/lit/ - Literature

>>3745868
KJV is the absolutely most influential and most beautifully written.

People will say the oxford study version. Meh.

>>3745873

Isn't the New International version the highest selling?

>>3745868
KJV if you're reading for literary value.
Young's Literal Translation if you're "for serious."
Of course, if you're using it for study purposes, just use the online sites and view side by side translation comparisons

NSRV is recommended for scholarly use. Which is essentially based on the KJV.

So if I get the KJV I am going to have to worry about it not being true to the originals?

The NASB is supposed to be one of the most literal translations. The KJV, of course, is a classic and not to shabby of a translation either, from what I hear. Avoid the NLT. The wording is at a third grade reading level which misses a lot of the meaning.

>>3745895
To an extent. But it doesn't matter, because the Western Canon of literature is largely built on the KJV. There's no other Bible worth reading as far as I'm concerned. Unless you're reading it literally.

>>3745895

define "originals"

the bible itself is based on scriptures based on local folk myths

>Getting it close to the original

Why do people think there is a fucking hidden message in the original? The bible has been rewritten so many fucking times and reiterated over and over by different cultures and different languages. There isn't an original. It's basically oral tradition put together.

KJV is by far the most influential. Use it.

>>3745911
There is plenty of merit in reading a translation which is based on the earliest known manuscripts and which reflects the latest scholarship, and moreover might be written to be clearer than the KJV. For example, the use of "dome" in the NRSV instead of "firmament" makes the beliefs being laid down more immediately clear to a contemporary reader, in my humble opinion. Granted, this all depends on what you're reading the Bible for. Someone reading it for its cultural significance may very well want to turn to KJV, whereas someone more interested in ancient religion might want to look elsewhere.

Unless you read Hebrew or Greek, the KJV is the only version you should be bothering with.

>>3745895
No.
KJV for literary interests,
multiversion side by sides for study purposes.
They're free online.

>>3745868
Learn German, go for Luther.

>>3745959

>muh conversations with Satan

Luther was literally batshit insane.

>>3745974
Not understanding that it was a philosophical argument

What the fuck is this board's obsession with KJV recently? What the hell is going on?

>>3746022
poms ayye

>>3746028
But I'm British, and I still don't understand what the hell is going on.

>>3746022
I have a feeling it is 2 or 3, maybe even just one, religious fag shitposting all over the board. It doesn't move fast enough that their shit can spread.

>>3746022
It's by the far the most influential version of the Bible in English. I don't understand what you're objecting to.

>>3746022
Oh, my post was deleted.

I said it was the poms.

>>3746042
What? Are you for real.

Why would you read the Bible?

NKJ is the most standard, but I've read a Gideon's before in a hotel and it was a lot easier to get into.

Also, you can request a free copy of the Gideon's from their website.

Also the New Baptist version is good.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha if you're at all interested in the history of the text or Judeo-Christian tradition.

KJV is nice, but the language can become dull after you read a thousand pages of it, so expect to take breaks, or notice that you've glossed over seven paragraphs without actually absorbing information. A lot of people don't realize that much of the Bible is simple folk tales, especially the Jewish Bible, and it's awkward as fuck to read those in language that - like it or not - even the most learned modern intellectual is going to instinctively associate with High And Mighty Pulpit Proselytizing. It dehumanizes clever and often intentionally comedic stories when your internal voice while reading them is a booming majestic one.

If you really really want "literary merit" or whatever, learn Koine. Check out the Basics of Biblical Greek series. You can be reading the NT pretty quickly.

>>3746191
Because, outside of it being a giant work of fiction written over several centuries, it is a thumping great work of violence. It also has a very beautiful verse to it, just like to Koran or Talmud.

It is important to read just a bit in order to enjoy and understand the works of those who wrote against it as well - like Spinoza or Nietzsche. If you are going to join in on an argument , philosophical discussion, or knowledge in general, it is important to actually read both sides in order to understand everything without ill-informed-bias.

