/lit/ - Literature

>>21875599
>interested in religion
>so I'm going to study the most midwit, readily available expression of it

NGMI. Come back when you know the priestly intricacies of the ritual cycle of Scotto-Atlantian Cu Chullainian Buddhism, pleb

>>21875599
KJV, it's the standard

>>21875745
that makes sense no? you started with the easiest

>>21875759
thanks

>>21875745
that makes sense no? you start with the easiest

>>21875759
thanks

>>21875599
I wouldn't recommend the KJV for your first Bible. I think that the NIV is the best in terms of balancing accuracy and accessibility.

>>21875599
Knox version is not indicated in your chart. I guess it would be in functional equivalence, meaning actually being in English. It's the best anyway. You read ancient languages otherwise.

>>21875599
RVSCE 2 for a first introduction
Knox for the poetic side
Douay Rheims 1899 for a more literal translation

The KJV is a wonderful work of art, it's not scripture however

>>21875759
Retarded.
>>21875599
Read ESV, it is the most accurate translation.

>>21875745
Buddhism exists to keep bug people in line. You only like it because it seems exotic to your pseud brain

>>21875886
>The KJV is a wonderful work of art, it's not scripture however
Why? You got me interested there

>>21875906
I've got to run to Church, but when I get back (if thread is still up) I'll explain

>>21875906
Not the anon but I guess the usual fare against the Kang James. There are a few notorious mistranslations, some deliberate. It made some questionable choice in the text basis to be translated. It is usually sold with the rabbinical canon so you miss some books (unless it's specified it includes """apocrypha""") as with most protestant editions.

>>21875599
>king james
>almost word for word
What you need is a new chart

Get the Orthodox Study Bible.

>>21876013
Pretty much what this anon said >>21875906, though I would caveat it with quite how good I think the English is, so reading it from a literary standpoint is fine.
The Psalms are wonderful and I use a version of those for the Divine Office I have.
Between it, Shakespeare, and Paradise Lost it creates the modern English language and way of thinking.

>>21876332
reminder that Shakespeare worked on the KJV translation

NASB (1995)

>>21875899
And Christianity doesn't?

>>21875599
The Anchor Bible series. Skip Genesis for now, it is getting a new version.

>>21875599
i've only read ESV but i like it a lot

>>21878357
This.

>>21875599
These aren't translations of the same thing. Most of the other translations are missing around 7% of the New Testament as compared to the KJV. See chart.

>>21876013
>There are a few notorious mistranslations, some deliberate.
This is mostly or entirely people who want to make some money by selling a modern, copyrighted version of the Bible. But if you have something specific on your mind, feel free to bring it up here. I've seen a lot of objections, none of them are solid.

>>21876165
The OSB (2008) is based loosely on the Septuagint in the Old Testament and the NKJV for the New Testament. Its translation of the Septuagint has issues, for instance the OSB follows the numbers from the Hebrew in Genesis 5:25-26 even though the Greek Septuagint says something different there. While the Hebrew numbers are correct, giving the last year of Methuselah as the year in which the flood occurred, the Septuagint numbers have a serious problem because they imply that Methuselah, the grandfather of Noah, outlived the flood by 14 years. Apparently the OSB decided to use the Hebrew numbers in Genesis 5:25-26 to avoid this issue with the Septuagint. The OSB also has a highly questionable translation where most Bibles said "sodomites" in the Old Testament in condemning the act of sodomy, the OSB instead says "male temple prostitutes," (c.f. Deuteronomy 23:18, 2/4 Kings 23:7). The Septuagint base text itself, from which most of the Orthodox Study Bible has been translation, has issues as well, such as missing more than 30 entire verses from the book of Proverbs and the book of Jeremiah being about 1/8 shorter, among other fairly drastic changes. Messianic prophecies such as Psalm 2:12 and Isaiah 9:6 are not found in the Septuagint as they are in the Hebrew, proclaiming the divinity of Christ clearly in the Hebrew Old Testament (and KJV) but not in the Septuagint (or OSB) - and other times, such as in Jeremiah 33:15, the prophecies are entirely missing from the LXX altogether.

