/lit/ - Literature

KJV is most beautiful but basically all the modern versions are fine and easier to understand

>>21055577
I second the KJV but also the ESV isn't bad and is easier to comprehend.

>>21055563
Not the KJV. It was translated by men that spoke different dialects and people that have edited it later on messed up some of the words by this cause.

>>21055577
>basically all the modern versions are fine and easier to understand
Alright, good to know, thanks. Reading up on all the different versions felt a tad overwhelming.

>>21055563
KJV 1611
https://youtu.be/jiegso1JQWw

>>21055563
I like the RSV but not the NRSV

>>21055808
All english Bible translations are going to be at least 95% the same, I wouldn't sweat too much about it. If you're becoming an academic or a theologian you'll learn about the differences inevitably anyways, including the nuances of their original-language wordings. If you're not, then the differences won't really matter all that much to you.
The website "biblegateway" is great for looking up verses/sections on the fly and comparing between dozens of different translations, so even if you run into a passage in your chosen translation has you scratching your head, there's always that resource.
For my recommendation I would just say the NRSV, it's the commonly-accepted version among scholars, though (maybe because of that) many here don't recommend it. Despite the KJV being the most inaccurate, it's definitely a good read as long as you don't mind all the "thee"s and "thou"s, and its use of the word "vanity" in Ecclesiastes makes it my preferred translation of that book in particular.

>>21055563
you literally just posted it in your pic. get the NRSV w/ apocrypha. Catholic Edition if you can.

until you start getting into scholarly research reading greek it really doesn't matter which translation you read aside from a few glaring errors (angel of the pool, rams horns from moses head, etc).

>>21056128
>Despite the KJV being the most inaccurate
>Not the Good News Bible or The Message
The KJV may be antiquated and have a few errors, but it's far from inaccurate. The NRSV translators went out of their way to make the language gender inclusive which make such verses sound clunky and downright odd.

The only translations I would consider these days are the NRSV (RSV is also good) and the KJV
>tfw Allan bibles stopped producing NRSV bibles

Came here to ask this exact question. Bump.

>>21055563
see pic
otherwise I am pretty satisfied with the NJB i.e. New Jerusalem Bible, made in the '80s, probably the last scholarly work before political correctness
KJV is a fine thing to have, and that's a fact.

now, for the serious stuff:
if you want a bible that has Hebrew-English parallel text, I found that the one edited by JPS in 1917 is the most reliable... strange coincidence that the next version came out after the First World War and smells funky

>>21055563
KJV

>>21055577
>KJV
Have you tried that KYS version?

>>21055563
Kjv is
>most beautiful
>has all the verses (nothing is redacted)
>in the public domain so plenty if good prints
Grab any other translation to refer to it if you get confused tho

>>21056186
i heard that nrsv is goning to be revised again, therefore they may stop printing?

>>21055563
It has got to be the KJV.

>>21055563
The only Holy Bible is the Authorized King James. Anything and everything else is a "bible" at best.

>>21055563
Douay Rheims.

>>21055577
>KJV
Why recommend an incomplete version?

>>21055563
The King James Version (KJV) is NOT the same content, as the historic 1611 King James Version. The New King James version is based on the false collation of Hermann Von Soden (1911) [transmitted via the misnamed greek text of Hodges & Farstad]. The Old Testament text of the New King James version (NKJV) is based on the false Hebrew Text (via UBS) translated by Apostate-occultist, Kittel.

>>21056186
Allan's "speckled edge" NRSV taught me gold-gilting had a legitimate alternative.
>>21056662
The NRSV revision is already out. It came out digitally last December and physical copies have appeared just this month.

The hebrew and greek bible. Any "mutt" version of the bible is going to contain translation issues and will be missing important nuance.

>>21056128
>All english Bible translations are going to be at least 95% the same
right, and theyre all commentaries on the KJV, so read the KJV first and then learn the differences

>>21055563
KJV for pure literary beauty. Robert Alter's Old Testament is very good, as is Richard Lattimore's New Testament. Also: David Bentley Hart's New Testament. The NRSV is great.

>reading the word of God in translation
oh no no no

A lot of people in here seem to be repping either the RSV or NRSV, haven’t seen the ESV mentioned yet. I know it’s mainly big in Reformed (Calvinist) circles, but does the translation itself reflect that denominational bias?

>>21055563
brenton lxx old testament nkjv new testament

>>21055577
>>21055607
>>21056012
>>21056169
>>21056186
>>21056233
>>21056639
>>21056702
>>21056733
>>21057007
>>21057059
>muh Kangs Jewish Version
Die.
May as well watch fucking telelvangelists for theology if youre going to read this condensed goyslop shit. Literally designed to make you a servant of this world and sever you from understanding a true relationship with the Lord. Fucking trash is not fit to be called a bible at all. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with that so called "Word".

>>21056735
Here is your real answer.

I'm thinking of starting up a /lit/ reads The Bible thread in a few weeks, might do a few select books or the whole thing, any advice?

>>21057258
>calls the KJV “goyslop”
>shills the Douy Rhiems that was revised in the 1700’s by Chanoller to be closer to the KJV because the actual original DR a was a literal to the point of wooden translation of the Latin that was only made because the Geneva Bible was leading people into Protestantism (which was also the reasoning behind the KJV, though that’s a narrative that basically ignores the Great and Bishops Bibles that came before it)
What seems more goyish is keeping the Bible from the common folk and acting like ordination and seminary gives you some magical understanding of it

>>21055563
KJV is the least pozzed but less complete than newer translations. I'd still say it's best overall as it has nearly the entire western canon built on it and it's sufficient for the most part with the missing parts the newer versions adds only adding up to no more than 3% of the total. Modern translations add in missing parts and addendum (some of which did exist in older language trabslatiins but were dusputed in authenticity) but some of the newer sources they use are actually less reliable despite being older like the Alexandrian text types. Pretty much every modern trabslation uses them. And there's evidence the Hebrew bible was purposely changed after Christianity established to mess some things around by antichristian rabbis and the septuagint is a better source for some oarts of the OT.
I'm not an KJV onlyist. There still need to be improvements made but no one has really made a better Bible yet. Try to get it with apocrypha because depending on denomination, some or all are canon. Try to also get a biblical koine dictionary becuase a lot of words have entir3ly different menaings than they do tidau, not just in the old english but for multiple other koine words which had many synonyms and alternative definitions. I'd also reccomend you do the same for the OT with hebrew. Keep in mind again, the antichristian corruption. Still keeping in mind, There's a nice english version of the hebrew bible recently entirely translated by Robert Alter and he provides annotations with context and explanations of what the original hebrew meant and why he rewrote some parts a different way in accordance to that hebrew. If only we could get something like that for the Greek texts.

>>21057311
The Geneva bible was filled with calvinist footnotes and challenged the authority of the throne which the anglican church did not like which is big reason why the KJV was made. To the Catholics, it lead people to Protestantism. To the Protestants, it lead them to the wrong kind. The bishop's bible and other translations in between weren't as accessible to the common people which is why both were made. The churches nay have gad one Bible, but the homes had another.

>>21057258
Enjoy your Ishtar corruptions brought in through "saint" Jerome. Pro tip, it's the woman's seed, and not the woman, who crushes the serpent's head.

>>21057338
Also the 1611Authorized version is the best version of the KJV.

>>21055563
Read the Bavli Talmud instead.

