/lit/ - Literature

>>17277227
>NSRV
You mean NRSV? Poor choice.

>>17277305
The only good thing about the NRSV is that it doesn't leave out some obscure things compared to other versions, like for example it keeps with the original Greek in:
"And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the penises of the warthogs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters.

>>17277305
>>17277366
>replying to yourself
Here’s another ((you)), also I got this recc off of /lit/ as the version to read if you want to study the Bible in its entirety. Which version would you recc?

>>17277396
ESV, but really I just wanted to make a joke about warthog penises.

>>17277438
What makes the ESV so much better than the NRSV or KJV?

>>17277850
It’s not. NRSV is the academic standard that incorporates the largest number of manuscripts. Aka it’s the most accurate. KJV is outdated, uses less sources, was compiled before the discovery of many manuscripts. Oxford uses NRSV.

>>17277850
The NRSV tries to make shit gender neutral, ie. "don't be cruel to your brother" would be "don't be cruel to your brother and sister."
The ESV by contrast translates what was actually written and doesn't try to add shit in for its own liberal agenda.
The KJV (and NKJV) uses the textus receptus which is not as good as the older sources available today, the TR is a copy of many copies and translators over the many years had inserted their own views and biases into scripture. For example, 1 John 5: 7 in the KJV is:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This would be a significant proof of the trinity, except most of this verse never actually existed. In the early Greek sources it just says that there are three that testify.

>>17277227
>NRSV
That's the RSV which is arguably the best translation there is. Perhaps slightly dated but good scholarship without allowing political correctness to obscure meaning (NRSV) or the translator's theological bias to affect rendering (ESV).

Start reading. You’ll know when you’re done because you’ll be at the back cover

Are there grown men here from developed western countries that believe the bible is true and follow Christianity?

>>17279094
If by true you mean factually correct from a materialistic perspective then no, not all of it is true. Its truth is in spirit, wisdom, message.

>>17279158
Can I sleep with girls off Tinder and not go to hell?

>>17279164
hell isn't real, idiot.

>>17279184
What is it then?

>>17279192
what is something that is fictional? what kind of question is that?

>>17279216
It might be allegorical.

>>17279300
it's anything but literal, so you asking "will I go to hell for x" is a nonsense question.

>>17279315
thanks, brother

>>17277227
Ah the nrsv, the preferred bible of atheists, liberals, and homosexuals.

Also incidentally the ESV is used in academic setting now even more frequently than the nrsv. There is no excuse anymore for ever buying the nrsv. I believe oxford even has an annotated esv as a reaction to this sea change too.

>>17279164
If you proudly fly into a new wet hole at every opportunity for your whole life, chances are you're going to hell. Its so obviously a sin

>>17279401
I thought it was only a sin for women. King Solomon was a top shagger.

>>17279401
only the poor are concerned about other people making money, and only the sexually frustrated are concerned with other people haxing sex.

Nrsv is literally the version of the Bible endorsed by the Church of Satan in America. Consider that.

>>17277227
How small is the font for your Bible to be that skinny? Take a pic inside, I'm curious

>>17279446
And king solomon repented of all his sleeping around

>>17279494
Can I repent when I'm old?

>>17279508
unless you're a catholic, Christianity isn't based on legalistic technicalities like you're trolling with. Do whatever you want but I hope you understand that if you're even remotely serious

People literally don't actually fall for the NRSV meme in real life. Why do people shill it here? Its not in even the top 10 best selling translations and its use in academia is declining rapidly.

>>17277227
Cover to cover the way they were ordered by the church. Or do New Testament first and Old Testament last, but still doing both cover to cover.

>>17279551
Is this a joke? Legalistic technicalities are the basis for protestantism. Big historical, and thus valid, churches like the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not as obsessed with the letter of scripture to the point of forming thousands of mini churches.

