Should i read the bible

New American Standard translation is the only way to go. And like all Catholic Bibles, it includes the parts that Luther tossed out.

Anything to look out for when buying KJV on amazon?

Pretty much all translations, past and modern, are heavily based on the Masoretic Text (basically a version of the OT preserved/copied by Jews over the millennia). Notably, the oldest complete Masoretic Texts were found much later after the KJV was written -- but due to Masoretic Text's textual tradition, not much changed in most modern translations of the OT.

Most modern translations also get some more sources from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which, due to their location in Israel and old age, would supersede the Masoretic Text).

And of course, for Apocrypha, Septuagint sources (and the Latin Vulgate, if necessary) are used, since the Masoretic Text has a very tight canon.

I assume you mean New American Bible (NAB or NABRE), since the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is *very* Protestant and never released a Catholic edition.

Okay, thanks for the info bro

You'll find plenty of rants about it if you google Westcott-Hort

Yes but read an annotated version. Reading the Bible without some commentary will teach you nothing and you will waste hundreds of hours to gain a merely superficial knowledge of some kike folklore.

I've always read and preferred NKJV. It reads holier to me than more modern translations. I dig all the flare.

"Holiness", as a concept regarding biblical translations, only becomes a relevant thing due to 1) a particular translation being old (you're thinking of the KJV, but the same thing was said about the Vulgate) and 2) that translation becoming or having been a standard text for a specific church.

In other words, the preference is not based on any real logic about what "holiness" is, just that the translation sounds pretty and old and archaic. And, again, it's not unique in that sense: the Vulgate before it, and even the older OTs in the form of the Septuagint and Masoretic Text were and still are praised for nothing much more than their archaisms, even when each of them was written to be clearly understood by the people of their time.

>try to read the bible
>the son of, son of, son of, son of, for transitioning of time
>finally get to a story
>it's two paragrahs long
>the son of, son of, son of, continues

Are people who say to read the bible just memeing, 95% of the book has no substance

Suggested version?

You know you don't have to read the genealogies right? Especially if you're just interested in the narrative. Stuff like the genealogies, the laws (for the most part), or the tabernacle which is described in painstaking detail not just once but twice in the same book are merely meant to be referenced. You wouldn't read a law book straight through so why would you try to read something like Leviticus straight through?

Use your head.

>all these KJV plebs

1599 Geneva is the patrician's choice

>the tabernacle which is described in painstaking detail

motherfucking this

Also, Solomon's Temple when it gets built in 1 Kings.

>MT praised for nothing much more than their archaisms
>the most authentic version of the bible
ffs what are you talking about

Which version can I read that

1. isn't satanic
2. has male pronouns intact
3. isn't way too obscure

If you want to pay a bit more, I suggest barnes & noble, it is very nice, got illustrations by Doré and shit, its a 10/10 edition to keep for life and pass to somebody

Also this is a general recommendation, I never made pass the first 2~3 books reading it online, but when I got the physical copy, I started reading it consistently.

Yeah, agreed, but I did read all of it. I mean, I am probably just going to read once most books of the OT, so might aswell read the whole thing at least once without skipping, and also I found interesting the laws and rites of sacrifice and other descriptions, gives me a image of the times back then

but shiet, the geneologies are a pain in the ass, indeed

>isn't satanic
Get one with a green cover.

Yes. Any modern translation (ESV, NRSV, NKJV etc.) is fine.

A good primer is this chronological "60" day reading, but it can easily be done much faster than that.
biblegateway.com/reading-plans/chronological?version=NIV

After you finish that, you can start another reading plan, or just branch off on your own and read what interests you.

>the bible
>satanic

Kek.

In all seriousness, read the Orthodox Study Bible.

so... that's where " son of the bicth"
come from...

Didache Bible by Ignatius Press will teach you what's traditional christians have thought for centuries

Oxford annotated bible will teach you what contemporary materialists think about the Bible

Pick your poison

How can i say it:
"Nihil obstat sapientia"
"Sapientia nihil obstat"
which way is correct?

