/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10334930]

Whats the best version of the Bible to read?

[Anonymous No.10334931]

>>10334930
I swear half of these basic beginners question threads are just some elaborate form of meta shitposting. Do some fucking research, cunt.

[Anonymous No.10334932]

>>10334931

you are my research

[Anonymous No.10334935]

>>10334932
In that case:

KJV if you're interested in the Bible as a literary work

RSV if you're interested in the Bible for its actual content

[Anonymous No.10334952]

>>10334935

thanks babe, think I'll go with RSV

[Anonymous No.10334963]

>ITT we discuss the Bible as if it was real

[Anonymous No.10334975]

>>10334930
King James Bible -- the Perfect Word of God in the English language (some say it's superior to the originals)

Orthodox Study Bible -- Septuagint OT, good for study, Orthodox

Douay-Rheims -- The Perfect Catholic Word of God in the Catholic English Language (some say death is preferable to the NAB)

[Anonymous No.10334991]

The Gospel of Mark up until 16:8. And the letter from Jacobus

Everything else is garbage

[Anonymous No.10335008]

>>10334991
t.brainlet. Really all you need is the Book of Ruth, OP. The rest is GARBAGE ON FIRE.

[Anonymous No.10335537]

Shit, I was going to use the same photo for my Bible thread...

I've become intrigued by some Biblical stories shared with me by a friend but I'm quite happy with my agnosticism. Will reading the Bible turn me into a religeous nut?

[Anonymous No.10335541]

>>10335537
Only if you want it too.

[Anonymous No.10335562]

>>10334930
I think Asimov did a version.

[Anonymous No.10335567]

NKJV or KJV?

[Anonymous No.10335586]

>>10334952
>RSV
hmm, is ESV not in the tradition of RSV, but not as americanised and/or anglicised and devoid of the political correctness?

[Anonymous No.10335589]

>>10335586
shite, meant to reply to >>10334935

[Anonymous No.10335597]

>>10335567
KJ21

[Anonymous No.10335606]

>>10335537
You're already a nut, you'll just be religious

[Anonymous No.10335607]

>>10335586
The ESV uses gender-inclusive language.

>>10334935
RSV-2CE > RSV

[Anonymous No.10335614]

>>10335607
Oh, okay, I thought the gender-inclusive one was NRSV and ESV merely followed the tradition of RSV, but brought it even closer to standard modern English.

[Anonymous No.10335627]

>>10334930
KJV if you're looking for the word of God. If you want to see corruption thats helped bring the church to it's modern state you can check the other versions

[Anonymous No.10335639]

>>10335614
The ESV is more conservative with its use of gender inclusive language than the NRSV but its still pretty pervasive.

[Anonymous No.10335651]

>>10335639
Okay, thanks for the input. I'll put in the effort and go with KJV. Might as well go for the one that is universally accepted as the least corrupted and break a sweat going through it. Shortcuts always sound appealing though.

[Anonymous No.10335710]

>>10335627
This.

[Anonymous No.10335718]

>don't go with XYZ because muh satans corrupted it
Most modern translations are just fine. The ESV doesn't use gender-neutral language, that anon obviously hasn't even read it. The RSV is much more accurate than the KJV. >>10335639 you need to stop believing random anons' concpiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.10335735]

>>10335718
>The ESV doesn't use gender-neutral language
But It literally does, and they don't pretend otherwise. They constantly change "brother", "man" and such to "person", "people" and "every one" throughout.

[Anonymous No.10335781]

>>10335718
>>10335735
http://www.av1611.org/vance/nrsv_esv.html

decent synthesis of the changes each version underwent.

[Anonymous No.10335829]

>>10335781
>www.av1611.org
Fucking lol, are you going to cite Answers In Genesis as well? It provides literally no examples of gender neutral language, how about a single verse citation? It cites "corrupt" passages that have nothing to do with gender-neutral language, in fact those passages more closely follow the earliest manuscripts, which are the best unless you believe retarded conspiracy theories about God writing the received text and Satan writing everything else.

