Bible Translations

[Anonymous No.17714695]

After years of shitposting here's the right answers

>Style
KJV

>Precision
NASB

>Style & Precision
NKJV

>General use
ESV

>TR only
MEV

>For Catholics
ESV-CE

>LXX translation
NETS

The best source for translation reviews http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

[Anonymous No.17715280]

.

[Anonymous No.17715367]

>>17714695
>Precision
>NASB
>Starting in 2018, the Lockman Foundation posted some passages from "NASB 2020", an update of the 1995 revision.[16][non-primary source needed]. Key differences from the 1995 revision include an effort to improve "gender accuracy" (for example, adding "or sisters" in italics to passages that reference "brothers", to help convey the mixed-gender meaning of a passage that might otherwise be misunderstood as only speaking of men)

[Anonymous No.17715390]

>>17715367
we're not acknowledging that one

[Anonymous No.17715416]

just read kjv for literary
oxford study for soulless academic
orthodox study for soulful academic focused on the trinity

[Anonymous No.17715761]

>>17714695
>reading english translations
NGMI

[Anonymous No.17715775]

>>17715761
>NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN’T JUST READ A TRANSLATION YOU HAVE TO LEARN HEBREW, GREEK AND ARAMAIC BEFORE YOU READ THE BIBLE.

[Anonymous No.17715804]

NKJV is just an update for language, not precision

[Anonymous No.17715821]

>>17715775
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17715868]

>>17715775
Yes precisely.

[Anonymous No.17715923]

>>17714695
King James Only

[Anonymous No.17715966]

>>17715775
yes, you should read the original (or as close as possible) scriptures.

[Anonymous No.17715987]

>>17714695
how is ASV?

[Anonymous No.17716072]

>>17715987
Asv is cool because it's very literal but also based on the superior wescott and hort. It also maintains thee/thou language which if you understand it is objectively superior to "you" for plural and singular.
It uses the sacred name for YHWH instead of LORD but unfortunately uses "Jehovah" instead of "Yahweh" which has proven to be a mistake. For that reason the Jehovah witness cult adopted it.

It's also impossible to find anywhere because literally nobody prints it. There's a ministry in WA that's working on an interesting project they call the refreshed ASV

[Anonymous No.17716087]

>>17715804
The NKJV is generally considered less stylistically beautiful than KJV for sentimental reasons and less precise than NASB, but michael marlowe points out there are occasions when the NKJV is more literal than NASB

[Anonymous No.17716093]

>>17715416
The orthodox study bible as a translation is just NKJV NT and an original LXX translation for the OT which is worse than NETS

[Anonymous No.17716118]

>>17716072
thanks, I really apreciate it.
I ask because there is a series of librivox recordings on librivox using it all by o e man who hase a pretty even and understandable reading voice (though sometimes goes into an annoying voice, but not too often) the KJV is hit or miss because its a series of volunteers instead of just one guy, so the quality is much more variable. i tend to listen to the ASV and it mostly seems similar to my KJV BIBLE, but like you said, it does feel a little more literal in word choice, at least from my experience with different languages. I have noticed the JAHOVA thing too.

[Anonymous No.17716259]

>>17716118
I know the ones you're talking about. I really like librivox.
Theres a very good NASB non dramatized reading that's all on jewtube and the blue letter bible app uses it. I personally just use the google text to speech on whichever translation I'm using for my daily reading through andbible. It sounds very natural.

[Anonymous No.17716277]

>>17714695
The KJV is the easiest for me to understand

[Anonymous No.17716278]

>>17715775
yes

[Anonymous No.17717828]

>>17716072
The related English Revised Version (1895) uses LORD for the tetragrammaton and also has apocrypha including 2 Esdras.
https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

[Anonymous No.17718110]

>>17714695
KJV is the correct answer. It’s probably the most influential book in the English language. Therefore when you read it you add context to so many other works. It’s a very important piece of culture to understand.

[Anonymous No.17719063]

>>17715775
ideally, yes

[Anonymous No.17719081]

>>17714695
The Vulgate

[Anonymous No.17719113]

>>17714695
>ESV
Basically "own the libs": the translation. An unnecessary reworking of the RSV.

[Anonymous No.17719138]

>>17715775
That's the plan. I am still reading the translation first.

