/lit/ - Literature

ESV is the best translation. ESV SB is the best study bible. People will say it's Evangelical leaning but I'm Catholic and I've only ever found it to be the most accurate translation and the most rigorous study-wise.

>>22454156
>ESV is the best translation.
Really? Then go to your ESV Bible and read the following: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37. You won't find them, because they aren't there.
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_the_ESV

Your best bet is KJV or RSV. The older, the better because there won't be any alteration from the depravity of modernity.

>>22454140
i'd recommend the Orthodox Study Bible, or the Berean Standard Bible.

always opt for things closer to formal equivalence than to both dynamic equivalence and functional equivalent (especially not this end of the spectrum)

look up passages in Biblehub to compare translations. i've found the Berean to be the best.

I heard that the translations that were based on the septuagint are more accurate than the ones that incorporated the masoretic texts which was jewish subversion and less accurate when compared to the dead seas scrolls.

>>22454140
>study bible
>avoids bias towards one denomination’s beliefs
NRSV (New Oxford Annotated Bible) is the gold standard

>>22454188
The RSV translation of 1952 removes a lot of those verses like Matthew 18:11 as well.

The problem with most English translations made after 1611 is that they use a different source text - a 19th or 20th century reconstruction - rather than the one used historically and represented in the original Greek manuscripts and Hebrew manuscripts.

On top of that, there are also weird translation choices as well, but this came somewhat later, particularly in the late 20th century. There was an in-between phase where you had translations similar in style to the KJV, but in substance they were the same as most of the modern ones, in the fact that they are not based on the received text. Unfortunately, people who promote the modern versions tend to gloss over the major differences between the received text and the modern critical text. But it results in a New Testament that is missing about 7% of the words that are found in the Greek Received Text (and hence reflected in the KJV), with about 5% of the words deleted and another 2% replaced with a substantially different word.

The whole verses missing are just the tip of the iceberg, as thousands of other changes involve changing just a single word here or there, or deleting a phrase of a few words. For instance, the word "yet" is removed in John 7:8 of the modern versions, essentially making Jesus lie about the fact that he was not going to go to the feast. In the original unaltered version, Jesus told them "I go not up yet unto this feast," which is a correct statement and does not make a liar out of Jesus when he later goes to the feast.

There are countless more examples of this throughout the entire Bible. It's not a matter of different translation methodology, but rather, as in the case of John 7:8, one Greek text has the word "yet" and the other (which the modern versions use) doesn't have it. Same for longer passages like the entire verse of Matthew 18:11 or Romans 16:24.

>>22455075
what about the LEB?

>>22455091
I actually don't have any specific notes on that specific translations, but it appears to be a New Testament that is based on something similar to the Alexandrian text as well, having a similar set of omissions. The Old Testament looks like it's based on the Ben Asher Masoretic, so it has a few differences from the received text of the Old Testament as well, although the vast majority of differences from a received text translation and the LEB will be in the New Testament.

I have actually been meaning to look through the Lexham Septuagint, to investigate how it differs from some others LXX editions, and it looks like it has some of the same people that worked on it. But of course the Septuagint has its own problems, such as Methuselah outliving the Flood by 14 years in Genesis chapter 5, and removed/omitted messianic prophecies in places like Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 9:26, Hosea 11:1, and Zechariah 12:10, as well as missing one eighth of the entire book of Jeremiah. Of course most people won't tell you that and probably aren't aware of it themselves.

Get the Oxford Annotated Bible
The commentary is as neutral as you can get

>>22455139
Also the commentary is extremely useful just on a 'what the fuck is going on' way

>>22454140
KJV

>>22455117
I think the Messianic prophecy must've been a dream from the Romans and unknown civilization. It had to be.

>>22455075

anyone have a good bible audiobook in m4a/b format? i can find tons in mp3 but i like m4a/b since they have chapter timestamps built-in.
i know that bible apps come with chapter separated audio but i'd like one that i can download.

>>22455200
Stephanus and Beza. You're too dumb to live if you honestly think it's based on Erasmus' first edition.

>>22454140
I like the NKJV

if youre anglogroid or living in anglogroid society you should read the AUTHORIZED (king james) version

>>22455075
Great post. I've also noticed the part where they changed the words, like with 'brethren' to 'brothers and sisters' or picrel. These differences may seem simple or subtle, but they change the meaning, sometimes in its entirety, like you've also pointed out in your example. It's paramount to preserve it as originally as possible and not removing words for any sake.

>>22454795
christianity is a jewish cult, it's only those people who define what is and what is not allowed.

>>22456139
That’s what ‘satan’ means in Hebrew, accuser. Unless it is preceded by the definite article ha-, it is not referring to a specific entity.

>>22456329
Adversary is probably a better choice, but yes, it's just a noun in Hebrew, first use being when God sends an angel to act as "a satan" to Balaam in Numbers.

