[ 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: 172 KB, 1410x1000, 1600091608542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17299380 No.17299380 [Reply] [Original]

which is generally better? no alternative answer please

>> No.17299383

>>17299380
KJV

>> No.17299384

>>17299380
Left for catholics and orthodox
Right for protestants

>> No.17299395

>>17299383
fpbp

>> No.17299398

>>17299384
Also left for undecided people since its 'ecumenical'

>> No.17299475

>>17299383
based and fpbp-pilled

>> No.17299505

>>17299380
>>17299398
>NRSV

KILL IT WITH FIRE, it's the ultimate pozzed translation

>> No.17299536

>>17299505
why?

>> No.17299539
File: 26 KB, 254x400, s-l500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17299539

This one.

>> No.17299542

>>17299539
is that the ebonics bible?

>> No.17299678

>>17299383
Kangaroo Jack Version?

>> No.17299689

>>17299536
Uses pointless gender neutral language which obscures thousands of phrases throughout the text without footnoting and is politically correct
in general.
>>17299380
Check out the Norton Critical Edition of the KJV, two volumes, big floppy paperbacks, the notes are better than either of the above, contains all manner of cool material in the appendixes (other near eastern myths, alternative gospels, commentary from Church Fathers or scholars).

>> No.17299704

>>17299689
actually 'adam' that is equivalent to 'man' has no gender signifier as such, same as anthropos in greek, so translating those to 'man' isnt always accurate except colloquially in current era, although that doesnt mean gender neutrality is accurate in all occurances.

>> No.17299895

>>17299704
There is a difference between correctly translating anthropos and adam and gutting every single masculine reference you can get away with in the Hebrew Bible, which is a shame because the NRSV could've been brilliant. That said, I prefer the RSV when it comes to modern translations.

>> No.17300437

>>17299380
Left: academic historical perspective
Right: protestant perspective

There is no definitive study bible, each comes with its own angle

>> No.17300439
File: 248 KB, 661x716, 1532857394443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17300439

inb4 the thread devolves into this

>> No.17300476

>>17299380
I want to give an alternative answer, but if I must choose one I'd go with the ESV. It just doesn't make sense to me to read a secular study bible. I'd want to learn about religions from people who believe in them, not from some academic.

>> No.17301738
File: 141 KB, 661x716, fd8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17301738

>>17300439

KJV is still the best translation. Uses the Byzantine texts which were safeguarded by the Orthodox church for hundreds of years.

>> No.17301750

KJV for the KHV.

>> No.17301763

>>17301738
>which contains part text of the dead sea scrolls
The person who made this doesn't know what they're talking about.

>> No.17301898

>>17299380
oxford gay. esv.

>> No.17302805

I have the New Oxford 4th edition and it’s been everything I’ve ever needed.
I don’t know anything about the other one in the pic but I fully endorse the Oxford

>> No.17303206

>>17299689
>pc boogeyman
>suggests a KJV
LMAO. KJV is full of bullshit and doesn't represent the original at all. Sounds like you're more butthurt that more academic stuff is showing that BS narratives interpreted from a toxic western culture isn't really the real deal of the bible.

>> No.17303723

>>17299380
>NRSV
Garbage translation. Use the RSV.

>> No.17303742

>>17303206
The NRSV is trash, on par with the NIV.

>> No.17303790

>>17299380
The translations on both sides are shit, but at least the NOAB's footnotes are worth something. The Orthodox SB is better than either of those though.

>> No.17304174
File: 149 KB, 960x960, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304174

>>17299380

>> No.17304753

>>17299383
Based