>Oxford annotated bible will teach you what contemporary materialists think about the Bible

wrong.

NOAB (and other good ecumenical study bibles) will give you information about things in the text and highlight references to other verses, other ancient writings, etc. But it doesn't offer a specific point-of-view regarding faith.

The Didache Bible (or, its main selling point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church [see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church]) has a specific POV and shouldn't be read by a layman reader trying to understand the Bible before delving into religious sects.

That might have been an overstatement, but I've become so paranoid about choosing something "uncorrupted" that it's making it difficult for me to get past it.

Unless you have the original manuscripts, you'll never get anything uncorrupted. That's the honest-to-God truth.

It's especially bad as it applies to the NT, since the politics of the time of its writing (60+ years after the events depicted in it) played a huge role in its shape. So, they very frequently were construing the stories and the things said by Jesus to talk down their enemies -- even though there's no indication there was any political enmity against those people during Jesus's time.

Plus, as it's usually said, the differences in manuscript choice have minimal effect on the resulting ideology. The canon chosen (OT only, NT only, both, both+deuterocanonicals, both+deuterocanon+extra apocrypha, all + non-Biblical religious texts of the same period, etc.) will have a much greater effect.

You should also read up on textual criticism, especially as it applies to the Bible. It may or may not calm your nerves, but it'll give you a clearer picture as to what goes into making a version of the Bible.

>18 For i testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
>19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

I just hate seeing you fags talking about books i've read

Thanks man, I needed to hear all that. Since you're knowledgeable, what Bible would you buy for memorization if it was for you?

I've read it twice in two different translations and still don't understand it. Anyone have a good tl;dr?

the world ends

oh hey I think you're the user that gave me that recommendation a couple weeks ago. If so I've been reading that plan and its pretty great

Glad to hear you like it, reading through it again myself.

Either is fine.

no its garbage.

This again. Every. Single. Time. It's like there is no escape from this discussion whenever the Holy Bible si brought up.

this is the only NT you need

I thought we agreed on King James being the only one you will ever need!

Yes, but focus almost entirely on the New Testament desu. Here are some books. Pic related is contents of link:
mega.nz/#!QoRGARhZ!sKun_Jw7izZcNYngYvfs_90Wi6obUcialZf80c2DTYg

>Catholic church
>religious sect

You can't pick both.

God chose to reveal himself progressively throughout history starting with the Jews. The Jews are shitty people that did lots of shitty things so god gave lots of strict commands, and then the Jews broke them, so god gave more commands, and then the Jews broke them too. Repeat this a few dozen more times and you have most old testament plus some books reflecting how shitty the Jews are. Enter Jesus Christ. He confirms that the Jews are retarded because they're just following the letter of the law but not the spirit. The Jews -- because they're retarded -- rightly think that adultery is bad but lust is perfectly fine, Jesus says the lust is just as bad as adultery and the Jews don't like this so they kill him. This marks a new era in salvation history. The end.

It's more influential than the Greeks. Don't know why Veeky Forums has a start with the Greeks meme, but not a start with the Bible meme, since it would be much more appropriate and useful.

KJV is fucking awful protestant horseshit.

Hey there.

There is a writer from whom I've heard a lot, her name is Ellen G. White. Some friends have recommended me some of her books, they claim that they're very insightful in regards to everyday life and the comprehension of the divine.

Have any of you hear about her and her books? What's your opinion of her? Would you recommend any of her books?

>protestant bible
>not the definition of heresy

KJV is for LARPers.

Only read the New Testament, the Old Testament is barbaric bullshit no different than Islam.
t. atheist

Job and Ecclesiastes are worth reading.

explain

So the Jews are b-b-bad?

>implying

NT is Jesus literally tipping his fedora about how stupid the OT is, and I'm not saying that as a good thing.