>>3746262
B-but i'm euphoric!!!

>>3746198

the gideons do not have one bible they use

they usually just use KJV

its about time i read this bitch

>>3746198
Gideon's use other translations, they do not have their own. Usually NASB or NLT (dynamic translation) today.

OP, I know translations like no one else.
The most current literal translation is the NASB.

The NRSV and ESV are both revisions of the RSV which was a revision of ASV, which is a revision from the RV, which was a revision from the KJV.

NRSV and ESV are both essentially literal, they are both very good bibles, but the NRSV has some gender-inclusive language. The NKJV is a fine translation, but not as good as the NRSV or ESV imo.

The HCSB is a very readable Bible, and includes the use of the name Yahweh around 400 times (a feature I love). It is a completely new translation, not a revision.

The NIV is no longer best selling, the 2011 revision include gender-inclusive/neutral language that is not found in the Bible, many people disagree with this. (It was always a dynamic translation anyways)

So those are the basics. I'd recommend the ESV or NRSV. I like the fact the ESV has an official free digital download, it's also currently one of the most used Bibles.. If you'd like something a little more readable, but still very accurate, you could try the HCSB. I hope this helps.

>>3746505
You can also find an official free digital download of the HCSB on kobo/amazon etc.

Obviously the definitive version is the Message.

For literary use: King James Bible

For scholarly use: New Revised Standard Version

This is the only answer unless you are a Christian, in which case I would offer more advice but I don't suppose it's relevant to anyone here.

>>3746505
do you know ancient greek or classical hebrew?

King James Bible isn't even complete.

Get an Oxford annotated or a Catholic edition if you want to read the whole thing. Might want to supplement with an Orthodox one for a bit extra too, for example, Maccabees III is only considered canon in the orthodox church.

English Protestants edited out a lot of books of the original canon that went against the new tenets of sola fide and sola scriptura.

>>3748202
>I don't know what I'm talking about.

The KJV translators also translated the apocrypha and it was included in the original printed (in a separate section). Protestants also included the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible until quite recently due to concerns over space and cost. Editions of the KJV can be easily acquired which contain the Apocrypha, such as the edition from Oxford World Classics.

>>3748211
original printing*

>>3748202
Also your idea that the removal of books from the canon was committed by English Protestants is laughably ignorant. Go read a history book.

>>3748202
>Implying the Catholic Church dogmatically outlined the Old Testament canon prior to the Council of Trent in 1545, as a response to the Reformation
>Implying the Orthodox Church has a dogmatically outlined Old Testament canon at all, and that different Orthodox sees all use the same canon

>>3748211
There are many editions to be found nowadays that don't have the apocrypha. I'm not discussing historically, I'm saying that if he goes and gets it now, he won't find a complete version most likely.

>>3748215
>implying I'm wrong

>>3748239
>There are many editions to be found nowadays that don't have the apocrypha. I'm not discussing historically, I'm saying that if he goes and gets it now, he won't find a complete version most likely.

And yet I pointed out an easily purchased edition that does have it.

>>3748239
>>implying I'm wrong

You most certainly are, as you are seemingly completely ignorant of the continental Reformation.

>>3748234
>the Catholic Church dogmatically outlined the Old Testament canon prior to the Council of Trent in 1545, as a response to the Reformation

Again, I'm not discussing history here, fact is if he goes and gets a catholic bible right now it'll have higher chances to be complete than a protestant KJV.

>the Orthodox Church has a dogmatically outlined Old Testament canon at all, and that different Orthodox sees all use the same canon

Well you got me there, but I wasn't going for extreme accuracy. Most orthodox denominations include more books than catholics.

>>3748248
>Again, I'm not discussing history here, fact is if he goes and gets a catholic bible right now it'll have higher chances to be complete than a protestant KJV.