[Anonymous No.17719182]

>>17715367
Absolute state

[Anonymous No.17719700]

Every single Bible aside from the KJV is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17719709]

English Bible*

[Anonymous No.17719713]

[Anonymous No.17720048]

>>17715367
Isn't that a Monty Python sketch

[Anonymous No.17720059]

>>17719713
the critical text today does not use wescott and hort

>>17719709
The manuscripts that say christ are less reliable, but in every instance the new translations put the alternate reading in the footnotes

[Anonymous No.17720083]

Is the Latin bible reliable? Which version should I read?

[Anonymous No.17720264]

>>17720083
It's reliable if you know latin, which you don't as well as your mother tongue

[Anonymous No.17720854]

>>17716259
>I really like librivox
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say this

[Anonymous No.17721425]

>>17720059
Youre an idiot

[Anonymous No.17721509]

>Bible translation? Sunday sermon in my village church in Serbia is where i get my weekly dose of Holy Tradition

[Anonymous No.17721708]

>>17721425
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.17721768]

>>17716259
>I know the ones you're talking about. I really like librivox.
too many girl narrators

[Anonymous No.17721997]

Douay Rheims is only option for english

[Anonymous No.17722342]

>>17721997
>translation of a translation

[Anonymous No.17722446]

esv is all that's needed, but i've heard nabre is good for catholics
t. lutheran

[Anonymous No.17722625]

>>17714695
Guy who actually knows about the bible checking in.

ESV is cringe and bad, it's basically just the RSV for evangelicals. In fact it's infamous for altering or rephrasing many things in order to push certain agendas. NRSV is the academic standard and improves on RSV's accuracy in almost every way. Almost, because it has a terrible penchant for using gender neutral language anywhere that it can, even at the cost of clarity. So it can be difficult to recommend over the RSV.

If you want to study the bible for religious or general theological reasons, I recommend buying the NOAB in either RSV or NRSV. NRSV gives you the benefit of more modern footnotes, but I suggest reading it alongside RSV due to some of the gender issues.

If you want to study the bible for literary reasons, KJV is indeed your only option.

[Anonymous No.17723544]

>>17722625
>Guy who actually knows about the bible
>ESV is cringe and bad
>Use NRSV
you're cringe and bad

[Anonymous No.17724021]

Does anybody know of some verses where the ESV could be more accurate than the RSV? I'd like to compare it with this version.

https://www.catholicstudybible.org/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx

[Anonymous No.17724169]

>>17724021
Michael Marlowe's article is helpful
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

[Anonymous No.17724355]

>>17714695
reading anything but the King James Version. Many alternate translations literally have satanic implications (such as calling Jesus the Morning Star) and repeatedly mention the new world order

https://youtu.be/J44E_mSib-Y

[Anonymous No.17724456]

>>17722625
listen faggo we aren't fucking athiests or academics, we don't care if its biased toward christians

[Anonymous No.17724464]

>>17722625
>nrsv
you instantly lost all credibility

[Anonymous No.17724525]

>>17714695
you should check out the documentary called 'new world order bible versions'

https://youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ

[Anonymous No.17724644]

>>17724355
>Many alternate translations literally have satanic implications (such as calling Jesus the Morning Star) and repeatedly mention the new world order
Wait is this true?

[Anonymous No.17724661]

>>17714695
>earliest ‘old testament’ c. ~ 500 AD
>earliest ‘nu testament’ 2-3 centuries prior
Greek, and only Greek

[Anonymous No.17724745]

stop reading globohomo anti-catholic translations. final warning

[Anonymous No.17725024]

>>17724745
That's not a translation you larper. it's a study bible set using the RSV.

The esv ce has the impimatur from the catholic church. Start reading a good literal translation and maybe you too could move towards the true gospel

[Anonymous No.17725083]

>>17725024
I obviously don't read the bible in english

[Anonymous No.17725085]

>>17725083
Then why are you posting an English study bible set?

[Anonymous No.17725091]

>>17714695
>translations
I'm sorry

[Anonymous No.17725119]

>>17725085
it's not hard to realize why

[Anonymous No.17725160]

>>17725119
Because you're scrambling?

[Anonymous No.17725170]

>>17724644
I'm not sure what he's talking about but the KJV calls Jesus the Morning Star in Revelations. Hunter Thompson mentions it in the intro to Generation of Swine.

