/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14969876]

What version of the Bible should I order?

[Anonymous No.14969887]

>>14969876
Anon come on, I know we’re running short on toilet paper but just hold on a bit longer

[Anonymous No.14969895]

>>14969876
KJV or Douay–Rheims.
Modern translations are garbage. If you have trouble understanding some terms, grab a lexicon or commentaries.

[Anonymous No.14969898]

http://www.latinvulgate.com/

[Anonymous No.14969909]

>>14969876
ESV

[Anonymous No.14969912]

I recently bought the Norton Critical edition of the KJV OT, it comes with a tonne of secondary literature and is really cheap considering.

[Anonymous No.14970129]

>>14969876

[Anonymous No.14970233]

Which is better, NABRE or the older NAB?

[Anonymous No.14970243]

>>14969887
FPBP
same with quran and torah

[Anonymous No.14970248]

>>14969912
But is it good, you fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.14970252]

>Anon come on, I know we’re running short on toilet paper but just hold on a bit longer

[Anonymous No.14970262]

>>14969876

[Anonymous No.14971279]

>>14970262
Seconding this, definitely one of the better one.

>>14970252
Based
Basedtanists angry

[Anonymous No.14971311]

>>14969887
based

[Anonymous No.14971367]

Robert Alter.

[Anonymous No.14971385]

alright here's a long reply.

you need a study bible with textual notes, and you need multiple translations. first thing you need is a modern translation with extensive critical notes - harpercollins NRSV study bible is the academic standard and is exceptional, I use it for daily reading. The 2nd edition of the NOAB which used the RSV is also very good, the RSV is an underrated translation and the oxford notes/essays in that edition are faithful and interesting without being too much.

For a translation of the vulgate obviously get Knox, which is exceptional as well but rather expensive. The epistles in Knox's version are extraordinary - if you want a modern Septuagint based NT translation Gaus' Unvarnished NT is very readable - this is prob the best option for a first time "read thru" of the NT that is still scholarly.

Today I mainly use the NABRE in a cheap paperback since the textual notes are *exceptional* and the translation is really fantastic - very literal yet remains free, the introductions to the books are excellent and it's an underrated translation. I've heard good things about the Revised New Jerusalem, which came out this year, but a full study bible is expensive so I might hold off. Keep this in mind, the updated NABRE w/ revised NT is coming out within 2-3 years, this is also going to be an exceptional translation so maybe wait for that one.

translations to avoid: any ESV (see R. Grant Jones' video for more info on this), obviously the DR or KJV (heard NKJV isn't bad though), the NIV, generally most "evangelical" protestant translations are awful and lack footnotes, besides having an insane reformed bias with theological translation philosophy. the RSV2CE is to be avoided as well as there's no list of textual notes and the editors at Ignatius refuse to explain what parts of the text were changed.

let me be clear here: modern biblical translations are exceptional, and still good for devotional reading: anyone telling you durr the KJV/DR is the only real translation is beyond uneducated and probably no better than a illiterate SS believer. I use the NRSV for daily reading and the 'gender neutral' stuff is literally fine and reflective of the actual greek esp.

any questions about translations I can answer more as I love talking about english versions

[Anonymous No.14971393]

>>14969876
Any version brother as long as you accept that your wife receive the seed of an African bvll which is the essence of Christianity

[Anonymous No.14971402]

>>14971385
keep in mind too I know less about which hebrew versions are good but I think the Tankanh (might be spelling it wrong) or Alter's are by far the best, both are rather expensive though.

additionally I know nothing about the OSB but it probably has relevant theological notes. I know a completely new orthodox LXX translation is coming out in a couple of years which will probably be good as well.

[Anonymous No.14971444]

@14971393
>american protestants/evangelics
>christian

[Anonymous No.14971457]

>>14969876
NWT

[Anonymous No.14971461]

>>14971385

other translation I used to have but wasn't a huge fan of: the oxford REB study bible, uses a heavy amount of gender neutral language that goes further than the NRSV and obscures the textual meaning.

only other bible I haven't mentioned that might be worth looking at is either the NEB translation in the 70s or potentially something like the GNB/newest version of the NLT-CE, sadly both of these lack footnotes and are at the reading level of a literal 5th grader, I think they're textually sound translations though and the newest version of the NLTCE is used extensively in the Church in India to good reviews I've heard

>>14971457
ironically I hear the NWT is textually good but i'm sure the JW's theologically did some meddling in there, mormons also have a NT/OT translation that I know nothing about

[Anonymous No.14971465]

>>14970233
both the NAB and NABRE are direct heritages of the Confraternity editions and thus the DR, they're both good but the NABRE is better

[Anonymous No.14971539]

>>14971385
So the Knox would be a good bible to read for a first time reader of the bible?