>>21057355
This much is true, that the KJV’s primary purpose was to replace both the older “chained” bibles of the established church and the anti-monarchal Geneva Bible. But, footnotes aside, the Geneva Bible was actually used quite a bit in English society even after the KJV. Most of Shakespeare’s Bible quotations are from the Geneva, and even William Byrd, who was a Catholic, composed a setting of psalm 81:1-4 from the Geneva Bible rather than Coverdales translation (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6JfcFhs9Y8).). There’s even rare editions of the KJV printed into the 1700’s that had the main KJV text supplemented with the Geneva notes (presumably as the former’s readings became more commonly known but the latter was still being prized for it’s doctrine, especially among puritans).
All of that is to say, while the KJV is the governmental text and the Geneva is the more “democratic”, the use of them side by side was far more common up until the King James crowded out the Geneva by sheer printing and demand alone. Incidentally and ironically, the popularization of the KJV seemed to come around the same time as the Apocrypha being an optional and later rare occurrence in printing, even though the established church that championed the KJV would be far more likely to use it than the puritans and non-conformists who favored the Geneva.

Will christianity ever bounce back? Or is it just cope?

>>21057400
The best printing of the 1611 is the New Cambridge Paragraph. No it’s not an exact facsimile and Norton did change some of the wording in his own ways despite claiming to be presenting the original in modern spelling, but Cambridge makes a long lasting product and for reading for long settings a paragraph format is ideal

>>21057422
Can you direct me to where you learnt this? I need to up my bible history.

>>21057431
it is only growing anon, the fake ones are falling away they were never with us. dont see it from the worlds perspective

>>21057435
Thank you for the suggestion. I've been looking for a new printed Bible but the selections for 1611s with apocrypha is slim.

>>21057431
i straight up think that if he doesnt call you or appear to you, you might just never go to the word. if you dont have the holy spirit your efforts are in vain

>>21057311
I've read the original Rheims New Testament. The issue wasn't precisely that it was "a literal to the point of wooden translation," but rather that many Latin words, rather than be translated, were simply turned into English words. Sometimes, this worked, and in those cases, they were later adopted by the KJV and even modern English as English words (eg. acquisition, advent, allegory, character, evangelize). Where it didn't work, however, you ended up with words that didn't make sense unless (A) you knew Latin and (B) you knew what the actual underlying Latin where the English'd word came from. Interestingly, there are actually a few places where the original Rheims (and thus the pre-Clementine Vulgate) actually has a reading that matches what's found in the modern editions (RSV, NRSV, ESV, etc.) but the Clementine Vulgate, and thus Challoner, changed it to a different reading (often a Majority Text reading).
>What seems more goyish is keeping the Bible from the common folk
Myth. The aim was to prevent unauthorized translations done by literal whos, so you wouldn't end up with Arius #3001's translation promoting yet another batch of heresies. The Catholic Church, for example, had already produced several German-translated editions years and decades before Luther published his New Testament translation.

>>21057431
The way I see it as notioned by another muslimanon, despite the globohomos attempts, Islam likely won't take over the west which means it either falls another way or there's a new Christian reawakening which will be beautiful. I say keep the hope and faith strong. History tends for to be a series of reactions. The pendulum is starting to swing back.

how does your walk with jesus look like anons, i try to focus on him every second i can and to conciously surrender/worship him

>>21057456
are you muslim anon? how did you divert and find jesus?

>>21057439
but its so hard, its impossible to live in the modern world without suffering some consequences

>>21057469
yes anon i truly believe its impossible. i think he knows that and is waiting for us to ask for his help. literally daily

>>21057422
Fun fact: The Rheims translators appear to have used the Coverdale as a reference, because it was the only diglot they had available, and they also adopted the wording from the Geneva on several occasions, despite the original Rheims, at least in its notes, being essentially the anti-Geneva Bible. Then again, the KJV translators then aped Rheims readings in their NT, too, which is apparent when the KJV NT contains an English reading that isn't present in any other previous translation except for the Rheims, and Challoner returned the favor a century and a half later by sealing right back from the KJV. The history of English translations of the Bible, especially back in the 1500/1600s, is just a series of everyone ripping off everyone else.

>>21057436
For the Shakespeare claim:
https://www.bardweb.net/content/ac/shakesbible.html
For the KJV/Geneva Hybrid
https://greatsite.com/shop/size-range/lectern-folios-11-15-tall/1672-kjv-with-geneva-notes/ (It is a listing for an copy and not an article, but it serves to demonstrate the timeframe, 1671, and how it was during/shortly after the Parlamentarian era of English history that would have been kinder to the Geneva’s anti-royalism)
> Apocrypha stops being included
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha_controversy
I was incorrect on the timeframe here, the apocrypha controversy was about 50-100 years after the Geneva stopped being a major Bible used in Britain and the US. Nevertheless, the Geneva Bible itself didn’t contain any commentary notes on the apocryphal books, and ultimately another part of the both Geneva and Apocryphal books downfall was that it was simply cheeper to print the KJV and print only the 66 book canon that most sermons (Calvinist or, due to the rise of Methodism and other movements, Arminianism) would be citing

>>21057448
Wait
>modern punctuation and spelling
They changing the Thys and Thees?

>>21057468
Never muslim. Currently finding Jesus. Reading Nabeel Qureshi's book helped though.

>>21057508
No, those are still there.

>>21056769
>The King James Version (KJV) is NOT the same content, as the historic 1611 King James Version.
The KJV went through a few revisions where the spellings were standardized. In the original printing you have words with extra 'e' letters attached (i.e. "bee" instead of "be"), weird spellings ("flowre" and "floure" alternate spellings in James 1:10-11), and randomly placed & signs, in order to get even lines on the page with the archaic printing plate technology. The 1769 revision was the main source of spelling updates, although it continued to receive slight updates to make it more consistent up until about 1900. Many people refer to the KJV currently in use as the "1900 KJV" to be specific about the edition everyone is using.

The New King James was released in 1982 and is a completely and totally different translation. It's also based on a falsified and corrupted text, so that for instance it says "His servant Jesus" instead of "His Son Jesus" in Acts 3:13 & 26, and "will restore" instead of "hath turned away" in Nahum 2:2. They also mistranslated 2 Kings 23:29 to say "went to the aid" instead of "went up against," which leads it to directly contradict the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 35:20 which still says the same thing. So the New King James Version is actually a completely different and unrelated translation to the KJV.

>>21057513
do you have the holy spirit anon?

>>21057508
>>21057516

>>21057453
>The Catholic Church, for example, had already produced several German-translated editions years and decades before Luther published his New Testament translation.
I will give you credit on bringing that up, but how available were these editions to people? Luther’s main innovation wasn’t even that he was the first, but that he was able to spread his translation outside of scholarly circles and into the hands of (literate) commoners. But if the Catholic versions were also being widely read, I would love to read more about it.
>>21057480
> The history of English translations of the Bible, especially back in the 1500/1600s, is just a series of everyone ripping off everyone else.
Ironically, the business of the Bible was seeing how much one could both beat their rivals and also include as much of their rival’s work as they could get away with. In the end, however, the KJV won the 16th-17th century Bible war, since that’s the version people in modern culture turn to as being “the” Bible and the one still being printed the most. As far as modern English translations go, the NIV will probably remain on top considering the NRSV plays to the progressive crowd exclusively, the ESV to the conservative crowd, and the CSB is pigeonholed as just another alternative (even though outside of the KJV/Revised line and the NIV, it’s one of the most competent imho). The NKJV is just redundant and the rest are negligible or pet projects by one-man translation teams.Catholics are either stuck with Protestant bibles modified for them, the NAB (which is getting better with each revision but too little too late) or the Jerusalem Bible (which is getting worse with each revision). The Orthodox are even more limited to the Lexham or the OSB (NKJV in a Byzantine wrapper).

