/lit/ - Literature

Douay-Rheims or bust.

>thought for thought
>word for word.
>spectrum
Looks like a useful info graphic until you spend a few seconds thinking about it.

>>11639565
KJV

Only ONE version of the Bible will decalcify your pineal gland, brother.

>>11639565
I read this for the based anti-Catholic footnotes by the original puritan translators.

>>11639712
where2cop

>>11639712
i wish there were still puritans around, my family is from a super catholic country but i grew up in one of those super liberal new england towns that still has weird puritan vibes, im like puritanism seems super oppressive but my life would be way better if i had lived that lifestyle and not fallen victim to vice as a teen with poor parental guidance

>>11639713
I actually own the physical book because I work with 16th English century literature and this is the go to Bible of the time. But it's a facsimile wih teeny tiny type and difficult typography.

Here's an online version: http://www.genevabible.org/geneva.html

It's interesting enough in itself, sometimes inspired and sometimes awkward. The Authorized Version really was a necessary improvement, but notes like this are where this translation gets really interesting:

>Revelation 17:3 - The beast signifieth the ancient Rome; the woman that sitteth thereon, the new Rome which is the Papistry, whose cruelty and blood shedding is declared by scarlet.

>>11639757
>16th English century literature
I promise I'm not dyslexic...

Mechanical translation:

http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mtt/G1.html

>>11639582
Why isn't this on the chart?

>>11639793
Probably because the chart is shit and you shouldn't be basing your opinions on infographics.

>>11639793
The chart is written from a Protestant perspective.

Here's an issue that can be demonstrated with latter 20th century translations that doesn't have to do with disputes over critical/received texts.

In the end segment of Matthew 1:18 the KJV and pretty much all other early modern and late 19th to early 20th century versions read:
>before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

At 1:23
The same wording is used about conception:
>Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,

The phrase translated as "with child" in the original Greek is "en gastrí échousa/(at 1:23)" (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα/ἕξει), rendered in the Vulgate as "in utero habens/habebit". The only English translations which I've seen that attempted to render this literally are the Wycliffe bibles.

bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.
before they came together, she was found having of the Holy Ghost in the womb.
before they came together, she was found having in the womb of the Holy Ghost.]

In the Greek Old Testaments pretty much the same wording is used in Isaiah 7:14 except the word "lépsetai" (λήψεται) in place of héxei in some versions. So this means the Greek NT text quotes from a Greek OT translation in this instance.

The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV however all translate the phrase as "conceive" in Matt. 1:23 which is more accurate to the Hebrew wording of Isaiah 7:14 and is also used in the KJV and the Vulgate in that same book since both their Old Testaments were translated from or attempted to follow the Hebrew text.
Using a rendition of conception in Matt. 1:23 different from that 1:18 deviates from the way it is presented in the original NT text even if it brings it more in line with the Hebrew wording.
So all in all you could say it might help with something like cross-scriptural prophecy citation but it still ends up being somewhat of questionable approach.

Here's an issue that can be demonstrated with latter 20th century translations that doesn't have to do with disputes over critical/received texts.

In the end segment of Matthew 1:18 the KJV and pretty much all other early modern and late 19th to early 20th century versions read:
>before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

At 1:23
The same wording is used about conception:
>Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,

The phrase translated as "with child" in the original Greek is "en gastrí échousa/héxei (at 1:23)" (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα/ἕξει), rendered in the Vulgate as "in utero habens/habebit". The only English translations which I've seen that attempted to render this literally are the Wycliffe bibles.

bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.
before they came together, she was found having of the Holy Ghost in the womb.
before they came together, she was found having in the womb of the Holy Ghost.]

In the Greek Old Testaments pretty much the same wording is used in Isaiah 7:14 except the word "lépsetai" (λήψεται) in place of héxei in some versions. So this means the Greek NT text quotes from a Greek OT translation in this instance.

The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV however all translate the phrase as "conceive" in Matt. 1:23 which is more accurate to the Hebrew wording of Isaiah 7:14 and is also used in the KJV and the Vulgate in that same book since both their Old Testaments were translated from or attempted to follow the Hebrew text.
Using a rendition of conception in Matt. 1:23 different from that 1:18 deviates from the way it is presented in the original NT text even if it brings it more in line with the Hebrew wording.
So all in all you could say it might help with something like cross-scriptural prophecy citation but it still ends up being somewhat of questionable approach.

/TheMessage/ Master race WW@?

>>11639565
>no Da Jesus Book

>>11639667
yeah it must hurt to use a brain with such few cells in there

is it really that hard to understand you fucking dunce? i thought blacks stayed away from here

>>11639582
This. Absolutely, DR is atleast the complete bible with all the books in it

>>11641205
I don't mind using a separate translation for apocrypha. Brenton's Septuagint might be better for that since it's translated from it directly instead of through the Vulgate. The Revised Version could work also.

https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren
https://archive.org/details/OCLXXTranslationOfTheGreekSeptuagintIntoEnglishBySirLancelotCharlesLeeBrenton1851ebible.org
https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

>>11640103
You remind me of that weird channel on public(?) tv back in the day with the lady in a man's suit talking about the "significance" of the bible word for word in a very annoying accent. Are you her.

