Enough pussyfooting, I'm ready to read. New Jerusalem or King James? Or maybe another translation? Why?

Or you could read the DRV.

Except no one has heard of that version. The KJV was much more widely read.

>Its more popular, therefore it's better

The KJV is politically skewed. The DRV is derived straight from Latin, and even older than the KJV by about a decade.

The Knox translation is the patrician choice.

lol. Christfags. Oh look at muh sky wizard.

You seem euphoric.

Vulgate. Stupid anglo plebes.

In this moment, I am. I'm enlightened by reality.

Depends what you're reading it for KJV is the one I'm reading because I'm interested in the Bible on a cultural and literary level

MT/TR = Majority Text (the Greek text the KJV was based on)
CT = Critical text (the Greek text the NASB, ESV, and NSRV are based on)

>MT/TR: But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.
>CT: But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

>MT/TR: And when he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gergesenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.
>CT: And when he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.

>MT/TR: And you, Capernaum, which is lifted up to heaven, shall go down to hades. If the miracles that were performed (mid.) in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
>CT: And you, Capernaum, will (you) not be lifted up to heaven(?) (No) you will go down to hades. If the miracles that were performed (pass.) in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

>MT/TR: So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.
>CT: So the last will be first, and the first last

>MT/TR: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!
>CT: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

>MT/TR: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
>CT: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

>MT/TR: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
>CT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.

etcetera

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

To be honest most of these differences are trivial. It seems to me that it comes down to academic and/or religious autism.

KJV
>I want the original, red-pilled version without modifications.

Any other
>I want a translation away from the source Hebrew that doesn't include some sections due to political correctness and changes the meaning of shit so liberals can say the Bible supports gay marriage and shit

Take your pick.

King James or Douay Rheims

>NIV is still around

This. /pol/ is always right.

ESV
>I want the original version without modifications.

...

>modern translation

>translation

Yes, they fucking change it to mean something completely different. Go to the /Christianity/ generals on /pol/ and fucking learn something. There's plenty of infographics on the degenerate shit they try and shill.

KJV and NRSV simultaneously

Examples of the modifications?

>KJV is the original translation

Retards detected. The DRV came before the KJV. the KJV is not """redpilled""".

Poltards are so stupid.

The KJV is based on Greek texts that were changed to mean something different from the originals. See: Not all modern translation of the older texts are liberal. NASB and ESV are conservative and aim for literalism.

It's actually nice reading the KJV and noticing when bias creeps in. It's super noticable, and also gets you thinking about the text in ways you wouldn't otherwise. Also the KJV was instrumental in the formation of English as we know it, you're always stumbling over phrases we use as common parlance now.

The Geneva Bible is the most redpilled

>For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today.

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples

>The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin)

>Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);

>And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

>An even bigger problem comes from the fact that sometimes the King James uses a word or phrase that does in fact make perfectly good sense in modern English. But the word means something very different now from what it meant in 1611, since the language (and hence the meanings of words) has changed over the past four hundred years. [For example] one of my favorite KJV passages is Revelation 17, where the prophet sees the great whore of Babylon, “the mother of harlots.” It is a hideous vision of this terrifying woman full of abominations and drunk with the blood of the martyrs (it is a symbol for the city of Rome, as is made crystal clear in 17:9 and 18). And how does the prophet react to this ghastly sight? In the KJV he looks upon here “with great admiration.”

ehrmanblog.org/does-it-mean-what-it-says-more-problems-with-the-king-james/

Shariablue is here too?

well let me flip open my KJV and see for myself all this obtuse indecipherable nonsense that's supposedly in there
>And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshiped, every man in his tent door.
wow sure makes no fucking sense to me, the KJV is beyond archaic

If you want a translation that's closer to the original text, than the KJV is not your best option. But if want to understand the context in which anglo authors since the 17th century have written in, then the KJV is.

>Reading the bible on english

Seriously, though; which not-koinè language would be the best styllistically wise?