[Anonymous No.14971564]

>>14969876
>Ordering anything through Amazon
Enjoy your coronavirus, bro.

[Anonymous No.14971586]

>>14971539

depends, are you using the bible for study or for devotional reading or for following along in the mass or what?

if you're just getting into scripture buy the Universalis app on iOS, it has the full LOTH prayers, daily readings, spiritual reflections from the Fathers, and has the Jerusalem, RSVCE and NAB translations built in which you can select readings from.

I recommend Knox for lectio divina or if you're reading side by side with like the NRSV/NABRE

[Anonymous No.14971591]

>>14969876
Orthodox Study Bible

[Anonymous No.14971651]

>>14971586
completely new at the bible and have never read it before, i was thinking of reading it like a book but now i realize its much more complicated than that, any advice?

[Anonymous No.14971813]

How are you supposed to read the Bible?
Like a book, front to cover or is there a better approach?

[Anonymous No.14972325]

>>14971813
A lot of needs historical context. It's not a beginning middle end book, and has a variety of different genres.
You should read it along with some sort of online bible study, which can break things down book by book as you read them.

[Anonymous No.14972364]

The ASV which is related to the English Revised Version, was an improvement over the KJV, retaining the same archaic grammar while modernizing some outdated terminology, refining some renderings, and translating from older Alexandrian manuscripts that had then been more recently discovered. That being said, it can be cumbersome to read. Multiple popular translations have been made afterwards which are descended from it which are the JPS Tanakh, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, and WEB.

From the more contemporary translations, the RSVs and ESVs are the most overall accurate and reliable IMO and as conventionalized as much as it should be allowed for a work of that nature since I think most people would probably be averse to the idea of some other prominent literary work in one's main language like a Tolkien novel getting too dumbed down and simplified.

>>14970262
On the OSB
http://archive.is/oBNvU

Those interested in translations from the Septuagint should also consider the LXX2012 which was just an update of the classic Brenton translation. It would be nice if public domain works were given as much attention as more commercially popular translations.

>>14971385
The heterodox Wycliffe Bible actually has some of the most literal renderings of the Vulgate I probably ever saw. Haven't really looked much through the original 1582–1610 publication of the Douay-Rheims.

[Anonymous No.14972530]

>>14969876
>>14969876
NRSV. It has all of the original books that was accepted at the council.

[Anonymous No.14972586]

>>14971651
>>14971813

if you're serious about just reading it, youll need a reading plan - also you should have an idea of "what" it means to read the bible in the first place.

here's a plan i'm starting soon, looks like a good one:
www piercedhands com/reading-bible-year/

also pick up merton's 'opening the bible' and Peter Enns' 'How the bible actually works'

praying with the bible can coincide with reading it thru, but a generally structured reading plan is necessary i think since otherwise youll jump around and never really get anywhere

[Anonymous No.14972664]

>>14969876
New International Version, other translations are a bad meme.

[Anonymous No.14972685]

Geneva, KJV, Douay

[Anonymous No.14972691]

>>14969876
The Didache Bible

[Anonymous No.14972720]

>>14972691

Didache is ass, no footnotes, meme RSV2CE is used, way overpriced

[Anonymous No.14972801]

>>14971385
>>14972720
Well it might surprise you to know that many of the rendering choices that were initially introduced by the Catholic edition of the RSV were afterward adopted by subsequent revisions to the standard RSV.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html

[Anonymous No.14972813]

>>14971385
>>14972720
Well it might surprise you to know that many of the rendering choices that were initially introduced by the Catholic edition of the RSV were afterward adopted by subsequent revisions to the standard RSV.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html

[Anonymous No.14972994]

>>14972813
2CE isnt the 1970s revised RSV (not the NRSV). trust me im catholic and I like the RSVCE but the RSV2CE not only removes footnotes and doesnt give translation philosophy but also has been 'silently' updated by Ignatius multiple times without explanation or list of changes, additionally the Didache bible and igantius bible takes an extraordinarily simplistic view of the HC method and often cuts out historical introduction and doesn't mention scholarly views of composition. theological commentary has a place but stick to the church fathers and not 2nd rate minimization of the complexity of the text

[Anonymous No.14973007]

>>14972994

also the 2CE gets shilled hard by guys like Ascension press, catholic answers, word on fire etc. these guys are like the evangelical protestants of the catholic world and often take a dim view of academic biblical study - far from the view of JPII, Paul IV and Benedict XVI i might add, who were all deep scholars and had respect for secular textual traditions

[Anonymous No.14973013]

>>14973007
paul vi*

[Anonymous No.14973324]

>>14972994
Some of those changes can provide better renderings of Greek NT text even if others are questionable. The different editions appear to alternate varyingly between readings of the 1952, 1965, and 1971 editions. I'd still prefer them though over translations that are generally even less literal.