[Anonymous No.17725204]

>>17714695
The only good Bibles are the ones that use the Septuagint with the Byzantine text, the Vulgate, or the Peshitta. That being said my personal best favorite English Translations are:
>Lexham LXX
>Eob
>Douay-Rheims with a side-by-side parallel of the Vulgate

[Anonymous No.17725211]

Or just skip all the extra stuff and focus strictly on the Torah...

[Anonymous No.17725221]

>>17725204
The only good bibles are translations of translations?

[Anonymous No.17725237]

>>17725221
The original Hebrew has been lost. You really think the reconstruction that the Masoretics themselves admit their source material was corrupt, to have made a better one?

[Anonymous No.17725239]

test

[Anonymous No.17725254]

>>17721509
BASED AND CHRISTPILLED

[Anonymous No.17725258]

>>17725237
I do believe that the masoretic text is a reliable hebrew source, which is verified by DSS and comparing to other translations, but beyond that you're arguing to use translations of translations of the greek new testament, which is idiotic.

[Anonymous No.17725287]

>>17725258
The dead sea scrolls surprisingly match up most of the time with the septuagint. The 151st Psalm along with the ordering of the psalms, baruch, sirach, tobit were found in the dead sea scrolls in original hebrew. This is interesting because qumran and the Essenes live far north from alexandria, proving that the palestinian jews had close access to these books without having to go to alexandria to fetch a septuagint. Somehow, the masoretes decided to heavily strip their canon for the tanakh. That being said the only valid Hebrew Scriptures are the Septuagint and the Peshitta.

[Anonymous No.17725316]

>>17725287
The septuagint and peshitta are not hebrew scriptures. The best method is to critically use the MT and consult LXX along the way.

How do you justify your take regarding the new testament?

[Anonymous No.17725355]

>>17725316
>The septuagint and peshitta are not hebrew scriptures.
Yes they are. They were literally the “Bibles” for diaspora Jews that didn’t know the liturgical Hebrew Language.

>The best method is to critically use the MT and consult LXX along the way.
I prefer to consult the holy tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers instead.

>How do you justify your take regarding the new testament?
I use the Byzantine traditional text.

[Anonymous No.17725399]

>>17725355
In practice what english translations are you advocating

[Anonymous No.17725420]

>>17725399
I just told you at >>17725204

[Anonymous No.17725520]

>>17715416
>just read kjv for literary
Just the New Testament for Liturgy. Nothing beyond that.
>orthodox study for soulful academic focused on the trinity
It’s a nice Beginners Bible for people who came from a Protestant background with some commentary notes, but it’s an imperfect original LXX translation for the OT and just a copy paste NKJV for the NT.

[Anonymous No.17725537]

>>For Catholics
>ESV-CE
No, I think in terms of modern translations rsv-2ce still has the edge. I would prefer a very slightly revised rsv-2ce to account for recent textual discoveries / research.
(to be fair I am not familiar with the esv-ce translation and gathered most of this from https://www.ncregister.com/interview/augustine-institute-publishes-major-new-catholic-bible))

Luke 6:45
>The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

The ESV uses person instead of man (as in mankind, a well defined, widely used word) out of extreme literalness, but then goes on to talk about his heart, his evil treasure, his mouth. Possibly this was changed in the ESV-CE to their heart an so on which would be slightly better. But using his, they should use man.

John 6:54,56 changing 'eats my flesh' to 'feeds on my flesh' to emphasize the original word changed from the general eating verb earlier to a verb that would be translated as to chew. Jesus reemphasizing his statement is enough and eats is direct without inviting additional interpretation.

The esv-ce comes from the rsv-ce (and by lots of the changes amounting to eliminating thee, thou... it's probably best to compare to rsv-2ce) and most of the changes I've seen aren't compelling. Having said that, it could replace the NABRE as the official US edition and I would have no complaints at all.

I've become familiar with Douay-Rheims recently and the more I look into it the closer I'm getting to being a DR onlyist. The small nitpicks I can find about it seem to be just that.

[Anonymous No.17726316]

>>17715804
It convolutes the language from the kjv

[Anonymous No.17726397]

>>17725355
The Vulgate still largely aligns with the MT over the LXX. Considering the Vulgate, Peshitta, and even other Byzantine text type manuscripts sometimes align with the Alexandrian text, there's nothing that really makes the compiled Byzantine text any more credible. Both are preserved witnesses but Alexandrian papyri and codicies provide the earliest extant proof of NT scripture which would not exist otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17727227]

What's the best way to study the original Greek of the New testament (most reliable & new manuscripts) without actually learning koine greek?