>>21878598
>Deuteronomy 23:18
Sorry, should be Deuteronomy 23:17. My bad.

>>21875599
Formal equivalence.
everything leaning towards a retelling or other words is useless.

>>21875599
This chart is for protestants so I would recommend RSV (Ignatius has a good copy or Oxford with Apocrypha). The books Song of Solomon, Sirach, and Tobit invalidate the Protestant and Jewish canon alone so you'll want those (apocrypha).

>>21875599
There is no single word for word translation of the old testament that's not in hebrew. The church made sure more than a thousand years ago that such a thing could never exist. What is counted there as "word for word" is a word for word translation of something already translated, changed, twisted, updated, then changed again. The fact that protestants think themselves free from the yoke of the church when their religious texts are derivative and were arlready meddled with is hilarious. They traduced the bible from latin, and completely disregarded the fact that was something the church had already played it for centuries with no interference, and that's for the new testament, for the old one it's even worse since it's the translation of a translation.

NRSVue

t. ba and masters in theology*


*the kind of theology degree where you actually have to learn koiné and biblical hebrew

>>21878377
>And Christianity doesn't?
Nope - unfortunately Christians are highly inconvenient to rule as their beliefs don't take rulers seriously.
>For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Romans
>[God] has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
>Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him.
Sirach
Christianity kills the world and its rulers metaphysically, which Buddhism does too, but also provides solutions which are far greater than what rulers can do.

>>21878965
>everything leaning towards a retelling or other words is useless.
so this sentence is what

>>21875599
That's a lowsy translation chart. KJV, NKJV and more literal than NASVs.

>Le based KJV further forward
>BAD New KJV at the end
This image was made with an agenda in mind
KJV uses odd words more than NIV quite a fucking lot

>>21879380
I have kjv, nlt, and niv and I go between all three. Sometimes kjv is a lot more poetic and sometimes it is a absolute fucking mess of prepositions or redundencies that could be made far clearer and cleaner. For comparison my favorite Oddessey is Lattimore and a good comparable balance between smoothness, poetry, meaning, and flow would be nice to find. Often I have found the nlt to be too dumbed down and unpoetic.

>>21879380
There is literally no reason to use the NKJV. In Genesis 22:17, it changes the singular "seed" and "his enemies" to the plural "descendants" and "their enemies," even though the whole point of this passage according to Paul rests on the fact that the "seed" mentioned here is singular (see Galatians 3:16).

The New King James (NKJV) changes 2 Kings 23:29 from saying "went up against" to the opposite "went to the aid." This contradicts what it says in 2 Chronicles 35:20 about the same event, where all versions say, "went up against." This is in addition to changing 2 Kings 23:29 to say the opposite of what it says in the KJV and other accurate translations of the verse.

The NKJV is also guilty of interpretive changes. For example in 1 Chronicles 5:26, the phrase, "the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria," is changed in the NKJV to "the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria."

So the NKJV makes Pul the same as Tiglath-Pileser, instead of treating them as two separate individuals based on their own interpretation of Assyriology.

Several other changes in the NKJV Old Testament exist due to using the Biblia Hebraica of Rudolf Kittel in the 20th century instead of the received Hebrew text, used by the 16th and 17th century translators. For instance, the NKJV reads "bandage" instead of "ashes" in 1 Kings 20:38,41 due to this. It reads "will restore" instead of "hath turned away" in Nahum 2:2 for the same reasons.

In the New Testament, the NKJV has many more problems.

