/lit/ - Literature

>>23353650
Could you elaborate?

>>23353650
>>23353659
yeah why?

I read the RSV

>>23353650
>translated from latin

>>23353650
Original or Challoner Revision?

>>23353650
What about Geneva?

>>23353650
for me, it's the ESV, since even Evangelicals and Catholics can agree on it. must be doing something right.

>translation of a translation
no

>>23353650
>Not the AUTHORIZED version
ngmi

Should I get the Cambridge Clarion or Pitt Minion?

>>23353650
The DRB says (1 Samuel 13:1) that Saul was one year old when he began to reign.

Another problem is where it says that the holy city was broken into by Babylon on the "fifth day" in Jeremiah 39:2, when it was really the ninth day, as reported by every translation here, as well as the DRB itself in 2 Kings 25:3 and Jeremiah 52:6, thus contradicting itself.

It contains a large number of other corruptions, such as the following:

–Genesis 3:15 "his heel" replaced with "her heel" in DRB
–Exodus 34:29 "his face shone" replaced with "his face was horned" in DRB (saying Moses had horns)

–2 Samuel 21:19 "the brother of Goliath" replaced with "Goliath" in DRB (contradiction with 1 Chronicles 20:5, and that David killed Goliath)
–Psalm 2:12 "Kiss the Son" replaced with "embrace discipline" in DRB (removal of Messianic prophecy)

–Isaiah 14:12 "Lucifer" replaced with "morning star" in DRB (replacing the name of the devil with a name used specifically by Jesus, see Revelation 22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19; And no, the English definition of "Lucifer" is not equal to the Latin definition; it means Shining One, not "Morning Star")
–Zephaniah 3:15 "see evil" replaced with "fear evil" in DRB (following the (((Ben Asher))) Masoretic text, which the New King James also uses, rather than the Daniel Bomberg uncorrupted Hebrew text of 1525 which the KJV uses)

–Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed in the DRB (falsifying a saying of Christ, making it sound like He said all anger is sinful, even with a cause)
–Mark 1:2 "in the prophets" changed to "in Isaiah the prophet" (creating another contradiction as Mark quotes both Malachi and Isaiah, not only Isaiah)

–John 4:42 "Christ" removed in the DRB
–Acts 2:30 "Christ" changed to "the fruit of his loins" in DRB

–Acts 23:9 "let us not fight against God" removed in DRB
–Romans 11:6, second half of this verse (the logical converse) removed in DRB

–1 Corinthians 6:20 "and in your spirit, which are God's" removed in DRB
–1 Corinthians 10:28 "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" removed in DRB

–Galatians 3:17 "in Christ" removed in the DRB
–Ephesians 1:6 "he hath made us accepted in the beloved" changed to "he has blessed us in the beloved" (or "gratified us" in the older 1610 edition)

–1 Timothy 1:17 "wise" removed in the DRB
–1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" changed to "which was manifested in the flesh" in the DRB

–2 Timothy 2:7 "and the Lord give" changed to "for the Lord will give" in DRB (optative verb δῴη changed to indicative mood)

–Hebrews 10:34 "in heaven" removed in DRB
–James 5:16 "faults" changed to "sins" in DRB

–1 Peter 2:2 "unto salvation" added in DRB
–2 Peter 2:17 "for ever" removed in DRB

–1 John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" removed in DRB
–2 John v. 3 "the Lord" removed in DRB

–Jude v. 25 "wise" removed in DRB (comp. 1 Tim. 1:17)
–Revelation 22:14 "do his commandments" changed to "wash their robes" in DRB

This is the start of the problems with the DRB.

>>23353650
there are plenty of translations approved by the church

>>23353650
King James Version is the best version of the Bible

>>23354178
When it comes to editions, I've been told by the theologian Christian B Wagner that the best one has to be the Baronius Press Douay Rheims for the fact that it contains many things to understand the Bible.

>>23354263
Blud is heavily implying that the KJV is older than the DRB lmao!

>>23353726
Bp. Challoner DRB isn't much of a revision, but yes the second option.