>>21057464
"But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Peter 5:10)

>>21057549
thats very cool anon thank you

>>21057547
The thing is, the CSB gets credit for breaking out of the RSV mold while not being NIV-tier dynamic. The last century has just been a monopoly of ASV/RSV successors. Sure, having the RSV-CE, ESV, and NRSV allows people of different branches to basically have 90+% the same exact English verses down to the very wording, but that does have the drawback of allowing the reader to become complacent. Sure, learning Greek rectifies that, but you get what I mean.

>>21057547
NIV, NRSV, etc. are all based on a corrupt text, one that was not held by the church for all generations and has changed or removed about 7% of the entire New Testament text. They aren't really "Bibles" anymore - see attached.

Some statistical background on the source for much of the modern translations:

–The Westcott and Hort text omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. 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.

–The Westcott and Hort text is 1952 words shorter than the received text.
–The Nestle/Aland text meanwhile is 2886 words shorter than the received text.

–The Westcott and Hort text deviates from the received text in 9970 individual Greek words
–The Codex Vaticanus (B) on which it is largely based, meanwhile deviates from the received text in around 11,000 individual Greek words (not counting word transpositions)
–The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) deviates from the received text in around 14,000 individual Greek words (not counting transpositions)

–In Aleph and B, it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts differ from each other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.
––B does not consider Revelation, Philemon, I and II Timothy, Titus, Hebrews 9:14-13:25 as part of the Bible. In their place, it adds apocryphal books such as Epistle of Barnabus and Bel & the Dragon.

>>21057547
>Catholics are either stuck with Protestant bibles modified for them
If you go back far enough, they can probably justify it by pointing out that the Protestant bibles started off as modified Catholic bibles and they're just restoring them. Besides, looking at their textual bases, calling the RSV the KJV is kinda like calling the KJV the Bishops' Bible still, only the Bishops' Bible was at least still from the TR.

Keep in mind, as the Ordinariate (the former Anglicans who reestablished communion with Rome mainly after the CoE started going full "woman priests" etc. describes the RSV-CE
>The Revised Standard Version . . . was the first truly ecumenical Bible and brought together the two traditions—the Catholic Douay–Rheims Bible and the Protestant Authorised Version.
Seeing as the KJV took from the Rheims, and the Challoner-Rheims took back from the KJV, this description of the RSV-CE/71 is probably fairer than just calling it "a modified Protestant bible."

>>21057588
The Majority Text is pure. The TR however is a corrupted form of the Majority Text.

>>21057588
>This is about 7% of the words
Actually, the TR/MT/WH/NA are all 95% identical. The TR/MT are 98% identical.

>>21057522
Idk if I do yet, I fear I might not a bit. I started off rejecting the Roman Catholic Church my family was in as part of in my young teen rebellion due to how my family was but also the nature of my upbringing but stayed away from it even after reconciling my ignorance because of at least what the current church is. I do however understand the importance of the early church fathers, the rituals that a lot of current "Christians" ignore (when's the last time you heard of average Christian fasting vs an average Muslim despite both being a definitive component of the doctrine), those types of orthodox teachings, so I didn't want to go all solus scriptura and join a protestant sect (although the REAL Bible Believers YT channel did help me on my path back to Christ, they're still worth a watch on on a lot of subjects like the KJV and dispensationalism and critique of Calvinism) but the type of Catholicism/Orthodoxy I'm looking for is not exactly clear so I'm going to check out a local Orthodox parish that is loosely tied to Russisn Orthodoxy. I came to the realization that christ was right because even in my "atheism" (most atheism is really antitheism), all I that learnt of the world and the wisdoms I realised coincided with Christ's teachings. Atheism/secularism/paganism is the tool of the NWO and no one was really pushing back in a collected and social manner like the nonpozzed Christians.

>>21057547
>The Orthodox are even more limited to the Lexham or the OSB (NKJV in a Byzantine wrapper).
There was a proper authorised Greek-Orthodox bible being made but it was scrapped. Orthodoxists have to either carry two books or a tablet to spread the word.

>>21057725
>There was a proper authorised Greek-Orthodox bible being made but it was scrapped.
They finished the NT. The OT was scrapped, but an EO publisher apparently picked up the rights to use and revise the Lexham LXX, and that project is coming soonTM.

The EOB.

Is it wrong that, whenever I see a nice new edition of the Bible, the moment I check the copyright page and see "printed in China," all my desire to own it completely dissipates?

>>21055563
NWT

>>21057702
back when i was secular i was really into philosophy, some guy was discussing book of job so i gave it a try, when i got the part where God reveals himself to job i felt this really immense power, like a powerful and gigantic being was in my room with me, like i was in front of clouds and thunder. i was utterly amazed and could not let go of the feeling, literally held on to it. then one day my father was watching a youtube video about Jesus teachings and it gripped me, felt like the source of the power.

>>21057770
I thought a revised lexham septuwgint already came out? Or is this a third edition? You have an article?

>>21057806
Not entirely. If your resistance isn't just fox news boomer mentality it can be rational.

>>21057848
I haven't been properly reading the word yet and I haven't felt anything like that but one recent vacation i was at a beach house and it's local tv got this Christian network, sunlife (SBN). Nothing else close to good was even on and me and my brother ended up watching a Jimmy Swaggart sermon for what felt like two hours long. He was very "Georgian tv ministor" but he talked sense and I liked his stories. My brother was on his phone listening in but I fully watched, uncomfortably joking at parts in fear of looking like a fool for taking it seriously. Near the end of the sermon, they had this "raise your hand, stand up and come forth" bit. I raised my hand but was scared to get up and come forth in fear of being ridiculed so I just stayed. I feel like if I had gotten up, something would've happened. I'm crying a bit just thinking about it now.

>>21057881
I think for me, I need to do something in front of other people if I am to be touched and know if I have the holy spirit. And I don't think it'll work if I play it safe, I need to proclaim faith in The Lord explicitly and for other people, especially nonbelievers, need to see me do it and for me to know they'll see it and think of me and judge and I think it'll need to be in front of a family member as family is rooted in my anxieties. Now whether I jump in and create this opportunity or await for the next to arrise naturally I need to know. My gut is telling me it'll likely be the first now that I've missed the latter and may use waiting as a cop out if saud opportunity arrises. So far I've been believing on knowing there's a God and assuming Chrust is king but I don't have faith yet.

>>21057915
that is beautiful anon, i ask deeply to him that he chooses you and gives you his spirit. i tell you there is no better and more fulfilling thing than to worship him, makes any other enjoyment pale in comparison

>>21057867
While I confess that part of it is linked to the reflexive revulsion to American Bible publishers selling out to China while China continues to arrest Christian bishops and bulldoze churches, etc., the other part is that some publishers, usually ones versed in more specialized projects, do in fact still do their printing in the US, UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Italy, and those gel better with my late 19th/early 20th century Bibles which are all US/UK printed. When I see more mid-sized publishers still printing in the West, but the big publishers like Zondervan, Thomas Nelson, and Crossway outsourcing to China, it just screams "we just want to increase revenue without maintaining or increasing quality" to me. Like, I feel I can't even consider a Bible directly from those three just because I feel they're being shady about it. I feel I can't accept the excuse that "costs are just getting too high so we have no choice but to outsource!" when somewhere like Word on Fire, nowhere near the size of Zondervan with nowhere near the funds, still prints all their books in the USA and their Bibles in Italy.

