Whats the best version of the Bible to read?

Only if you want it too.

I think Asimov did a version.

NKJV or KJV?

>RSV
hmm, is ESV not in the tradition of RSV, but not as americanised and/or anglicised and devoid of the political correctness?

shite, meant to reply to

KJ21

You're already a nut, you'll just be religious

The ESV uses gender-inclusive language.

RSV-2CE > RSV

Oh, okay, I thought the gender-inclusive one was NRSV and ESV merely followed the tradition of RSV, but brought it even closer to standard modern English.

KJV if you're looking for the word of God. If you want to see corruption thats helped bring the church to it's modern state you can check the other versions

The ESV is more conservative with its use of gender inclusive language than the NRSV but its still pretty pervasive.

Okay, thanks for the input. I'll put in the effort and go with KJV. Might as well go for the one that is universally accepted as the least corrupted and break a sweat going through it. Shortcuts always sound appealing though.

This.

>don't go with XYZ because muh satans corrupted it
Most modern translations are just fine. The ESV doesn't use gender-neutral language, that user obviously hasn't even read it. The RSV is much more accurate than the KJV. you need to stop believing random anons' concpiracy theories.

>The ESV doesn't use gender-neutral language
But It literally does, and they don't pretend otherwise. They constantly change "brother", "man" and such to "person", "people" and "every one" throughout.

av1611.org/vance/nrsv_esv.html

decent synthesis of the changes each version underwent.

>www.av1611.org
Fucking lol, are you going to cite Answers In Genesis as well? It provides literally no examples of gender neutral language, how about a single verse citation? It cites "corrupt" passages that have nothing to do with gender-neutral language, in fact those passages more closely follow the earliest manuscripts, which are the best unless you believe retarded conspiracy theories about God writing the received text and Satan writing everything else.

Please learn about the history of the Bible's transition. James White does good talks on it.

youtube.com/watch?v=uKlNc-oK_xA

What about the New Jerusalem Bible ?

>KJB: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God
>ESV: For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God
>KJB: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self
>ESV: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself

Would you like me to continue?

Not sure who you think you're talking to, but calm your tits young user. I was the one who claimed ESV is closer to the tradition of KJV and it's NRJV that is guilty of de-sexing.

Direct quote from that link:

>There are a number of ways in which the NRSV "desexed" the Bible. The chief technique was to use the plural instead of the singular, but other conventions included using generic terms, using indefinite pronouns, altering third person constructions to first or second person, and replacing active verbs with passive ones.

So instead of God creating man, he creates "humankind" (Gen. 5:1). Carried to its logical consistency, this gives us: "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human" (1 Tim. 2:5). In an effort to get rid of the word brethren, the NRSV many times adds the phrase "and sisters" without any support from the Greek text it professes to follow (e.g., Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 5:13; 1 Thes. 2:1; 1 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 2:11). But getting rid of the word brethren also introduced a strange irony. The RSV was criticized as Communist Bible because it was produced by the National Council of Churches. Yet, it was not until the publication of the NRSV that the word "comrades" was introduced (Rev. 12:10, 19:10, 22:9)—a word with definite communistic overtones.

Because of the controversy surrounding the use of gender-inclusive language in Bible translations, another revision of the RSV was published in 2001—one that would correct its inaccuracies, update some of its archaic language, and make it more literal. There was a problem, however, since the designation NRSV was already taken, another name had to be chosen. The name decided on was The English Standard Version (ESV). So now we have in the marketplace two rival revisions of the RSV—the NRSV and the ESV—both claiming to be legitimate successors.

So yes, it 'literally provides examples of gender neutral language' for the NRSV.

It's good, a bit loose with the original language but that makes it very easy to read. And it's an official Catholic translation if that's what you're looking for.

>Yet, it was not until the publication of the NRSV that the word "comrades" was introduced - a word with definite communistic overtones.
This is schizophrenic levels of paranoia

youtube.com/watch?v=yerj-xh8x3M

>In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”. According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”

get an NASB study bible

His guide is commentary; it's not a version of the text.

to be fair, Anderson gets destroyed here youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mWM4TSh8

Fuck off.

Keep watching White gets peeved and storms out

>just ignore it goyim
Fuck off Mordecai

God, evangelicalism can really take a turn for the worse. Frightening to see people like Anderson have so much influence.

I like him desu. He's no more wrong than most prots, and for the stuff he's right on he's a good communicator, given his familiarity with scripture. What I appreciate most about him is his hard stance on certain sins that have become accepted by most prots.

