/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14158976]

King James or NRSV?
I want to read the Bible, but I constantly on this board see either
>Read King James, it's only right choice
or
>NRSV is the definitive version, King James is a meme
So which is it you fuckers? And give me actual arguments and reasons behind it.

[Anonymous No.14159086]

The NRSV has idealogical and theological bias out the ass and has some fucking hilariously bad readings.

[Anonymous No.14159143]

>>14158976
>NRSV
Go with an ESV or NKJV instead.

>KJV
Personally when I do read a KJV I read a Study Bible with contemporary footnotes, it a does have some beautiful prose regardless, but I own several translations and its nice to switch between them.

[Anonymous No.14159194]

>>14158976
>Read King James, it's only right choice
This is a meme based on its prose quality. It's the most aesthetic translation, but if you're studying it as a Christian that's not the #1 thing.
The NSRV has liberal Protestant readings that caused a "translation schism" with conservative Protestants having the ESV and Catholics the RSV Catholic 2nd Edition.

[Anonymous No.14159276]

>>14158976
the king james is a joke to any real pastors/theologians, they all know that it was only commissioned by KJ because he didn't like the footnotes in the Geneva bible, the KJ bible is 60% geneva, and around 20% other bits and pieces, the small amount of actual translating was done only because they didn't like how the bible doesn't support authoritarian regimes, such as KJ. Read the geneva bible.

[Anonymous No.14159418]

>>14158976
>NRSV is the definitive version
There's no definitive version, but the NOAB is the definitive annotated bible if you aren't looking for a particular interpretation (like say a Catholic annotated bible) and it uses NRSV. iirc it annotates the questionable readings >>14159086 and >>14159194 mentioned.

[Anonymous No.14159722]

>>14159086
You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.14159864]

>>14159194

I'm more conservative than not, but I have both NRSV and ESV and the NRSV isn't as horrible as a lot of people think. Sometimes I prefer its readings to the ESV. But both are good. Not perfect, but good.

[Anonymous No.14159967]

none. this is the true translation: http://www.pidginbible.org/Concindex.html

[Anonymous No.14160143]

>>14158976
read both and make your own mind up

[Anonymous No.14160238]

>>14158976
king james is a meme, only good for le aesthetics, terrible translation.

NKJV is a good translation that keeps most of the kjv aesthetics

NRSV is terrible and libtarded, as is oxford, both are "academic" translations which means they have a ton of jews and feminists on them and don't translate in the christian tradition.

if you want a good literal translation the NKJV, NASB or esv are all good

[BakaBurr !.XFLRhWUUk No.14160285]

>>14158976
Okay let's say I don't give a shit about le big man in the sky. I just want good prose and translations

[Anonymous No.14160311]

NAB with study notes. Torah with annotations for OT.

[Anonymous No.14160322]

>>14160285
good prose = kjv (best), nkjv
good translation = NKJV, NIV, NASB (best)

[Anonymous No.14160324]

>>14160285
Then King James.

[Anonymous No.14160327]

>>14160311
not this

[Anonymous No.14160335]

>>14160324
bad translation, good prose

[Anonymous No.14160338]

>>14158976
KJV for the Old Testament. NKJV for the New Testament

[Anonymous No.14160340]

>>14160327
Kjv pseud detected. Or pagan

[Anonymous No.14160406]

>>14158976
Get the Bible app.
>Parallel Reading & Compare Versions are features that allow you to view a verse or verses in multiple Bible translations
https://help.youversion.com/l/en/article/uvmw04bhbt-parallel-reading-and-comparing-versions-on-i-os-devices

[Anonymous No.14160419]

>>14160311
Hi-diddly-ho NABRE

[Anonymous No.14160461]

>>14160340
>taking bible advice from a cathlick who don't even read the bible

[Anonymous No.14160569]

>>14160419
>gender neutral language
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.14160940]

>>14159967
>Da Rules Secon Time
jesus christ have mercy on my sides

[Anonymous No.14160962]

>>14158976
I prefer KJV. Other translations feel like a layer has been stripped away from the text

[[e-mail] No.14160969]

>>14160419
The Vulgate of Saint Jerome!