History is relevant, because you have said that they "edited" the canon. But there was no defined Catholic canon to "edit" until after the Reformation started.

>>3748246
>And yet I pointed out an easily purchased edition that does have it.

I couldn't easily find it in America.

>You most certainly are, as you are seemingly completely ignorant of the continental Reformation.

I never claimed that, I wasn't arguing about the cause the english protestants decided to remove the books from the canons or if it had been produced by a previous reform, but it is them that produced the KJV, as it was englishmen that translated it.

KJV is the only one we give a shit about. It's the most well written, and the most influential to western society. Why wouldn't we prefer it?

The problem is a troll or religious prick has been flooding /lit lately with talk about the bible as if /lit should bend the board around any one book.

If they keep asking the same question, then despite a few variations, they're going to get the same answer.

"Which bible should I read?"
"Should I read the bible?"
"Hey, I see a thread about necessary books, I'm going to post the bible"
"The Bible..."
" in the bible..."
:"If you're reading the bible..."

Etc Etc. ad Nauseum

And the answer is still going to be the same.
Yes, we acknowledge its literary value, Yes, you should be familiar with it, Yes, the KJV is the one you should read.

There's really not that much more we can say about it.

>>3748338
Gah! There is no fucking troll flooding this board about the bible. The bible is one of the most important works in order to understand western civilization. Why shouldn't there be threads about the bible? Everything since is either a defense or a response to it. This board is more paranoid by the day. :(

>>3748369
We cannot derail all of /lit by devoting it to any one book.

One thread at a time is enough for any one book, and even newfags should see the prevalence of Bible posts lately.

Something is up,
Not enough for us to start overreacting to it.
but more than enough to not be "paranoia"

If biblefans can't keep it in their pants long enough to discuss literature than they should take it to /pol/ or /x/

>>3748401
The problem is that treating the bible like a respected, complex historical work with innate literary value, is an insult to some people.
Trust me, I remember from when I was a part of the religion.
/Lit can esteem it all they like but that's not enough, because treating it like you'd treat the complete works of Shakespeare, or the Illiad is a step down for Christians.
It's the same for Muslim's and the Quran. Calling it a "classic" or "essential", isn't enough.
Anything less then special treatment is a denigration.
Trust me, it's how they think.
You can think that it's A good book, but if you don't think it's THE good book, you'll get a ">>>/reddit You r/athiest" so fast it will make your head spin.

The King James Version is based on the Latin Vulgate, and so has incorporated several translation and interpretation errors. Look for those that have been translated from the original Hebrew (for OT) and from the Original Greek and Aramaic for the NT. An annotated NRSV (New Revised Standard Edition) is one of the better ones.

>>3748430
>, because treating it like you'd treat the complete works of Shakespeare, or the Illiad is a step down for Christians.
>It's the same for Muslim's and the Quran. Calling it a "classic" or "essential", isn't enough.
>Anything less then special treatment is a denigration.
>Trust me, it's how they think.
No, that's not because of "how they think". It's because you're a fucking moron who doesn't realize that the Bible is not a "book", it's a collection of 80-odd books. What's insulting isn't that you're not giving "special treatment" to the Bible, what's insulting is that a moron like you, who can't even tell which books of the Bible are fiction and which are non-fiction, acts like he's some sort of enlightened expert on religion.

>>3750244
>The King James Version is based on the Latin Vulgate

No it is not. A small number of readings from the New Testament were derived from the Vulgate, but the New Testament was otherwise translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek critical text of the time. The Old Testament of the King James was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text with some Septuagint readings. Saying that it is "based on the Latin Vulgate" is utterly wrong. Why is it that you retards who have no clue what you are talking about are so sure in spewing your insipid, stupid "advice" everywhere? Go fuck yourself, moron.

The KJV NT opens thus you absolute moron:
"Translated out of the original Greek and with the former translation diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's special command".
How about you try reading it before spewing you deeply misinformed yet inexplicably cocksure bullshit.

