity is hotly debated, to say the least.

Also it's ridiculous that you would say that the maker of that table (or, somehow, by extension, Atheists in general) is suggesting the oldest compete as the date of composition, because immediately to their left are dates of older fragments.

Considering the context of other ancient documents of the era and region, the NT actually has vastly greater textual evidence than anything else.

>the NT actually has vastly greater textual evidence than anything else.

Correct. Which leaves curious people, religious or not, wanting more, because, as far as artifacts go, our earliest papyrus fragments of the NT date to many decades after Christ's death; the consensus is that they were anonymously written by well educated and probably rich individuals, as opposed to the individuals the gospels were named after, and are probably heavily edited from whatever documents they're descended from. Things were copied by hands, and the hands copying were connected to minds with political agendas. It is valuable to have earlier artifacts of Christ and His followers.

The history of the early Church is well understood among Orthodox. What do you think the Ecumenical councils were for? It only seems revelatory to atheists who come out of a nondenom/prot background. You've hit on another important part of the new atheist mythos-- the bizarre belief that we have mountains of manuscripts and artifacts from that period, and there's a shocking lack of Christian manuscripts and artifacts.
That table matches up well with what I've read of the actual state of scholarship on the topic. New atheists aren't aware of the actual state of scholarship.

My point is that early NT textual evidence that we possess is actually quite impressive and abnormal. For most texts we don't have anything for many centuries after the original writing.

>Things were copied by hands, and the hands copying were connected to minds with political agendas.
Yes, minds that you can never actually know. Too much of modern textual criticism is based around trying to read the minds of scribes from over a a millennium ago. Why was this verse dropped? Perhaps there was a campaign of suppression. Perhaps he was sleepy and dozed off. You can't know.

The one I'd recommend is the RSV desu. Retains a lot of the style of KJV but with modernised syntax.

But desu, just read the fucking KJV. Not only is it a pretty good translation, but it has immense literary worth akin to Shakespeare and Homer.

Don't listen to these two. NRSV is sanitised af.

I'll second this guy.

So we agree. Excellent.

But I made the table and I am an Atheist.
You're right though. Not enough people are interested in the nuances.

I love studying Christ and his times, but I don't believe in the resurrection. Still, it is unprecedented in history that the life and death of some single peasant becomes the basis of an ideology that holds political power for millennia thereafter.

this is reatrded, arguably the greatest work of literature/art is just 'nicer language'...if youre a true philistine this chart might help you

>What version of the bible is the least difficult to read while not being completely sanitized? I want to read it and get as an unadulterated version as i can short of the hebrew texts, but I dont want to slog through a thousand pages of ye olde KJV.

P I D G I N
B I B B L E
bible.com/bible/76/REV.1.hwc

Do you have more cool animals?

A truly reatrded post

I agree, though I'm more interested in the Old Testament. The really interesting stuff is in the nuance. Non-believers jump at minimalist or mythicist views of the Bible without checking to see if they're academically supported. You see figures like David compared to King Arthur, but OT historians roundly agree David existed, the Tel Dan Stele being especially informative.

By the way, I'd remove that 90 AD date for the Mark manuscript. That thing still hasn't been published! In 2012 Dan Wallace said it would be "next year". I'm not hopeful.

...

Damn, that boy is super cool

Defend your position that the King James Version of the Bible is to be described as simply having 'nicer language'. I know Christians who don't use the KJV and they are not this ignorant. I don't expect a coherent answer but anyone reading this know that the people making these 'authoritative' charts have no qualification at all other than having the time and desire to make a chart.

The archaic English isn't that much more embellished than modern English is, you'd just have to get used to the second person pronoun distinction and some of the obsolete terminology.
Yeah there are a bunch of modern versions like the NASB for one and the NETS version of the Septuagint. I personally prefer the archaic grammar since it emulates the original languages more closely. The best thing would be a synthesis between archaic grammar with modernized wording if that makes sense, still doesn't seem to have been done though.

Check this sight out, it offers verse by verse comparison between Syriac and other versions and translations of the NT.
In my opinion the most practical translation of the Peshitta on there is Murdock's as the others (Etheridge) have some weird transliteration or some agenda (Lamsa).
dukhrana.com/peshitta/

Otherwise my favorite and most literal Bible translations are Rotherham's Emphasised Bible especially for the OT, the American Standard Version (ASV) for more fluid reading that's essentially and updated KJV but in my opinion still suffers from outdated or rather traditional terminology like all Bibles do unfortunately, and Brenton's translation of the Septuagint for the different Greek readings and Apocrypha.
archive.org/details/RotherhamEmphasizedBible
archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren
biblehub.com/asv/

Greek was a pompous administrative language and the various dialects of Aramaic rustic vernaculars.

So you're say Yung Yeshua was hood af

You know it.
>bagin kal d-nsab saiyf, b-saiyf yimuthun
>For everyone who took up a sword, by a sword (OR “in the end”) they shall die.

aramaicnt.org/2012/10/20/he-who-lives-by-the-sword-2/