/lit/ - Literature

>>15936070
King James Version

>>15936074
New International Version

>>15936082
Hawaii Pidgin

>>15936070
Can we limit these threads to one per day at least?

>>15936070
DRV

>>15936093
>>15936070
gib all da awesome stuff to Israel peopo, Goy

>>15936070
the Antichrist, Nietzsche, of course. bible is toilet paper. your brains are shit.

>>15936093
It's genius how it referentially uses the linguistic formalisation of word meaning, unironically it's very comparable to Boonberg's translation of the Tao Te Ching. It seems there is some value in this primitivity, though not to call Boonberg primitive.

>>15936070
Learn Latin and read the vulgate.

in english the one by robert alter

>>15936407
<tips fedora>

NIV is the worst translation outside the cult translations, if for no other reason than that it removes New Testament references to sodomites.

>>15936984
why go through the effort to learn Latin for the Vulgate when you could learn Greek and read the Septuagint instead?

>>15936070
Knox

>>15937684
It's better than NKJV

>>15936070
RSV FTW

1. DRV
2. KJV
3. ESV

revised king james or new king james are the most legitimate bibles since the yfollow the byzantine text mostly instead of the lacking vulgate and masoretic (verses and and whole chapters that only exist in the greek bible).
It is ironic that the original KJV both has the most bullshit verses that came from nowhere but also stuff taken out all other western bibles; like longer ending of Mark.
A document being dated earlier doesn't necessarily make it more genuine, since the later dated documents from the 2nd century could just as easily have been a better copy of whatever the original was, while the older copies with missing Mark missing could have had copying errors. Since these errors are present in documents from every period.

Unless you can read Latin or Hebrew, it's Knox

>>15936070
Robert Alter.

NRSV

>>15936070
the one that speaks you the most

>Top Tier
Authorized Version 1769
New American Standard Bible
English Standard Version

>High Tier
New King James
Christian Standard Bible
New Revised Standard Version

>Mid Tier
1984 New International Version
New American Bible

>Low Tier
2011 New International Version

>Paraphrases for Children Tier
The Message
Good News Bible
Living Bible

>Honorable Mention
Open English Bible
World English Bible
1611 Authorized

>Not even a direct translation tier, do not use alone
Douay-Rheims

>>15937684
>1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

>1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
?
FTR no Greek NT text actually uses the term "sodomite".

>>15939660
>>Not even a direct translation tier, do not use alone
>Douay-Rheims
That's the only good one though

>>15939974
e catholic spotted

KJV if you're looking for /lit/. It's what all the poets used.

Other than that? Who cares, all this stuff is fake and tweaked by centuries (millennia lol) of dishonest scribery and forgeries.

Anything with 'new' uses the very fake Dead Sea Scrolls, I avoid on general principle.

>>15940009
Except the text that the KJV is based of off is more considerably tweaked than later translations and what many writers actually used was the Geneva Bible instead of the KJV.

Read the first complete pre-Reformation English translation which was based on the classical Latin Vulgate tradition that was in use during the Late Middle Ages.

https://ebible.org/details.php?id=engwyc2017

The Bible is not worth reading if you’re not reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible

Read the Spanish originals.

>>15936093
>>15936127
Honestly pretty based

Alright lads, what's a good version for someone who's never read it before and wants to read it now as literature?

>>15936098
This could go for so many things on this board.

>>15936070
Stone translation with Hebrew by the side, but you should also have pic related.

Also, key Gospels(Thomas) were removed for political reasons so you'll also want Barnstone and Meyer's Gnostic Bible as an English speaker.

>>15940926
Being apocryphal isn't a political problem, it's an inspirational problem

>>15940937
The canonical texts cite the Book of Enoch as inspired.

Hell, Luther wanted to throw James out of the Bible. The decisions to remove books were highly political, based on how leaders wanted to wield temporal power.

>>15940926
>pic related
redpill me on this. what would one gain from reading the 'kabbalistic Bible' in tandem with the core text?

>>15941011
Luther wasn't a ruling leader, didn't remove anything, and his opinions about the texts where based on the views the Church Fathers had left in their writings.

LXX for Old Testament, Vulgate for New.

>>15941029
Here is a commentary on with a sample, but you need some basic knowledge of the Sepirot to start.

>>15941011
No they don't and no he didn't, and it additionally wasn't his call

Take your special snowflake canon to reddit or anywhere else

>>15939660
You forgot

>God tier
Lattimore's NT

>>15941156
https://www.scribd.com/read/351486311/The-Kabbalistic-Mirror-of-Genesis-Commentary-on-the-First-Three-Chapters

>>15941175
>SOLA SCRIPTURA
>"what, these books that multiple councils decided were cannon have things we don't like. Fuck, they are now not cannon, remove them."
>"How do we know that we selected only the correct books? Because of the early councils, they were divine!"

This is your brain on Protestantism.