>>23354509
The Geneva Bible of 1560 was a high quality English translation that is largely similar to the KJV. The KJV often follows the Geneva Bible's translations, though not always. The Geneva Bible was of substantially higher quality than the Rheims New Testament of 1582, and that was limited to a New Testament only. The Douay-Rheims translation of the full Bible didn't exist until 1610. The KJV was nearly complete by then, as it had been working in progress since 1604. However, the very similar Geneva Bible had existed since 1560.

Almost everyone who refers to the "DRB" is actually using the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision of 1752 anyway, which is definitely a newer English version than any of these. So yes, it is newer.

>>23354541
I shall point out the fact in your argument that when the KJV was still in it's development, it indeed had it's share of influence with the Geneva Bible, but also with the RHEIMS which was completed in 1582 (aswell as the Douay, which was finalized in 1609, just 3 years before the KJV came to finish. However I remain personally skeptical to that claim that the Douay had any influence to the KJV since at the time, Anglican England had had completely divorced it self from the Catholic world).

Also that Challoner argument is quite weak since he revised very little, and yes there are some people that do infact still use the original anyways.

>>23353757
>ESV
Ngl man, I don't know any Catholic that says he likes ESV.

>>23353650
Trusting a single interpretation is silly. If you can't read the source texts yourself, you should be reading commentaries, concordances, and cross-referencing translations.

>>23354578
Yea for that is wise, however I did specifically say;
>written in English

>>23354585
I mean cross-referencing English translations obviously; although cross referencing translations in different languages is fascinating, but unnecessary.

>>23354567
>the Douay, which was finalized in 1609,
According to what I read, volume 2 which contained Psalms through Apocrypha wasn't published until 1610.
>However I remain personally skeptical to that claim that the Douay had any influence to the KJV since at the time, Anglican England had had completely divorced it self from the Catholic world).
This was already true in 1582, which was during Elizabeth's reign. Also in Scotland, in 1579 they even passed a law that every household of means had to own a copy of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and this translation remained in print for about 80 years since 1560, to include a minor revision of its own in 1599. The puritans switched to the KJV after Cambridge university started printing it in 1629 and corrected all the typos and other weird choices made by the royal printers of the earliest KJV editions (for instance, the 1611 first edition had no apostrophes, did not use the letters U and V normally and had no letter J, all of which the Geneva Bible already had in 1560).

I don't think the Rheims of 1582 had any influence on this at all, and the authorized translators clearly denounced their critics coming from Roman Catholicism in their prologue, "Epistle to the reader" which you can still read today.

>>23354599
I'd be careful that you take note of all the places where modern English translations vary. For example, many of them are outright missing verses such as Acts 8:37 or Matthew 18:11. And the number of places where phrases smaller than an entire verse are omitted or significantly different in their base text is in the thousands. It doesn't make much sense to compare two translations of something that are of a completely different source. Even if that weren't the case, I would be wary of the modern tendency to redefine things, since nowadays the barrier is very low to creating a new edition.

For example, in Philippians 2:6, many modern translations have twisted the translation to mean the exact opposite of what it really means.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
(Philippians 2:6 KJV)

Here we see that Jesus did not act like His equality with God was something to be flaunted. "Robbery" here would be something obtained by theft or through some artifice. For Jesus, equality with God has always been His possession naturally since He is God the Son. But look at what modern versions do to this verse:

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
(Philippians 2:6 ESV)

Here, the ESV makes it sound like Jesus never even attempted to grasp being God. In my life, I have seen people (for instance, Jehovah Witnesses) use this bizarro version of Philippians 2:6 to try to argue Jesus didn't claim to be God. That obviously goes against everything else in the Bible, and it's an abysmal translation of Philippians 2:6 which says the exact opposite of what Paul was actually saying here. So, I'd be careful.

>>23354599
>although cross referencing translations in different languages is fascinating, but unnecessary.
I wouldn't say that Anon, understanding the cross-referencing between the original text and how it was translated into English is quite enlightening. For an example, I know a debate that happened between a Unitarian and a Christian using mostly just the Bible, the Unitarian's arguments completely fell apart when the Trinitarian showed the meaning of multiple passages in their original languages which made Unitarianist awestruck.

>>23354576
The Augustine Institute uses it

>>23354623
>“We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full” (“The Translators to the Reader,” King James Version, 1611 ed.).
I do must say, the translators notes for the KJV is an interesting read, as what I have posted above is a direct criticism of the Douay. HOWEVER, your take that the KJV is like/or is the infallible English translation of the Bible is completely and utterly retarded. For as like how the translators of the KJV criticized the D(R)B so can we criticize the KJV, hell those in charge of the Douay-Rheims project even have criticism against the KJV.