[Anonymous No.14160984]

Last time I post this comment because I ALWAYS post it and no one gives a shit.

if you're going to seriously read the bible you need minimum 3 translations from different textual sources: ideally MT, SXX, vulgate, current composite, some combination of these. this includes for "devotional" reading because footnotes, wording etc. GREATLY affects the text.

if you are "starting out" buy three translations: the NABRE Catholic Study Bible 3rd edition, the HarperCollins NRSV study bible and a knox translation.

all three of these texts are
1. accurate, up-to-date readings from multiple textual traditions
2. sensitive, thoughtful renderings with extensive explanatory footnotes that's easy for the layman to read
3. usually still quite poetic. even the NRSV retains a lot of ASV/RSV cadence (the gender stuff is done very tastefully too, actually - a study bible edition the the HC will really help with determining this). Knox is very poetic.

When reading a passage for meditation read all 3 translations and look at the notes. the shades of meaning will really come out, especially in complex texts like Paul's letters.

avoid the KJV/DR (corrupted textual sources) and subtly "slanted" translations like the ESV/CSB/NASB. do NOT fall for 'le poetry' meme as DR/KJV literalists will preach. the NABRE/NRSV retains 90% of the poetic structure, I assure you, except this time it's accurate. Knox is a fantastic translation in its own right and provides many innovative and faithful readings (as well as retains Jerome's unique readings that are valuable)

In short, if youre going to seriously engage with the bible (and you should), you CANNOT have 1 translation.

[Anonymous No.14160991]

Are there any KJV without the italic text?

[Anonymous No.14160992]

>>14160984
>the gender stuff
>messing with the gender wording
yeah nah
And theres nothing wrong with kjv. Simpletons just cant handle it because there are some words they don't recognize.

[Anonymous No.14160998]

>>14160992

the "messing" is accurate translations of true gender neutral pronouns in the greek and hebrew. im not even slightly liberal and despise shitty feminist revisionism but it's a linguistic thing foremost. any new translation worth its salt recognizes this.

[Anonymous No.14161004]

>>14160984

solid post. another translation to look at is the REB/NEB. often overlooked but also good

[Anonymous No.14161029]

>>14160984
What's your opinion on the Oxford Annotated Bible?

[Anonymous No.14161052]

>>14161029

harpercollins translation has better notes (actually still faithful). NOAB has a ton of essays but I've heard theyre quite liberal, still scholarly though. good textual info. if you want a NOAB get the last RSV edition (it might be the 2nd ed.?) they still sell that one on amazon. personally I like the harpercollins better.

also, avoid the RSV2CE by ignatius. no footnotes, no recorded list of changes, no change methodology. very questionable stuff.

new translations coming out that might be good are the 2nd edition revised NABRE (again) in mid 2020s, and the NRJB this year.

look into the unvarnished new testament too.

[Anonymous No.14161054]

>>14160984
What about NKJV?

[Anonymous No.14161062]

>>14161052
Damn, thanks for mentioning the Ignatius Bible, I was also looking at that one. I appreciate your input, Anon.

[Anonymous No.14161070]

>>14161054

I believe it still relies on the textus receptus primarily and only corrects very obvious errors. thus the textual source remains fundamentally flawed, also the apo. weren't updated if I remember

>>14161062
I used to have the Didache Bible by them and it was hyper biased. I say this as a catholic. no textual info, no detailed explanations, actually they removed the old RSV translation notes too. if you want a good book for what I believe to be an informed catholic perspective on the bible read merton's very short "on the bible". It will drastically change the way you think about scripture

[Anonymous No.14161104]

>>14161062

other translations worth considering: navarre study editions (massive investment but unbeatable commentary)

NLT catholic edition: easily the most readable, surprisingly accurate "loose" translation. the newest 2017 edition fixed tons of errors and it's a dead serious scholarly translation now. little too loose for my taste however.

worth looking into an original jerusalem bible if you can stand the garbage YHWH insertions. really tasteless, but I believe they use the grail psalms too

[Anonymous No.14161119]

>>14161104
Would you say the NABRE Catholic Study Bible is the best one to get if I intend on going to a Catholic church? I plan on getting multiple translations, so I do greatly appreciate all this advice.