That said, I also feel I'm locking myself out of nice stuff because of it. >>21057789, I believe, is printed in China, or at least I assume so because the solo-English version is, and yet it looks so good. Gorgias Press' Peshitta-English New Testament is another China one. Thomas Nelson's study Bibles will never be printed outside of China, but some of them are nice, too. In most cases for just plain Bibles, if you're willing to pay more, Allan and Schuyler are options for this, but still.

So, idk, I feel I'm importing personal politics into this, but still, I own only one biblical reference book printed in China (Crossway's Hebrew OT volume) and it still kinda bugs me on my shelf, even though it obviously has no impact on the content inside.

why the fuck are people so anal about the translations? are you literally telling me the differences between the NIV and KJV are sooo drastic that ill literally go to hell for chosing the wrong one?

>>21057969
Yes.

>>21057971
okay which one should i go with then? assuming i want to go to hell

>>21057972
The Message, the 2011 NIV, David Bentley Hart's NT, and the NLT.

kjv is beatiful, i get all like wooww. but then i realize i didnt understand what i just read and have to reread it. what now kjv friends?

>>21057980
im listening to the zondervan niv audiobook does that count?

>>21057999
Probably.

>>21057944
You sound reasonable. Don't feel weird about worrying if you're selling your soul to buy a bible.

>>21057998
Rereadbit toll you get it? The bible is meantbto be reread for the rest of your life anyway.

>>21058098
thank you anon, i will start reading it again

Any comments on this version?

>>21058194
It'd be peak if (A) the OT was actually translated from the LXX and not half-assed and (B) the paper wasn't so thin it was practically translucent.

>>21058162
Some stuff is a false friend where if you try to infer the meaning you might still get it muddled but that's not the case for 98% of it and the few xan be remedied with a companion book/dictionary.

>>21058194
Every orthodox institution seems to disavow it as a legitimate choice of bible but itcs nice for an orthodox layman wanting to learn.

>>21058096
If OP really has those convictions about not wanting to buy holy texts from an unholy and anti-holy place that utilizes literal slave labor to print them, I think he should stand firm. Maybe not beat himself up too much about it, but more power to him if that's what his conscience tells him to do. Personally I wish the Bible outsourcing stuff was to India or Korea or Japan instead, probably India. India would still be cheap but nobody would feel the stigma that they do with China.

>>21058194
For the new testament it just uses a spruced up NKJV instead of a better translation concindered by Orthodixists.

>>21058216
Korea and India would still be a bit iffy but Japan i think would be too expensive. But anon makes a point with smaller publishers like word on fire still keeping it in country.

>>21058222
Is it even spruced up? I thought it just used the NKJV with no changes for the NT.

The Knox version is the best to me. It actually is written in English. All the while avoiding any heterodox phrasing found in other paraphrases. In fact conceptual intelligibility was the aim.
It also broke the spell on people pretending that the Douay-Rheims or Kang James readings from around 1600 were inspired. To this day many Anglos still imagine a bible to be wrong for deviating from the supposed classical formulas. The endless succession of "new revised 14th transformed edition of the 1600 text" are proof enough.
>b-but muh paraphrasing
Yes

>>21058256
Best translation of the latin vulgate, agreed.

>>21058256
Knox also made the ten commandments of detective fiction.

>>21058320
Knox leans strongly enough on paraphrase that I feel the strictly literary differences between Greek/Hebrew/Latin are not very relevant.
It's true the main printed text gives precedence to the vulgate whenever there is a more than superficial difference, though he gives a variant in footnote for the most important cases, and even that has exceptions (like cucking on Isaias 7:14). It's a composite basis, as it should be. The mythology of the "original" text was still strong at the time (1940s) and it's good that he avoided it.

>>21055563
You should read King James, Douay Rheims and the Geneva bible

>>21057581
That’s part of what I was talking about. The CSB essentially suffers from the fact that it’s main competitors have 400 years of lineage behind them and use in academia, or a plethora of prior attempts to do something different that don’t do it as well but that people are used to. Whether the CSB overtakes the NIV in the future is unknowable, but it will never take the place of some Revised version of the KJV.
>>21057634
The Ordinariate can say a lot of things, and honestly I have Christian love for the parishioners while also thinking the institution is just a transitional concession with the goal of making disgruntled Anglicans into your average Novus Ordo Catholic. But back to the topic at hand, you’ve basically said yourself that the Bible’s in the DR/KJV line are reactions to each other, and the “Protestant” rendition of the RSV itself received an update to the new testament in the 70’s partly because of the Catholic edition’s work (and the apocrypha was expanded to include 3-4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 later in that decade as a concession to Orthodox). The RSV2CE followed the release of the ESV, and the ESVCE itself because of increased use of the Protestant version. There’s also a NLTCE fwiw.
All of that is to say that it is true Bible translation game, especially in the Revised edition family is one of friendly competition between denominations and at least some attempt to keep the scriptures of the people in step with the latest scholarship. But it’s also unfair to admit that the base text of the Catholic editions of the Bible are usually the Protestant version with the apocrypha whittled down to the 7 Deuterocanonicals and interspersed in the OT, and a few changes of wording to return Catholicity. in the end the Bible is the Bible, and it will be saying the same thing 99% of the time no matter who’s translation you use.
>>21057725
>>21057770
I’m glad to see the EOB is having a Renaissance right now. It languished in the print on demand market for almost a decade, and it’s good to see a faithful but precise translation for any group being given it’s due diligence. If Nicholas Roumas’ recent translation of the LXX psalms (which he translated directly from the Greek into modern English with nods to traditional English phrasing and, as a cantor, with an ear towards flow and poetics) could get the same treatment, Orthodox might have a better alternative to giving money to a nonce monestary (HTM) or a revised Protestant translation (the Psalter for prayer) :)

>>21055577
Esv and niv change some stuff that may or may not be correct. Niv iirc actually strips verses that are in the kjv

>>21058404
>Knox leans strongly enough on paraphrase that I feel the strictly literary differences between Greek/Hebrew/Latin are not very relevant.
Knox:
>The translator, let me suggest in passing, must never be frightened of the word 'paraphrase'; it is a bogey of the half-educated. As I have already tried to point out, it is almost impossible to translate a sentence without paraphrasing; it is a paraphrase when you translate 'Comment vous portez-vous?' by 'How are you?' But often enough it will be a single word that calls for paraphrase. When St. Paul describes people as 'wise according to the flesh', the translator is under an obligation to paraphrase. In English speech, you might be called fat according to the flesh, or thin according to the flesh, but not wise or foolish. The flesh here means natural, human standards of judging, and the translator has got to say so. 'Wise according to the flesh' is Hebrew in English dress; it is not English.
- On Englishing the Bible, pp. 8-9

i don't know anything about the bible (scholarly wise), im trying actually to do my research so that i can begin reading and studying the most complete version. why isn't pic rel being mentioned at all? it seems like it's the most literal translation and based on the oldest available sources (LXX). its only flaw is that it doesn't contain apocrypha, but i was thinking of reading this and then the apocrypha by themselves in a latter moment. thoughts?

also, speaking of apocrypha, which ones are actually worth reading and are old? i mean, whch ones are not some pseudo orthodox whatever bullshit dating back to the middle ages.

please help me so that i can begin my study asap.

>>21057644
>Actually, the TR/MT/WH/NA are all 95% identical.
5% deleted and 2% substantially altered adds up to 7%.

