/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21436637]

why is it the best bible version?

[Anonymous No.21436660]

>>21436637
Why ask someone else to confirm your opinion? Why don't you tell us why you think it's the best Bible version?

[Anonymous No.21436669]

ESV because it is what my church uses.

[Anonymous No.21437308]

The best bible version is the one your parents give you when you're young. For me it's the Good News Translation. It warms my heart that every time I open it to front page I can see my grandparents' writing to my dad giving it to him as a gift for Christmas in 1980.

[Anonymous No.21437370]

The original text, or as close as we can get to it, duh.

The D-R is far from the best. The only reason it is half decent is because it heavily ripped off the KJV, which in turn ripped of Tyndale. Also what people call the D-R version is actually the second attempt. The first attempt at a D-R translation was so unidiomatic and unreadable it had to be trashed. You're better off reading the LOLCat Bible.

[Anonymous No.21437379]

>>21437370
It's older than the KJV.

[Anonymous No.21437395]

The best all-around modern translation is the ESV.

[Anonymous No.21437400]

>>21437370
The KJV actually shits on the DR in its preface:
>... as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.
Should also be mentioned it is not a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew but of the Latin Vulgate.

[Anonymous No.21437427]

>>21436660
the topic is gigantic, that's why. i looked into this last week and still don't have an answer. i was on the verge of buying kjv before some other anons mentioned how its translation was tampered with.

[Anonymous No.21437452]

>>21437427
>its translation was tampered with.
I don't know what they're referring to, but that isn't true. Your actual issue with the KJV would be that it's English is archaic and the meaning will be less clear to you (for example words that mean different things now than they did in the 1600s), and that the textual basis is considered to be poor (can of worms here).

[Anonymous No.21437460]

>>21437400
The KJV uses old outdated manuscripts full of scribal errors and for the old testament no manuscript was used, they just grabbed a print Jewish Hebrew Bible and translated it.

[Anonymous No.21437461]

>>21437452
the anon's reasoning was that the Septuagint was tampered with but was refuted by another anon who said it affected only modern translations. either way, it's confusing out there. i'm leaning towards kjv though.

[Anonymous No.21437468]

>>21437461
Get a modern translation. The most important thing is that you are able to clearly understand what you read. That is why you want to read it, is it not? After you've studied the matter further, later on, if you decide you'd like to read the KJV (and there's certainly nothing wrong with reading it), it will still be there for you.

[Anonymous No.21437539]

>>21437452
>I don't know what they're referring to, but that isn't true.
It's absolutely true, as matter of fact the KJV is avoided in university courses studying the Bible because as a translation it's full of errors. KJV should be read, but not for serious study of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21437547]

>>21437539
He said the translation was "tampered with", not that it had errors. Those are two different things.

[Anonymous No.21438215]

>>21436637
Septaugint + Byzantine text.

[Anonymous No.21438236]

[Anonymous No.21438255]

>>21436637
>>21437427
Any mainstream modern Bible translation is going to be at least 95% the same. If this is your first time reading it, which I suspect is the case, then it really doesn't matter.
Now the ~5% deviation isn't theologically or academically insignifigant, but it is seriously not worth concerning yourself over at this point. Read it through once, then concern yourself with studying the text closer after the fact. There is no perfect translation, which is a truism that applies far beyond the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21438643]

I absolutely recommend the KJV if English if your language. It serves as the basis of much of the English language, as our early dictionary writers (Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, etc) cited this translation to an incredible degree as authoritative throughout their word definitions, and it's based on the work of 47 or more biblical scholars who used the received text of the Bible and came to a consensus (based on earlier English translations) for the best possible English representative original Greek and Hebrew texts. Modern translations are cheap dime a dozen projects that get revised every 10 or so years to renew their copyrights and are based on a badly mutilated New Testament Greek text that has about 7% of the original text missing (approximately the amount of content as the books of 1 and 2 Peter). And with actual contradictions created in several places based on the mutilated and altered text of these editions. This is also why woke and secular universities insist on using such translations for their studies instead of the real thing. Pic also related.

[Anonymous No.21438666]

>>21436637
The bible and all religious writings belong in a fire pit.