For instance, in Colossians 2:2, the phrase "and of the Father" is changed to "both of the Father" in the NKJV. This means that there are no longer three Persons listed in this Trinitarian verse by Paul, but only two. Also, the very specific phrase "in a place where two ways met" is changed to "the street" in the NKJV at Mark 11:4. And the word "narrow" is changed to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14 of the NKJV, which changes the meaning of the verse and the teaching by Jesus substantially. Also, the imperative statement (command) by Jesus in John 5:39 is changed to indicative in the NKJV, which also clearly affects the meaning of the doctrine.

In Hebrews 10:14 the NKJV reads, "are being sanctified," instead of "are sanctified," as the KJV does. This participle is supposed to be present passive according to the Greek original, in other words an ongoing passive action. But the NKJV represents it as a progressive or continuous passive, meaning incomplete, even though this is not obtained from the Greek conjugation of the word. The same happens for how the NKJV translates the word σωζομενοις (are saved) as, "are being saved," in passages such as Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18, and 2 Corinthians 2:15 (but strangely not in Luke 13:23, 1 Corinthians 15:2 or Revelation 21:24).

Also Acts 3:13,26 in the KJV reads, "his Son Jesus," as in other accurate versions, but the NKJV instead says, "his Servant Jesus."

>>21875599
None of these. There is only one authentically sourced Bible--the Latin Vulgate compiled by St. Jerome. No one after St. Jerome has had access to as many sources, nor has been as well versed in the several languages of the original documents. No one before St. Jerome had so completely gathered the various source documents. With St. Jerome, the bible becomes not a collection of many different texts, but is codified into a singular text. The closest one can come in English to the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims. All Protestant Bibles have begun with the Latin Vulgate, and then either thrown out or added material in order to support the novel theological positions of their promoters.

>>21879879
>The closest one can come in English to the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims.
Problem is that both the Douay-Rheims and the Reformation-era Vulgate (which is what it is based on) are inaccurate to the original languages, containing some errors. The DRB has the unique corruption in Jeremiah 39:2 where it says the city was broken into on the "fifth day," thereby contradicting 2 Kings 25:3 + Jeremiah 52:6, which both say "ninth day." Most Bibles say "ninth day" in all three places.

The Sixtine/Clementine Vulgate and the DRB also say, in 1 Samuel 13:1, that Saul was "one year old" when he began to reign.

We should distinguish the Reformation-era Latin text compiled by Sixtus and Clement in the 16th century, which does not particularly reflect the older editions of the so-called "Vulgate" to a high degree of accuracy. We should also note that before that time period, the term "Vulgate" instead applied to another older Latin translation (or set of translations) that we call the "Vetus Latina" or Old Latin, which predates Jerome. It was only gradually that some of Jerome's works were compiled together, possibly with some translations of books that were made and edited by others, and began to be called "Vulgate," as they are now referred to today. (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html))

Interestingly, many of the Old Latin manuscripts we still have today are in some places a better reflection of the original language Greek New Testament that we still have, in ways that the Latin Vulgate varies from. For example John 3:5 in Codex Brixianus and Codex Usserianus Primus, two Old Latin manuscripts, more closely reflects the Greek manuscript tradition for John 3:5 (i.e. specifically saying "born," as in the Greek form of this verse, instead of "born again" or "renatus"). This is also how Codex Carnotensus and Codex Sangallensis 60, two more Old Latin manuscripts, reads in this verse. The usual reading found in direct translations of the Greek New Testament such as the 1611 Authorized Version or KJV, is the same as these.

There is also good reason to object to the translation of the word "daily" in the phrase "daily bread" in Matthew 6:11 in the DRB as instead "supersubstantial bread." Looking at Luke 11:3, this is even more clear.

I also know of places where the DRB follows the Jewish Targums in removing Messianic prophecies from the Bible, such as in Psalm 2:12, where the original language text says "Kiss the Son," in referring to the Son of God; but the DRB, the Septuagint and others say "Embrace discipline" in Psalm 2:12 instead, omitting any reference to the Son in this verse. It's interesting because Psalm 2:12 is the one place in the Psalms where it specifically says those who trust in the Son are blessed. While in other Psalms and passages in the Bible, emphasis is repeatedly placed over and over again on trusting in God in the same way. These are just a few issues one should consider regarding the DRB and its source text.