>>23354163
You mean this? I don't get what makes it special.

>>23354263
>–Isaiah 14:12 "Lucifer" replaced with "morning star" in DRB (replacing the name of the devil with a name used specifically by Jesus, see Revelation 22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19; And no, the English definition of "Lucifer" is not equal to the Latin definition; it means Shining One, not "Morning Star")
Isaias 14:12. ”How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in
the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the
nations?”

>>23354629
If you can read the original text, then you have no need for cross references. If you can't, that's what a concordance and commentaries are for.

>>23354623
Although I see your point, I became familiar with the verse through NASB and ESV personally, and never got confused about it. I always took it to mean that, though Christ was God in the flesh, He lived as a man and walked in humility.

>>23354659
The apocrypha is fallible, anon. 2 Esdras 14 talks about seventy books of hidden knowledge, and occultists eat that stuff up. But it's not inspired. Also in Wisdom 11:17 the writer apparently deny creatio ex nihilo. And in Judith or one of them, they literally say at the very beginning that Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian king) reigned from Nineveh.

I do find it interesting the fact that the original author of Maccabees admitted that there is no prophet in Israel at the time of his writing. Thus openly admitting that he himself is not one. It's strange that later some people tried to say he was one just to be contrarian though.

>>23354715
Yeah, the Latin definition. It belongs in that list with the others.

>>23354718
Out of curiosity, what Biblical commentary would you recommend?

>>23354742
I'm not learned enough to make recommendations, nor to read the original texts, but when I became a Christian I was introduced to Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the well-known Strong's concordances. I mentioned I like Hal Lindsey's studies on John and Revelation in another thread. I am working on Latin and Greek however, so I hope within two to four years to be reading the Vulgate and Septuagint. I have no idea if that's a realistic goal or not, lol.

>>23354728
Dude, Maccabees is not Apocrypha, it belongs to that category titled 'Deutero-canonical', and by the Tradition of the Apostolic Church, it is infallible. An Apocryphal text would be such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Book of Enoch.
And I much rather trust the ancient Christians who say that it is an infallible text than some Jews who said it was Apocrypha.
Council of Rome Canon < Luther's & his reformed traditional views of the Canon.
>Verification not required.

>>23354756
>>23354757
Oh, and I did read a very interesting book by a layman on the chiastic structures in the book of Joshua. It was a good introduction to the subject of chiasms in Scripture. Pic rel.

>>23354756
It's always good to talk with your local father on how to continue studying the Bible. Your local Catholic parish should have a website which contains a schedule on what will they do. In that schedule, you should look for 'Spiritual Direction' and make an appointment with the Priest for, of course, spiritual directions and clearing doubts on the faith or you can just him for help on anything. I'll recommend you to go to spiritual directions fren.

>>23353659
>>23353666
Cuz it's based, duh.

Recently I converted to this. Is it really authoritative?

What's a good 'readable' bible? I'm not good with the old English.

>not the new jerusalem bible

>>23353693
Naturally.

>>23354790
I like it a lot but I wish the notes were more eclectic and comprehensive
For example there's nothing about the protoevangelium in Genesis

>>23354790
it's nrsv for one, which is bad. secondly, its essays and forewords are written by skeptical scholars. i don't know why anyone would seek commentary like that unless. for instance, what place does a "q source" made up theory have in the bible?

>>23354494
Yea, people are slowly figuring this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBJM8sSPTLU

>>23355319
that is an incredible discovery. thank you for sharing.

>>23354494
And it's keyed to Strong's greek dictionary in sites like https://www.blueletterbible.org/
That makes a closer examination much easier.

Now, if you don't wanna have the trouble of looking all the way to the greek, I think the berean bible does a great job at translating the details well!

>>23354494
The KJV is mostly just the geneva bible a calvinist device out f switzerland

>>23355319
>dramatic bgm
fag opinion discarded

>>23355319
This is very interesting. It does remind me of the chapter in the book of Acts about Elimas the sorcerer, so I'm glad the video includes a chapter on divination vs mathematics.
I myself find it to be very muddy ground, because of all the warnings against sorcery in the bible itself. But, idk, what we call chemistry one day was aclhemy, and there are a bunch of "good" references to counting in the bible as well

such as the year of Jubilee (7x7+1) or the gospel of luke counting 77 generations through Seth's bloodline.