[Anonymous No.14161152]

>>14160984
Excellent advice to read multiple translations. There can never be a perfect translation, especially of the Bible with its different textual traditions. I disagree that the ESV and NASB are particularly biased, every translation has an angle, NABRE is Catholic, NRSV is slightly liberal, etc.

About different textual sources I think you could provide more translation suggestions, since you suggest two composite translations and one Latin Vulgate. For the Masoretic Text the best is the Jewish Study Bible, which uses the NJPS translation. For the LXX the only real contender is the New English Translation of the Septuagint. Unfortunately it doesn't have study notes. The Orthodox Study Bible is a weird hybrid of LXX readings with the NKJV Old Testament, and its theology has been questioned by Orthodox writers.

[Anonymous No.14161169]

>>14161119
yes because its the one youll be hearing at mass

>>14161152
agree, not an expert on LXX/peshitta texts ill admit. I know theres some good non english stuff out there but at that point youre getting into original language stuff (which is where you have to go if youre that serious)

also theres some merit to the TR, ive heard, also I dont know much about that.

[Anonymous No.14161173]

>>14161152

also R. Grant Jones does a good vid on YT as to subtle ESV biases and he makes very solid points.

[Anonymous No.14161380]

>>14161029
libtarded and jewish

[Anonymous No.14161382]

>>14160998
FUCK OFF LIBTARD

[Anonymous No.14162167]

>>14160984
Tell me anon, what denomination are you? Your pushing of Catholic versions and hatred for the kjv hints you are Catholic. If you are just say so, as if you are it I'm sure makes you biased
I'm a Baptist and I'm willing to admit that is one of my reasons for preferring the kjv, as well as its language. It's simply beautiful

[Anonymous No.14162630]

>>14162167
I gave multiple reasons for not liking the kjv; it's a good literary work but it's simply an inaccurate bible, whatever denom. you are. im catholic but my primary reading translation is the nrsv, very much a "protestant" translation.

the kjv is not defended by any serious textual or biblical scholar and hasn't been for the past 100 years. keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.14162634]

>>14160991
The Darby Bible has a lot of pronouns and articles that the KJV would italicize in brackets along with other words. Rotherham's Emphasised Bible also.

[Anonymous No.14162648]

>>14162167

KJV onlyists are the true ones with hatred.

[Anonymous No.14162964]

>>14158976
Douay-Rheims Bible

[Anonymous No.14163900]

>>14162630
You said you don't like it because it uses corrupted sources.
Those who read the Septuagint argue the masoretic is wrong
Hebrews have claimed the masoretic to be correct so who is right?
No one knows because the original texts, at least in regards to the old testament are gone/damaged.
So I don't take your corrupted source argument seriously, as part of the NRSV is based on the masoretic

[Anonymous No.14164584]

>>14163900

received text is 100% not the most accurate. the oldest manuscripts are alexandrian. it seems you're confusing textual sources here. id also like to remind you the only reason the kjv translators didn't use jeromes vulgate (still considered a major alternate text) was for ideological reasons against the church

[Anonymous No.14165061]

>>14158976

Read whatever is easiest for you to understand first, then read the KJV version for the beauty of the language.

[Anonymous No.14165173]

Why is /lit/ obsessed with the OSB and OAB? from the amount they get shilled you would think theses are popular study bibles.

[Anonymous No.14165905]

I think the ESV Study Bible has the best footnotes and essays/introductions.

[Anonymous No.14165941]

Douay-Rheims

[Anonymous No.14165946]

>>14160998
>gender neutral
>hebrew
kek

[Anonymous No.14166090]

>>14165061
>>14165173
>>14165905
>>14165941
>>14165946


just because you like something does not mean there's scholarly backing behind it.

