too stupid to read KJV

[Anonymous No.20486357]

Opinions on the new international version?

[Anonymous No.20486361]

Both are fine.
I don't understand what you mean by "too stupid to read KJV"

[Anonymous No.20486369]

>>20486361
The old English is just too difficult for me to read and I'm too focused on figuring out what it actually says instead of considering it's meaning

[Anonymous No.20486376]

>>20486369
Just stop being retarded
Or read RSV

[Anonymous No.20486474]

>>20486369
lol. KJV is modern English.

[Anonymous No.20486545]

>>20486369
Most translations are that way even without the early modern English
You probably wouldn't believe for example that what is translated as "heart" in most references in the old testament iirc is actually kidneys in the original texts because that's the organ which was symbolic for emotions at the time.

And MUCH more subtle textual and cultural differences abound to make reading the Bible basically an anthropological exercise
(or more likely akin to an astrological one, the way I see most fags on tiktok reading it "ooh this verse sounds pretty" and "this is SOOO right OMG God's truth and light!" when they're basically reading a bunch of platitudes)

[Anonymous No.20486551]

>>20486357
There are better versions but it'll get the job done. Consider ESV as well.

[Anonymous No.20486558]

>>20486551
I understand ESV over NRSV, but why would you choose ESV over RSV?

[Anonymous No.20486568]

>>20486558
It's the one I'm more familiar with, that's all. I think I have an RSV or another version based on it, but I'm not familiar enough to say much about it.

[Anonymous No.20486614]

>>20486357
Most christcucks are too dumb to understand their own jew book so it doesn't really matter which translation you use
You're not gonna be going through asking any important questions about what God actually wants for you since you're just gonna be saying to yourself "wow praize God, yasss, jesus is King jesus is King!"

For example:
Does Jesus want us to follow all, part, or none of the 613 commandments in the mosaic law?
If all, wouldn't that exclude the vast majority of even people who call themselves Christians?
If part, which parts and why does he never say so?
If Jesus is in fact the messiah come to establish a new covenant on Earth then why are the ten commandments (as well as the OT) relevant in the first place? (the real answer is: to give the cult some ancient, established clout back in Roman times when it was still weird and new)

[Anonymous No.20486623]

>>20486357
Every rare now and then the NIV has the best possible reading of a verse/passage.

[Anonymous No.20486636]

>>20486357
The NIV84 is good, the NIV11 is cringe.

[Anonymous No.20486649]

>>20486614
Paul has soms letters he'd like you to read.

[Anonymous No.20486660]

>>20486568
70% of the ESV is untouched from the RSV71. The other 30% the ESV dumped is archaic pronouns, more "Biblical" English vocabulary, and the proper use of the word "nor," all of which the RSV had.

[Anonymous No.20486718]

>>20486649
>So um basically I think you don't need to follow the jewish law but um acktually I think they're right on some things involving homos, but also this one time Jesus said "love one another" so I'm gonna say that basically sums up the entire jewish law - including the parts about circumcision, diet, and the sabbath (which I don't recognize tho becuz the law is also a worldly creation)
>Thx, hope that answers your questions :)
>t. Paul

[Anonymous No.20487339]

>>20486357
Was that a real post?

[Anonymous No.20487357]

>>20487339
Yep, and it consolidated the evangelical christcuckery of the far american right. That it should happen on /pol/ is hilarious, since american evangelicals are the reason Israel even exists, since these christcucks believe there must be jews in Israel before the apocalypse and judgment day, where the second coming of christ will ensure they get promoted and all their middle school bullies go to hell.

Mindnumbing, life-denying, masochist and the most profoundly cucked ideology of all time.

[Anonymous No.20487398]

>>20486357
Just read it.

[Anonymous No.20487478]

>>20486357
NIV is the official version for my roommate's church

[Anonymous No.20487515]

>>20486718
based Paul. look forward to read him myself.

[Anonymous No.20488400]

how do we feel about the Good News Translation, or Today’s English Version

[Anonymous No.20488406]

I got the 21st century king james and the new king james version. I personally read them both

[Anonymous No.20488492]

>>20486614
Good thing there is almost two thousand years of writing by some of the smartest people ever born on this very subject. You are just mad that Daddy made you go to church on Sunday

[Anonymous No.20488505]

>>20486357
LITERAL STANDARD VERSION

[Anonymous No.20488526]

>>20486357
>NIV
Avoid. It's tainted by a sensibility that renders and reshapes meaning in passages that aren't meant to be understood in alignment with an explicitly modern context. Read a general introduction to the history of Christianity instead (pic-related).

