[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 390 KB, 445x493, 2320.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15991780 No.15991780 [Reply] [Original]

What is the best translation of Bible and which one do you own?

>> No.15991798
File: 1.38 MB, 700x896, 6E20E99C-102F-4C48-8CF5-25F39D4D696D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15991798

>>15991780

>> No.15991823

>>15991798
Jesus protestants never stop. Yes you're all gd individuals because you belong to so many extant groups

>> No.15992087

KJV

>> No.15992519

>>15991780
by Nietzsche.

>> No.15992775

>>15991823
That's just an NIV with specific study notes afaik.
>>15991780
>Best
The one you'll read.
>Which do I own
KJV (with Deuterocanon), NRSV, RSVCE, NIV, CEB, HCSB, ESV, DR, NKJV. Not translations but specific study Bibles: NOAB and OSB.

>> No.15992807

The Smith Van Dyck Bible's a real pleasure to read as an Arabic speaker. The Old Testament reads close to Hebrew but honestly sounds better than the original due to Arabic phonology.

>> No.15992866

>>15991780
Maybe don't force religion on your kids idk, just tell them some good moral inspiring stories about Jesus, Abby Lincoln, Gandhi and Hitler

>> No.15992889

>>15991780
douay rheims

>> No.15992911

>>15992807
>dyck
Heheheheh

>> No.15993146

>>15991780
I own a KJV, but whenever I need help I ask BibleHub and go to the ESV translation, as well as the word for word translation section. I think all translations are a bit out of date or just irrelevant when you have such a great online resource. It's like owning a study Bible, without actually buying one.

>> No.15993668

>>15991780
NIV is objectively the best.

NRSV and ESV are okay. KJV is good if you want to see the historical conceptions of christian doctrine.

I own a NRSV oxford study Bible I bought for theology classes in uni, a NKJV Bible from my confessional, and a personal NIV for prayer and purely faith purposes.

>> No.15993677

>>15993668
MSG is fun to read and eels more alive than the other translations, but I don’t think it is a better translation.

>> No.15993686

>>15992775
Here comes the mentally ill atheist to hock the OSB NRSV like he does every thread. Get a fucking life you sicko. No one wants your deliberately inaccurate feminist translation. Go to hell

>> No.15993696

>>15993668
Oh look he's pretending to be multiple posters again. The poster count didn't go up you tranny. Get a life

>> No.15993709

I hate the NRSV tranny for ruining every one of these threads. Every time. Why does he spend his entire life on here shilling a book he doesn't believe in anyway? What does xe gain from it???

>> No.15993720
File: 31 KB, 1231x196, DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20200729132109.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15993720

>>15993686
The OSB uses the NKJV though, and the NOAB is the gold standard for academic notes, no matter your thoughts on the translation itself. Seethe harder, though I really don't get why, since I'm not the person you think I am, or why you feel the need to shit up these threads nonstop because someone uses a translation you dislike, snowflake

>> No.15993721

>Oxford study bible
>NRSV
After you read these you can cut your dick off and call yourself a woman too. Little added bonus.

>> No.15993723

>>15991780
I'd fuck both of them.

>> No.15993726

Douay-Rheims for religious purposes
KJV for literary reasons
NIV or ESV for something that's easy to understand

>> No.15993728

>>15991780
i have a red letter kjv pew bible
it was very cheap and the binding is very plain which i think gives the due respect to such an important book deserves
tasteless covers of fiction is a matter of taste, for holy books i think it is bordering on actual blasphemy

>> No.15993732

>>15993721
If you're that same seething retard, OSB is the Orthodox Study Bible

>> No.15993737
File: 25 KB, 344x499, 41GHGFnWOzL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15993737

>>15993720
>The OSB uses the NKJV though
Why is xe lying bros???

>> No.15993747

>>15993737
https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594
You want to run that one by me again, Satan?

>> No.15993750

NRSV readers deserve to get tortured. Die out. Kys. Die.

Bleed.

>> No.15993753

>>15991780
KJV is best to read so long as you're prepared to deal with the bygone English and value the literary references people later in history make to it. NIV is pretty decent. I don't really know other translations. I own a KJV. Make sure to go beyond the book when you read the Bible. Use Strong's Concordance, look at commentaries, compare different passages together, etc.

>> No.15993759

>>15993747
Oh you meant the orthodox one. Never mind then. False alarm. I'll return when needed. Don't worry

>> No.15993763

>>15993686
This, NRSV is subverted in many locations. ESV is the faithful equivalent. I recomend that or at least an NRSV version with heavy annotations that show what they left out and changed from tradition, etc. NRSV Oxford Bible is like this, that's the one they use in undergrad religion classes. I have that and an annotated ESV as well as the obvious KJV.
>>15993668
NIV is shit, don't buy it. The translations are really good sounding but it's phrase by phrase, not word for word. So it's pretty fast and loose with what is actually being said in many places.