Why do you even care? The Bible is irrelevant to Proddies. Faith alone. Once saved always saved. Just feel bad and repent once and you're good for life, you can wipe your ass with the Bible. Just make sure you ask Jesus specifically for forgiveness. If you miss doing it to Jesus and pray to God in another sense you burn for all eternity. Very logical.

>>15941253
>Strawman argument
>Can't even spell canon
I don't usually dox but is this you?

>>15941558
Cope

>>15940926
The Gospel of Thomas is the lamest "gnostic" text

>>15940806
Oxford New Annotated Bible

>>15940806
ESV

>>15941253
How curious that all of these councils occured after the imperial sanction of the faith in direct opposition to the prevailing opinions prior.
It's also pretty hypocritical to disregard the view of the man who was responsible for handling and translating the official translation of your church. If it had not been for the changes brought about by the Reformation, the Catholic Church might have never did away with Latin textual primacy.

>>15941643
lol Catholic apologetics

>>15939660
Put the 1984 NIV in top tier and its a good list. I honestly like it as much as I like the KJV.

>>15939974
t larper who hasn't actually read the bible

>>15941253
>The Bible is irrelevant to Proddies.

Pot calliing the kettle black? It's an indisputable fact that catholics barely read the bible, there's all kinds of data on it

>>15939660
Except the dooey reems is a direct translation of the kjv.

>>15942336
You're confused
It's a translation of the vulgate, which is a translation

>>15942298
Pic

>>15936070
KJV is the only option

>>15938911
How so?

>>15936070
These >>15934939

I can tell you it's not The Message Bible

>>15942527
>DR
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

>KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

What a difference

>>15943182
What exactly is your argument here

>>15939455
based

>>15943096
>>15943103
I don't think anyone actually uses that translation, it's used more as an example of extremely loose translation than actually read, the NLT is strictly superior if you want a super readable casual bible

>>15936074
The second verse gets me every time. Absolute perfection

>>15943188
That the Douay–Rheims is substantially similar to the KJV so it is therefore of comparable quality.

>>15938822
Why not just learn both and then collect an easy classics degree, before learning Hebrew of course

>>15943096
This should be a federal crime

>>15943279
That's reasonable and I would agree, but any deviation is necessarily inferior because it is that much more removed from the manuscripts

>>15936070
What's the most understandable and least raped version if you're a brainlet? I hear KJV can be hard to understand in certain parts.

>>15943336
You get used to the language used in the KJV. The only hard part is historical context, unless you're a biblical scholar. You should buy a study bible that has good annotations. That's more important than getting a specific translation, since there are a few of them that are very accurate

>>15943229
>I don't think anyone actually uses that translation
The "Youth Pastor" at a friend of mine's church uses it desu

>>15943369
Would I lose out on anything if I read the bible as a fantasy novel instead of an all mighty scripture? I've heard that it's extremely in-depth and creative with it's stories.

>>15943336
The KJV reads like a simpler Shakespeare IMO. If you can read Shakespeare, you will have no trouble at all reading the KJV.
Personally, I read from the KJV, but also from the NKJV as a cross-reference if something doesn't 'click' with me 100%.

What are the best books to learn more about the church in the first few centuries?

>>15943309
Regarding deviation the KJV is largely a revised compilation that also conferred with a series of prior translations including the OG DR. The Vulgate was translated a whole millennium earlier. Perhaps there may even be certain readings among those in agreement with the Septuagint, that may also be supported by readings of the DSS.

>>15943442
The bible

>>15943430
>>15943336
kjv has a ton of words that have opposite meanings they have today and you won't realise it in context, read the nkjv

>>15943417
would be an ejoyable read but you'd have to skip the half the bible taht is pretty boring and repetitive and just read the good stuff

>>15936074
Gay
>>15936082
Based
>>15936093
Mega based

>>15943521
>kjv has a ton of words that have opposite meanings they have today and you won't realise it in context
This is true, and this is why I think it's important to cross-reference (I do with the NKJV, no less). The KJV has fantastic value, even from a purely /lit/ perspective, but you have to know "how" to read it.

>>15943558
A pastor friend of mine got me into the habit of looking up the greek or hebrew words if I'm interested in a particular verse

>>15943630
I do that too, blueletterbible and E-Sword are great for it.

>>15943336
Recently I've been finding the version of the RSV that's available at a website of the Ignatius Press, to have a slight edge over the renditions of the ESV, which would be the next best option if you're absolutely averse to things of Catholic provenance. In reality it just has a minimal amount of preferential edits of the standard RSV rendition. The ESV is in turn also based on the RSV. Revisions of the RSV have also adopted editorial choices introduced by past Catholic editions of it.

With regard to the NASB, it appears to have more emphasized renditions, which is what may make it seem as being more "literal". All other contemporary translations also probably have some aspects about them which may be less ideal for one reason or another.

http://www.catholicstudybible.org/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx?bbNum=47001&bVerse=1&F=cbBookPickResult
https://www.esv.org/Matthew+1/

Why does everyone hate the NIV so much?