>>21875599
>No NRSV
fundie cope

>>21880015
The passage 2 Peter 1:21 in the 1611 Authorized version says:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

But in the NRSV says,
"because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Notice how the term "holy men of God" was made gender-neutral in the NRSV. Thus indicating that it wasn't specific men of God that were inspired to give us Scripture, but just "men and women" generally.

>>21879994
This is largely historical revisionism. We find some few and rare examples of a seeming contradiction. Do we suppose St. Jerome looked at only one document or talked only to one master? Do we suppose St. Jerome considered none of these questions? Daily vs. Transubstantial bread is an excellent example. The Latin word is the same, and yet Jerome gives two translations of it. Why do you suppose this is an accident, when historical annotations usually make note of this as an intentional choice by St. Jerome to convey the multiplicity of meanings. We can see in St. Jerome's letters his disagreements with St. Augustine over Greek translations. The documents he refers to are largely lost to us. It is foolish to think that our analysis now is more accurate when we are further from the events with fewer materials. This is why teachings such as sola scriptura are so dangerous--you cite all this seeming inconsistencies; all that can resolve them is the traditional understanding of the church. If we turn to the text, which texts? If St. Jerome is not free from error, how are we to think that any other translation is free form error? How then can we know what is a difficulty and what is a mistake? The Latin Vulgate compiled by Jerome is and will always remain the keystone of Biblical scholarship.

>>21880159
>This is largely historical revisionism. We find some few and rare examples of a seeming contradiction. Do we suppose St. Jerome looked at only one document or talked only to one master?
I don't think the DRB or the Sixtine/Clementine Vulgate accurately represents the translation done by Jerome, for example they use a modified version of the Old Latin Psalms instead of the translation made by Jerome.

I do generally consider the ancient Latin translations, including that done by Jerome, but also others, to be intended to be accurate and reflecting the Greek originals. But I also think it's important to have a translation that is as accurate to the inspired word of God as given to the apostles, which means Greek for the New Testament, as possible. I do not think this is an impossible task, and I am encouraged by what the Lord informs us in Acts 2 where the apostles were able to speak the word of God in many different tongues by divine intervention.

>Daily vs. Transubstantial bread is an excellent example. The Latin word is the same, and yet Jerome gives two translations of it.
You mean the Greek word is the same, and he gives two different Latin translations of it?

>It is foolish to think that our analysis now is more accurate when we are further from the events with fewer materials.
We should not trust in men or human analysis at all, but in the Holy Spirit of God to guide us into all truth. And our Lord can lead us into the truth just as much as ever. Blessed are they that trust in the Lord. Like it says in Matthew 23:

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
- Matthew 23:8-10

>How then can we know what is a difficulty and what is a mistake?
Through the authority of the Holy Spirit, ultimately.

>>21880227
>I
>I
>I
Do you presume to speak for God?

>>21878598
The Septuagint is what would have been used by early Christian communities and has been continuously used since that time, and thus it takes precedent over the Masoretic text, so much of the latter paragraph is not relevant IMO

>>21882038
>The Septuagint is what would have been used by early Christian communities and has been continuously used since that time, and thus it takes precedent over the Masoretic text
Couple of things to note here. Firstly, the Masoretic text is not to be confused with the original Hebrew (and Syriac-Aramaic in Ezra 4:8 - 6:18, Ezra 7:12 - 7:26, Daniel 2:4b - 7:28 and a few isolated passages) language Old Testament, which is what the Old Testament was originally inspired in.