[Anonymous No.14973334]

>>14973324
but why

[Anonymous No.14973362]

>>14969876
99% of Bibles are online, either on biblegateway, archive, libgen, etc. Preview a bunch and buy the one you like the best.

[Anonymous No.14973378]

>>14973362
OP probably wants one for shtf

[Anonymous No.14973388]

>>14973378
Then get a Mormon KJV and one of their prepper manuals.

[Anonymous No.14973452]

>>14973334
I mean it probably is a bit irresponsible of the publishers to create such disorder but some translations can create even more questionable alterations of the text's proper character and expression.

[Anonymous No.14973461]

The Knox translation from Baronius press
https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=60#tab=tab-1

I didn't know anything about it until I purchased one, it came with a little booklet the translator wrote on translation issues in general and how he handled going about his 9 year process. It's a wonderful Catholic translation praised by Pope Pius XII, Venerable Fulton Sheen, and other notable figures. Time magazine called it the great bible of the 20th century or something. You probably haven't heard of it though, as it was produced right before the advent of the second Vatican council and the dozens of contemporary, brand new translations that followed suit. That being said, I'm sure there are other fair translations but this translation has been the one that I, personally, have been the most excited to engage with further (I've read the DY, KJV, ESV, RSV-CE). If you need to know one thing to get a general impression of this translation, Knox put it himself among the lines of it being a translation that aims to translate what the Bible would have been written like by Englishmen, not how the Bible would have been written by Jews who disguised themselves as Englishmen. I can go on but, if you sound interested at all, you can preview this translation online before you decide to bite the bullet and order a copy (you could also purchase an older, second-hand publication of the Knox on eBay).
http://catholicbible.online/knox/OT

God bless you!

[Anonymous No.14973528]

>>14973452

what's the "proper character", you mean the actual accurate text as opposed to theological interpolation? Read Dei Verbum

[Anonymous No.14973534]

>>14973461

>anti semetic
>tradLARPER
>mindlessly thinks KJV/DR are even remotely good

checks out

[Anonymous No.14973545]

>>14969876
Any copy that isn't white washed.

[Anonymous No.14973610]

>>14973528
Yes. Further examination is best left to exegesis which is what that document appeared to be about.

[Anonymous No.14973638]

>>14973610

you do realize the RSV2CE is the definition of a textually inaccurate translation and theologically biased translation right? why do you think the USCCB has approved the NAB for mass, the NABRE NRSVCE and even GNBCE for private study and not the RSV2CE?

[Anonymous No.14973664]

>>14973461
>anti-Semitic
What did I say that was anti-Semitic? The one mention of the word "Jew" was in reference to the Jewish writers that contributed to the books of the Bible. The Catholic Church officially disavowed anti-Semitism.
>tradLARPER
Did I attack a particular translation? No. Did I attack any other recommendation or person's practice of the Catholic faith? No.
>mindlessly thinks KJV/DR are even remotely good
Again, I didn't even promote or dismiss a translation. I simply stated what other translations I have read of the Bible in the past. I know this is bait but I don't appreciate it friend.

[Anonymous No.14973670]

>>14973664
This was meant for this post, my apologies.
>>14973534

[Anonymous No.14973705]

>>14973638
Could be that it's rather those institutions who are the ones with a theological bias. Personally I found the RSV tends to be more word-for-word accurate throughout the different works than many other translations including all those that the USCCB approves. Resources on biblical languages and textual analysis aren't exactly obscure.

[Anonymous No.14973743]

>>14973705

>one man knows better than the magisterium and bishops

alright

[Anonymous No.14973753]

>>14973664

>jews who disguised themselves as english

chill w/ that stuff its utterly tiresome

[Anonymous No.14973769]

>>14969887
You are a child

[Anonymous No.14973772]

>>14973743
Right because large private institutions carrying special interests is unheard of. Also despite your continual appeal to authority the evidence of this would become apparent if you would only sincerely compare different portions rather than specific verses of the source texts with their translations.

[Anonymous No.14973780]

>>14973772

lmao are you catholic or not? if you don't trust the magisterium I legit have nothing to say to you, you don't even accept basic catholic tenets and youre telling us which translations are the "most faithful"? very rich

[Anonymous No.14973801]

>>14973753
Oh, I suppose I can see now how that could be seen as anti-Semitic without the proper context (and the exact quote I still cannot find but I meant it in the context of something like this, where Knox criticizes earlier English translations of the Bible: "‘Mr. Churchill then opened his mouth and spoke’ — is that English? No, it is Hebrew idiom clothed in English words.").
What I was trying to get at is, there is rich lexicon in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin of the Biblical manuscripts. Their ways of writing-- stylistically, metaphorically, with idioms, and so forth-- cannot be directly translated as many initial English translations attempted to. With translation approaches like these, we butcher the English and original languages. I don't know if the booklet I mentioned earlier is accessible online but this article addresses more in-depth what I meant by that indirect quote from my last post.
http://www.tyndale.org/tsj04/day.html
Again, I didn't mean that previous indirect quote to come off as anti-Semetic or in any other negative way. Sorry if it came off that way!