Even for how barbaric and war-focused the OT is, it's a great set of books with a decent amount of depth, interesting point of views, and (at least occasionally) actual attempts to tell stories. The Old Testament can be appreciated again and again as a study of how stories and histories form over generations and what gets deemed as important/unimportant.

New Testament, from the get-go in the Gospels, is literally just, "you're a fucking retard if you don't believe in jesus, you stupid jews. holy shit, i'm literally healing people by fucking sneezing on them and shit. oh, and i'm going to randomly make up new rules and misinterpret the OT (because the LXX, which is what was available to us, isn't an accurate translation). and you're gonna have to do what i say. because i'm jesus. and fuck you."

You might argue the OT kind of does the same thing, but the nature of God's relationship with the Old Testament Jews is a lot more complex than any relationship in the NT. It's only until the prophetic books that gets fully into "believe in God or else, you fags."

It's worth getting a Jewish translation of the old testament, like the JPS translation or the Rob Alter translation. There are things that get lost in the Christian translations.

this
Why hasn't anyone cut out all the useless boring shit so someone might actually read that shitty book of our beloved psycho God's schenanigans?

The Genealogy serves a purpose, believe it or not.

Didn't Jesus say that he came affirm the old law?

He did, but he removed the trivial stuff like the limit on steps on Saturday and the like. The values and eternal law stuff is the same.

This, Greek or bust

No they're just retarded

i want to become a protestant, but i don't know any christians, only catholics and muslims, and ppl from weird latin american kook sects like jehova's witness and pentacostal speaking tongues shit...where can i find some patrish old school america founding protestant dudes to worship with?

crossway.org/bibles/esv-readers-bible-none-tru/

I suggest this, it's a relatively new, as in the past few years, kind of bible called a "reader's bible" it strips out all of the verse numbers and chapter numbers and everything a traditional reference bible would have, it also uses the ESV translation, which is a more recent translation that aims at being closer to the scripture than previous translations. Couple this with the removal interpretations of text in the margins being removed from things like study bibles and you have what is quite possibly the purest form of the scriptures ever made.

On note on KJV-Only; Look into it yourself if you're curious, these arguments seem to be backed by a lot of bias, and I'm new to Veeky Forums so I can't tell if people are posting this as trolling or they actually believe it, but either way almost all translations of the bible (unless you're reading something fucking stupid like The Message) are over 90% identical, but since KJV came out older, more primary sources of the scripture have come out and shown that even some parts of the KJV were not in the original scripture but were instead added at a later time, however this is not the fault of the translators, they did a great translation with the sources given that still highly stands today when you consider that modern translations are still nearly identical

Also, don't get a study bible, if you haven't read the bible yet you probably aren't religious, and don't need a particular sect's or even single person's interpretation of what you're reading telling you how to interpret what you're reading, you wouldn't do it for any other book, so don't do it for the bible.

One last thing; The bible is not a book, it is many books combined into one massive thing with razor-thin pages to fit everything into something that for some people needs to fit in their pocket, don't feel bad if it takes you a long time to read the whole thing.

>don't use a study bible

watch the yale classes on old and new testament tho

oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145#sessions
oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152#sessions

People who value thous and thees and grave sounding old timey words that they don't really understand the subtleties of over a translation that would accurately bring across the message of the texts.

What's the context of reading it, anyway? Philosophical? Historical? I don't believe any of the miracle crap that it preaches about, but I have heard it's a good read overall. Can I just ignore the new testament completely?

>What's the context of reading it, anyway?

Historical, for the most part (that is, the same context used for most ancient texts). There are some occasionally interesting philosophical bits, but the Old Testament is worth reading as a collection of stories about the Israelites that they felt worth passing on.

But the most apt context for a modern reader is its meta-ness. My reading of the OT (with a study Bible in front of me and having read this graphic novel called Testament beforehand) made me very aware of the almost deterministic nature of many the stories: they happened this way because they had to happen this way, and Person X had to be the villain because the story requires it.

In other words, the Old Testament is very frequently about the nature of storytelling itself, which might interest a modern reader.