Second, the Septuagint as we know it today comes from the Hexapla of Origen. This was written in the 3rd century AD, not the 3rd century BC as the oldest version of the Septuagint was said to be. This very early translation seems to have included the first six books of the Old Testament, rather than the entire thing, but only fragments of it survive. It is likely that this was combined, by Origen, with various other translated passages of the Old Testament that had been translated into Greek in the intervening time. It is widely admitted that Origen himself, or whoever he was working with, edited this version of the Septuagint. And it is his version from the Hexapla that we have today. Only fragmentary remains exist of anything older than the Hexapla of Origen's time, his version of the Septuagint in other words. Not that I say this is of no literary value, because it is a good resource for understanding how Hebrew was translated to Greek, but it isn't exactly a standard text, at least not for the entire Old Testament pre-Origen, and it probably did not exist in the form we know of today in the 1st century AD. It is more likely that later writers, who were aware of the Greek New Testament, back-translated sections of it into what we now call the Septuagint (of Origen in the 3rd century AD). This creates the illusion that the New Testament writers sometimes quoted directly from it, when it's really the other way around. The New Testament writers sometimes loosely quoted the Old Testament, and centuries after the New Testament those words were taken verbatim and placed directly in the Septuagint translation as a form of back-translation.

So now that we've cleared that up, it is entirely reasonable to believe that the Lord preserved His original inspired words in the original languages, both Greek for the NT and Hebrew for the OT. Consider what it says in Isaiah.

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

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
(Isaiah 59:21)

And in the Psalms:

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

>>21875599
I've got an NIV open right now. I can taste the flavour of the original authors, or original fragment authors as redacted, quite well, which makes me feel it is a good translation. I am of course reading it as a literary hypertext not a divine text.

>>21875599
KJV if you place any value in its cultural or literary respects. ESV if you just want an accurate readable translation.

>>21875599
Lol that chart is peak retard

>>21875894
ESV sucks

>>21883594
The ESV has a gnostic reading in John 1:18 that many other translations reject. It unnaturally changes "only begotten Son" into the term "only God." Compare this with the regular form that says "only begotten Son" found in most English translations such as the KJV.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(John 1:18 KJV)

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." (ESV)

Also consider that the ESV makes some unusual changes to the genealogies that is not found in other major translations. For example, it changes the names of two kings in Matthew chapter 1. The name of the Judean king Asa is changed to "Asaph," (which is the name of David's chief musician), and the name of another king, Amon, is changed to "Amos" (which is the name of a prophet who lived during Uzziah's reign). Apparently the ESV translators do not consider either of these changes to be errors. In Luke chapter 3, the ESV makes another substitution, replacing the name "Aram" with two names, "Admin and Arni." Normally, the genealogy in Luke 3 consists of 77 generations from Jesus going back to Adam (said to be the son of God). However in the ESV this is changed to 78 generations since it replaces one person with two different names in Luke 3:33. Apparently the ESV translators do not consider this to be an error, even though no translation had that genealogy present until 1996 (with the New Living Translation). Apparently they believe that everyone before then - every church, every translation - was wrong about the genealogy of Christ, until around 1996 when the NLT finally got it right, then the ESV followed it in 2001.

>>21875599
After some extensive study, anything made by a committee that isn't the KJV blows fat dicks.

>>21878357
What's wrong with the 2020 version that you don't like it?

>>21875599
Wescott and Hort's Greek New Testament.
Sadly, no Old Testament, W&H's translation is amazing

>>21884972
Why would you use W&H? Their removals from Luke 24 (the entirety of verses 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51-52) were decisively disproven by P75 and the NA text had to put those verses back after their 1979 edition. Then again I guess that takes us back to the question of why Nestle-Aland still follows W&H anyway in the majority of the NT, while calling itself eclectic.

>>21884497
I'm guessing it suffers from the same attempt to "accurately" re-gender passages and other failings that most of the modern translations have. Any complaint applies to all of them, just in different places.

>>21883752
Cameo or Clarion??

>>21885851
Clarion. I really, really prefer single column paragraph format. Double column is fine on the go or in a huge book but look what it does for verse and aphorisms.

NRSV is unironically the best.. Though I also like the NASB and NKJV pretty good as well.