Please learn about the history of the Bible's transition. James White does good talks on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKlNc-oK_xA

[Anonymous No.10335843]

What about the New Jerusalem Bible ?

[Anonymous No.10335844]

>>10335829
>KJB: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God
>ESV: For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God
>KJB: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self
>ESV: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself

Would you like me to continue?

[Anonymous No.10335855]

>>10335829
Not sure who you think you're talking to, but calm your tits young anon. I was the one who claimed ESV is closer to the tradition of KJV and it's NRJV that is guilty of de-sexing.

Direct quote from that link:

>There are a number of ways in which the NRSV "desexed" the Bible. The chief technique was to use the plural instead of the singular, but other conventions included using generic terms, using indefinite pronouns, altering third person constructions to first or second person, and replacing active verbs with passive ones.

So instead of God creating man, he creates "humankind" (Gen. 5:1). Carried to its logical consistency, this gives us: "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human" (1 Tim. 2:5). In an effort to get rid of the word brethren, the NRSV many times adds the phrase "and sisters" without any support from the Greek text it professes to follow (e.g., Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 5:13; 1 Thes. 2:1; 1 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 2:11). But getting rid of the word brethren also introduced a strange irony. The RSV was criticized as Communist Bible because it was produced by the National Council of Churches. Yet, it was not until the publication of the NRSV that the word "comrades" was introduced (Rev. 12:10, 19:10, 22:9)—a word with definite communistic overtones.

Because of the controversy surrounding the use of gender-inclusive language in Bible translations, another revision of the RSV was published in 2001—one that would correct its inaccuracies, update some of its archaic language, and make it more literal. There was a problem, however, since the designation NRSV was already taken, another name had to be chosen. The name decided on was The English Standard Version (ESV). So now we have in the marketplace two rival revisions of the RSV—the NRSV and the ESV—both claiming to be legitimate successors.

So yes, it 'literally provides examples of gender neutral language' for the NRSV.

[Anonymous No.10335905]

>>10335843
It's good, a bit loose with the original language but that makes it very easy to read. And it's an official Catholic translation if that's what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.10335911]

>>10335855
>Yet, it was not until the publication of the NRSV that the word "comrades" was introduced - a word with definite communistic overtones.
This is schizophrenic levels of paranoia

[Anonymous No.10335916]

>>10335829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerj-xh8x3M

[Anonymous No.10335939]

>In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”. According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”

[Anonymous No.10335949]

get an NASB study bible

[Anonymous No.10335986]

>>10335562
His guide is commentary; it's not a version of the text.

[Anonymous No.10335991]

>>10335916
to be fair, Anderson gets destroyed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mWM4TSh8

[Anonymous No.10336039]

>>10334931
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10336152]

>>10335991
Keep watching White gets peeved and storms out

[Anonymous No.10336401]

>>10335911
>just ignore it goyim
Fuck off Mordecai

[Anonymous No.10336581]

>>10336152
God, evangelicalism can really take a turn for the worse. Frightening to see people like Anderson have so much influence.

[Anonymous No.10336609]

>>10336581
I like him desu. He's no more wrong than most prots, and for the stuff he's right on he's a good communicator, given his familiarity with scripture. What I appreciate most about him is his hard stance on certain sins that have become accepted by most prots.

[Anonymous No.10336612]

>>10336581
Anderson isn't really evangelical though and certainly doesn't have any influence over many people.

[Anonymous No.10336616]

Read the ancient Greek texts for the actual parts that talk about Jesus.

Read the original texts, they are superior to all the "translations"

Ancient Greek is not a very hard language and it's mostly simple in the gospels and acts etc.

[Anonymous No.10336619]

>>10334930
The Good News Edition

Official Quaker Bible for Official Quakers.