>David Crystal comments in his genial and entertaining Begat: The King James Bible and the English language, “evaluating the notion of ‘influence’ proves to be remarkably difficult”, and many writers, when challenged to demonstrate the influence of the KJB, tend to retreat into vague generalizations about its distinctive rhythms and cadences. Crystal prefers a more precise approach. His method of quantifying the influence of the KJB is to count the number of idioms it has contributed to the language. Begat takes the reader on a gallop through every biblical cliché in the book – girded loins, whited sepulchres, feet of clay, lands of milk and honey – and the many ways in which they have been creatively adapted in the media and popular culture.

>After doing his sums, Crystal comes up with a grand total of 257 idioms, most of which are not original to the KJB but are carried over from Tyndale or another early translation. This, as he admits, may seem a “surprisingly small” number, though still considerably more than any other single source (even Shakespeare, who clocks in at fewer than a hundred). Where this leaves the influence of the KJB is not altogether clear.

>Tadmor points to the virtual disappearance of slavery and polygamy from English Bibles. The word ’eved occurs 799 times in the Hebrew Bible, but its English counterpart, “slave”, appears only once in the KJB’s version of the Old Testament, which uses the word “servant” instead (or “handmaid” for female slaves) and reinterprets the language of bondage in terms of a legal contract or covenant. The word ’ishah was translated either as “woman” or “wife” (though, as early modern commentators were aware, there was no warrant in the Hebrew for any distinction between the two), and references to the “taking” of women were expressed in terms of marriage, thus bringing the Bible into line with early modern patterns of monogamy and marriage. Its implications are profound. Crystal’s collection of biblical idioms may be the most obvious way of evaluating the influence of the KJB, but it is Tadmor who makes the strongest case for its long-term effect on our language and cultural assumptions.

>Tadmor argues that, far from introducing extra diversity, the KJB had the effect of flattening subtle differences within the text. No fewer than fourteen different Hebrew words were conflated by the KJB into the single term “prince”, while a whole constellation of other titles were anglicized as the familiar sounding “captain”, “lieutenant”, “sheriff” or – in the case of eunuchs – “chamberlain”. As Stephen Prickett remarks, the translators created a “massive uniformity”, “the King James steamroller”, which effectively ironed out the differences, linguistic and cultural, between the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, and turned the whole Bible into a “single dignified amalgam”.

Depends what you want from a translation.

Vulgata.

t. Steven Anderson

The KJV is not the "original" translation, it comes from a lineage including the Tyndale Bible, Great Bible, and Bishop's Bible, which it borrows from (especially Tyndale). It's not "unaltered" either, there were several revisions of it, most KJVs today are the 1769 revision, not the original 1611 edition.

>>MT/TR: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!
>>CT: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
that's a pretty significant difference if you ask me

I get that the KJV is basically what every educated English speaking person read prior to the 20th century, but what if I want to read it to understand Christianity?

>The DRV is derived straight from Latin,

lol, "straight from latin"

why would someone who cares about accuracy read an indirect translation at all?

This is the first time I've seen a bible translation discussion thread on Veeky Forums turn into shitflinging, shill accusations, and demands that people "educate" themselves on /pol/
Frogposters are destroying this board

a bigger problem is the confusion of important concepts. the real texts have "hades", "sheol", "gehenna" and "tartarus", all of which become "hell" in the kjv (except the first two sometimes become "the grave"). this makes it impossible to understand what any of this would have meant for the early christians since modern scholars agree that when christ talks about gehenna it would have had a distinct meaning for his listeners, different from sheol.

all this wankery over kjv being more "historically and culturally significant" implicitly assumes that recent christian culture and history is more worth examining than the early church.

Does DR keep such distinctions? Since that's catholic-approved I'm leaning towards that one

>read it to understand Christianity

if you mean "to become a christian" then i can't help you there but if you mean "to understand the history of christianity" then you want to start with a modern scholarly translation like the oxford annotated nrsv to get the hebrews and early christians and then move forward from there.

There are modern Catholic versions that are far better, don't read DR, it's a translation of a translation and has numerous oddities. E.g. saying Saul was 2 years old when he became king.

Two officially approved translations that are very good are the New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible (Revised Edition).

*Meant one year old

It's even sillier than I remembered because it also implies he only ruled until he was 3

1 Samuel 13:1
>Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

The KJV was politically influenced and it even lets out some books.

