/lit/ - Literature

>>20829079
The Bible, all of them, are “jew” stuff.

>>20829079
KJV.

>>20829084
fanfiction

>>20829079
ESV for modern or Dhouay Rheims for Elizabethan English vibes are endorsed by Catholic Bishops of America

>>20829079
Based doctor who literally profits off the suffering of others totally owns cringe child for believing in God 4k 1080p

>>20829222
thanks for making me laugh your (you) sir
>>20829079
read neville goddard he'll explain it all

>>20829079
Literally any non-Protestant Bible.

>Zmph!

>>20829079
The artist should pray for some talent.

>>20829137
I like the Berean Study Bible over the ESV, it tends to flow a little better and keeps a bit more strictly to direct translation where possible. An example for comparison (make sure to look at the footnotes on ESV and compare to the text of BSB):
https://biblehub.com/bsb/malachi/2.htm
https://biblehub.com/esv/malachi/2.htm

bible is for losers

>>20829079
Literally just KJV. It's not that hard to read and is the most influential version therefore literature has been most influenced by it. If you're a reader, read KJV. You might look up a definition now and then but most of the time you can figure it out by looking at the context of what you're currently reading.

What's your interest in it for?
If literary and an Anglosphere resident, then the KJV without a doubt. Be prepared for some words/phrasing to occasionally throw you off due to definition changes over the past 400 years.
If your interest is more academic/scholarly then get a more modern translation with some notes. My personal recommendation is the New Oxford Annotated Bible in RSV with Expanded Apocrypha, as it includes the deuterocanonical books of the East Orthodox as well as the Catholic ones. It's also in the original RSV, which is a good translation that still sounds reverently old but isn't difficult to read, and isn't overly modernized like the NRSV.
Other than that, you can get student editions of the NABRE for really cheap ($7 for a paperback, $13 or $14 for a hardcover) and even though it's a Catholic translation the notes are really pretty secular in slant and there are lots of them, including diagrams/pictures/maps too. It has the Catholic deuterocanonicals in the spots in the Old Testament that Catholics place them, unlike the NOAB I mentioned above which puts all of the deuterocanonicals in an appendix.
If your interest is religious, or out of interest in a particular denomination, then it'll vary.
>Orthodox
Orthodox Study Bible is the easiest to get a copy of, but it's not really a translation from Orthodox manuscripts and is just an alteration of the NKJV with Orthodox notes added. The opinions of Orthodox bishops/priests vary on it.
Other than that, your only real options are the Brenton English Septuagint or Lexham English Septuagint for the OT, and the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible based on the patriarchal text of 1904 for the NT.
If you just use a SWORD module program, then get Brenton English Septuagint or LXX2012 for OT, and use the ASV Byzantine Text version for the NT.
>Catholic
Douay-Rheims for oldschool, Knox for dynamic oldschool, RSV-2CE for more modern.
>Protestant
KJV for oldschool, Geneva for REAL oldschool and if you want to LARP as a Puritan, RSV or ESV for modern.

>>20829079

>>20830993
NTA but I'd like a version of the Bible that I can understand (so, modern wording, so I'm not running to the dictionary constantly), and yet is as faithful to the original source material as possible (so I get the original intent).
Any recommendations along those lines?
I remember my parents having a paraphrased Bible, which might have been called "The Living Bible - Paraphrased", but I can't be sure.
I have a PDF of something called the "Parallel Bible", dating to 1886.

>>20830993
A PDF of the "New Oxford Annotated Bible" is on archive.org. Handy!

>>20829079
>what bible should I read?
>not interested in jew stuff
Bad news anon, it's all Jew stuff.

>>20832662
No, the Old Testament is "Jew stuff".
The New Testament is where Christianity diverged from Judaism.
I welcome corrections to the above statements.

>>20830993
>>20832576
>>20832592
Well, I decided on the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th edition (circa 2018).
The language is less confusing than KJV, but the story is still random and nonsensical.
So God created humankind in Genesis 1:27, then created Adam in 2:7?
Then Adam and Eve weren't the first humans.
I guess that explains who Cain and Abel married, but yeesh...even when an international team of scholars tries to straighten out the Bible, it's still a mess.