>>17279573
>Cover to cover the way they were ordered by the church
this. I read the bible this way and it felt perfectly natural. I advise against all meme reading orders

>>17277227
>NRSV

The woke translation lmao

>>17279583
I'm not really interested in feeding this sort of narcissistic debate. I'll pray for your conversion.

>>17279508
im sure you can fool God no problem

>>17279699
I don't subscribe to any denomination, I don't take the bible like some trad-zoom.

>>17279701
I just don't think it's that much of a big deal in the age of contraception. I'm sure he'll understand.

>>17278251
>>17279374
>>17279389
>>17279481
>>17279567
>>17279685
Cmon guys, it can’t be that much more ‘woke’, especially if it’s supposedly ‘academic’ and ‘true to its core texts.’ Can you provide some examples??
>>17279490
Pic rel

>>17279711
I have an interesting recommendation for a website/blog that could give you some insight into the evangelical perspective. Would you like it? It might be nice to have a new perspective...?

>>17277396
NRSV is good and has good commentary don't listen to retards OP

>>17280000
Uh have you even done any research about this? The gender inclusive language literally sidesteps the actual text. That is objectively true.

>>17280013
Why shill this here? Everyone has already called you out...

>>17280017
So is every single passage referring to a single gender now ‘they/them’? Is it that much invasive to betray the text? If changing the instance that speaks of ‘man and woman’ into ‘they’ then I can’t see how that betrays the text, only your autism. Provide some actual contradictions.

>>17278251
>The NRSV tries to make shit gender neutral, ie. "don't be cruel to your brother" would be "don't be cruel to your brother and sister."
I have the ESV study bible and it does the exact same thing. Translators note seemed to make sense to me: in the original language, male pronouns and general terms were also used as gender neutral so "don't be cruel to your brother" would really mean "don't be cruel to your sibling/don't be cruel to other people." In modern English that doesn't work the same so it would actually be incorrect to translate it to "your brother" as the term is supposed to refer to both sexes. Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

>>17280029
If you're not bothered by it then who cares? Clearly you got the text because you sympathize with that. So go for it. Just don't pretend its more accurate when it substitutes reality for politics. Or do, who cares. Its not like anyone buys the nrsv anyway.

>>17277227
Read the bible chronologically; https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-reading-plan/chronological.html

>>17280045
the esv is very clear on its approach to gender and its not the same as the nrsv, so stop muddying the waters.

>>17280084
>emotional response
>still hasn’t posted proof of claim
I tried to find translated verses that differed in the respect you mentioned and I have failed to find any differences. Any instance where the NRSV uses both genders, it is used that way in the other translations as well.

>>17280045
Actually there's no way of knowing in most cases of a term like brothers refers to just men or to men and women. So the leap is obviously political. Paul's epistles are a great example. Its likely he wrote to brothers meaning male elders but saying siblings implies Paul had some vision of gender neutrality when the opposite was expressly the case. The only reason to make the change is to trick people into allowing things like female pastors

>>17280105
that's just a lie. Forefathers vs ancestors and brothers vs siblings are two clear examples so quit coping with your shitty purchase. Also lol at you for being a liberal Christian. No one takes you seriously.

>>17280024
???
I'm not a shill, I literally just own a copy of this bible and multiple others and it's the most accurate, if a bit clunky linguistically.

>>17280123
How can you still respond without showing me specifically (by verse) where this happens? You’re larping some meme shit you read on the internet.

>>17280130
>most accurate
>changes words in the bible to make it more PC

lmao

>>17280150
John 14:23

> 'If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him'"

NRSV >Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them.

>>17280150
>>17277227

There is a Messianic prediction in Psalm 34:20: "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken" (RSV). John's gospel refers to this (and probably Exod. 12:46) with respect to Jesus' death: "For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of him shall be broken'" (19:36, RSV). But the NRSV will not allow such a prediction about an individual man in Psalm 34, so the prediction is plural: "He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken" (NRSV). The individuality of the Messianic prediction, so wonderfully fulfilled in Jesus' death, is lost to readers of the NRSV.

fuck off jooo

>>17280165
Why does my version say this then?