Anderson isn't really evangelical though and certainly doesn't have any influence over many people.

Read the ancient Greek texts for the actual parts that talk about Jesus.

Read the original texts, they are superior to all the "translations"

Ancient Greek is not a very hard language and it's mostly simple in the gospels and acts etc.

The Good News Edition

Official Quaker Bible for Official Quakers.

Literally when? Anderson just keeps retreating to "muh feels" and has no argument.

>I don't know anything about the original texts or translations but this is the best English translation for sure

BHS and NA of course

youtube.com/watch?v=bauywqnWEp0

right at the end.

>Anderson just keeps retreating to "muh feels" and has no argument.

He does much worse than that unfortunately. Which is why White storms out.

Stay away from the gay heretical kjv.

Damn, Stevie is a retard.

>The original greek says X but the KJV says Y so I believe the KJV

>and therefore condemn the ESV for saying Z

Kek

These are pretty harsh examples. Do you have others this black and white?

>ITT Calvinists whine about Independent Fundamental King James Only Baptists

is the bible being heavily influenced by greek philosophy/greek myths a meme?

meh, as weird as it may sound, Catholics too

KJV is better 'literature' than the Greek New Testament (the original is kinda ho-hum), Saint Augustine among others was always slightly disbelieving abouts its banality thoguht it intentional as the message therein was so profoundly true itd been interntionally rendered so prosaically. The original hebrew bible is so alien and distant its largely untranslatable, a lot of modern scholars are now pretty much admitting they have no clue what large parts of it mean

why don't you just say 'communist'? I notice a lot of looney right wingers love adding 'ist' and 'ic' to words that don't need it. Whats that all about?

Are you claiming to be a scholar of both ancient hebrew and biblical greek? for some reason Im skeptical Veeky Forums

?

KJV for aesthetic value.
NASB or ESV for accuracy while still retaining some literary qualities.
Alter for OT and Lattimore for NT for accurate modern renditions. (The Alter is partial but he's finishing it next year, supposedly.)
The Anchor Bible for nondenominational scholarship.

the originals

Lattimore's New Testament is GOD TIER

my diary desu

...

תנ"ך

The opposite, nobody but a religious nut could read the whole Bible and not be turned away from Christianity.

oh shit I never knew Lattimore translated the new testament, I love his Homer I'ma check that shit out

Dude must have had a mean succ.

The RSV-2CE is the only readable bible available. It is Catholic, it is based on the KJV, and it doesn’t use (((gender inclusive))) language. Get the Ignatius editions. They have a New Testament study bible with exhaustive, near line by line notes that are based on Holy Traditon and not tainted with heretical modern scholarship , and they also have one for the whole bible but its notes aren’t quite as detailed.

Haven't heard that before, but it was definitely influenced by other middle eastern myths like Gilgamesh.

>only readable bible
>Catholic
>not the Douay-Rheims

Can someone give me a rundown on RSV-2CE vs Douay-Rheims? I already have a KJV and a KJV study bible, but I want a catholic bible.

The Catholic RSV is to the Douay-Rheims what the ESV is to the King James, basically. That's not a perfect comparison, because the RSVCE and Douay-Rheims are both Catholic, whereas the ESV takes a bit more of a Calvinist bent compared to the King James.

The Douay-Rheims is more traditional, and there are some English speaking Catholics who insist on it almost as fanatically as King James only Baptists. The RSV-2CE notably removes the use of "thee" and "thou". This is something I can't stand. Thou, thee, thy, thine, ye, you, and your all have different meanings. "Thee" has two meanings depending on context. When you translate them all as "you" or "your", the quality of the translation drops immensely (given the frequency at which they're needed and the importance of their differentiation in the scriptures).

I could rant about that all day. I say this as an Orthodox Christian: one of the absolute best Bibles you can get is a Haydock Bible. It's a Douay-Rheims annotated by a dedicated Catholic priest.

Thanks my dude. They seem expensive but salvation is priceless.

Literalness is probably better than interpretiveness which is more the job of commentaries or exegesis.

What bible is the most faithful to the greek?

Using the archaic 2nd person singular when referring to God only is also a pretty stupid practice since no such thing is done in the original languages.