>>3750450
For >>3750244

>>3750259
Dude, when did I pass myself off as an authority on religion, I'm just an ex-christian who's read the entire bible cover to cover.

Posting a butthurt response like that, and trying to pretend like you're not butthurt is where you fail.

"How dare you say we want preferential treatment! How dare you say we attack anyone who doesn't agree with us! How dare you say we're not peaceful! You're a moron for disrespecting this book!!"

Not helping your cause.

my dad translated his own copy and it is best lol

>>3750441
>>3750450
then you probs have a "new" kjv, the original used the vulgate

>>3750686
Fuck off troll.

Anything but the King James version. It's the most poorly translated English version of the Bible. Absolutely terrible. Mostly because it was translated from a terrible Latin translation.

Labeling your belief system is like labeling your sexual preferences: it's starting to seem less intellectual and more "edgy".

>>3750777
you sound straight and stupid.

>>3750779
>sound straight and stupid
wut

>>3750767
See >>3750692

>>3750798
Brush up on some Bible theory, kid. I'll even make it easy for you:

>The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts we now have available to us.

The reason the King James Version differs so widely from other English texts is because
>[it was] translated by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their edition on a faulty Greek text.

So you may think that the King James Version is the prettiest because it uses Elizabethan English, but it's actually the worst because of the texts it translated from.

Hurr fuck off U troll no 1 points out tings i dunt no!

>>3750779
I consider myself straight, but I sometimes watch gay porn. I've had gay experiences that I've enjoyed but I've enjoyed sex with women a lot more. To this day I don't desire more gay experiences, I'm sticking with females tho traps sometimes make me feel curious.
I can't label myself because I've been straight, gay, bisexual etc. As a human being I change constantly and therefore a label is a limit, a boundary.

I feel something similar happens with religion. Sometimes one believes in something, sometimes one doubts and changes.

>>3750828
Hahaha, that liberal guilt. I'm screen-capping this shit.

>>3750812
You clearly do not know anything about the Textus Receptus if you think that 1. it was based upon a single Greek manuscript (it wasn't), 2. that it was not revised many times over the years by people other than Erasmus (it was, primarily by Theodore Beza and Stephanus), and 3. that the KJV translators used one of the early Erasmus editions (they didn't). Again, fuck off troll.

>>3750839
we're all very happy for you anon

>>3750839
I googled "liberal guilt" and I found an "ae" entry about how white, straight men or "cisgenders" feel guilty for being what they are. I don't think this is related to what I wrote.
Also, I don't feel guilty for being what I am. I feel good with myself and I act normally with different people.
I'm not American, I don't have those social diseases.

>>3750850
Also, if you'll notice, I never commented on the quality of the KJV or the texts from which it was translated. What I have done, is correct the nonsense misinformation that idiots like you >>3750812 and >>3750244 have decided to pollute this thread with.

>>3750885
There's only one idiot in this thread spreading misinformation, and that's you.

The numerous errors of the KJV are subject of continuous debate by scholars to this day. I don't know why you bother defending that shit.

>>3750935
No, I'm afraid the person that has presented factually incorrect information is the idiot, and that is you. See >>3750850. I am not discussing the accuracy of the KJV, but your idiotic remarks regarding its history. You are utterly wrong. Please research the issue further and stop spewing incorrect information about things you know nothing about.

>>3750954
Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, page 209

There's my research regarding the history of the KJV. Where's yours? Wikipedia?

>>3750963
Please quote the section where Bart Ehrman says that the Textus Receptus was compiled from only one (1) Greek Manuscript. Erasmus used six and later editors utilized more, e.g. Stephanus used 15.

>tfw the bible isn't even decent literature, the writing is horrible, it's full of plot holes and it has barely any narrative

God created the universe but he can't even put together a good book. There is airport fantasy that is leagues better than this shit.