>>21055563
Is there any translation of the bible that all Christians accept? KJV-onlyist and Vulgate-onlyist autists need not apply

>>21057639
>The Majority Text is pure.
You mean whatever the majority of manuscripts in a given era say? That can change. It makes sense that the received text is similar to the majority, but it isn't identical to it. Because "the majority text," defined as such, changes all the time based on new discoveries and/or losses of older copies. Why would God's word be subject to this? God's word doesn't change.

>>21056138
>>21057453
does the NRSV have the book of enoch and gospel of mary? if not, why?

>>21058216
>>21058224
I just buy from Local Church Bible Publishers and always have since I was saved. Quality KJV 1900 editions.

>>21058704
>it will be saying the same thing 99% of the time no matter who’s translation you use.
Even if we assume this is true, all it takes is one inverted sentence or verse in the Bible to remove the infallibility of God's word. Do you think that if I went through a book with an agenda and changed 1% of the words on every page, much less 7%, that one could change the meaning? Now imagine if satan had been given that job. We know since Genesis 3 verse 1 that satan is always known to question what God's word really says. Notice what it says at the beginning of Genesis 3, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said...?"

Also notice how the devil misrepresents and perverts what the word of God really says in every recorded conversation where it gets brought up. Including the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Now, do you think that this same entity would be very active in spreading corrupted Bible versions? Just think about it. The answer has to be yes. The adversary is always trying to get us to move away from what we have always believed, from what the received text of the original language says - via "new discoveries" or misleading translations.

>>21057448
Check out the Third Millennium Bible. It updates the archaic vocabulary to modern usage while still keeping the thees and thous, and it comes with the apocrypha.

>>21055563
Any modern translation. it is easier to read and comprehend.

If you want to read the bible for its intended purpose, do not read cover to cover. Read through the gospels. Then read the prophets of the old testament to see how the new testament fulfills those prophecies.

>>21057770
.The OT was scrapped, but an EO publisher apparently picked up the rights to use and revise the Lexham LXX, and that project is coming soonTM.
Was it really scrapped? All I know is they haven't stated an update in a while. It sucks that we'll have to wait another 10-20 years for for a non-pozzed Septuagint w/ NT in the same volume, unlike the OSB which suffered from publisher's greed, but hopefully this will get done.

>>21055577
This. The KJV is most relevant to lit and all modern English translations are descended from it. If anyone tells you anything else it's symptomatic of cope.

>>21057915
>I feel like if I had gotten up, something would've happened. I'm crying a bit just thinking about it now.
>I need to proclaim faith in The Lord explicitly and for other people, especially nonbelievers, need to see me do it and for me to know they'll see it and think of me and judge and I think it'll need to be in front of a family member as family is rooted in my anxieties. Now whether I jump in and create this opportunity or await for the next to arrise naturally I need to know. My gut is telling me it'll likely be the first now that I've missed the latter and may use waiting as a cop out if saud opportunity arrises.
I have been in a similar position like you, anon. I had a philosophical stage too and struggled to live a life of meaning in this world, and like many people here, I took the tradpill and read Guenon and Evola among others. I've learned the importance of the Sacred from them, but I also meandered researching several religions and reading metaphysical sociopolitical critiques of society, which did not help and led me further in a dark place. It got so bad working at my call center job that I felt my life had no meaning and I wanted to die and I would cry during my calls. I eventually quit, broke down and told my mom about it, who I thought would be very stern about me losing my job.I went to church with her that Sunday and worked up the courage to forgive her for things I kept hidden for years. That night in bed, I thanked the Lord and suddenly I felt an overwhelming feeling of love, compassion, and hope that totally expunged all the hate and anger I kept bottled up for decades. I couldn't contain it and I cried almost nonstop for the next 2 days. I told my mom I finally accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I confessed my worst sins to the girl I love along with my feelings for her, and she reciprocated. I recently confessed to my mom about my homosexual lusts and my efforts in containing them.

So, I think you're on the right track. Forgive the people you love, even if they don't know they've done any wrong to you, and confess your sins to them. A person who has something to hide can never be his true self. Pray for the courage to forgive, confess, and to repent, and the Lord will grant it.

>>21060352
To me the arcaic English adds a sense of hierarchy. I can understand it when trying but it still sounds "special" compared to the lingua franca. A sense of regality kind of. I have already ordered the New Cambridge Paragraph as I'd prefer a "cleaned up" 1611 over a "modern" one. An issue i'd likely run into in both versions regardless is how the new punctuation holds up when reciting orally.

>>21060772
Thanks anon. I'm falling for the tradpill too but more as an effort to resume a proper education that the system failed to provide me. I'm currently learning Italian because of my heritage and family but also political intrigue and it's an effort to stay positive the more I'm "redpilled". I do have a lot of issues with my mother also, it's a huge reason I left the RCC in the first place and just forgiving her even if she can't undo what she's done or even change who she's become is a struggle. I know I'm supposed to forgive her and that it will help but I see the same failures towards me reaching my youngest brother and I'm think "This is going to be the hrandmother of my future children." I know the stories and how parents seem to be completely different grandparents but that resentment still lingers. Ultimately I will eventually resolve this turmoil as holding onto it is what the antichrist wants me to do, they want to divide families even more even if you think it's for the best.

>>21055563
>>21055577
>>21055607
>>21060631
>>21056012
>>21056138
>>21056186
>>21056258
>>21056639
>>21056702
>>21056733
>>21057059
>>21057404
>>21057808
>>21057998
>>21058256

all incorrect

>>21061050
What are some verses I should compare this with the RSV?

>>21060184
The vulgate is the main serious candidate, or none if you refuse that.
Greek texts are recompiled by autistic theories of their evolution because no one thought of making an authoritative edition before the popes commissioned one in the 16th century and that was hardly acceptable by todays standards. Most people accept the Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft edition out of habit and being tired of arguing.
The massoretic text is well received but no one even pretends it should be taken at face value as an original anymore and only covers the rabbinical canon. If anything the Syriac peshitta is underrated.

>>21061125
>no one even pretends it should be taken at face value as an original anymore
it was preserved the same by jews in spain and yemen, and despite being preserved by jews clearly teaches that Jesus is the Christ
> and only covers the rabbinical canon
funny way to saying Genesis to Malachi

>>21060242
>1900
>not 1611
enjoy hell

>>21061231
Same translation, kiddo.

>>21061246
Nope.

>>21061253
Ok, show me a place where it's different and it's not a spelling change or a typo between editions.

>>21058704
Which edition of the RSV has 3&4 Maccabees and Psalm 151?

>>21061264
Joshua 3:11, 2 Kings 11:10, Isaiah 49:13, Jeremiah 31:14, Jeremiah 51:30, Ezekiel 6:8, Ezekiel 24:5, Ezekiel 24:7, Ezekiel 48:8, Daniel 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 15:6, 1 John 5:12.

>>21056755
You can get a KJV with the deuterocanonical books as well, or at least you can find them in a separate volume of their own. Originally many KJVs had them. It still exists.

>>21055563
I like ESV for reading and KJV for beauty.

>>21057305
Start with prophecy. This will filter dumb people, but it invites /x/ people

>>21061290
>Joshua 3:11
1611: Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth over before you, into Jordan.
1900: Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.
So in this verse "even" is mistakenly placed. The first edition put out by Cambridge in 1629 corrected it to say "covenant of." This also matches what the Geneva 1599 Bible said. Clearly not intended by the KJV translators. This is one of many typos in Robert Barker's editions that was fixed later.