>>22454188
>>22455075
You should at least be clear that the deletion of those passages is grounded in philological comparisons with older Greek attested forms than the Textus Recepticus and that you don't accept those arguments.

>>22454140
You're not going to find a suggestion that doesn't imply some preference, since everyone's bound to argue over accuracy of translation and manuscriot readings. From being able to read Hebrew and Greek, I can only point to Alter's translations of the OT and pairing Lattimore and David Hart's translations of the NT. Alter is Jewish, but more fascinated with philology and the formal qualities of Hebrew prose and poetry, so he ends up departing from both Christian and Jewish translations. He provides footnotes throughout pointing to alternative readings in the Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic targums, and Syriac translations, and he sheds a lot of light on certain words by discussing their cognates and contemporary and later uses. Lattimore is a straight ahead translator, but his edition doesn't contain the full NT. Hart's translation is absolutely motivated by his theological concerns, so don't take him for granted, but he's a rare translator of the NT who captures the actual style of the writings better than most committee translations, and some of his choices are also worth considering (his insistence on translating Geenna differently than Hades). Neither Lattimore nor Hart have the kind of footnote apparatus that Alter has, however.

>>22455075
There's a reason that literally no bible scholar uses the KJV. It is considered inaccurate and outdated as a translation and not respected for anything other than its contributions to the English language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnEZtqj2Mo

>>22457172
You're leading with Bart Ehrman?

>>22454140
Anyone read Lattimore's New Testament? Worth reading?

what is the least jewed bible? one that only uses greek and pre-rabbinical judean sources?

>>22457283
Douay–Rheims, Vulgate, Wycliffe, or Tyndale.

Bump

>>22454188
KJV is fill of politically-motivated mistranslations.

>>22459614
Can you name an example for us?

>>22454156
ESV literally makes Jesus a sinner and gives titles reserved for Jesus to Lucifer.
>>22456779
Older = better is a fallacy, plus a lot of them aren't even that old, they're proven counterfeits and forgeries. You're an idiot.
>>22457172
>trust the experts chud!
You're also an idiot. All you have is appeal to authority and blatant lies.

It's really not surprising the anti-KJV crusade is full of idiots and liars.

God put His seal on only one of them: truthischrist DOT com

>this thread again

The one with the best translation for Ezekiel 23:20

>>22454140
>>22454156
This, ESV is great. NASB is useful to have also. KJV is probably best when you become more familiar with the Bible though

>>22454188
>Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
those passages aren't included because they are not present in all the underlying manuscripts, but the ESV includes them in the footnotes

>>22454140
KJV, or NKJV if you want a modern one. RV/ASV is fine if you reject the canonical text.

>>22454188
>Your best bet is a pr*testant "bible"
Kek, kys

>>22454140
I read the NLT recently, I'd definitely recommend it. It's far more pleasant to read than the more literal translations, especially the KJV which is filled with archaic language.

>>22454140
Douay-Rheims

Which one has the most feminism and race justice in it?

Bump again!

>>22463728
you don't know which one to pick yet?

>>22454140
KJV is /lit/
Everything else is trash

>>22463799
Everyone seems to be implying KJV, which is actually the one I was originally gonna go with since it’s like, the “original” one, but it seems like it’ll be incredibly hard to actually understand which kind of defeats the purpose of a study bible.
Im not even bad at reading, I always read above my level as a kid, plus I’m an English major and tend to have very good reading comprehension, but even just looking at some sample verses makes it seem so different from what I’m used to that I’m afraid I’ll end up over relying on the footnotes.

>>22454140
KJV 1611

>>22463857
ESV is the next best thing. Preserves a lot of beauty while being much easier to read.

>>22457172
nobody gives a f what so called "bible scholars" think

>>22454140
the one in your language obviously. you don't need to read the bible in english.

>>22463857
>the “original” one
there's no such thing

The jewish study bible

>>22463894
Bible scholars are /lit/

KJV; all other newer "bibles" are intentionally wrongful imposters (including "NKJVD" et al). This alone should make it obvious:
>>22455075
...along with what others in the know have posted. Seemingly harmless word-substitutions completely change the message, and that is by nefarious design, not to mention the outright deletions of entire verses as partially shown above.
>tl;dr: satan deceives through the propagation & promulgation of inherently false bibles

>>22454140
Ignatius Bible - RSVCE. You can get it leather bound hard back for <$70. I also would recommend Word on Fire for a newly imagined Bible.

>>22463857
KJV is too confusing and is just not the original language. The Bible is very plain and simple words in common usage. RSVCE. That being said, it is very beautiful.

>>22459622
The existence of the trinity for one. 1 John 5:7 not found in greek.

>>22454188
>>22455075
>>22455182
>>22456070
>>22459848
>>22460637
>>22460951
>>22463809
>>22463875
>>22464044
Wait a min, the KJV only has 66 of the 73 books? That’s sort of a deal breaker, I want a complete, un-neutered version of the bible (that’s what I meant when I said I’d prefer a catholic/orthodox leaning translation). Very unfortunate too because I was starting to come around on the language used in the KJV.