[Anonymous No.10336732]

>>10336152
Literally when? Anderson just keeps retreating to "muh feels" and has no argument.

>I don't know anything about the original texts or translations but this is the best English translation for sure

[Anonymous No.10336744]

BHS and NA of course

[Anonymous No.10336797]

>>10336732
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bauywqnWEp0

right at the end.

>Anderson just keeps retreating to "muh feels" and has no argument.

He does much worse than that unfortunately. Which is why White storms out.

[Anonymous No.10336803]

>>10334930
Stay away from the gay heretical kjv.

[Anonymous No.10336862]

>>10336797
Damn, Stevie is a retard.

>The original greek says X but the KJV says Y so I believe the KJV

[Anonymous No.10336902]

>>10336862
>and therefore condemn the ESV for saying Z

[Anonymous No.10336946]

>>10335627
Kek

[Anonymous No.10336960]

>>10335844
These are pretty harsh examples. Do you have others this black and white?

[Anonymous No.10336997]

>ITT Calvinists whine about Independent Fundamental King James Only Baptists

[Anonymous No.10337011]

is the bible being heavily influenced by greek philosophy/greek myths a meme?

[Anonymous No.10337056]

>>10336997
meh, as weird as it may sound, Catholics too

[Anonymous No.10337107]

>>10334975
KJV is better 'literature' than the Greek New Testament (the original is kinda ho-hum), Saint Augustine among others was always slightly disbelieving abouts its banality thoguht it intentional as the message therein was so profoundly true itd been interntionally rendered so prosaically. The original hebrew bible is so alien and distant its largely untranslatable, a lot of modern scholars are now pretty much admitting they have no clue what large parts of it mean

[Anonymous No.10337150]

>>10335911
why don't you just say 'communist'? I notice a lot of looney right wingers love adding 'ist' and 'ic' to words that don't need it. Whats that all about?

[Anonymous No.10337155]

>>10336616
Are you claiming to be a scholar of both ancient hebrew and biblical greek? for some reason Im skeptical 4chan

[Anonymous No.10337243]

>>10336744
?

[Anonymous No.10337255]

>>10334930
KJV for aesthetic value.
NASB or ESV for accuracy while still retaining some literary qualities.
Alter for OT and Lattimore for NT for accurate modern renditions. (The Alter is partial but he's finishing it next year, supposedly.)
The Anchor Bible for nondenominational scholarship.

[Anonymous No.10337606]

>>10337243
>>10336744

the originals

[Anonymous No.10337655]

Lattimore's New Testament is GOD TIER

[Anonymous No.10337677]

>>10334930
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.10338246]

[Anonymous No.10338258]

>>10334930
תנ"ך

[Anonymous No.10338307]

>>10335537
The opposite, nobody but a religious nut could read the whole Bible and not be turned away from Christianity.

[Anonymous No.10338325]

>>10338246
oh shit I never knew Lattimore translated the new testament, I love his Homer I'ma check that shit out

[Anonymous No.10338870]

>>10336803

Dude must have had a mean succ.

[Anonymous No.10338959]

>>10334930
The RSV-2CE is the only readable bible available. It is Catholic, it is based on the KJV, and it doesn’t use (((gender inclusive))) language. Get the Ignatius editions. They have a New Testament study bible with exhaustive, near line by line notes that are based on Holy Traditon and not tainted with heretical modern scholarship , and they also have one for the whole bible but its notes aren’t quite as detailed.

[Anonymous No.10338963]

>>10337011
Haven't heard that before, but it was definitely influenced by other middle eastern myths like Gilgamesh.

[Anonymous No.10338997]

>>10338959
>only readable bible
>Catholic
>not the Douay-Rheims

[Anonymous No.10339113]

>>10338997
Can someone give me a rundown on RSV-2CE vs Douay-Rheims? I already have a KJV and a KJV study bible, but I want a catholic bible.