>2 Kings 11:10
1611: And to the captaines ouer hundreds, did the priest giue king Dauids speares and shields, that were in the Temple.
1900: And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple of the LORD.
Again, I have it recorded this was fixed in the 1638 edition by Cambridge, probably bringing it in line with the original master copy of the translation as this also matches what the Geneva Bible says here (although they said "house of the Lord" rather than "temple of the Lord").

>Jeremiah 31:14
1611: And I will satiate the soule of the priests with fatnesse, and my people shall be satisfied with goodnesse, saith the LORD.
1900: And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the LORD.
Robert Barker forgot to include the word "my" in the printing plates. Corrected in the 1629 Cambridge edition again, and this matches the 1599 Geneva Bible again (not to mention the Hebrew script in this place).

>Jeremiah 51:30
1611: The mightie men of Babylon haue forborne to fight: they haue remained in their holdes: their might hath failed, they became as women: they haue burnt their dwelling places: her barres are broken.
1900: The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
Typo with the word "their" instead of "her." Subsequently corrected in 1629 Cambridge edition, also matches the Geneva Bible of 1599 in saying "her" as well.

>Ezekiel 6:8
1611: Yet will I leaue a remnant, that he may haue some, that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shalbe scattered through the countreys.
1900: Yet will I leave a remnant, that ye may have some that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries.
Corrected as early as the 1613 edition by Robert Barker. It is supposed to read "that ye may have" rather than "that he may have." Even Robert Barker realized this was a typo.

(1/3)

>>21061290
>>21061549
>Ezekiel 24:5
1611: Take the choice of the flocke, and burne also the bones under it, and make it boyle well, and let him seethe the bones of it therein.
1900: Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
Same deal. Robert Barker had a typo where it said "let him seethe" when it should have said "let them seethe" which is what the Hebrew has, and this was corrected in most future KJV editions after being noticed. Earlier translations interpose in this verse with the phrase, "let the bones seethe it," which is obviously what "them" is.

>Ezekiel 24:7
This is probably the most important typo, but nevertheless that's all it is. The verse says "poured it not" but Barker left out the word "not" in the 1611 edition, which was corrected in the 1613 KJV, also printed by Barker. So he clearly saw this typo and corrected it in his own printing plates. And again, the 1599 Geneva Bible predictably also says "poured it not."

>Ezekiel 48:8
1611: And by the border of Judah, from the East side vnto the West side, shall be the offring which they shall offer of fiue and twentie thousand reedes in bredth, and in length as one of the other parts, from the East side vnto the West side, and the Sanctuarie shall be in the midst of it.
1900: And by the border of Judah, from the east side unto the west side, shall be the offering which ye shall offer of five and twenty thousand reeds in breadth, and in length as one of the other parts, from the east side unto the west side: and the sanctuary shall be in the midst of it.
This one was fixed in the 1638 edition by Cambridge. It should say "ye shall offer" and probably the original master copy of the translation indeed said this, as does the Geneva Bible; but Robert Barker had a typo erroneously making it say "they shall offer" which was not caught until some time later.

>Daniel 3:15
1611: Now if ye be ready that at what time yee heare the sound of the cornet, flute harpe, sackbut, psalterie, and dulcimer, and all kindes of musicke, ye fall downe, and worship the image which I have made, well: but if yee worship not, ye shall be cast the same houre into the midst of a fierie furnace, and who is that God that shall deliuer you out of my handes?
1900: Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?
The difference is that the KJV says "burning fiery furnace" but Barker left out the word "burning." Not a problem because it was corrected in 1638 and all subsequent editions. And of course, the Geneva Bible of 1599 in Daniel 3:15 says, "hote fierie fornace."

(2/3)

>>21061551
>1 Corinthians 12:28
The phrase "helpes in gouernmets" was a typo, and it should say "helps, governments" as in the 1629 Cambridge edition and later. The Geneva Bible here says, "helpers, gouernours,"

>1 Corinthians 15:6
The phrase "And that" was a typo corrected by Robert Barker in the 1616 edition to properly say "After that," and every previous translation says this. This one is very clearly a typo on Barker's part. The underlying Greek word in the TR here is "ἔπειτα"

>1 John 5:12
Again Barker left out the words "of God" (one of the more serious omissions) but this was corrected in the 1629 edition and later. Again, saying "Son of God" here matches with the Geneva Bible and basically every other translation made before the KJV, as well as the Greek.

>Isaiah 49:13
I saved this for last because it has two separate typos. "Heaven" was a typo, corrected to "heavens" starting in 1629 (similar to earlier translations). Also the word "God" was changed to "the LORD" (i.e. יְהוָה) starting with the 1638 edition. This is more accurate as the text has the Tetragrammaton here. Whether the original master copy of the KJV had "LORD" is uncertain, but we do know that several of the translators on the original 1604-1611 translation project later worked with Cambridge University in producing both the 1629 and 1638 editions, which corrected many of Robert Barker's typographical errors.

I should note that your list failed to point out the most serious mistakes in Barker's edition, which are very clearly errors, as they don't match either the original languages or earlier high quality translations, and the corrections brought the KJV in line with these, as well as most likely the original master copy of the translation before Robert Barker ever made the printing plates for the 1611 and later editions.

For instance, the two most serious issues with the Barker 1611 First printed edition were that they repeated an entire sentence in Exodus 14:10, and they left out the entire phrase "yet he shall not find it" in Ecclesiastes 8:17. This was fixed soon after in subsequent KJV editions and it is highly unlikely that the master copy of the translation which Barker read from to make his printing plates had those mistakes. So there you have it, the KJV we use today is simply an updated edition of the same translation as the 1611.

>>21061549
>>21061551
>>21061555
>all these mistakes
wow the KJV really is shit

>>21061588
"A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth."
- Proverbs 14:6

>>21061549
Also I forgot to include this screenshot of the 1629 edition in Joshua 3:11 that I took (was printed in 1637). It clearly says the same rendering that we still use today.

>>21055563
KJV is the classic English translation.

Has the Bishops' Bible ever been reprinted? I'm curious because there exist facsimiles or modern-type editions of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, and of course the King James, but it seems like the Bishops' Bible has been quietly buried, only ever mentioned in the context of the development of the King James.

>>21061723
I'm not sure. The Bishop's Bible has some issues, like where in the book of Psalms they switched every single instance (almost) of God and LORD for no reason whatsoever. This was present, from what I've read, in the 1568 and 1572 editions before they dropped that and literally just brought back the Great Bible translation of Psalms and put it in place of the new version in the 1577 edition of the Bishop's Bible. So that if you read the Bishops Bible from 1577 to the 1602 edition, it will just have the Great Bible version of Psalms in it.

>>21055563
I try to read two translations of the Hebrew section, NRSV and JPS. For the New I just read the NRSV.

>>21058704
Not him but I'd hesitate to call the RSV or NRSV really "Protestant' translations lest any Protestant translations that even sniff in the direction of the Vulgate sometimes become a "Catholic" translation, like the KJV did a few times, and so many of the pre-KJV translations did. Makes me remember how the 1881 RV was accused of being a "papist" revision of the KJV, despite literally no evidence. The NRSV especially is hard to call one denomination's translation because they seem to have one of everyone on their committee to the point of absurdity. Both had Catholics on the translation committees, just like the Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible, Catholic translations, had Protestants on their translation committees. And since both have come up, Bp. Challoner and Msgr. Knox were both converts from Anglicanism, both having grown up on the KJV Bible, so doesn't that mean there's Protestant DNA even in the most purely Catholic of translations? A poster above even said the "pure" original Douay-Rheims took readings from the very anti-Catholic Geneva Bible. And of course the KJV took from the Douay-Rheims even as the preface lambasted the Douay-Rheims.