>>17280178
The image in the op is an RSV not an nrsv so... maybe you're a retard i dunno man

I bought the version you nigs always shill here

>>17280178
>>17280194
looks like you got the RSV which is less pozzed, still has the jewish Isaiah 7:14 translation tho

>>17280197
literally every thread we have on this every calls it shit and there's one autist shilling it and pushing it hard. everytime. did you... not pick up on that?

>>17280197
>falling for some retarded pseud recomendation

nobody who recommends the RSV or NRSV has read the bible, they just hear that it's the version the heckin academics and MUH OXFORD MUH HARVARD use

It's still a bible though and most translations are pretty damn good

>>17280212
>60 replies
>17 posters
Are you sure you’re not the only autist shilling against it? Although I see that I was wrong in saying it was NRSV, it’s the newly annotated RSV lol.

>>17280219
I own a NKJV (exes parents bought for me). I’m not some devout Christian, I just want to read the Bible. Is this translation truly that kiked?

>>17280233
the majority of christians hate the NRSV, even most redditors. It's only really super liberal denominations who have nothing against it, it's the athiest's bible

>>17279714
>But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

>>17280244
if you just want to read the bible it's fine, it's not that terrible, just not ideal

>>17280233
uh yes?

also generally speaking ecumenical means pozzed

>>17280258
>majority of Christians
>most redditors
Thanks for telling me that I NEED to read this version thx bro

>>17280375
yes if you're an atheist, liberal, homosexual, satanist, hate Christ, etc then it is truly the perfect version for you. That's what we're trying to tell you

>>17280400
How... you haven’t proven it...
I’m willing to listen, I’m not some righteous religious person, I JUST WANT TO READ THE BIBLE. As far as I can tell, there won’t be a significant disadvantage to reading this version.

>>17280375
my point was that even super liberal reddit christians think its pozzed

>>17280440
yeah it's ok, but if you just want to read for literary reasons read kjv or NKJV, if you aren't religious it doesn't matter nrsv is fine

>>17280440
I'm not a shill stumping for anything, do what you want. I recommend you do some research on the topic if you really care. I'd point you to the ESV preface that explains its translation philosophy.

Its up to you. This isn't a debate. You can buy whatever bible you want my man.

>>17280551
This is the only actual problem I see with it and ESV suffers the same fate. I just want to read the most accurate translation, true to text. I’m not a liberal.

>>17280599
Well if that's your concern read the kjv or i would recommend the nkjv as well for its extensive footnotes on that exact subject. But that issue you're referencing is based in which textual tradition is being used. The esv to my knowledge addresses differences between the two traditions with footnotes as well, but I know for a fact the nkjv spends a great deal of time with it.

For readability I still prefer the esv, but that's a personal preference. Now the other question is what your purpose in reading the Bible is. I recommend the esv for general inquirers as well because the esv study bible simply can't be beat for presenting a broad, orthodox evangelical perspective that is both faithful while being nuanced and non fundie. The esv study bible is really really good, and I can't emphasize this enough. The nrsv will give a skeptical and absurdly critical/liberal perspective. You might want this, but you can find that kind of stuff anywhere.

If you are interested in possibly becoming a Christian maybe get the nkjv to address your concern about the text tradition and the esv study bible for learning about the faith.

>>17280669
Which version should I get if I want to read apocrypha as well? I’m returning this through amazon tmmw... my goal this year was to read the Bible cover to cover. An ESV or different version that is also a study bible comparable to what I thought this one was would be nice.

>>17280790
That I can't help you with... not sure which version comes with the apocrypha. Probably the kjv would be most likely to have it. But honestly you can just purchase the apocrypha separately for like 15 bucks in most translations if you can't find a packaged deal. I was a former catholic so the apocrypha was always incorporated. Never gave it much thought.