[Anonymous No.10339153]

>>10339113
The Catholic RSV is to the Douay-Rheims what the ESV is to the King James, basically. That's not a perfect comparison, because the RSVCE and Douay-Rheims are both Catholic, whereas the ESV takes a bit more of a Calvinist bent compared to the King James.

The Douay-Rheims is more traditional, and there are some English speaking Catholics who insist on it almost as fanatically as King James only Baptists. The RSV-2CE notably removes the use of "thee" and "thou". This is something I can't stand. Thou, thee, thy, thine, ye, you, and your all have different meanings. "Thee" has two meanings depending on context. When you translate them all as "you" or "your", the quality of the translation drops immensely (given the frequency at which they're needed and the importance of their differentiation in the scriptures).

I could rant about that all day. I say this as an Orthodox Christian: one of the absolute best Bibles you can get is a Haydock Bible. It's a Douay-Rheims annotated by a dedicated Catholic priest.

[Anonymous No.10339174]

>>10339153
Thanks my dude. They seem expensive but salvation is priceless.

[Anonymous No.10339201]

Literalness is probably better than interpretiveness which is more the job of commentaries or exegesis.

[Anonymous No.10339203]

What bible is the most faithful to the greek?

[Anonymous No.10339215]

>>10339153
Using the archaic 2nd person singular when referring to God only is also a pretty stupid practice since no such thing is done in the original languages.

[Anonymous No.10339229]

>>10339174
You can get a regular Douay-Rheims for cheap and get Fr Haydock's commentary free online.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com

Hard to beat a good physical copy, though. A cheaper alternative is the Orthodox Study Bible. It's a different translation--OT is a translation of the Septuagint using NKJV language where applicable, and the NT is all NKJV (with some alterations). It has good footnotes and articles explaining what the Church teaches. The Haydock's notes have more depth, but the OSB has a better OT translation. I would recommend the OSB first to someone who's either new to the faith, or who is beginning to get more interested in their faith, because its articles and notes give a clear picture of Christian (Orthodox) theology.

[Anonymous No.10339248]

>>10339203
>What bible is the most faithful to the greek?
The Orthodox Study Bible, as its Old Testament is translated from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts produced a few hundred years before Christ. The oldest complete manuscripts we have of Old Testament books are from the Septuagint. (The oldest complete Hebrew manuscripts date to centuries after the oldest from the Septuagint.) If you don't have the Septuagint, you're cutting yourself off from the oldest (and Greek) scriptural tradition.

[Anonymous No.10339250]

>>10339203
All of them are probably translated from a Greek text but Rotherham's Emphasized Bible follows it to the point of being awkward. It's probably better for Hebrew.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=emphasised%20bible

Brenton's translation of the Septuagint is the defacto standard for it and like many translations seems to follow the KJV as a template.
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren

Be aware that some of these scans may be choppy.

[Anonymous No.10339251]

>>10337011
Its written in greek

[Anonymous No.10339314]

>>10339153
wtf happened to all the second person pronouns anyway? Why are we left with just "you"?

[Anonymous No.10339384]

>>10334930
esv

[Anonymous No.10339399]

>>10335607
really?? where? i looked up blogs and i can only find places where people are throwing shade at it for it *failing* to use PC words

[Anonymous No.10339448]

>>10339314
Anglos, man.

[Anonymous No.10339479]

On what basis are we judging the quality of the translation? How has someone not made a chart for this yet?

>literary quality
>readability
>most direct translation
>supplemental footnotes for the indoctrinated
>supplemental footnotes for historical contexts
>supplemental footnotes for literary contexts
>Éditions for different sects
>biases of different translators

I have no idea which one does which. I have my grandfathers old king James. But is it a new king James or old king James? What’s the fucking difference? What parts did king James even change? What am I missing out on?

I don’t know where to start because I don’t know what I don’t know. I assume it’s an important literary work. I assume that it would contextually have some fun historical gems and some story told truths. But how do I know which one will do this best? I don’t know because of all these deus volt faggots being contrarian and thinking they follow the word.