>>20829079
None. You don't read the bible. You shouldn't waste your time on fiction, spend your time read meaningful things, not the schizo ramblings of sand-people. What things have they brought us? Non-stop "holy" wars in the east and terrorism in the west.

>>20830993
literary. KJV sounds like my bag.
my very religious grandma once asked my grandpa at the breakfast table, "what are we? protestant? or baptist?" because even she was so distant with her very devout belief.

>>20834009
er, sorry, "Lutheran, or Baptist"

>>20829079
Almost all translations and bibles are nearly the same (except for protestant vs catholic, the former removing books from the bible.) First let me tell you No bible will ever be enough. The bible is a deep and complex book with many meanings and numerous commentaries to be had. There's still debate about what the original hebrew texts actually say and how certain words have been poorly translated into English. So if you really want to get into the bible you'll need more than just the book itself. If you're maniac and want to go even deeper then you'll want to learn Hebrew and Classical Greek.

>>20829079
I recommend the NABRE, or any study bible that uses the NABRE as a source. It's in modern english, but it dodges a lot of the pitfalls of the NIV. It has the 7 Deuterocanonical books in the right places. It's a perfect Bible if you've never read one before.

>>20830993
If I care about scholarly how do you feel about NASB?

>>20833985
But the Bible is the foundation of classic Western literature.
I'm not sure how one would even understand the Western canon without being familiar with the Bible.
Also...it's the preeminent work of Gothic literature.
If you're trying to write unsettling Gothic, and haven't read the Bible, you may as well shoot yourself in the foot, given your relative disadvantage.

>>20833962
OK, so the Flood in Genesis wiped out all people and animals that weren't on the ark.
What about the fish? How would the Flood kill them?
Either the freshwater fish would all survive, or the saltwater fish would all survive, depending on the nature of the floodwater.
And what about waterfowl? Seems like the ducks, geese, seagulls, etc. would have been just fine.
And wouldn't the plants have been destroyed too? They don't take well to being completely submerged. Wouldn't Noah also have to have one of every plant?
But no...somehow the plants survived, since in Genesis 8:11, the dove came back with a freshly plucked olive leaf.
And why wipe out all the animals? Were they sinful too?
I'm sorry, but this section has to be read as a ripoff of the Gilgamesh epic, and little more.
Telling me to have faith is like telling me "do what I tell you or you'll get beaten".
I can't believe people kill each other over ths shit.

>>20830993
five star post, nigga

>>20830993
Anon if you can, care to explain the differences between them? And why there're so many anyway?

>>20837897
There are two kinds of differences, Old Testament differences and New Testament ones. The Old Testament generally has a Hebrew version, and a somewhat shortened Greek version that some people use, which includes apocrypha in some of its early printings (see attached). Each of these two versions has some minor variations within it, but nothing compared to the differences between them. For instance, the Greek Old Testament, as given by Origen in the 3rd century AD, has changed many of the ages of the patriarchs in the early chapters of Genesis. This is in such a way that Methuselah is said to outlive the flood of Noah by 14 years, thereby going against the idea that it was only Noah and his three sons and their wives that survived among the survivors of Adam's descendants.

In the New Testament, the picture is simultaneously simpler and also more complex in a different way. It's simpler because there are no apocrypha to speak of, just 27 books, but it's more complex because the total amount of differences between whether you use the received text (KJV, other Bibles before 1880) or an eclectic translation (such as the ASV of 1901 or most modern day translations) you see vast differences in the presentation of the New Testament text itself.

The Westcott and Hort text, to give a concrete example, as it was used for the first "Revised version" of 1880 (meant to replace the KJV), in the original Greek: it omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. And overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament.

So, in modern translations and versions, they are drawing substantially from a Greek version of the New Testament that has removed about 7% of the New Testament compared to what is represented in the Received Text that was used before 1880. Everyone used to use and read from the received text of the Bible until about 1880, and all English speakers in particular used the KJV before then. It is substantially different in the New Testament as compared to translations today, like the NIV or ESV, which remove a corresponding 7% of the New Testament. This is because they are a translation of the modified Alexandrian Greek text. When they market these translations, they tend to downplay this, but it is a very big difference.