This is even more significant IMO:

>MT/TR: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
>CT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.

Still, most are trivial, and even the most problematic aren't much of an issue to anyone reading it casually. If one were to study it then presumably one would have a study bible like the Oxford Annotated which has footnotes noting differences in text and given explanations and interpretations anyway. The changes in the MT/TR are arguably just interpretations of what the CT says that align with mainstream christian tradition. The bigger problem are verses which are in the MT/TR but not the CT at all, such as John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20.

Yes. See: >Tadmor argues that, far from introducing extra diversity, the KJB had the effect of flattening subtle differences within the text. No fewer than fourteen different Hebrew words were conflated by the KJB into the single term “prince”, while a whole constellation of other titles were anglicized as the familiar sounding “captain”, “lieutenant”, “sheriff” or – in the case of eunuchs – “chamberlain”. As Stephen Prickett remarks, the translators created a “massive uniformity”, “the King James steamroller”, which effectively ironed out the differences, linguistic and cultural, between the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, and turned the whole Bible into a “single dignified amalgam”.

Proverbs is lit

okay, but why would you replace it with a translation of the vulgate instead of a direct translation of the actual material?

KJV is the way to go you fucking niggers.

>kjv
>translated by the same satanic cult that produced the works of so-called "shakespeare"
>plays full of paganism, implied sodomy, witchcraft
>young boys dressing as women on stage
>love poems to a man

no wonder the english-speaking world is going to shit, your entire culture is founded on a subversion of the scripture, full of subliminal messages

look it up if you don't believe me. look at psalm 46 in the kjv. what's the 46th word of psalm 46? now what's the 46th word from the end? add them together. exactly.

>At Choral Evensong, the lessons were both from some illiterate, godforsaken modern version. I knew we were in for trouble from the start when, in the Old Testament lesson, King Solomon addressed the Almighty as, “You God…” – as if the deity were some miscreant fourth-former in the back row. Of course it went from bad to worse.

>“Strips of cloth” is no substitute for “swaddling clothes”. And Mary was “with child” – we think of the Madonna and Child – and she had not “fallen pregnant” as it says in one of the modern versions. You cannot satisfactorily replace “through a glass darkly” with the crass literalism “puzzling reflections in a mirror” or “sounding brass and tinkling cymbal” with “noisy gong and clanging cymbal”. The King James Bible was designed to be read aloud in churches. All the modern versions sound as if they have been written by tone-deaf people with tin ears and no rhythm.

>What level of vacuity is reached when “Son of Belial” (i.e. the devil himself) is rendered by the New English Bible (NEB) as “a good-for-nothing”? As if the son of the devil is only a truant from the fourth form who has been stealing from the housemaster’s orchard.

>The King James Version says, “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord …” In the New Jerusalem Bible this degenerates into tasteless obscurantism: “If you live in the shelter of Elyon and make your home in the shadow of Shaddai, you can say to Yahweh …”

>The NEB also cannot tell the difference between speech that is poetic and metaphorical and speech that is literal and descriptive. That is why for “wolves in sheep’s clothing” we are given instead the pantomime howler “men dressed up as sheep”. We recall perhaps Ulysses’ escape from the Cyclops or that pejorative expression “mutton dressed up as lamb”. In the KJV men are “at meat” or they “sup”; but the RSV mentions a Pharisee who “asked Jesus to dine” – where, at The Garrick or White’s? Likewise, his rebuke to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, “O fools and slow of heart” is emasculated to become “How dull you are!” How dull indeed. Can you imagine for one minute Our Lord Jesus Christ on the evening of his day of resurrection using such language? “How dull!”

>The KJV translates Psalm 139: 16 – a beautiful poem in which the Psalmist declares that God knew him “while he was yet in his mother’s womb – as thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect.” This is allusive, evocative, tender. Unbelievably, the NJB gives us instead, “Your eyes could see my embryo” – as if God were a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8887946/The-king-of-the-bibles.html

Norton KJV or nothing. You get the poetry, but the extensive footnotes inform you of mistranslations and explain outdated vocabulary. Plus like with all Nortons, the critical essays are always enlightening.