>> No.15993766

>>15993759
fucking kek, never change /pol/

>> No.15993776

>>15993720
>orthodox defending the NRSV
Not a good look senpai. Do you want to rethink that or precipitously drop my opinion of your religion? Just wondering before I pass judgment.

>> No.15993786

>>15993776
I'm not Orthodox, just listing the collection of Bibles I own, or is /lit/ so fucking midwit that they can't own a book/translation without immediately caving and believing it to a T?

>> No.15993795

>>15993786
And to continue, the NOAB's notes are the important part of it, you can hate the NRSV all you want, or you can go with the older edition that uses the RSV, though you'll have slightly older archeological/historical notes.

>> No.15993802

>>15993786
It is literally an evil translation designed for communists and lesbians. Because it deliberately changes the text, it has neither merit historically or for accuracy. There is no reason to ever read it under any circumstance.

Not for literary value, not for history, not for accuracy or literalness.

>> No.15993806

What translation should I get for a first real reading? I appreciate the KJV for the literary styling, but I feel like I should start with something more straightforward.

>> No.15993808

>>15993759
Based lol

>> No.15993810

>>15993795
The esv notes are better. And there are multiple versions for theology, archeology, etc.

>> No.15993812

>>15993806
ESV or NIV

>> No.15993818

>>15993806
ESV, and pick a study bible version that suits your interest. They have original flavor, systematic theology, archeology, and gospel typology

>> No.15993826

>>15993668
>I own a NRSV oxford study Bible I bought for theology classes in uni
Kys tranny

>> No.15993841

>>15993806
Use the KJV, it's not actually hard you hapless fuck, and you'll sidestep all the weird paraphrase bullshit that's in the NIV and other modern translations

>> No.15993890

>>15993759
So based it hurts

>> No.15994198

>>15993812
>>15993818
Thanks! These translations aren't too modernist, are they? I was reading that they use gender-neutral language, and that concerns me a little.

Also, are there any study Bibles you'd recommend? I was raised as an evangelical Prostestant, so any of them with the apocrypha and perhaps with explanatory footnotes would be helpful.

>>15993841
Haha, I don't think that's what hapless means, anon. You're right, it's not that hard, and I already own a KJV. But I'd like one with more background information, particularly with commentary so I can understand in greater depth what I'm reading for the first time. Then I can read the KJV and more fully understand it.

>> No.15994236

>>15994198
ESV only uses gender neutral when the text indicates as much, and even errs toward masculine language at times. I had the same reservations as you did. I recommend googling the intro to the ESV, which explains their gender philosophy to see if you agree with it.

Although it's not as masculine gendered as the KJV, it is never gender neutral intentionally. For instance, in the epistles it uses the terms brothers instead of brothers and sisters or siblings or whatever.

https://www.esv.org/preface/

>> No.15994244

>>15994236
In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Likewise, the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52). Similarly, the English word “brothers” (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century.

>> No.15994253

>>15994244
A recurring note is included to indicate that the term “brothers” (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case. In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because the underlying Greek term usually includes a male meaning component and it was used as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God’s family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God’s children.

The inclusive use of the generic “he” has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it.

>> No.15994335

>>15994236
Ah, okay, that's not so bad—not fully traditional, but it seems that's for the sake of clarity instead of political purposes. Thanks for the detailed answer!

>> No.15994367

>>15991780
NRSV

>> No.15994454
File: 328 KB, 552x592, 1596005653415.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15994454

>tfw no cameo imitation leather KJV with the deuterocanon
>tfw forced to buy some faggot oxford paperback that will fall apart in a year

>> No.15994476

>>15994454
>not buying a leatherbound Douay-Rheims for $30

>> No.15994487

>>15994454
Get the Cambridge paragraph one for $30-40 from Amazon, it's a hardcover
>>15994476
>leather
>$30
nice bonded leather garbage

>> No.15994605

>>15994487
>nice bonded leather garbage
It will still last far longer than paperback and will have to suffice until I can get a much nicer one (and can afford it).

>> No.15994626

>>15994367
Fuck. Off.

>> No.15994656

>>15994367
Eat a dick you piece of shit. Dilate.

>> No.15994697

>>15994367
What's your IP address faggot?

>> No.15994699

>>15994626
>>15994656
Nice samefag, samefag.

>> No.15994714

>>15994699
How about me? NRSV posters deserve the rope.

>> No.15994752

>>15994367
Mutilation of God's word won't make you a woman, but it will damn you. The NRSV by altering the bible, is satanic

>> No.15994775

>>15994714
You too, possible samefag.
>>15994752
It can't be that bad. Where in nrsv does it say trannyism is okay?

>> No.15994788

>>15994775
If it's not that bad then why is it solely used by denominations in favor of same faggot marriage, transgenderism, and female priests? Is that a coincidence?