I'd say New World Translation, that's supposed to be the most accurate. A lot of biblical scholars and such have agreed, plus some guy who's studied all versions his life, his name escapes me though.

King James is alright for literary use I guess, but New World is generally accepted to be the most accurate these days.

>>3750828
you can change a label you idiot.

>>3750975
We already went over this, reddit. Just stop trying.

>>3750975
>The Bible
>a book
Just leave this fucking board

>>3750978
Either sneaky Jehovah's Witness or troll. Either way fuck off.

>>3750885
Your vehemence would indicate you're one of those who think it's the only true translation, otherwise why be suck a dick?

I'm scared to read the Bible, due to it being introduced to me in my childhood.

If I don't read it before I die, I'm afraid my soul will fall into smithereens instead of being whole and lifting up to Heaven to sit eternally in the light with Jesus Christ.

>>3751328
Not likely.

If are a Christian and believe the things laid out in the Apostle's Creed, you're good. You're more informed if you read the Bible, but it's not crucial to salvation.

>>3751350
Wats "Apostle Creed"?

>>3751375

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

>>3751389
I'm a fan of Cliff's notes.

>>3745868
ESV

>>3750978
It's a hell of a lot more accurate than modern Dynamic Translations. Are people scared because the greek word "stauros" can be translated as "torture stake" or, literally an upright piece of wood? Why don't you just read some of the translation yourself, it's similar to many literal bibles. Oh, and it uses "Gehenna" instead of the word hell, because that's what the original scripts wrote.

>>3751446
but you don't need me to tell you that, it's all in the footnotes of nearly every bible.

>>3745873
I would a void the KJV because apostasy

>>3745908
has never read the bible

>>3751311
>If you correct idiots who say wrong things then you are obviously a religious zealot

0/10

>>3745868

It is my sincere belief that any and all versions of the Bible are identical, oincluding the Koran and Torah (having preached with all of them).

All of them testify about the birth of "Mighty God" as a son in the future through Isaiah, for example.

All of them testify a New Covenant will be made.

The only differences are really nitpicking. For example, Jesus says that during the time of judgement many Christians will come to him and say "lord lord we preached in your name!" that basically they believed in Christ. But then Christ rebukes those people and calls them "Evil". Which is good to let us know that just believing in Jesus and calling his name isn't enough.

I think its the KJV, where the word Evil is more accurately translated to "Lawless Ones" through the original intentions of the Hebrew.

So we can see that the reason they are called "Evil" is because there are laws that "believers" are not observing.

But its such a small distinction, the main point comes across even without the corrected translation.

I recommend the NIV for ease of use.

>>3751722
As some Christians are fond of saying, "The best version of the Bible is the one that you will actually read."

>>3751722
As long as you don't mind gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language, the NIV is Ok. However, currently the HCSB is better in pretty much every way.

The NRSV is used as a reference for modern translation, but the same problems are present in virtually all.

1. The removal of the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns (sg. thou thee thy thine; pl. ye you your yours) has obfuscated some verses. Example, Luke 22:31.

>KJV And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

>NRSV "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,

Christ is speaking to Peter, but telling him that Satan demands to sift all of the Apostles (you is second person plural). In modern translation this distinction is lost.

>>3751856
It may be lost in general, but you certainly picked a bad example here - because isn't "all of you" performing precisely the function that you want? IE, it's telling you it's second person plural.

2. Application of modern systems of quotations removes ambiguity in the original text and forces translators to make questionable theological choices for the reader. Example, Acts 19:4-6

>KJV 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

>NRSV 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied—

In the Greek text there are no quotation marks as there are in English and the beginning and end of speech must be determined by textual markers, e.g. 'Paul said.' In the example there is ambiguity as to whether Paul is saying that John baptized with the baptism of Jesus, or whether Paul's speech ends (as the NRSV decides) and thus John's and Jesus's baptisms are separate baptisms. If anything, the Greek leans toward them being the same (as the only clear textual marker that Paul's speech is over is at "And when Paul laid his hands upon them" in verse 6), but modern translators have removed this ambiguity and made the problematic decision that they are not.