You can usually find sample pages of various study bibles to compare notes to see what you're really looking for. For instance, the NKJV had a study bible but I know nothing about it, and there might be multiple ones.

>>17277227
Other than Young’s Literal Translation (kind of difficult for smooth reading, mainly for reference), the New American Standard Version is the most accurate bible today. Debate me, but you will lose.

>>17281045
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-NASB-Bible-a-corrupt-translation-or-should-I-stick-with-the-KJV
>Dr. Frank Logsdon, project member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.
>Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.
>It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan's hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, "The deletions are absolutely frightening."

>>17280790
the apocyphra is pretty pointless, just schizo nonsense that even christians don't really read, it's just in there because there is a useful verse or two that justifies catholic doctrines

OP here. This goes way deeper than I thought it did. Wtf is the Septuagint? I’m leaning towards ESV but I can’t figure which one to buy. Maybe I should just not go down this rabbit hole.

>>17281156
Septuagint is just the Old Testament in Greek.

>>17281156
septaguinit was the greek translation/version of the OT, that jesus often quoted from.

ESV is a non pozzed rsv I think, I would prefer a NKJV or NASB but esv is fine

>>17281170
see
>>17281091
NASB is kiked

>>17281181
>NASB is kiked

how?

>>17281156
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/p/triablogue-topical-index.html?m=1

Based on the questions you're asking id like to recommend this site to you. These guys are brilliant and have written about every conceivable question you might have on these topics and many others. I think browsing it could be very fruitful for you. You can read about stuff like the septuagint there.

The point of all of these issues being presented relates to multiple textual traditions and that's somewhat irrelevant with many translations because they take them all into account in some way.

KJV used a handful of TR manuscripts available at the time.

ESV uses thousands of texts from multiple traditions. Literally thousands.

NKJV relies of the TR tradition of the KJV but as I mentioned in an earlier post, it interacts with the more numerous texts now extent while being faithful to the more limited and specific KJV tradition via copious footnotes. The ESV does this as well but to a lesser extent.

Don't get too bogged down in this and let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In fact I would say base your decision on which study bible appeals to you the most, not which text you think you is the "best" from your current perspective.

Just get a nice looking ESV study bible and read it. Hell it even has a reading plan for 365 days in the back. If you later decide you actually prefer a different translation then make a switch.

I can tell you that if you plan on getting involved in a Christian community, many will use the ESV that lean less holy roller/mega church. So that's another piece.

>>17281156
>>17281264
Just checked Amazon out of curiosity. ESV study bible in generic hardback is 29 bucks. You can get it in genuine leather for less than 60. Just get it and start reading. Hell spring on the leather too, its nice. After a month of reading you can reevaluate if you're uncertain.

>>17281292
https://www.crossway.org/articles/a-guide-to-esv-study-editions/
I’m looking through different ones and am wondering if I should get any special study version.

>>17281353
No don't. Not for your purposes. Go with the original "ESV Study Bible". The other types are interesting and have their place, but not for introductory purposes. Further the original is way denser and more robust than the other ones.

I have the archeology one. Its cool but very limited in scope. The gospel transformation one is practical theology and the systematic theology one sounds appealing but is light on content. The original study bible is the way to go.

>>17281353
>>17281368
Also just FYI its way cheaper on Amazon than crossway.

Also another thing I want to suggest is that in addition to reading that blog I provided and getting an esv study bible, I really recommend, as soon as you feel called to do so, find a church to visit. My leaning is confessional Reformed. I personally go to a PCA church, although I feel some presbyteries are slipping into heterodoxy. But whatever is close by and feels right, whether it's Baptist, non denominational, whatever. Non denom and evangelical Presbyterian seem to be thriving the most these days. I ended up at mine simply because at first it was the only church around with lots of young families, which was important to me.