I kinda think in the modern age of translations, with all their big committees, it's hard to classify many translations as free from the influence of either side. It's worth remembering even the evangelical ESV was revised from the 1971 RSV, the one that adopted virtually all of the 1966 Catholic suggestions. Does that make the original 2001 ESV a "Catholic" translation? Hardly.

>>21061754
Thanks for reminding me of the Great Bible. That, too. I wonder if there would ever be interest in a publisher compiling all those old English translations--1380 Wycliffe, 1535 Tyndale/Coverdale, 1537 Matthew's,1539 Great, 1560 Geneva, 1568 or 1572 Bishops, 1582 Rheims, 1611 King James--in parallel, the same idea as picrel. It'd be neat to study.

>>21055563
Try KJV, it's literally the easiest and most beautiful translation to read once you get the hang of it. Almost all other versions are questionable at best. Most of them omit the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, which is the only verse in the entire bible that tells the name of Satan.
Just an fyi that I don't know 100% if the KJV is the best one, but it looks very promising.

>>21061838
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/19091001/KJV1611/BSP/GNV

>>21061776
>Makes me remember how the 1881 RV was accused of being a "papist" revision of the KJV, despite literally no evidence.
The English Revised Version of 1881 was based on the Westcott-Hort text (mentioned here >>21057588). It has several of the same omissions as papal translations that have been made, such as where the words "without a cause" are removed from Matthew 5:22.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:" (Matthew 5:22)
The words "without a cause" are removed from the RV on the basis of W&H removing the word "εἰκῆ" from the Greek text.

Also, the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." is removed from Matthew 6:13 of the 1881 ERV for the same reason.

>And of course the KJV took from the Douay-Rheims even as the preface lambasted the Douay-Rheims.
There's not a single actual example of this, and the Douay-Rheims bible came out in 1610 while the KJV translation commission was going on from 1604 to 1611. By the time of 1610 they were already in the final stages of doing their cross-check between the different groups' work, so there wouldn't have been time to take anything from the DRB.

>>21061890
>It has several of the same omissions as papal translations that have been made
Is that why it omits the verses that the Douay-Rheims and the KJV share because the KJV took them from the Vulgate?

>>21061890
>There's not a single actual example of this, and the Douay-Rheims bible came out in 1610 while the KJV translation commission was going on from 1604 to 1611.
Ignorance of dates doesn't give you the right to make such inaccurate statements. The New Testament was out in 1582 and was popularized by William Fulke's 1589 parallel with the Bishops Bible meant to attack it but only ended up giving it free publicity. It was from this edition that the KJV translators were familiar with it. As for "not a single example," just because you haven't checked doesn't mean they're not there. See: Benson Bobrick, "Wide As the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired," pp. 244-45 for samples.
>By the time of 1610 they were already in the final stages of doing their cross-check between the different groups' work, so there wouldn't have been time to take anything from the DRB.
See above.

>>21061915
>The New Testament was out in 1582 and was popularized by William Fulke's 1589 parallel with the Bishops Bible meant to attack it but only ended up giving it free publicity.
That wasn't the DRB though, it was a New Testament rather than a complete Bible. And many of its readings were simply from the 1560 Geneva. These are the facts, and seem to be the context that you would rather not mention.

why doesnt /lit/ like RSV2CE? ppl here always say it sucks but don't give any real reasoning

>>21061924
No, I'm referring to the Latinate words the Rheims translators literally invented from the Latin that the KJV adopted. Words that literally didn't exist prior to 1582.
>And many of its readings were simply from the 1560 Geneva.
Yes, the Rheims took from the Geneva in places and the KJV took from the Rheims in unrelated places. This is why I'm not talking about the places the KJV took from the Geneva. You're trying to change the subject because you want to pretend the KJV translators never looked at the Rheims, though they did. They also had looked at the 1610 Douay before they went to print because they take shots at Latinate words used in the Catholic translation that were only ever used in the OT, meaning they were aware of it. Please, please stop talking about stuff you know nothing about and read a history book.

>>21061939
It's fine, better than the ESV-CE imo. Criticism mainly stems from them being secretive about what changes they actually made to the 1CE. However, all those changes are listed in the appendix to the "Catholic Bible Concordance RSV-CE," which shows its changes were merely adopted from the Douay-Rheims, NAB, NASB, ESV, etc., so that smoothed out a lot of the criticism I heard.

>>21061947
And yet, not a single example. Plenty of trash talking, and scholars quoting other scholars ad nauseam that our Bible is based on the Vulgate and other stuff, but never any examples.

>>21061968
>not a single example
Mark 1:45

>>21061939
Missing 7% of the New Testament due to the Alexandrian texts rather than the TR is an issue. Removing the verse Matthew 18:11, changing the words "Joseph and his mother" into "his father and his mother" in Luke 2:33, removing the second half of Romans 11:6, etc.

It also has very serious problems in its Old Testament. Like in Genesis 22:17 it says "And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies," instead of what the verse really says, which is not plural but singular, and says: "and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;" (Genesis 22:17b KJB).

This is important because Paul explicitly makes a point that this seed was singular, in Galatians 3:16. Every translation that screws up Genesis 22:17 in the way that the RSV does, and calls it "his descendants" (plural) removes this important connection because this whole promise to Abraham is actually to his seed (singular) which is Christ according to Paul. As another example, the RSV doesn't even know how to translate 1 Samuel 13:1. It just says "Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign"

>>21062004
>Mark 1:45
That's your best attempt at an example, anon? If so that helps. See the Webster dictionary for the origin of the word "blaze." Someone surely must have a better example, something that's absolutely unequivocal if they talk so much about it.

>>21062047
Also, just in case anybody tries to spring this on me, the Greek word definition:
>Διαφημίζω, f. ίσω, p. διαπεφήμικα, a. l. διαφήμισα (διὰ & φημη) to report, proclaim, publish, spread abroad, Mat. 9.31; 28.15. Mar. 1.45.
- Greenfield 1829 New Testament Lexicon

>>21062136
I still say there are no examples linking the King James translation to the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the Rheims, or anything like it, nor to Origen's Septuagint. Every proposed instance I have ever seen has turned out to be a fraud. But, there are plenty of people (such as here >>21057480, and also on places like wikipedia) who use the narrative as a backhanded attempt to attack or discredit the Bible we happen to use. That's what motivates them. They are motivated by antipathy to the English translation to keep bringing up the supposed connection that doesn't exist. It's similar to the 1 John 5:7 myths that just keep getting repeated. These elaborate theories and oft-repeated myths, about Erasmus or the KJV translators, which would otherwise be entirely pointless, only exist for a sole purpose - they were developed as attempts to attack or discredit the TR/Authorized version and that is the only context in which they are ever really used. This thread gives us one good example of that.

>>21057147
Jokes on you, im a ruckmanite

>>21062047
>>21062136
If you (>>21062004, >>21061947) take a look at these two definitions, you will see clearly that first of all, the word "blaze" has roots in Germanic languages, so it is not a "Latinate word" which was "literally invented from the Latin" and "literally didn't exist" before 1582. It has roots in Germanic languages. And secondly, according to the Greek word definition, this already existing English word as defined from its etymology fits. So, it's a straightforward Greek to English translation. And, not to mention other words, as for word "abroad," this word was already used in Mark 1:28 in earlier translations such as Geneva Bible, so it already existed as well. There are no hundreds of words that were supposedly coined from the Vulgate in 1582, and therefore become a "departure" from the original language texts in the KJV. Much less did the KJV use any of that as a source text against the Greek/Hebrew in providing translations that go against those original languages - especially not if no-one can find a single example, although they've had centuries to come up with basic examples.