DAVID BENTLEY HART

>>11641339
I prefer literalness over anything. The job of a translation is to do just that, interpretation is the job of exegesis.

>>11639757
Mind posting the Greek here, I'm on mobile

>>11641339
You're a retard.

>>11641396
You do yourself and others a big disservice by simplifying your labors of translation into "literalism" especially when the matter you brought up is a technique completely outside of the scope of "literalist" translation and is a very good example of why a "literalist" translating mode is insufficient.

But about your point, I'm not so sure about this New Testament quoting Septuagint stuff, any good resources on this.... why would people think that

>>11641550
>>11639757

kαὶ ἀπήνεγkέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι. kαὶ εἶδον γυναῖkα kαθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον kόkkινον, γέμον[τα] ὀνόματα βλασφημίας, ἔχων kεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ kαὶ kέρατα δέkα.

>>11641595
Lighten up, faggot

I hate thou and hath

>>11640103
The Greek OT (Septuagint) predates the Hebrew OT. The Masoretic text is a post-Christian invention.

>>11641595
Ancient translations strove to render the text faithfully to the point of generating abnormal constructions. It was the opinion of the translators of the Douay-Rheims version that it should do the same.

>I'm not so sure about this New Testament quoting Septuagint stuff
In the instance that was mentioned the wording is mostly identical in the two NT verses and the Greek OTs. The issue was that using a different word the second time in account of Jesus' birth which appears to be taken from renderings of Isaiah 7:14 following the Hebrew, deviates from the manner in which it is originally presented in the gospel.

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-18.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-18.htm

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-23.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-23.htm

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/7-14.htm

https://studybible.info/LXX_WH/Isaiah%207:14

The original one.

>>11639757
>>11641550
>>11641603
For clarification, that wasn't supposed to be the actual translation, but it's one of the original footnotes.

I just want a normal bible with normal English so I can read it comfortably and understand it.
I don't want any archaic English words or sentences that makes me use another dictionary.

>>11642719
Hard to do for the OT since it would have to be an eclectic mix of Masoretic, Septuagint, DSS, and Samaritan readings.

>>11642821
t. normie
Perhaps childrens stories from the bible might be more your speed.

>>11642821
Here you go.

>>11641297
That is good also, the OT should be always translated from Septuagint

pic related

>>11641774
You people do know that Hebrew and Greek differentiate between 2nd person plural and singular? It serves a functional purpose and can even be sued alongside updated vocabulary like in the ASV.

>>11642849
I don't know about it being used exclusively but rather something more along the lines of here >>11642824 since the Septuagint too appears quite different from the Hebrew rendering and may possibly be due to being interpretive translations of the Hebrew. Consulting with the Vulgate is also a good idea.

>>11639565
Is there an Emily Wilson translation for the Bible yet?

>>11639582
>a translation of the vulgate
i think i'll take bust thx

>>11639582
aren't there boys you should be raping right now

>>11642065
Dead Sea Scrolls are Hebrew and older than the LXX, most of Isaiah is preserved in them. Go home, Orthodox shill.

>>11642873
>Consulting with the Vulgate is also a good idea.
For a Bible translator, yes. For a joe shmo, no. Modern translations like the NRSV use the Hebrew, Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and other sources.

>>11639565
I have the Orthodox Study Bible and it's GOAT.

>>11643244
The title page of the KJB and the preface also made similar claim.

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch"

>>11639565
Sorry rad trads, the Douay-Rheims Bible that you read now (Challenor) has KJV as its base text.

I will say though, It's the KJV but better because it is Catholic and the text is meant to reflect true Catholic doctrine. Oh, and Challoner also made sure when he has KJV as his base text, he checked it with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.

>>11643197
>>11643201
It may come as a surprise that much of the popular western interpretation of scripture comes from the Latin interpretation of it.

>>11639565
the AUTHORIZED one of course

>>11643315
Moroni was pretty cool.

>>11643305
Well the KJV in turn is one of many revisions of the tradition started by Tyndale which also consulted with the Vulgate.

I like the ASV the most.

>>11643332
In my opinion, the RSV is the best for a balance between tradition and scholarship. It seems a bit pointless to read the ASV today.

>>11643353
Out of all the latter 20th century translations that is in my opinion the best one but I still personally feel more comfortable with a slightly more precise rendition from the ASV one benefit of which is it no longer being in copyright.

>>11642719
The KJV was used by Christ himself.

>>11643409
His name is Jessy Chris and he was from Kentucky.