[Anonymous No.10339525]

>>10338246
I found a typo in the .dpub version of that.

[Anonymous No.10339540]

>>10339525
nice one lad

[Anonymous No.10339607]

The best translation would be one that follows the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch in the OT where these disagree with the Masoretic text and the most accredited version of a critical text for the NT. For the OT it should be divided according to traditional Hebrew parashah divisions and logical paragraph division in accordance with the narrative for the NT. The translation should be literal and replace exclusively ecclesiastical terms with words that more accurately reflect their original practical usage and proper nouns should be modified to reflect their appearance in the original autographs like Yehudí and Yisra'él for Jew and Israel and Iesou and María/Mariám for Jesus and Mary.

[Anonymous No.10339615]

>>10339479
Every judging begins at Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:28.

No:
>Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman

Yes:
>Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin

No:
>And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one

Yes:
>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace

[Anonymous No.10339630]

>>10339615
>I want interpolations

[Anonymous No.10339641]

>>10336581
Anderson is a fundamentalist not an evangelical. These words are antonyms.

[Anonymous No.10339670]

>>10334930
Norton Critical Edition

[Anonymous No.10339676]

>>10339641
Have you ever heard the word "fundagelical". They're historically connected and both have probably influenced Christianity and even other religions worldwide.
https://youtu.be/ZRi1mOQEXQw
https://youtu.be/XZtUyEoQBiU

[Anonymous No.10339703]

>>10339641
>These words are antonyms.
This is simply not true. If anything these are on the same historical and traditional continuum. I'm not claiming they are devoid of differences as evangelicalism is not doctrinally homogeneous, but they are certainly not antonyms.

[Anonymous No.10339775]

>>10339153
>The Catholic RSV is to the Douay-Rheims what the ESV is to the King James, basically
Hahaha, how wrong can you possibly be. D-R is a translation of the Vulgate, RSV uses critical texts and ancient textual sources, and is ultimately a revision of the KJV.

Douey-Rheims fanatics are the worst. Almost as bad as Septuagint fanatics who like to pretend the Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, Targumim, and ancient Hebrew manuscripts don't exist.

[Anonymous No.10340112]

How the fuck did this KJV-only nonsense arise in the first place?! It's a translation commissioned by the King of England in the 17th century, why would it be some kinda divine version?!

[Anonymous No.10340129]

>>10340112
Probably because it's the only fucking English translation that doesn't sound like shit and keeps a consistent style throughout and was written for Christians in mind. 90% of the other translations mentioned in this thread have old testaments that read like they were translated for American liberal Jews.

[Anonymous No.10340189]

>>10340129
To expand/explain (on) this the RSV very nearly replaced the KJV in churches entirely back in the 50's, the New Testament was very well received by everybody. Then the RSV Old Testament was released and completely killed any hope of replacing the KJV by translating the OT in a completely unchristian manner that completely ignored Biblical hermeneutics/exegesis.

[Anonymous No.10340204]

>>10339775
I've heard it's the Masoretic text common in the most popular translations in modern languages that disagrees with all of these. Some say it's deliberate others say they're variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch#Comparison_with_other_versions

[Anonymous No.10340220]

>>10334930
The satanic one.

[Anonymous No.10340387]

>>10339229
I've been interested in Picking up on the OSB, however I've heard mixed things about the notes in it & that some are very simplistic. can you shed any light on this?

[Anonymous No.10340673]

>>10340387
I think some of that criticism may have been for earlier versions. They're not a replacement for reading the Fathers, but I find the notes very useful.

[Anonymous No.10340975]

>>10334930
nrsv

[Anonymous No.10341893]

The Greek.

[Anonymous No.10342076]

>>10334930
I have the NKJ MacArthur study Bible. Each page is heavily annotated and it has a nice black leather cover.