[Anonymous No.20488545]

>>20488406
I've wondered if there was any difference between the 21st Century KJV and the Third Millenium Bible translation, since they both seem like gimmicks that came out at the same time like all the other Y2K gimmicks. It turns out they are the same thing from the same people, with the only difference being that the TMB contains the deuterocanon and the apocrypha from the 1611.

[Anonymous No.20488564]

>>20488545
The 21st century king james is pretty good. It just removes archiac words but is the same thing. Not a almost complete rewrite like the new king james. Here is some examples in pic related. I still want to get a regular king james bible. With the apocrypha, cause right now if i wanna read that i gotta read it in the new kjv

[Anonymous No.20488637]

>>20488564
I mean, I kinda understand where the KJ21/TMB were coming from, but at the end of the day, their changes are accommodated in other editions of the KJV by just adding new marginal/footnotes with the modern words, so I kinda don't. As for your request, the KJV Cameo Reference Bible with Apocrypha is inevitably what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.20488646]

>>20488637
Alright ill keep that in mind. Thank you for the reccomend

[Anonymous No.20488676]

>>20486357
It's more easily readable than the KJV to modern eyes but has a tendency towards paraphrasing, sometimes in ways which significantly alter a passage's meaning.

I'm partial to the CSB, which is nearly as accurate a translation as the KJV while creating an easy-to-read literary flow - essentially the same translation philosophy as the KJV itself, but reading like modern literature. Other translations (ESV, KJV, NKJV) are preferable if you care more about word specificity and less about readability, most translations are worse.

[Anonymous No.20488698]

Note though that it's also easy to overstate how bad the NIV's tendency towards removing anthropological nuances, and altering meanings thereby, is. It's a perfectly serviceable translation if it's all you have available, glaring issues only happen in a handful of passages.

[Anonymous No.20488717]

>>20488698
So what is *the best* translation out there, that perfectly balances readability and accuracy? Short of just learning Greek and reading the original of course

[Anonymous No.20488734]

>>20488717
I generally find the HCSB and CSB to balance those best. If you're more comfortable with antiquated literary styles, the KJV is great for that purpose too. More word-for-word than that and translations start becoming clunky, or needing notes to explain why they chose a word equivalence which doesn't carry cross-culturally over a meaning equivalence in this or that metaphor.

[Anonymous No.20488778]

>>20488676
An alternate popular translation chart.

[Anonymous No.20488804]

>>20488717
The ESV16 and the CSB, in conjunction with the RSV71 for better and more tasteful word choice in several places, I'd say. As >>20488734 said, though, the more literal you get, the clunkier it gets. One of the famous criticisms of the RV/ASV was that, while they were more literal than the KJV, that quest for more literalness was at the cost of worsening the English in all the places they made their revisions. Never forget that "literalness" =! "more accurate"; you can translate a poem "literally," but the result won't be "accurate" to the poetry.

[Anonymous No.20488817]

>>20488778
Hmm, only using New Testament verses makes this methodology dubious. Most widely disputed translations in the KJV are Old Testament-only, understandably considering knowledge of Koine Greek was better in King James' day than knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.20488916]

>>20488817
There is an OT chart, too, but it's to consider MT literalness vs. LXX/DSS literalness.

[Anonymous No.20488949]

>>20486357
king james vi was a high ranking mason

[Anonymous No.20489725]

>>20486614
the old law was given to raise the Israelites to a bare minimum baseline of morality such that it would not be unfitting for Christ to be born among them

but it backfired due to the sins of man and left them more evil than if no law had been given (see Romans).

The new law of love which Christ pours into our hearts, which is the Spirit, more than fulfills the commandments. The commandments are like the borderlands of a vast continent (on whose borders the Israelites dwelt), love is the continent itself

[Anonymous No.20489728]

>>20486357
I have found it worse than the ESV/RSV on enough occasions that I no longer bother with it.

When a passage is tough, look up the interlinear translation. The original Hebrew/Greek might surprise you.

[Anonymous No.20490191]

>>20486614
>>20486718
Kek, no wonder you don't have any friends.

[Anonymous No.20490209]

>>20486369
Inb4 the pseuds who say “umm ackchually it’s not in Old English”