>>17281402
>>17281368
Fuck off protestantigger you aren't a real Christian because only Roman Catholics are real Christians. You're some barely literate hick retard. Your faggy fake religion is only growing because its for brainlet pieces of shit who refuse to submit to the popes authority. Fucking kys fake Christian larping subhuman scum.

>>17281460
Ok friend I'll pray for you. No point in rehashing the same old stuff. Here's a reference to my reasons for thinking your religion isn't historically sound. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/09/upon-this-sand-they-built-church.html?m=1

Lets not derail the thread.

>>17281460
>only Roman Catholics are real Christians
*unzips purgatory*

>>17281156
you said you had a NRSV but your OP pic is of an RSV and that's what your translation actually looks like
RSV is a great translation and is what many people consider a compromise between old-school KJV English and the veracity of later translations that had access to more manuscripts. I don't think you have to worry about getting a new Bible, you have the best you can get.

>>17281918
and in case you are wondering the RSV is unpozzed. The NRSV is pozzed though.

>>17280599
>>17281927
furthermore I have an RSV catholic edition which includes footnotes in places where "removed verses" would be, including those verses

>>17281918
He's looking for a study bible though. I agree that the RSV is good, but the ESV is better in terms of up to date scholarship, and they both are drawn from the same line of translations. The difference being minimal, if he wants a study bible its gotta be the esv.

The nrsv vs rsv confusion did complicate the thread for sure, but that's partly the retarded naming of the nrsv's fault

>>17280118
But Paul literally refers to female preachers like Phoebe and Junia.

>>17281951
Please post the verse where he refers to them as preachers you fucking liar

>>17281968
Romans 16:1
>I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is [also] a minister of the church at Cenchreae

Romans 16:7
>Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.

A minister (deacon) and an apostle. Both senior female figures in the church, who would have spoken the good news to other followers.

>>17281927
>>17281939
rsv does the isaiah "young woman" so its somewhat pozzed

>>17282053
Oof that's what you get for reading shitty translations. The term for Phoebe in Greek is servant, and prominent among the apostles means well known among. Obviously she wasn't an apostle but even a basic knowledge of Christianity would make this clear.

So now, were you just really misinformed or being deceptive on purpose? Hm?

>>17282053
>>17282081
See what the liberal faggot did? This is why you don't read the NRSV and it is also why the NRSV was made in the first place. It allows these atheist freaks to "proof text" feminism to people who don't know any better.

The liberal liar is so objectively off base it isn't funny. Not that xe knows anything about Christianity anyway. A deacon being a senior leader? Huh?

Lets this be a cautionary tale. Read good translations. KJV, NKJV, ESV. Let God judge the deceivers.

>>17282081
>>17282111
I used the NABRE actually. Deacon (diakonos) was a position in the early church. The implication of the Greek in Romans 16:7 is that Andronicus and Junia are apostles, this implication was recognised by Christians who invented the male name Junias to replace Junia because they were troubled by the existence of a female apostle. If the implication of her apostlehood wasn't there, why would there be motivation to try changing the name to Junias?

It's clear you haven't referred to the Greek but have just read the ESV and assumed it's more correct.

>but even a basic knowledge of Christianity would make this clear.
So what you do is take later traditions and read them back into the Bible?

>>17282157
Why do you not know how many apostles there are? Is this the fruit of Catholic teaching? Do you even know what an apostle is?

Just a heads up if your reply is too retarded I won't respond again. I suspect you are a tranny so feel free to prove me wrong but you're going to need to do way better.

>>17277227
NRSV is the best.

>>17282281
>poster count didn't go up
Haha dilate

>>17277227
>NRSV
>picrel is RSV
nigga wat
>>17282297
take your meds schizo

>>17282157
>Deacon (diakonos) was a position in the early church
there is no evidence for this. you're reading anachronistically. the fact that deacon became a position several hundred years later means nothing in this context, especially given it's the only time the term is used in this way. again, servant is more appropriate rendering, ironically, for cultural reasons.