[Anonymous No.14166108]

>>14166090
Dude, you clearly have no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. The only gender neutral pronouns are "I" and "we." All nouns are gendered, since Hebrew has grammatical gender with no neuter gender.

[Anonymous No.14166120]

>>14158976
>taking Bible advice from 4chan

[Anonymous No.14166142]

>>14166120
Excuse me, this is 4channel.

[Anonymous No.14166167]

>>14166120
/lit/ is a Christian board

[Anonymous No.14166642]

>>14159967
>Da time wen eryting had start, God wen make da sky an da world. 2Da world come so no mo notting inside, no mo shape notting. On top da wild ocean dat cova eryting, neva had light notting. Ony had God Spirit dea, moving aroun ova da watta.
holy...

[Anonymous No.14166768]

>>14166090
>just because you have opinions doesn't mean I agree with them

[Anonymous No.14166800]

>>14159967
>God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva. 17You know, God neva send me, his Boy, inside da world fo punish da peopo. He wen send me fo take da peopo outa da bad kine stuff dey doing. Whoeva stay trus me, God no goin punish dem. But whoeva no trus me, garans God goin punish dem, cuz dey neva trus me, God's ony Boy
kek

[Anonymous No.14167042]

I don't see what's wrong with sticking with the accessible NIV Bible. Plain English and very faithful translation

[Anonymous No.14167064]

>>14166108
cherry pick some more

[Anonymous No.14167494]

Any opinions on the NET bible?

[Anonymous No.14167557]

>>14167494
Doesn't appear to reinterpret things as much but in turn doesn't introduce anything novel or of an improvement to translation. There are various translations deliver the same thing it would more or less.

[Anonymous No.14167596]

>>14167042
Because there are already a number of other popular modern translations that are comparably readable but still more precise. It should be common sense to pick the more 'complete' rendition over a potentially watered down one when dealing with a literary work of major historical and religious significance; unless perhaps you were doing some public ministry to a bunch of people who were not expected to be very informed on biblical matters.

[Anonymous No.14167635]

>>14165905

I'd argue against this. The ESV is a fine translation, but the study Bible is Calvinist in nature.

[Anonymous No.14167642]

>>14167042

NIV is good, mostly, theologically. It's just a bit blander than many others. NKJV is a good compromise between elegant and understandable.

[Anonymous No.14167681]

>>14166108
They obviously don't have any knowledge of Biblical Greek and New Testament manuscripts either but they aren't wrong, every new translation acknowledges gender neutrally is non-existent in the Bible and they're purposely altering the text for ideologically reasons.

However they never acknowledge exactly how much because it would surprise even the most liberal reader and how far they've taken it, It's a treadmill, "He" > "The one" > "Whoever", "on him" > "on them" > completely fucking removed.

The NRSV takes this a step further by straight up removing words like "race" instead of liberalizing it as "people", purposely rewording passages to imply random fucking women were apostles, randomly inserting words to support Episcopalism, etc.

[Anonymous No.14167739]

>>14167681
>straight up removing words like "race"
I'm having trouble finding a mention of 'race' in any rendition. I know that Greek γένος (génos) is cognate with English "kin'. On the other hand the mention of 'people" is abundant.

[Anonymous No.14167754]

>>14167494
It has some problems with the translators, sponsors and editors having differing opinions on how to handle shit, the sponsors wanted a safe literal leaning Christian translation with minimal denominational bias while the translators wanted to show-off their higher criticism skills and rationalized the everliving shit out of the notes while the editors decided to make the translation autistic safe and removed metaphors and colloquialisms.

[Anonymous No.14167775]

>>14167739
>I'm having trouble finding a mention of 'race' in any rendition
Romans 9:5 RSV

[Anonymous No.14167790]

>>14167754
It's kind of ironic seeing translations done by lone individuals have been finer than most of the translations that have been done in a group.

[Anonymous No.14167829]

>>14167775
Not sure what source text the ESV and RSV might have used but there doesn't appear to be any mention of race in the Greek nor in the Vulgate. On the other hand the KJV, Douay-Rheims and NASB render this passage similarly with each other.