>>15943899
The text is straight up altered to promote protestant viewpoints. It's not the worst translation you could get. A lot of it is fine. But if you want a translation to be as accurate as possible you should probably go for something else

>>15939660
>>Low Tier
>2011 New International Version
Why is that one so much worse than the 1984 translation?

>>15943935
Didn't they make it "gender inclusive", or am I thinking of a different one?

>>15943989
You're thinking of the right one

>>15944001
What verses were changed to be gender inclusive?

>>15943989
>gender inclusive
Didn't the New Revised Standard Version do the same thing? Why is NRSV high tier?

>>15944029
Because NRSV is basically perfect apart from the gender inclusive changes. Hence the absolute perfection of the RSV2CE.

>>15944049
What are the gender inclusive changes?

>>15944014
Here's an example

>>15939660
>1984 New International Version
Do any publishers still make new study Bibles with this translation? I'd like to own one.

>>15944064
Mostly changing "brothers" to "brothers and sisters".

>>15939660
>Top Tier
>ESV
I'm glad other anons on this board appreciate the ESV translation, it really is a very compelling read.

The Vulgate you God damn nigger. The only Bible that should be read.

>>15938822
They were destroyed you fool, the bible and the civilization. The original meaning of the words were mostly lost.

>>15944954
what's the appeal of ESV study bible? i have NRSV one btw

If there existed a leather bound World English Bible. It would reign Supreme.

>>15945621
>what's the appeal of ESV study bible?
I like the footnotes and almost every book of the Bible has an interesting introduction.

What are the good parts of the bible from a story/lore point of view if I don't give a fuck about some dipshits telling me I'm going to burn in a pit if I eat a shrimp? I assume Genesis, Exodus, John, and Revelations are all mandatory reads.

esv

>Reading Genesis for the first time
>MFW Moses curses Canaan because Ham saw him naked and thought it was funny
This is the first part of the bible that I've been unable to comprehend. How does Ham seeing him naked mean Canaan deserves to be punished?

>>15947202
samuel/kings --> lamentations

is the general story of God losing patience with jewish behavior.

>>15936984
"Latin"

>>15947291
>Genesis
>Moses
Filtered

>>15944954
based book

>>15936070

>>15947409
Fuck, I meant to say Noah.

>>15947291
Scholars are also confused by the passage. The usual explanation is that Ham insulted Noah by telling his brothers that he was lying naked and not doing the right thing which was to cover his father without looking. Dishonouring one's father was a very a serious offence in all ancient societies. Some see an implication that seeing his father's nakedness was a euphemism for sexually abusing Noah but I find that a stretch.

>>15947459
I feel like I'm reading a bunch of very short abbreviations for much longer stories that no longer exist. I wouldn't be surprised if almost all the confusing shit in the bible had an entire short story attached to it that explains it but they were all lost to time so now we have nothing but confusing backstabbing and vague poetry to try making sense of.

>>15936070
1. "Elisavetinskaya" Bible (Church Slavonic)
2. Die Lutherbibel (German)
3. Vulgate (Latin)
4. Daničić-Karadžić (Serbian)
5. The Message (American)
I have spoken the truth

>>15947475
That's pretty much the conclusion of academics about the Torah, it's clearly been assembled from multiple sources and folk beliefs. A lot of the individual episodes are cryptic and we'll never know what they originally meant.

>See how fantastic the writing is for the first few chapters of Genesis
>Start reading the rest of it
>It instantly goes from amazing poetry that effortlessly paints a picture of the world being created step by step to a bunch of literally who faggots throwing autistic fits over land
Fuck this shit, I want to go back to poetry about cosmic forces. I don't want to hear about the genealogy of Santa Claus or why Gargamel's son is now a part of the slave caste because his brother found out their dad has a micro penis.

>>15947570
read psalms

>>15939660
Douay-Rheims belongs in High tier.

>>15947760
no, it really doesn't. The fact e-catholics think they need their own old timey KJV to obsess about originalism with is evident protestant-ization of american catholicism.

You know whats the trad bible to read as a catholic? Not reading the bible.

Only american evangelists insist on KJV being the best translation and they are a doomsday cult that wants to keep the Jews in power in Israel to speed up armageddon.

>>15948308
Why do protestants obsess over being as close to the Bible as possible while also removing books from it because they feel like it?

>>15947291
Armchair exegete here, but it might relate to Adam and Eve being ashamed of their own nakedness.

>>15948308
kek

>>15948343
calm down zoomer, the DR is the most trad and redpilled bible ever. BASED!

>>15936070
I liked OSB better
https://www.worldhistory.biz/download567/The_Orthodox_Study_Bible_-_St.pdf

>>15949387
Why does it use NKJV instead of the EOB for New Testament?