>>17277438
ESV uses nongendered language whenever it can.

>>17282111
Same reason to not read ESV either.

>>17279164
Thus the atheist shows his true colors.

>>17282281
are you jewish?

>>17279164
Better to be a social degenerate than an anti social outcast. Both are sins, but one is an offense to morality the other is an offense to human nature (we are made to be social). I'd argue the latter is worse, especially in such a culture as ours, you should red pill every girl after intentionally cumming inside them to breed them, which also necessarily means that you should only fuck girls you want to breed. Breeding is very virtuous.

>>17283129
t. Satan

>>17277227
>bad boy

the fuck is this

>>17283098
Why?? OP here again, I’m going to do some more research after my classes today and order one. Im leaning toward an ESV but I’m open fo suggestion as long as the reasons are valid. All I want to do is read the Bible through and not waste my time with a shitty translation. If Christian biblical scholars felt that there was a problem with RSV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html)), then I feel that that does take away some credence for it. Like I said before, I’m not some Christian fundie or some pronounced Christian, I just want to understand the stories as well as the Christian perspective. If I was to read the Quran or any other religious text, I would hold it to the same criteria as true to text and true to faith. It is looking to be the ESV that is the best here after further research (although the Septuagint seems pretty based too).

>>17282265
You mean the 12 apostles of course, but there were more apostles than the twelve. Paul calls himself an apostle and he clearly wasn't one of the 12

Colossians 1:1
>Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

>>17282643
It's explained as such in 1 Timothy where deacon is obviously an office, it's described just after the office of bishop

1 Timothy 3
>Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, 9 holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

>>17283361
"Bible researcher" is a reformed Protestant who is very biased towards the ESV, unsurpisingly translated by reformed Protestants. The RSV is usually regarded as a decent all-rounder, in fact the ESV is a revision of it, and the ESV translators praise the RSV in their introduction. The RSV was also approved by the Catholic church for study. It's more conservative than its official revision, the NRSV. Honestly, I would stick with it, especially because it includes all the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apocrypha/deuterocanon.

>>17284590
What version would you consider the best?

>>17283286
looks like a leg but with one big toe instead of a foot

>>17284615
There isn't a best translation, translators always have to compromise to some extent. I read several and compare them, I normally keep these on hand: NRSV, ESV, NASB, NABRE, and NJPS (Jewish Bible). I don't have an RSV simply because the NRSV and ESV are both very similar to it so it would be for me. But as I said, it seems like a good all-rounder.

It is interesting to check a translation of the Septuagint, the acadamic standard is the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). The hard copy is expensive but you can read it for free online here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

>>17284673
NRSV uses gender neutral language though. Anon did prove that to me. I have RSV which doesn’t do that, but he had me convinced on an ESV. If RSV is the atheist non-believer version then I don’t want to read it. When it comes to actually reading a study Bible start to finish, would you recommend an RSV or ESV?
Also, for a book that long I’d probably purchase it, what version of the Septuagint is the best?
I know things differ across translations but I still have not been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion after talking to all the anons in this thread. I requested a return for the RSV but I might just keep it. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

>>17284853
RSV isn't an atheist Bible, it was translated by Christians, the Catholic church approved of it, and it was the basis of the protestant-translated ESV. Either RSV or ESV would be , but if you want a more ecumenical view try to find the ESV with apocrypha that recently came out. You will never have a definitive answer about the best translation because there isn't one! No translation is perfect.

The best Septuagunt translation is A New English Translation of the Septuagint edited by Albert Pietersma.

>>17284955
I’m OP. You think I should read the one I have? Considering it isn’t the NSRV, after reading all the responses in this thread plus my own research, I’m guessing I should just use it. Also, do you consider yourself a believer and what is your denomination? Just curious.
I was reading excerpts of the Septuagint last night and the extra exposition in Genesis got me excited.