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-5.htm

[Anonymous No.14167834]

>>14158976
RSV is a much better version than NRSV.
>>14159418
>using a modernist atheist Bible as your main bible
Nah brah

[Anonymous No.14167860]

>>14161173
The actual text of the ESV is alright for the most part, and I think the only people who would really notice the bias are informed members of Apostolic churches.

[Anonymous No.14167870]

>>14164584
>older = better
Kek

[Anonymous No.14167910]

I haven't found much difference between the RSV and ESV. Some say the RSV is more "wooden" but I don't really see it.

[Anonymous No.14167944]

Does anyone have book recommendations about the topics discussed in this thread? I mean the different textual traditions: MT, LXX, LV, what we know about their composition and compilation, how "reliable" these different texts are, etc? I'm very interested in all of this but don't know where to start. There seem to be some knowledgable anons monitoring this thread. Any ideas?

[Anonymous No.14167953]

>>14167642
nah there's actually a lot bad about it

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/

[Anonymous No.14168000]

>>14167944
Wikipedia articles can be a good primer and after one can try looking into works of prominent textual researchers and ultimately examine the different texts themselves.

[Anonymous No.14168048]

>>14167944
Unfortunately from what I've gathered from a previous thread there isn't really a intro point into this particular topic because a vast majority of research is conducted behind closed doors to retain a semi-monopoly for various bible societies.

[Anonymous No.14168058]

>>14167635
You say that like it's a problem, if you read the Bible and have a high enough IQ you will inevitably come to Calvinist conclusions

[Anonymous No.14168107]

>>14158976
Christians don't know shit about the "Bible" and how to translate it. Read the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh with Rashi's commentary:
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true

[Anonymous No.14168108]

>>14168048
And most documents were pillaged from the Greeks and Egyptians.

[Anonymous No.14168127]

>>14168058
Ah yes, that’s why it took the church 1500 years

[Anonymous No.14168128]

>>14168048
It doesn't help a lot of biblical scholars are obsessed with improving on biblical manuscripts, like translators who think they can immortalize themselves by translating blood into gumdrops critical editions of bible texts often "correct" manuscripts making texture study practically impossible.

[Anonymous No.14168143]

>>14168127
No, Paul already articulated the ideas of pre-ordination in his letters, and Jesus himself displays his knowledge of the certain future in each gospel
It's just that heretical r*mans wanted things to be less transcendent because they were filthy pagans at heart and did not love God or seek that His will be done

[Anonymous No.14168160]

>>14168143
Lmao that interpretation is novel, and no amount of crying about how literally everyone in the church was wrong until then will change that

[Anonymous No.14168164]

>>14168107
oy vey

[Anonymous No.14168176]

>>14167829
>there doesn't appear to be any mention of race in the Greek nor in the Vulgate
Romans 9:5 is really difficult to understand and translate even if your a expert in Greek.

kαὶἐξὧν is basically "by physical descent" or "from the flesh of" which becomes "race" or "ancestry" if your Jewish you might translate it as "Israelites"

[Anonymous No.14168195]

>>14168160
>roman catholic church prevents people from directly reading bible
>murders or tortures then murders anyone that disagrees with them too openly to shut them up
Gee I wonder why it was difficult for people to have a proper understanding of scripture and God until printing techniques were advanced enough to start producing Bibles for everyone

[Anonymous No.14168501]

>>14168195
>>roman catholic church prevents people from directly reading bible
I don't understand how this myth still persists, Catholics were producing translations of the Bible into English since the 8th century and by the 14th century every author was quoting from it.

[Anonymous No.14168520]

>>14168176
Nope, it just means "and from whom". Adding the word race is just their own emphasis.

>Young's Literal Translation
[3] for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ — for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh, [4] who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises, [5] whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.

[Anonymous No.14168648]

>>14168195
This post is misinformed at best but more than likely it is that it is intentionally misleading, because Protestants have a tendency to be disingenuous and to exaggerate so they can discredit Apostolic churches. I am not catholic.