You can get a regular Douay-Rheims for cheap and get Fr Haydock's commentary free online.

haydock1859.tripod.com

Hard to beat a good physical copy, though. A cheaper alternative is the Orthodox Study Bible. It's a different translation--OT is a translation of the Septuagint using NKJV language where applicable, and the NT is all NKJV (with some alterations). It has good footnotes and articles explaining what the Church teaches. The Haydock's notes have more depth, but the OSB has a better OT translation. I would recommend the OSB first to someone who's either new to the faith, or who is beginning to get more interested in their faith, because its articles and notes give a clear picture of Christian (Orthodox) theology.

>What bible is the most faithful to the greek?
The Orthodox Study Bible, as its Old Testament is translated from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts produced a few hundred years before Christ. The oldest complete manuscripts we have of Old Testament books are from the Septuagint. (The oldest complete Hebrew manuscripts date to centuries after the oldest from the Septuagint.) If you don't have the Septuagint, you're cutting yourself off from the oldest (and Greek) scriptural tradition.

All of them are probably translated from a Greek text but Rotherham's Emphasized Bible follows it to the point of being awkward. It's probably better for Hebrew.

archive.org/search.php?query=emphasised bible

Brenton's translation of the Septuagint is the defacto standard for it and like many translations seems to follow the KJV as a template.
archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren

Be aware that some of these scans may be choppy.

Its written in greek

wtf happened to all the second person pronouns anyway? Why are we left with just "you"?

esv

really?? where? i looked up blogs and i can only find places where people are throwing shade at it for it *failing* to use PC words

Anglos, man.

On what basis are we judging the quality of the translation? How has someone not made a chart for this yet?

>literary quality
>readability
>most direct translation
>supplemental footnotes for the indoctrinated
>supplemental footnotes for historical contexts
>supplemental footnotes for literary contexts
>Éditions for different sects
>biases of different translators

I have no idea which one does which. I have my grandfathers old king James. But is it a new king James or old king James? What’s the fucking difference? What parts did king James even change? What am I missing out on?

I don’t know where to start because I don’t know what I don’t know. I assume it’s an important literary work. I assume that it would contextually have some fun historical gems and some story told truths. But how do I know which one will do this best? I don’t know because of all these deus volt faggots being contrarian and thinking they follow the word.

I found a typo in the .dpub version of that.

nice one lad

The best translation would be one that follows the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch in the OT where these disagree with the Masoretic text and the most accredited version of a critical text for the NT. For the OT it should be divided according to traditional Hebrew parashah divisions and logical paragraph division in accordance with the narrative for the NT. The translation should be literal and replace exclusively ecclesiastical terms with words that more accurately reflect their original practical usage and proper nouns should be modified to reflect their appearance in the original autographs like Yehudí and Yisra'él for Jew and Israel and Iesou and María/Mariám for Jesus and Mary.

Every judging begins at Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:28.

No:
>Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman

Yes:
>Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin

No:
>And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one

Yes:
>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace

>I want interpolations

Anderson is a fundamentalist not an evangelical. These words are antonyms.

Norton Critical Edition

Have you ever heard the word "fundagelical". They're historically connected and both have probably influenced Christianity and even other religions worldwide.
youtu.be/ZRi1mOQEXQw
youtu.be/XZtUyEoQBiU

>These words are antonyms.
This is simply not true. If anything these are on the same historical and traditional continuum. I'm not claiming they are devoid of differences as evangelicalism is not doctrinally homogeneous, but they are certainly not antonyms.

>The Catholic RSV is to the Douay-Rheims what the ESV is to the King James, basically
Hahaha, how wrong can you possibly be. D-R is a translation of the Vulgate, RSV uses critical texts and ancient textual sources, and is ultimately a revision of the KJV.

Douey-Rheims fanatics are the worst. Almost as bad as Septuagint fanatics who like to pretend the Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, Targumim, and ancient Hebrew manuscripts don't exist.

How the fuck did this KJV-only nonsense arise in the first place?! It's a translation commissioned by the King of England in the 17th century, why would it be some kinda divine version?!

Probably because it's the only fucking English translation that doesn't sound like shit and keeps a consistent style throughout and was written for Christians in mind. 90% of the other translations mentioned in this thread have old testaments that read like they were translated for American liberal Jews.

To expand/explain (on) this the RSV very nearly replaced the KJV in churches entirely back in the 50's, the New Testament was very well received by everybody. Then the RSV Old Testament was released and completely killed any hope of replacing the KJV by translating the OT in a completely unchristian manner that completely ignored Biblical hermeneutics/exegesis.