/lit/ - Literature

The God Delusion.

>>6039543

Whoever told you King James is a troll.

Try Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reily

>>6039551
excellent opinion good xir!

*tips fedora*

>>6039551

There really isn't a single best Bible, most have strengths and weaknesses. The NIV is terrible, and the KJV is archaic.

Outside of the Bible there really aren't any good books of Jesus as a historical figure since the non-biblical references to Jesus in historians works are extremely sparse and anything written later is almost certainly ideologically driven.

>Anno Domini 2015
>translating the holy.bible

Foul heritic, I pray you burn at the stake

>>6039543
The Last Temptation was actually really good in describing the possibility of the physical and psychological pain Jesus might have felt due to being the son of God and all that it implied. I haven't read the The Gospel According to Jesus but Saramago is a pretty good writer, Cain, not included because that actually sucked, but he's still written my most favorite book in the world, All the Names.

General question: Where could one find the apocryphal accounts of Jesus as a kid?

>>6039613
I'm not familiar with any book in particular, though from some people that Jesus traveled the world as a kid, even as far as India and Tibet where he learned from Buddhist monks .

>>6039634
Anne Rice posits that he spent his time in Alexandria studying under Philo where he performed miracles like bringing a bird back to life.

>>6039569
That's because he didn't exist.

>>6039692
You do know that nearly all historians agree that Jesus existed?

This is what you want, OP.

>>6039600
why kazantzakis is the best fucking thing that came out of greece since buttfucking?

>>6039543
Are you looking for a translations thats closer word to word or word to thought?

>>6039695

You do know that they have no contemporary sources to base that on?

>>6039695
no they do not lol

>>6039551
i commend this fine gent, and offer an opinion in accordance!

>>6039915
Yes they do you retard
Of course now you'll respond it is Christian propaganda because you can't accept facts that go against yoir prejudices

>>6039915
Actually they do. A very small percentage of historians of antiquity doubt that at least a central figure of Jesus of Nazareth existed. Probably less than 2 percent of scholars dealing with ancient Palestine and the Roman Empire and history of the Jews believe he was a myth. Just because you watch Zeitgeist and frequent atheist forums does not mean legitimate scholars believe your revisionist and fedora tipping narrative.

How Jesus Became God? by Bart D. Ehrman
Evolution of the Word by Marcus J. Borg

>>6039883
By this criteria every ancient figure cannot be shown to have existed. People we would take for granted like socrates or a shit load of the pre socratics.

>>6041629
Socrates is a bigger mystery than Jesus since portrayals of him are completely opposed

>>6039543
Best translation is the NRSV, put together by a committee of legit biblical scholars.

Best intro to historical Jesus research is Maurice Casey's "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching".

Casey was a British biblical scholar at a secular university and the book covers various debates about contemporary research on the topic.

No one on /lit/ should struggle with the KJV 1611 after a day of trying.

Christogenea NT might be a good bet

>>6041541
>less than 2 percent of scholars

source? just curious about how you made that estimate

>>6043039
there are 100 scholars and 2 of them dont believe jesus existed

>>6039613
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it's pretty awful.

>>6039883
but what we do have is still more than enough evidence to say it was more likely than not

>>6039569
>archaic

English has degenerated since the KJV was written, therefore the KJV is even more perfect than current translations.

I've been reading the KJV for a few months and it isn't difficult to just look up a word every now and then in the dictionary.

You're going to be looking up words in any translation anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVufl8Oy-PQ

>he hasn't read it in the Greek
I know it might not be the most faithful translation, but nothing comes close to KJV in terms of beauty of language and historical significance. Reading other translations just comes across as odd to me

>>6043263
There are other issues with the KJV than simply being written in a way that is difficult to access by modern standards. Its liberal use of the word "abomination" is one of my biggest issues with it. It certainly isn't as bad as the NIV(the only version that I consider to not be worth the paper it's written on) but the translators took liberty making it more legalistic than other versions of the Bible. Then there's the fact that most people who claim it as the best never really read the Bible at all.

Best is pic related

>>6043125
Went to wikipedia on this and

>Breathes life into birds fashioned from clay, curses a boy, who then becomes a corpse, curses a boy who falls dead and his parents become blind

What the fuck, Jesus?

>>6043287
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIOUN6GJlJI

lolololol christianity

>>6043410

Wow the fedoras sure are getting mad on this board.

>>6043337
>There are other issues with the KJV than simply being written in a way that is difficult to access by modern standards.

The "it's too hard these days" argument just doesn't appeal to me at all. The bible is supposedly a communication from the infallible creator and yet people are saying he made his communication too hard.

>Then there's the fact that most people who claim it as the best never really read the Bible at all.

That would apply to most people claiming to be Christians, a small minority of whom still keep the KJV.

Saying one needs to read two or more bibles cover-to-cover and then compare and contrast to see which is better also seems ridiculous.

Young's Literal Translation

>>6043425
It's not simply "it's too hard" but that the language has shifted to a point where words and phrases have different meanings then they did at the time the KJV was translated. Though the larger issue is that the KJV simplified the translations and reduced a number of different words in the greek, hebrew, and latin to a single word in English. It's not a bad translation, but modern translations do a better job expressing some of the nuance found in the original languages. It's not a bad translation, just not the best out there.

>>6039543
KJV

>>6039543
>American standard, King James, and the new international version

Those are some of the the worse versions out there.

>>6039543
Best: NABRE, NJB, NRSV-CE, RSV-2CE, DR

Worst: NWT

>>6043776
>NWT

Come on, man. We considering that a translation now? NWT is not something you accidentally pick up when looking for a bible.

The best translation in my opinion is Richmond Lattimore's. He's done some of the most famous and popular translations of Homer, and he went back to the oldest known manuscripts to translate the New Testament. Interestingly, he omits the verse numbers so it reads more like a typical book. Highly recommend to anyone who wants to read a secular translation.

>>6043781
OP may not know any better and get suckered with their propaganda.

>>6043396

Don't bully Jesus.

>>6039613

The (Infancy) Gospel of James is the only one worth reading.

>>6039543
>am I kawaii Peter-kun?

>>6043315
DR>KJ

according to wiki oscar wilde asked for the bible in German, French and Italian while imprisoned. always seemed strange to me since he could read Greek & Latin, two more ancient scripts. anyway, just rambling.

How do any of you have the call to say which is the best translation? Of you don't speak Greek or Hebrew, then I'm guessing you're judging it by its language - so it has to be the KJ