>>23355395
alchemy and chemistry are both references to the old name for egypt of "chem" or "kem".

everything essentially goes back to egypt or sumer

>>23355319
what is the audio version of the OT they use the name of the speaker?

>>23354859
New International Version (imo) is precise and has a clear language

>>23355384
Based!

>>23355319
Numerology is so retarded and Jewish. Cognitive bias is a hell of a drug.

>>23354859
The RSV-CE, it is what Fr. Mike Schmitz recommends for an easy reading Bible.

>>23356417
that one is actually quite nice.

>>23353650
>doesn't even translate the greek or hebrew
Is this really the best RCs have to offer?

>>23353650
Ronald Knox is the best bible in English. You now, actually being written in English instead of falling for the accuracy meme (to Latin for DR, a composite text for Kang James, modern critical Hebrew-Greek for ESV or RSV or their 100 offshoots of revisions).
The accuracy obsession and illiterate-friendliness are the two sides of the anglo bible coin. Clearly the history of Christianity in the English speaking world proves it didn't help spirituality or theology with their 1245 increasingly zionist denominations.

>>23356869
>a composite text for Kang James
I have often seen people who are detractors of the King James translation say it's a composite text (as a way, I think, to create further confusion and misguide people) but they do not seem to have any real examples where this is the case. Based on what I can tell, detractors of the KJV say this about the KJV only as a way to make it look worse.

Based on my own investigation, the KJV follows closely to the Daniel Bomberg 1525 text in the Old Testament (though the KJV still includes Joshua 21:36-37, which was accidentally omitted in Bomberg's 2nd edition due to a parablepsis) and the Greek Received text in the New Testament. It is accurate to those sources and prioritizes accuracy even more than literalism (counterintuitive but a good thing, when it comes to things like idioms).

Reminder that translation autism is missing the point and your primary goal should be to love Jesus Christ and keep his commandments.

>>23356979
I generally agree but also consider what the Lord said in these places:

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
(Matthew 4:4)

"He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live."
(Proverbs 4:4)

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
(Matthew 5:18)

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

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
(John 5:39)

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
(John 6:63)

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
(John 12:48)

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."
(Book of Revelation 1:3)

"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"
(Proverbs 22:20-21)

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
(John 17:17)

>>23356974
The fact it has a composite basis in by no means controversial or has anything to do with appreciation for the version or not. I'm also simply not going to do your homework when it's an internet search away.
I also never implied it was a bad thing (quite the contrary in fact, I would prefer compositemaxxing).

>>23353659
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the sole path to salvation and the DR is the Catholic Bible

I like the KJV because the language is more Biblical.
As you were
LG x

Just die. You don't belong here.

>>23357102
nigga who you talking to

>>23357025
Again, there is not a single real example.

Is there a version of the KJV with annotations documenting where and why specific localizations were used? I want to read the KJV as it's considered the de facto translation in terms of aesthetics (and is used by all great poets and musicians), but I'm also interested in reading it from a historical perspective and don't want to lose the nuances of the original language with terms like Gehenna/Sheol all being translated to hell. I like the LSV because it uses the Tetragrammaton but it's too mechanical otherwise. Ideally what I want is a KJV with literal translations for proper nouns.

>>23357252
Don't read the KJV, simple as.

>>23354578
is there a good website to view side-by-side bible translations? I've seen one for the Dao de Jing where it had 4 or 5 next to each other in columns for referencing.

>>23357252
Ok so, for the person who really wants to get into the weeds, it's best just to use the KJV with a Greek interlinear. Either printed or more likely using a digital tool like Blue Letter Bible. They let you view the KJV text and break down the words according to the Greek source text (based on Stephanus 1550 edition of the Received text). This would be a good way to compare if you want to learn more about how English interacts with Greek (and Hebrew).

>>23357406
I've found this website Anon, I hope this answers your question. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1.htm

Use KJV for beautiful English version
Use Greek for studying it
Simple as

>>23357406
Biblegateway is good for it.