[Anonymous No.17727898]

>>17714695
But what about german translations? Would you go with Luther?

[Anonymous No.17727930]

>>17727227
>study the original Greek
>without actually learning koine greek
But uh what?

[Anonymous No.17728049]

>>17727227
Bible software

[Anonymous No.17728281]

Learn Greek and stop bickering over translations. It's actually very easy to learn, it only takes some time and effort to master. I'm going through Rodney Decker's book now and it is extremely easy to follow but ultimately I would recommend David Alan Black's book because there's two different lecture series on the internet for free, one at wvbs.org and the other at dailydoseofgreek.com. Buy the book, get a big stack of flashcards and give it an hour every morning. You'll be amazed at how quickly you pick it up.

[Anonymous No.17728442]

>>17724456
Not biased toward Christians (??), biased toward Evangelicals and Reformists. And if you are reading the bible for *religious or general theological reasons*, as I stated, you are going to want an accurate translation.

>>17723544
>>17724464
I guess I expected too much, for /lit/ to have basic reading comprehension. I said that the NRSV is *difficult to recommend* over the RSV due to the pervasive gender neutral language.

However, the NOAB has excellent footnotes, and the NRSV version of it has the most up-to-date ones. So I explicitly suggested supplementing it with the RSV, because the NRSV isn't a great translation.

[Anonymous No.17728454]

>>17728442
t, schlomo shekelstein, pastor of the lutheran church of NA

[Anonymous No.17728461]

>>17728442
>And if you are reading the bible for *religious or general theological reasons*, as I stated, you are going to want an accurate translation.

hmm makes sense

>The Oxford Annotated Bible (OAB), also known as the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB), is a study Bible published by the Oxford University Press. The notes and the study material feature in-depth academic research from nondenominational perspectives, specifically secular perspectives for "Bible-as-literature" with a focus on the most recent advances in historical criticism and related disciplines, with contributors from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and nonreligious interpretative traditions.

hmmm

[Anonymous No.17728472]

>>17719700
>>17719713
>>17724355
>>17724525
I fucking hate this subreddit

[Anonymous No.17728539]

>>17728461
Wikipedia does a poor job explaining something, who woulda thunk.

The NRSV is the translation used in >90% of courses at universities or seminaries, and the NOAB is the most frequently assigned study bible using it. It does tend to focus more on historical perspectives than theological perspectives, but there is still a wealth of information inside it. Greater and more valuable than any other study bible, in my opinion. It rarely focuses on "bible-as-literature" in its footnotes. As far as "bible-as-literature" study bibles go, the only option really is the Norton Critical KJV.

[Anonymous No.17728585]

>>17728539
>The NRSV is the translation used in >90% of courses at universities
Sounds like a great reason to not use it.

>The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated
oh how about that

[Anonymous No.17728608]

>>17728585
>Sounds like a great reason to not use it.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

> adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language
Yes, I specified that as a huge drawback to the NRSV. However, the NRSV fixes hundreds of translation problems in the RSV as well, making it good in some parts but difficult to recommend.

[Anonymous No.17728960]

>>17726397
>The Vulgate still largely aligns with the MT over the LXX.
They might both have come from an Original Hebrew source, but the Vulgate didn’t used a corrupted textual source like the MT.
>Considering the Vulgate, Peshitta, and even other Byzantine text type manuscripts sometimes align with the Alexandrian text, there's nothing that really makes the compiled Byzantine text any more credible.
Alexandria text was found in the trashcan
>Alexandrian papyri and codicies provide the earliest extant proof of NT scripture which would not exist otherwise.
Rejected bad copies. Nothing more.

[Anonymous No.17729013]

>>17727930
Like learning the original meaning of the words and their place in the manuscripts but without actually learning a good bit of Greek..more of a linguistic endeavour

[Anonymous No.17729121]

But which version won't send me to hell?

[Anonymous No.17729147]

>>17729121
Even the worst paraphrases and cult translations can give you sufficient information for saving faith. You don't even need a bible translation to hear the gospel message if someone tells you.

[Anonymous No.17729155]

>>17729013
>the original meaning of the words
Concordance

>their place in the manuscripts
Footnotes, interlinear

[Anonymous No.17729160]

>>17728960
>corrupted textual source like the MT
Prove it

[Anonymous No.17729238]

>>17729160
>Prove it
The Masoretics literally admit it themselves, saying that they have to make “corrections”.