[Anonymous No.14973819]

>>14973801

I see, in that case I agree with you then - it is an excellent dynamic translation in English, you may like the NEB study bible by Oxford too

[Anonymous No.14973858]

>>14973819
>NEB study bible by Oxford
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll be sure to check it out. Sorry again for the poorly worded, indirect quote. I'm glad we resolved that complication. Have a good day/night, God bless.

>>14969876
So yeah, like my post earlier says, the Knox is a very well done dynamic translation of the Bible which I would recommend for a casual and devotional read. If you want something more literal to study, there's plenty discussion on that posted earlier.

[Anonymous No.14973877]

>>14973780
Well your're either incapable of being objective or your intentions are insincere but in my case it was rather that I was capable of finding a work intended for Catholics as useful for anyone with a general interest in Bible reading and superior to many other works. Regardless your appeals to authority, courtier's replies, and pooh-pooh logic still won't make your favorite publications more accurate.

[Anonymous No.14973904]

>>14973877
just say we like divergent things and relax. since youre not catholic you don't understand what i'm saying and that's fine. if you like the didache bible use it, it's a beautiful book for sure and very attractive for devotional reading, has good doctrinal articles too. pick up a cathecism if you like what you read there it will go much more in depth

[Anonymous No.14973935]

>>14973904
Truth isn't really a matter of opinion. You either prove it or you don't.

[Anonymous No.14973991]

>>14969876

You don't order the Bible. The Bible orders you.

[Anonymous No.14973995]

>>14969876
Jeffersonian

[Anonymous No.14974002]

>>14973935

I have some ideas that you should be aware of before being so cavalier with your language.

[Anonymous No.14974041]

>>14973995

The Jeffersonian heresy* was repeated in other eras by Tolstoy and some old German guy. Sloterdijk compared the gospel-editing traditions, and used the idea to discuss Nietzsche's own gospel-editing.

*In this author's point of view, heresy is an unserious term which is not to be taken in its serious ecclesiastical context (as 4chan religious LARPers enjoy pretending to do, these days, equally unseriously), but which can be used as a useful rhetorical descriptor when discussing history. It's in this qualified, correctly sneering sense at the validity of the concept of heresy itself, that the term is employed.

[Anonymous No.14974065]

>>14974002
Don't miss the forest for the trees man

[Anonymous No.14974113]

>>14973935

you're unironically retarded - have you considered islam?

[Anonymous No.14974221]

>>14969876
>>14972530
Better yet, the Harper Collins Study Bible, which is the NRSV + commentary on each chapter by members of the Society for Biblical Literature, which treats the Bible as a literary text.

[Anonymous No.14974236]

Right Hand Path focused esoteric group, primarily founded as Christian, but all are welcome: discussion will be centered around the assumption that God exists
Discord:
TQZwRY

[Anonymous No.14974483]

>>14974065

Your retort has been meaningless in the context of our exchange.

[Anonymous No.14974522]

>>14969895
KJV is garbage. If you had any idea what you are talking about, you would know this.

[Anonymous No.14974649]

I would first read the king James version then skip through the middle and throw it right in the fucking trash.

[Anonymous No.14975361]

>>14970129
The NJPS is really great. Get yourself The Jewish Study Bible, and you'll have plenty of handy notes as well. The Old Testament is totally different if you ignore the Christian interpretation.

[Anonymous No.14975491]

>>14970262
This. Why would you read a masoretic OT?

[Anonymous No.14975499]

>>14971385
>uses NRSV for daily reading
opinion: disregarded

[Anonymous No.14976536]

>>14975499

where did you address the points I said

[Anonymous No.14976582]

>>14973638
>you can only use translations approved by a bishops' conference in your country
https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/Versions.shtml

[Anonymous No.14976583]

Get a few translations. I like the ESV

[Anonymous No.14976591]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjfvtvmgT3s

[Anonymous No.14976598]

>>14976583
shitty protty bibles

[Anonymous No.14976642]

[Anonymous No.14976670]

I'm fond of the KJV and NKJV. Anything translated from the Textus Receptus really although I kind of like the new EHV that the Lutherans have put out.

The best bible translation is the one you read desu. As long as it isn't that Jehovahs Witnesses' version you are good to go.