>> No.15994795 [DELETED] 

>>15991780
There is no best translation, only good translations and bad translations. A good translation will serve a purpose without changing too much of the original meaning behind the original text. For example, NIV is a great sentence by sentence translation, and because it's translated by sentence it's generally easier to read. In my opinion, everyone first staring out with reading the bible should pick up a 1984 NIV translation. The older translations try to be more gender-neutral and would be considered a bad translation because the original meaning is somewhat lost with the politically correct removal of gender roles.

The KJV is a popular choice because it was the first complete and accurate translation to English. Because people spoke in a very poetic way back then, the KJV of the bible reflects this, and also sounds very poetic. Then there's the ESV translation which is a word-for-word translation that preachers use. This is a great bible for deeper understanding.

>> No.15994844

>>15991780
There is no best translation, only good translations and bad translations. A good translation will serve a purpose to the reader without changing too much of the meaning behind the original text. The NIV is a great sentence by sentence translation and because it's translated by sentence it's generally easier to read. In my opinion, everyone should start out with reading a 1984 NIV translation of the bible. The newer NIV translations try to be more gender-neutral and would be considered a bad translation because it changes the meaning in order to be more politically correct.

The KJV is probably the most popular choice because it was the first complete and accurate translation to English. It's a very poetic translation which reflects the poetic way in which people use to speak English. Then there's the ESV translation which is a word-for-word translation that preachers use. This is a great bible for deeper understanding behind scripture. Of course there is nothing better than learning Hebrew and Greek to read the original text yourself.

>> No.15994902

>>15994788
Not a coincidence, just trannys and fags abusing a translation's text. Anybody can abuse any translation to make it seem like it supports their personal interests.

>> No.15994919

>>15994844
You are never going to get the full meaning by learning ancient languages and reading the original documents. A translation is good enough.

>> No.15994944

>>15994902
>not a coincidence
>proceeds to explain how it's sort of a coincidence

>> No.15995142

>>15994902
Oh and it's a coincidence too that the translators happened to be from those denominations and share the same opinions too?

Come on this is embarrassing

>> No.15995179

Additional question for the thread: what's a good order to read the books of the Bible in? Cover to cover, New Testament First, a determined plan?

>> No.15995209

>>15995179
Dunno. I'm tempted to say start with one gospel, say, Luke. Then read Romans. Then Genesis. Then the next epistle. Then another gospel. Then Exodus. Then the next epistle. Then Acts.

>> No.15995221

I think starting with Luke-Acts might be your best bet

>> No.15995231

>>15991780
KJV.
Prots seethe when I tell them otherwise

>> No.15995244

>>15995179
http://kevinbasil.com/bible-month/
Like this if you actually love the LORD
>>15995231
>Recommending the KJV
>Triggering protestants
How the fuck is the KJV going to trigger protestants, it's an originally protestant translation used by protestants for ages, even now it enjoys a fair amount of usage

>> No.15995248

>>15995209
>>15995221
Thanks, that seems to be a popular suggestion.

>> No.15995266

>>15995244
maybe it's an amerimutt thing but most prots I talk to (and by prots I mean those who are not at all connected to the catholic tradition) obsess over the NIV

>> No.15995337

>>15995244
Thanks for the suggestion; I'll probably do this once I'm finished with my classes and have the time to commit.

>> No.15995361

>>15995244
yank baptists obsess over the kjv, prots everywhere else read the greatest hits verses in NIV. Outside of the US the kjv is more often read as classic lit than by Christians

>> No.15995609

>>15994944
>>15995142
Are you retarded? I am agreeing with you. You trying to pose this as something that wasn't a coincidence, and then you have the fucking gall to bitch and moan when I say that it wasn't a coincidence? You have miniature niggers inside your head, running your bodily operations. I suggest you cancel your oxygen subscription.

>> No.15995640

>>15995609
You're retarded for saying it's not a coincidence then providing a rationale that makes it a coincidence because it could have happened with any translation

>> No.15995659

>>15995640
I'm not about to start an argument with someone who just barely manages to make sense with their words.

>> No.15995670

>>15995659
NRSV posters get the rope. Don't forget this.

>> No.15995682

>>15995670
That better be a warning to them, because they're the one in here sounding like a fucking NRSV apologist tranny

>> No.15995779

>>15995682
>I think KJV is a faithful and/or good translation.
Toddlers aren't allowed on this site, you dumb fuck. Come back when you've grown up.

>> No.15996150

>>15995779
>He can't appreciate the KJV
This is a brood of vipers get thee behind me, Satan

>> No.15997201

>>15993759
Lol

>> No.15997397

>>15991780
I imagine children don't know what emissions and genitals are, or that parents would read that particular verse with their children.

>> No.15997476

>>15991780
The best translation would be the Latin Vulgate, with a direct translation of it in [insert your first language] coming in close second.