>>20838179
First of all THANK YOU anon for answering my question and spending your time with your respond.
Second. So following what you said there's no "real bibble" in our present time right? Ad least not a "pure one". And for what i know even when the books of the old testament were being written they were past down hand by hand from person to person ad some pieces were taken away and others were added it.
So does even a "real and true bibble" exist?

>>20838395
As that anon noted above...
>My personal recommendation is the New Oxford Annotated Bible in RSV with Expanded Apocrypha
...and a PDF of it is on archive.org

>>20838395
Well, the Bible as a whole represents Scripture, and according to itself, the Bible is God's word. Now, if you read through the Old Testament and New Testament, you will see that it always says in several places that the words of God are pure and will never fail. Take the following examples, quoted from the KJV:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
(Proverbs 30:5-6)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
(Psalm 119:160)

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
(Isaiah 40:8)

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
(Luke 16:17)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
(1 Peter 1:23-25)

So you see, at least by the Bible's own account, the word of God is pure and everlasting. Basically, it doesn't change, which is the idea we probably all hear at some point. So, even though there are several versions to investigate, we can understand that they can't all be the original one. If the Bible is true, there must be just one that represents the unchanged original Scripture. And according to Jesus Christ, His words shall never pass away. See Luke 16:17 and Matthew 24:35 for that.

Therefore, if one believes the Bible, it is just a matter of finding out what is preserved from the beginning. Obviously, we expect that the original languages won't be lost. Reading Isaiah 59:21, if you want, we also learn this fact. So, it makes sense that it has to be the original Hebrew (or Syriac-Aramaic) words given in the original books of the Old Testament, and the original Greek words in the New Testament, that are still kept today. Anything that was lost for a long time then rediscovered would not qualify. And anything that isn't still in the original languages would not quality. Therefore we can say based on these requirements at least, the so-called "received text" is the only possible things that fulfills these prophecies in Scripture. It was never lost, and we've always had this Scripture, so it meets the descriptions given by the Biblical writers themselves. All that's left if we need to is finding a good translation, in case we don't already know Greek, like a good Spanish Bible taken from the original Greek and Hebrew, or a good English or Chinese or any other language bible, that is translated from the preserved original languages. And the KJV is one example of a well-known translation of this type in English, and it represents the word of God in English.

>>20838503
Yes i see where you're saying i've never look at it that way. Though it would be nice to have the original books

>>20838645
So long as we have the words, we have what's important.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
(Mark 13:31)

>>20836912
Cope. The bible has no role in contemporary art or literature. Art has transcended, rather, shed the need for religiosity. Don't worry, you'll grow up one day and understand what I'm saying.

>>20838670
>The bible has no role in contemporary art or literature
So that's why is such a shitshow

>>20838683
Hehe...my feelings exactly, anon.
And I _did_ say "classic Western literature" and "the Western canon", not crap like Pinecone and Houellebecq.

>>20838670
Oh?
What's the basis of "The Handmaid's Tale", then?
There sure seem to be a lot of robe-wearing LARPers these days, going on about it.

>>20838670
How would you know, if you haven't read it?
Your favorite fiction could be chock full of Biblical references and it'd sail right over your head.

>>20838922
>What's the basis of "The Handmaid's Tale", then?
Islam

>>20839193
No, it's literally Genesis 16:1-2.

From Genesis 19:
[30] And Lot [...] dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
[31] And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
[33] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[34] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
[35] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[36] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
So...according to the Bible, daughters can choose to have sex with their fathers???

>>20829137
>Dhouay Rheims
This
But if you're trying to read it to better understand the influence it has on western literature especially in the United States you should probably just read kjv

>>20839497
As with most events of this nature in the Bible, if you continue reading you'll get an answer. Maybe you'll even learn something.
Only one way to find out

>>20836946
it's not to be taken literally after you've pointed that out.

>>20829079
Kjv

>>20829079
I like this comic, every medical death is actually a murder by the doctors
If its just medicine keeping someone alive, the doctors are at fault if someone dies and should be punished