KJV should only be read for its poetic elements, not as serious Bible study. Too many words are false friends and you just don't realize it.

>>21875599

HCSB has Evangelical bias but is overall the most internally consistent translation and has the highest degree of beauty.

>>21885947
Any particular reason in mind why you would prefer this over the 2017 CSB, which replaced the 2004 HCSB?

>>21883694
Retarded and misleading chart, there might be one fragmet of some gospel dated to 73 AD, but most fragments/sections/entire books come from much later
Who are you trying to fool?

>>21885918
I am constantly surprised by how well the kjv handles crux words and preserving nuanced grammar compared to shit based on it. 17th century English isn't too different and false friends are surprisingly few and could fit in a glossary of 30 words. NRSV pops in too many synonyms where repetition is used as a literary device and can't into parataxis.

NRSV
>Before he had finished speaking, there was Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, coming out with her water jar on her shoulder. 16 The young woman was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up. 17 Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please let me sip a little water from your jar.” 18 “Drink, my lord,” she said and quickly lowered her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. 19 When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels. 21 The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.

Alter
>And she came down to the spring and filled her jug and came back up. And the servant ran toward her and said, 'Pray, let me sip a bit of water from your jug.' And she said, 'Drink, my lord,' and she hurried and tipped down her jug on one hand and let him drink. And she she let him drink his fill and said, 'For your camels, too, I shall draw water until they drink their fill.' And she hurried and emptied her jug into the trough, and she ran again to the well to draw water and drew water for all his camels.
I will say that scholarship has advanced but 20th century translations repeatedly fail to do what they claim and it's a shame. Committees too often revert to the mean (the KJV) to meet the expectations of readers while also writing for a not very intelligent audience with what is barely an 8th grade reading level. While the translators of the KJV had a notoriously poor command of biblical Hebrew, modern biblical scholars have a poor command of contemporary English and literary analysis. The Greek fares about the same.

This should come as no surprise, the old testament reads like episodes of Seinfeld when it comes to diction in dialog and use of wordplay. The new testament reads like those freaky gnostic texts and the letters are GSL as fuck. The KJV is a little too rosenkrantz and guildenstern in the former and shoves established dogma into and cleans up the latter but fares pretty well against modern attempts, which don't have the luxury of being the first "official" translation into English and are beholden to that and other expectations. I take the foibles of single translators over that.

>>21875599
concordant new testament or a translation that understands that eternal conscious torment is false and not of a loving Father.
the "god" of the old testement is Yahweh is not powerful and a lesser judgmental murderous being.
the Loving God of Jesus is all powerful and will save all creation.
i would've loved to read Marcion of sinope but the sword of rome crushed some of the original Christians and subverted the modern translations with spiritual terrorism of eternal conscious torment.

>>21875599

>>21885883
Noice. I have the NASB Clarion, truly a superior reading experience.

>>21880227
>"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
>Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
>- Matthew 23:8-10
This is the verse that got me into Christian Anarchism.

>>21883752
based Alter is KINO

>>21875599
For just clearly getting the meaning
>RSV
For getting the best literary experience
>KJV
For getting the best theological implications
>Douay-Rheims

If you do RSV/KJV be sure you get a version that includes the Deuterocanon (aka "Apocrypha")

>>21886959
>Committees too often revert to the mean (the KJV) to meet the expectations of readers while also writing for a not very intelligent audience with what is barely an 8th grade reading level.
More like a machine translated level, because the NIV might sell more copies, but it is not actually the most read Bible. There are other purposes for having such bible versions besides reading. Placeholders, IOW. Anyone who actually tries to read it seriously realizes it's a hack, which is why no one does. And I think that's the real point of all these new versions with the critical text, by the way.

>The KJV is a little too rosenkrantz and guildenstern in the former and shoves established dogma into and cleans up the latter
Examples?
>the first "official" translation into English
The Authorized Version or KJV wasn't technically the first official translation (that goes to the Great Bible), but it is the last. A little mentioned fact is that for unknown reasons the British monarchy would not give any kind of authorization to the Revised Version of 1885.