No, the only thing you'll find are places where the Latin already agreed with the Greek, but in that case it doesn't prove anything about the English translation, as it can easily just be straight from the Greek as in the English TR translations. Still, I'd like to see a single real example of a place where this is not the case.

>>21062286
Which one is that? From the lighting it looks like the leather apocrypha version.

>>21062320
It's apocrypha hardback (not leather)

>>21061549
>>21061551
>>21061555
Where can I read up on the claims you make about the translators? Where did you go to learn what you know about the translation history?
>>21062317
Same with you. I want to learn who's saying the bullshit and who's not.
>>21062343
Is it also black because the Cambridge website accidentally repeats covers for different versions of the book so I can't be sure

>>21062354
Its blue, sorry for shitty pic lol

>>21060242
>I just buy from Local Church Bible Publishers and always have since I was saved. Quality KJV 1900 editions.
Their site is blocked to me for some reason. Any other places to get good 1900 cambridge editions?

>>21062354
>Where did you go to learn what you know about the translation history?
I went to church and spent my time studying different sources that deal with the various translations that have existed. For instance, the fact that the KJV was translated from 1604-1611 is just common knowledge, I'm not really sure where the first place I read that was. As for the variants, I have scans of various translations and copies that I have checked. I have some favorite reference materials that I use frequently for illustration, such as the Webster dictionary, but it would be inaccurate to say they are the only source I've ever read. It would be a much bigger list, composed of books, lectures, sermons, articles, commentaries, etc. It also depends on the subject. John Burgon's works are good for covering the received text in light of the new critical text, for instance. John Mill's Novum Testamentum is good with handling individual variants. For the KJV in particular, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and
Modern Representatives," (1884) by F.H.A. Scrivener has some decent information. I wouldn't say there is one primary source outside of the Bible, though. We might have minor disagreements with most sources, but importantly this is all centered around individual Bible reading, which is undoubtedly the most important and required thing, because it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge in Proverbs 1.

>>21062461
If you want them online, you can find them on most websites that host the KJV, as it's usually the default edition, has been for ~100 years. https://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/ for example.

I have found that the Holman KJV (ISBN 978-1-5864-0944-9) is in the 1900 format. This is a pew Bible, but it's a perfectly fine place to start. Pretty much any KJV you find that isn't marked as some special version in the title will either be this or less frequently the Concord KJV, which is extremely close to the 1900. However the Concord edition KJV uses the word "counsellor" instead of "counseller," and "enquire" instead of "inquire," and a few other random word spellings such as "razor" instead of "rasor" are different. Also it's missing the question mark in Jeremiah 32:5 and a few other miscellaneous things, as compared to the 1900 edition. The ISBN I linked above though is in the 1900 format for sure. Hopefully LCPB unblocks your IP range soon or your ISP does!

>>21062461
>>21062508
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this, one must pray also, in addition to individual Bible reading. See you later, anon!

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. (Rev. 21:4-5)

>>21055563

Don't do it if you wanna learn the deeper message. You need Freudian analysis.

>>21063852
>>21063852
>>21063852

Just post OP. OP here.

>>21055563
Which version of the Bible would Dostoevsky have had access to?

>>21065617
It would've been the NT to the Russian Synodal Bible.

hebrew for old, koine greek for new
simple as

>>21063865
or read the church fathers retard

>>21058256
I like it too, Knox did a fine job at including neat details like acrostics in almost all the psalms that had them in Hebrew as well. Most "literal" translations don't even attempt to do that, because they're too focused on word-for-word translating rather than the concepts and writing techniques.

>>21060184
WEB with Deuterocanon and RSV with Expanded Apocrypha cover the broadest range of Christian groups as far as I can tell

>>21065907
It's fine to just know the acrostics are there, isn't it? Seems like it would be forced to try to change the words to make it work in the target language while sacrificing accuracy.

By the way, the acrostics that I know of are as follows:
–Psalm 25: Twenty letters occur: 5th/6th letters [he/vau] are combined in one word, 19th letter [koph] missing, 20th letter [resh] is repeated twice, one extra verse appears at the end of the acrostic
–Psalm 34: Twenty-one letters: 5th/6th [he/vau] combined (like in Psalm 25); extra verse at end not part of acrostic (also like Psalm 25)
–Psalm 37: Twenty-one letters, but each letter consists of two verses: the 16th letter [ain] is missing, and the 4th, 11th, 19th letters only consist of one verse each instead of two, and 15th letter consists of three verses
–Psalm 111: All 22 letters present and in order, two letters per verse; but three letters in verses 9 & 10
–Psalm 112: Same as 111
–Psalm 119: All letters represented, with each letter occurring eight times in a row - the first eight lines/verses all start with aleph, the next eight all start with beth, etc.
–Psalm 145: Twenty-one letters acrostic, one per verse - 14th letter [nun] omitted

–Lamentations 1, 2, & 4 are each a complete acrostic of 22 verses
–Lamentations chapter 3 is a threefold acrostic, with the first three lines all starting with Aleph, etc.
–Proverbs 31:10-31, the end of the book, is a complete acrostic of 22 verses
–Psalm 9 contains what appears to be an acrostic, but only of the first 11 letters
–Nahum 1:3-8 seems to contain an acrostic of the first 11 letters, with several letters featuring repetitions, but the 4th letter [Daleth] is skipped. It still seems too much to be a coincidence.

>>21055563
What can I hope to learn from reading the Bible? I kinda wanna read it but its a really big book. Sell me on it

>>21066013
>It's fine to just know the acrostics are there, isn't it?
No? That's like excusing a shitty prose translation of a poem and saying "lol just pretend it rhymes." Thinking "100% literal = 100% accurate" is the mistake beaten out of every would-be translator as early as possible. As an example, the Italian sentence "So che questo non va bene" would be literally rendered as "Know that this not goes well" whereas an accurate translation would be "I know that this is not good." What use is translating something from one language to another and then omitting any sense of the original structure? This is why 99% of OT translations are shit because none of them even attempt to capture the feel of the Hebrew language. Specifically, this is why the JPS Tanakh is literal garbage.

>>21055563
Emilio Villa's Bible
>from Hebrew to Italian by an independent plurilingual researcher and poet

>>21066068
>Thinking "100% literal = 100% accurate" is the mistake
True, that's why I don't use the term literal. Compound words and idioms are clear examples where too literal means not accurate. Still doesn't change my point though.

>>21066102
Ok, for a clear example, when I read the translation of Genesis A not too long ago, I was mainly interested in the closest way it can be expressed in my language so I could understand what they were saying. I am told that it is an Old Saxon work that has some kind of meter, rhyming and poetic structure to it. But it's enough to tell me that and then let me admire those qualities in the original work, but when I'm reading the actual translation, I would appreciate the scholar NOT swapping out or discarding the best words to convey what it actually means just in order to force it to rhyme or contain an acrostic in my language as well. I mean, if you don't have to force it to make it work that's fine, but it's hard to imagine translating a huge work while strictly following such rules and not running into cases where one has to sacrifice accuracy. And yes, some of us do care, maybe even primarily, about what the writer is actually saying - or trying to say.

>>21055563
Cambridge ESV with Apocrypha
>isbn: 1316513394