>>22454140
RSV2CE. If you insist on Protestant stuff, NKJV.

>>22464044
>KJV; all other newer "bibles" are intentionally wrongful imposters (including "NKJVD" et al). This alone should make it obvious:
King James was a faggot who called his lover his "wife" and built a tunnel passage underneath their homes to meet in secret.
It is a good translation, but it's been improved upon.

>>22464158
Get the one I have:

https://www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-cameo-reference-bible-with-apocrypha-cambridge/

https://www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-cameo-reference-bible-with-apocrypha-cambridge/

Complete with Apocrypha... but you still might want to shop around for some of the *other* other books -- like Enoch, Macabees 5 & 6 and the Book of [Redacted] -- which aren't in the DR, ETC, either.

>>22464158

>>22464210
I have a copy of that too. It's very nice, even though I still prefer other translations. I think Cambridge's calfskin is even better than their goatskin bibles that are twice the price. I wish all bibles were like that.

>>22454140
The designer who made this really couldn't just space out the text on the line more so they could fit horizontally?

>>22464057
>The Bible is very plain and simple words in common usage
Biblical Hebrew very much isn't

>>22464210
>Book of [Redacted]
Could you spoonfeed a newfag?

there are an estimated 37 million churches in the world. 36,000,000+ say that the apocrypha is obviously deuterocanonical--any biblical scholar of any denomination will find this. the only people who want it in their bible are edgy larpers who would never go to church.
>b-but they're still used in church
implicit in being deuterocanonical is being NOT divinely inspired. whether or not a coptic / catholic / orthodox church reads some assemblage of the apocrypha, they all consider them to be not divinely inspired.

>>22464238
*LatinX

>>22465370
>there are an estimated 37 million churches in the world.
Who cares. There's only one that matters. And it's completely self-contained, has the fullness of truth, and needs no one else. That's the true meaning of Catholic.
Any other church that happens to be right some of the time is only right because they took it from Catholics.

>>22465625
Your thoughts on the current anti-Pope?

>>22454140
So, there's this book called the Lutherbibel and a real Christian would read it as scripture to define what he believes in its original 1534 publishing.

>>22466122
He's not an antipope. You confuse conservative screeching with Catholicism. Everything that he has said is in accordance with the Catechism. He just emphasizes the mercy of God and doesn't indulge in wrath like some want him too. And as for the screeching, some of the things they're loudest about is hypocritical. Like the Amazonian statue. He was presented it as the Lady of the Amazon. Not an idol. He wasn't blessing idols. At worst, it's just more of inculturation that the Church has done since it's began. Giving a wide breadth for different cultures and letting them express faith in the ways they know. Europe had to go through it too. We still use the names of Roman gods in our months. We used ancient archetypes in the pagan world like the shepherd with the lamb on his shoulders to depict the Good Shepherd. Contrary to popular belief and Hollywood bullshit, the Church had a peaceful hand with the people of Middle Ages Europe and didn't overreact to some native practices. You can find accusations going back to medieval times of people accusing such and such of being a witch (when they were probably just cooking herbs or something) and bishops dismissing their cases. It wasn't until the Reformation that Europeans, especially Protestants, really ramped up the witch burning in the thousands, in a quest for theological purity and Jew larping. In addition to burning people, they destroyed churches, removed all art in their own churches, and just acted all around morose shitheads. Yet at the same time, they gave Jews financial power. It was the Puritans who killed kings, caused terror on the populace, but let Jews run banks. The real sin to worry about. The one that cripples the entire world to this day.

>>22467313
OP here, I know this is an off topic post but it’s based and I agree with it. This right here is why I’m adamant about being Catholic and not Protestant, protestants truly get too caught up on thinking they know better and it leads them to fall for the devils trickery again and again.

>>22454140
ASV is on the very left of the arrow but I don't see it labeled anywhere. Which version is that?

Is there a Bible version with psychological analysis embedded within the text ? Like the Peterson Genesis lectures but in written form ? I know /lit/ loves to hate on The Lobster King, but those Genesis lectures really opened up a new way of understanding the biblical corpus via taking the stories as deep seated metaphors. I was raised evangelical but moved away from the Church a decade ago, haven’t cracked open the Bible since.
If I were to return to it though, I’d want something with more substance and footnotes or embedded analysis that would actually grapple with the stories & historical context at the time - since most of the characters, tribes, customs etc are so foreign than ours in the modern world.

Any one know of such a Bible or text ? Hope I’m making myself clear -_-

CPG sounds based

>>22468469
I think he's doing Exodus now

>>22469999
Yeah but it’s paywalled behind the DailyKikeWire… Bad move on Peterson’s part to bend the knee to Sheeklepiro’s empire. He’s even got new veener teeth for fucks sake.

I’m simply talking about a paperback Bible I can buy that has psychological/ontological/historical context embedded into the text page by page, chapter by chapter etc.