The authorization given to the 1611 translation probably helped it serve as a standard for the English language in its developmental stages, as you see Dictionaries such as those of Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster quoting extensively from it.

>>21887920
"Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
(John 19:10-11)

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
(Romans 13:1-2)

>>21887779
>>21887925
I figure if I'm going to read something, it may as well be the best presentation of it. Which applies to both.

>>21887992
I was joking that it's a very 17th century jewish diction, but it is there. Compare with Alter and you find a lot of common English phrasing and idiom that's still preserved in the South which would be something to the effect of
>Yea and verily ye want I shalt waste my Soul explaining what maketh for a schmaltzy yidishish manner most appropriate /as/ exemplar? A hebraic poesis, most certain I find stalking through the text and peradventure tis quite unlike what came before.

Dogma would be glossing almost every instance of nephesh and ruach or psyche and pneuma as soul and spirit. There was already a pretty dogmatic interpretation in place that you don't find with most other translations of Greek and Hebrew texts of a similar variety. I doubt your average midwit would find neoplatonic thought in the Bible while reading modern source translations of neoplatonic thought. And some of them get really assmad at Alter never translating nephesh as soul. More minor ones would be Sheol inconsistently translated as grave or hell when it's most dogmatically convenient and similar for the Greek and Aramaic.

You have to remember that Tyndale was executed and the Geneva group fled from the same. The AV probably only got authorization because James was dumb and more than a little nutty. They had carte blanche as long as they didn't do the same explicit heresies. Later monarchs had little to shore up regarding the Prot Revolution and the Anglican Church and a hell of a lot of spicy witchcraft and hucksterism and subsequent inquisitions. Monarchs think dynastically on timelines few comprehend. It shares a lot of liner notes and commentary with both of the previous heretical attempts, for what that's worth. Funny enough, the Puritans were using the Geneva, which is part of why they fled.

I love what it brought to the English language and how most of the alleged errors are in the translator's notes in the margin. It's still very flawed but my notes so far are like one or two words per page against very critical and very esoteric translations. My notes on the ESV are
>it's clear and I feel it misses the point
>I sure do understand Calvinism now
>man these fucks haven't read any modern literature
>this word is wrong, even occultists know better Greek in context
>my feet hurt
>I wish I was reading the KJV right now, least they did kin Samson took spoils from 30 philistines
>armor is a kind of spoil, not a copout
>putting the good translation in a footnote is a copout, grow some balls
>If only I had the KJV Job but with the Alter and Greenbergstein fixes and was in a room with rupi kaur and had to distract myself from her talking about her period and Tolkien were still alive to put it into old ænglisc
>no wonder my parents were the most lukewarm of methodists
My opinion of other translations is succinct. Fuck them all.

>>21888281
>You have to remember that Tyndale was executed and the Geneva group fled from the same.
The Great Bible was put together by Miles Coverdale, the same person who took Tyndale's work (a New Testament and an incomplete Old Testament) and made a translation for the rest of the Bible, albeit not from the original languages. The Great Bible is little more than the Coverdale Bible with a few token interpolations thrown in from the Latin textual line that the high clergy apparently wanted. The base text is almost entirely Tyndale in the books that he translated. So I don't think there was anything wrong persay with Tyndale's work that they had a particular problem with (though they could nitpick things to justify their dislike of a translation), the royalists just didn't like the idea of a vernacular translation being done until a couple of years after Tyndale's death, when they changed their mind and brought Coverdale on board. (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cZR1EXGapc))

The creation of the Bishops Bible and KJV was driven by the existence of the Geneva Bible of 1560, which was obviously superior to earlier translations that did not come exclusively from the original languages. Probably relevant also was the law in Scotland in 1579 requiring every household of means to own a copy of it. The puritans used it, and this drove the clergy to produce a Bishops Bible. James eventually brought both factions together and determined to make one version that everyone could accept and that would be the official one. In reality, the main text of all three Bibles is very similar, being based on the received text. The dispute was primarily over the marginal notes in the Geneva, though a few word choices like "presbytery," "church" and "baptize" were part of the consideration. Some translators had preferred "elders," "assembly," and "immerse." Arguably the KJV seems to be a little more stately and ecclesiastical than that.

