/lit/ - Literature

>>11578044
Just read it in the original language (Hebrew)

>>11578054
Which manuscript? Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, or Greek Septuagint?

>>11578044
>No ASV
tsk tsk

Classical bibles from the early modern period are mostly more faithful than 20th century translations.
The ASV which is my favorite resembles the KJV largely and improves some of the terminology like Holy Ghost into Holy Spirit among other terms that have become obsolete. Also follows critical readings in the NT although to the detriment of the adherents of textual traditionalism.

Breton's translation of the Septuagint has been the most popular translation for the longest and translations for apocryphal texts were also made.

RSV CE

>>11578044
>no Geneva

>>11578044
"Da Boss Above, he take care me, Jalike da sheep farma take care his sheeps. He goin give me everyting I need."

Da Jesus Book

People here like to fetishize the KJV, but in reality the NRSV is the clearest, most concise, accurate translation currently available. It is the one used by scholars and is far more readable than the KJV, and much more useful in trying to understand the content of the Bible as its writers intended.

>>11579526
>clear, concise
>accurate
Day of anathemization for KJautists and liberal Cathlishills when?

>>11578044
The KJV literally codified English as we know it. The seminal work of the English language. Why read anything else?
(I do endorse the use of other translations for understanding particular passages, but for general reading the choice is clear)

>>11579646
No it didn't the KJV just edited the tradition that had already been established the Tyndale and Coverdale bibles. Don't know what was codified since much of English terminology is inherited from the Norman French.

>>11578044
The Vulgate.

I like the NRSV. The KJV is fun for some of those classic verses that you've been hearing since Sunday school, but I wouldn't use it for daily studies. The NASB is pretty good too.

the first king james bible, 1611, didnt have the word jesus in it

I find ESV quite good

>>11578044
I think Martin Luther used
>word for word
>thought for thought
>paraphrasing
methods to translate according to which serves the purpose best. so... this chart doesn't help me and I'd use one version to pray another to do academic work with.

tl;dr: SOLA SCRIPTURA (LUTHERENSIS)

>>11578476
>he says as he munches on a lamb chop

>>11579526
>yeah bro totally go ahead let's stir in some manuscript edits from recovered GNOSTIC libraries of all fucking things what could go wrong might as well we're already shoehorning in gender neutral language and using the old testament version edited by the pharisees and oh hey look most of our translators happen to be jews too lol what a coincidence

I'm going to sort this one into burnable trash.

>>11579675
KJV was actually widely used.

>>11581161
>anything from foreign and exotic sounding places like Alexandria are Gnostic
>but not Antioch

>testament version edited by the pharisees and oh hey look most of our translators happen to be jews too
>proceeds to laud the Masoretic text
Is there anything you guys are consistent on?

>>11580025
>Sola scriptura
Shiggy diggy doo