3. Modern translations include questionable theogical biases due to translation choices, Example, Gen. 4:7

>KJV If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

>NRSV If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’

In KJV the pronounds uses are "he" and "him." These refer to Abel, in a reference to Gen. 3:16 (and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.), and say that Abel desire Cain by virtue of his primogeniture. In modern translations the pronouns are "its" and "it" and thus refer to sin, and state that man has the ability to master his sin. This is of course very problematic.

>>3751864
In modern English there is no distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns. "You" can be either singular or plural. The modern translation loses the distinction that was present in the King James and the original Greek.

>>3751871
Also a normal reading of the modern English rendering of the verse would lead one to believe that it is referring only to Peter as there is no other indication in the text that it is not only referring to Peter. Some translations include a footnote that the pronoun is plural, but this does not solve the problem causes by the simplification of language.

>>3751871
Yes. I acknowledge that modern English doesn't preserve that distinction. And that's why they didn't translate it as you, they translated it as "all of you" which preserves the distinction - it's less elegant, because we don't have different words for second person singular and plural so they have to use a slightly more lengthy phrase, but it preserves the distinction in meaning perfectly well.

>NRSV "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,"

Do you seriously not see the work that "all of you" is doing there?

>>3751897
Oh, I see what you mean. The NRSV does a better job there. Other modern English renderings, though:

ESV “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

NASB “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;

RSV “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

NKJV And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.

HCSB “Simon, Simon, look out! Satan has asked to sift you like wheat.

The NKJV does not even include a footnote regarding plurality. This is also not the only verse that has this problem, though it is probably the one which suffers most from it.

>>3751889
Who the fuck is going to read "all of you" as referring to Peter? A natural English reading of the text would assume that "all of you" was referring to some group in which Peter was included, not to Peter himself, because that's how English usually fucking works. That's the indication in the fucking text. The words, right there, that they printed in the fucking translation.

Shit.

>>3751915
Sorry I submitted this post before I saw your other reply. And probably swore too much.

Yeah like I said originally, it's something that is a problem generally, just a bad example you chose.

>>3751889
A clarification of why footnotes do not solve the problem: one of the functions of Scripture is to be read aloud to others, generally the congregation, and not always in the context of a sermon in which matters such as this may be explained. An improper translation here creates misunderstanding or renders certain sections unsuitable for public reading due to this.

>>3751931
Yeah I think my knowledge of other translations caused me to gloss over the NRSV's rendering a bit. Anyway, I think the other points, 2 and 3, are legitimate as well.

>>3745868

>being a pantheist and not atheist

stay pleb op

If you're going to be a biblical scholar, you should start with the Brick Testament.

Which is the most loyally translated.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/revelation/index.html

>>3751948
>being a pantheist or, worse, atheist when you could be panentheist

It's like you don't even care how pleb you are.

>>3751956
>internet atheists actually believe this

>>3751972
> Doesn't understand sarcasm

>>3751948
Pantheists and Atheists are negligibly different. Non-supernatural definitions of God, or the worship of nature, is no different from a secular respect for the universe. I've felt the joys of both.

holy bible?What a pleb.

>>3752010
It really shouldn't be called "holy" by people viewing it solely as a piece of literature, which is what it is.

>>3752011
>which is what it is.

Nope.

>>3752011
Why not? If it's called "The Holy Bible," why not call it as such?

>You shouldn't call Les Miserables that because books cannot be miserable.

>>3751989
>secular
>respect for the universe
Whoa, talk about irrational.

it doesn't matter OP. any version you get in English today has probably been translated dozens of times anyways

>>3752032
>Nope
why?

>>3752011
Which is why I call Jesus Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ, because Christ is the Anglicisation of Kristos, meaning messiah
>Themoreyouknow.jpeg