Also, the puritans didn't really accept the 1611 translation until during and after the English Civil war, as Cromwell and others endorsed it after Cambridge provided a better printed form of it than the royal printers had done. Also a few interesting changes seem to appear in these later editions that makes it slightly more similar to the main text of the Geneva Bible again.

>I doubt your average midwit would find neoplatonic thought in the Bible while reading modern source translations of neoplatonic thought.
Your interpretation of what words like spirit and soul mean should derive from the context of the Bible and how they are used there rather than in the specific English word chosen. Soul and life are interchangeable, as X number of souls really means X number of lives. Regarding the grave being equivalent to hell, think carefully about the meaning of 2 Kings 9:26.

Since this is /lit/, KJV

>>21888281
I hit the 3000 character limit exact. Wew lad.

Critical text versions have a number of issues, copyright trolling and fleecing money out of dumbasses who tithe and donate blindly is the largest of it. If I had a couple mil I could get a bunch of jews and atheists and occultnik weirdos together and have them argue anonymously, using shitpost battles and rng to decide what is definitive through a kingsmoot where I feed random verses through a few sites and see what riles them up the most. It would probably end up better than everything today not made by a single person. That's the opposite of what happens when making a modern translation, yet oddly similar in form and function.

>>21888390
I agree with the first half and will respond to the midwit response.

I have no problem with breath, life and spirit or soul---I have an issue with it being used dogmatically where the word in question can mean all the other things that aren't included in English. It's like non4fags using fag in their limited sense and substituting nonce lingo I just made up for this example such as; brother of mine, cunt (I recognize other anglo dialects), I like you but that's still gay, even though I'm talking about it you're being obnoxiously homogay, and cocksucker with "bro-romantic". It's an inaccurate gloss. Sheol is metaphorically used and should probably be left untranslated or *'d with :see Hel, Underworld. Entire corpus of pre-christian texts.

It's presented dishonestly, all of it. Yes the Oxford is banally academic and fucks up everything in trying to capture vocabulary and still fucking that up. Nevermind the annotations, I have more wit and wisdom taking a shit because none of it is about the textual level and the assholes writing it have mainstream axes to grind. Yes this, that, and the other are shit "fixes" of the KJV. I mentioned one of those. Yes the KJV has numinous issues for me personally and numerous ones otherwise. Anyone who cares can't step away and anyone doing it is going where the money's at.

Yeah, it's not the specifics, it's the principle of them when the committee says something that doesn't align with how loosely words are used. Translations of fucking Stirner are better about it.

>>21875599
I have KJV/NLT side to side book, which helps if you don't understand something you can check the next page to compare.

>>21888503
Alright, God bless you, anon.

>>21888578
Blessed be, anon. I had some vent and fernet branca in me. Those were some shithot takes, glad you didn't stick your finger in them. Also *response to the statement about midwits.

I didn't know I had so many high level complaints. Not enough for format my own bible wholesale but enough to buy a wide margin and some very fine pens.

>>21875810
>removes entire verses from the bible
>retarded footnotes
>they keep making worse revisions of it

>>21885883
The Clarion is really nice but I have this odd ptsd thing for that pitt minion. It reminds me of this shitty nkjv I used to roll joints with maybe 5 times. Guilt edges, good paper, probably gave me brain damage. Awful to read, the chapter and verse was painful. Kings was the only thing I remember enjoying. It may have been an old pitt now that I think about it. I was in an edgy atheist phase, not much has changed but I'm much less of all those things.

Good times. Now I read the kjv version while I do all that.