[Anonymous No.17729400]

>OSS for study
>KJV for spiritual reading
Can't go wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.17729413]

>>17729238

WTF are you even talking about? Is this some incompetent reference to the Kethib and Qere?

[Anonymous No.17729544]

>>17728960
So the LXX must be corrupted where it disagrees with both. Seems doubtful that something found among rubbish would be preserved in such great condition. Such "trash" also represents the oldest complete copies of the LXX.

[Anonymous No.17729651]

>>17729544
Alexandrian text is NT critical text.
The LXX is the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.17729658]

>>17729413
Akiva and his student, and their successors actually.

[Anonymous No.17729740]

>>17715367
honestly not at all surprising that people who have already subscribed to 1 religion welcome the old one being augmentation with a new secular one

[Anonymous No.17729793]

>>17729651
Yeah and they were bound together in the same codices.

[Anonymous No.17729802]

out of curiosity, since I've been learning ancient Greek and met the aorist, how is this handled in translations from the Septuaginta? as I understand it it is a known "issue" so to speak in translations, but I have no idea if it's really relevant or more like details

[Anonymous No.17729895]

>>17729802
Not a Greek expert but it appears to basically correlate with the past tense.

[Anonymous No.17730123]

>>17714695
douay rheims, nkjv, lxx

[Anonymous No.17730308]

I never heard of being any special problems. I'm sure if you were to go deep into comparing manuscripts you'll find some instances of disagreement, with some texts rendering a verb in the aorist and others in the imperfect or something like that. You'll see that with a lot of different things because we have many different manuscripts spanning thousands of years. People generally defer to the oldest manuscripts if there isn't a clear majority reading.

[Anonymous No.17730319]

>>17730308
>>17729802

[Anonymous No.17731042]

>>17719700
You spam these pictures so much but how come you never try defending 1 John 5:7?

[Anonymous No.17731072]

>>17715804
it's a more accurate translation

[Anonymous No.17731416]

>>17720854
>>17721768
whats wrong with librivox? ive had some absolutely gems. of course its hit or miss due to its volunteer nature, but I have discoved a lot of things I otherwise wouldnt with it.


also, the old man who reads Plato’s republic is godly, very enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.17731449]

I was intrigued in reading through CS Lewis' Bibliography about the sin of Pride in Christianity. Is there any books that really explore Pride from the Christian perspective (any demoniation) at length.

Also I'm having a baby. Adding us to your prayers for a healthy boy would be greatly appreciated.

[Anonymous No.17732550]

>>17731449
Prayers

[Anonymous No.17733707]

As an agnostic who is just trying to choose a translation to read, this whole thing is incredibly confusing and disheartening. I feel like no matter what I end up choosing, I'll be misled or outright deceived about some verse or another. How can I possibly expect to learn the truth if there is no consensus even after a thousand years of argument over these things? Am I getting too hung up on this?

[Anonymous No.17733729]

>>17733707
You're getting too hung up and the differences are very nuanced. If you post on /lit/ just read KJV.

[Anonymous No.17733770]

>>17733729
>the differences are very nuanced
You say this, but these differences appear to include things like whether or not sexual deviance sends you to hell, whether women are equal to men and can hold leadership roles in the church, etc. And of course matters of alleged Protestant revisionism. My goal is to read the Bible and from there make a determination on which denomination seems to interpret the Bible the best and has a legitimate claim to being the true church. I just don't see how I can do this without the translation I choose affecting my interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17733886]

>>17733770
There's not a translation that condones sexual deviance besides clearly partisan "inclusive" bibles. Woman clergy is an interpretive issue and the argument for or against is the same regardless of translation.
For that objective you're going to need to read the arguments from each party anyway.

Let me also suggest that there's an assumption you're making which you might not realize, the idea of a true institutional church.

Since you're reading first for interpretation you should read a literal translation. NASB is the most. ESV and NKJV are next.
The NASB 2020 is "gender accurate" and so rejected by the staunchest conservatives, so that would be a more balanced option for you.

[Anonymous No.17733920]

>>17733770
rsv-2ce, a modern, standard translation with all the books of the bible. It comes with nihil obstat and imprimatur which is the first thing you should look for when choosing a bible. If you're worried that this is a Catholic editions, read about the changes that were made. They were made to reflect long standing readings and understanding of scripture from the beginning of the church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition#Considerations_for_an_RSV_Catholic_Edition

esv is the standard hotel bible now, so that would be a basic bible without extremes, but get the esv-ce.
>The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.
Maybe it would be helpful to compare a few verses here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

[Anonymous No.17733938]

>>17733920
The esv-ce is new and uncommon, and I don't think it's available online. If you go this way just read the ESV and read the apocrypha from any available catholic translation.

[Anonymous No.17733983]

>>17733886
>>17733920
Thanks guys. I'm logging off for now but if the thread's still around tomorrow I'll respond more.

[Anonymous No.17733988]

>>17733938
It's available now. Search augustine bible on amazon. For a while they only had one nice edition out, but now it's readily available in paperback and hardback. But yeah it's not online as far as I know. The esv should be close if you're just looking for example verses.

[Anonymous No.17734014]

>>17733988
I don't think there were any changes in the other 66 books between esv and esv-ce

[Anonymous No.17734051]

>>17734014
The deuterocanonical books were the big change, but there were other changes. Probably similar to the rsv -> rsv-ce type changes. That's what I got from here at least.
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/augustine-institute-publishes-major-new-catholic-bible
One of the points he made was how close the esv and esv-ce were.

[Anonymous No.17734099]

>>17734051
You're right, it says there are alterations throughout. That seems like a con to me, the catholic editors expressly changed it to better fit their doctrine rather than what the original text should best say.

>There are relatively few changes in the Old Testament and New, but they’re changes that make the translation line up more with Catholic doctrine and what the Catechism says, and with the way the Catholics understand the faith

Isn't this exactly what we criticize the JW's NWT for doing?

[Anonymous No.17734203]

>>17734099
Most likely it's certain cases where the vulgate translation is supposed to be given primacy. I would certainly be interested in the differences. I'm sure someone will do it eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgiam_authenticam

[Anonymous No.17734322]

i read esv and cross out old testament sections that disagree with the septuagint. i also have a brenton septuagint

[Anonymous No.17734843]

>>17733938
The standard ESV already has apocrypha ftr.

[Anonymous No.17734847]

>>17733707
>>17733770
Amateur bible scholar here.

If you want to read the bible for its literary beauty, read KJV. If you want theological accuracy read the RSV. If you want footnotes and interesting essays/discussion alongside either of these translations get either the Norton Critical KJV, or the New Oxford Annotated Bible with RSV.

While the ESV is clearly popular, I encourage you to read into the history of its creation. It has more of a bias than the RSV, and thus I recommend avoiding it. The NASB on the other hand is a very clunky translation compared to the RSV, and while it's more "word accurate" at times, it loses important context and meaning along the way, so in the end it is less reliable than the RSV.

[Anonymous No.17734860]

>>17733920
The version on Bible Gateway appears to be an earlier edition than the 2nd Catholic edition.

[Anonymous No.17734874]

>>17734847

See >>17724169

[Anonymous No.17734963]

>>17734860
Yeah, it's the original rsv-ce. The 2ce is an improvement, but the original is still very close especially if you're just trying to get a feel for the style.

[Anonymous No.17735502]

>>17734874
Michael Marlowe is a conservative Reformed Christian. The ESV might as well be tailor-made for him. I could just as easily pull up a list of every single location the ESV modifies the RSV translation to align with Reformed/Evangelical beliefs, and those modifications are much more pervasive (read: hundreds) than these relatively mild changes he brings up.

[Anonymous No.17735604]

I work for the church creating orders of service at a major cathedral. While the KJV is undoubtedly more beautiful, it has some ridiculous lines (like when the disciples are 'astonished with great astonishment'). We use the NRSV (angliscised) for all except BCP services, and I've never come across any ridiculous gender neutral language (I don't care really if 'brothers in christ' in the epistles is translated to 'brothers and sisters in christ').

[Anonymous No.17736893]

>>17735604
Neat. What denomination, and what country?
Do you have a really big and cool lectern bible?

[Anonymous No.17738162]

þ

[Anonymous No.17738171]

>>17714695
>Muh Bible Only
forgets most people couldn't read.
debunks entire theology

[Anonymous No.17738181]

>>17724355
Protestants are in a Cult

[Anonymous No.17738282]

>>17738171
>>17738181
Obsessed