[Anonymous No.21438687]

>>21436637
Anything but KJV. Holy shit, never have I seen so many mistranslations in my life. Should be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.21438765]

The best version is NET because of all the footnotes that effectively referee the differences between various translations.
>https://netbible.org/reader#

[Anonymous No.21438776]

highly recommend anyone even vaguely interested in the subject that wants to know more at least watch this before forming an opinion:

https://youtu.be/925sGklQtoI

[Anonymous No.21438780]

>>21438666
strongly disagree but checked

[Anonymous No.21438783]

>>21438666
Appropriate digits

[Anonymous No.21438795]

>>21437468
Every biblical idiom in English comes from KJV. Just read the KJV.

Only brainlets can't understand early modern English. Plus the influence the KJV had on the English language is matched only by Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.21438827]

>>21437427
If you are looking for a single "best" translation you won't find it, there are always compromises made when translting any text, and the Bible is dozens of texts written in three languages over the span of hundreds of years. It partly depends what you're looking for:

A decent translation to read for the first time
--- As another anon said, almost all modern translations are accurate enough and readable. You can pick almost any and not have to worry.

A literal Protestant translation
--- New American Standard Bible (NASB). Good for close study since it's highly literal, shows which words have been added to help the sense, and plenty of translation notes. Protestant canon only.

A literal Catholic translation
--- Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) aka Ignatius Bible. A revision of the older RSV text to modernise it and bring it more in to line with Catholic theology. Lots of notes from a Catholic perspective. The English Standard Version Catholic Edition (Augustine Bible) is very similar.

An easy to read Bible
--- The New International Version (NIV) is designed to be an easy read, and also comes in a Catholic version if you want the extra books of the deuterocanon/apocrypha.

Secular translation with full apocrypha and lots of textual notes
--- New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) with Apocrypha. Favoured by Anglicans but essentially translated from a secular perspective, with lots of textual notes highlighting differences in various ancient versions. It includes all books used by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox chuches, which is unusual. It makes some of the language gender-neutral however, e.g. Genesis 1:27 NRSVue "So God created humans in his image," vs NASB "So God created man in His own image"

English literary influence
--- King James Version. The highest impact on the English language and most quoted version.

*****

A tiny minority of Catholics will recommend the Douay-Rheims because they think it's a translation of the Latin Vulgate and therefore "trad". But every edition you can buy today is the 1752 revison by Bishop Challoner who used the King James Version and printed versions of the Hebrew and Greek to modify it *away* from the Latin.

[Anonymous No.21439166]

>>21437379
Yes but the Challoner revision is the version of the DR which is most common. So unless you go out your way to find the earlier version, you are reading a version which was revised with the KJV in mind.

[Anonymous No.21439180]

>>21436637
Orthodox Study Bible for the NT, and I'd shop around for a Septuagint based English translation.

[Anonymous No.21439528]

>>21439166
Also, the Douay-Rheims used the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which was the base text for the King James, they're probably 95% the same so it's highly misleading to imply that the King James is a copy of the Douay-Rheims.

Genesis 1 in the Bishop's Bible (modernised spelling):
>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
2 And the earth was without form, and was void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
3 And God said, let there be light: and there was light
4 And God saw the light that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
5 And God called the light day, and the darkness night: and the evening and the morning were the first day

[Anonymous No.21440450]

>>21438765
The NET attacks the divinity of Christ and follows the teachings of modern talmudic Judaism. For instance, in Isaiah 7:14, which says:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

In this verse, the NET changes the word "virgin" to "young woman."

And in another verse, specifically John 1:18, the NET (along with the ESV) removes the words "only begotten Son."

I could go on and on showing the problems with the NET.

[Anonymous No.21440484]

>>21436637
Whichever one your priest tells you to read.

[Anonymous No.21440976]

>>21440450
I always thought there was something sus about the NET Bible after watching this video. The editor's physiognomy of smugness gives it away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSBnZSa1oQ

[Anonymous No.21441179]

>>21440450
You proved my point, because the translators’ notes address both points you raised.

[Anonymous No.21441530]

>>21440976
Yeah, the Revised Version of 1881 was far less accurate and contained numerous corruptions. For instance in Matthew 5:22 the phrase "without a cause" is removed, so it makes Christ out to say that all anger is sinful, even though God Himself has righteous wrath. Also in Mark 1:2 in the Revised Version the term "written in the prophets" (plural) is changed to the phrase "written in the prophet Isaiah." The problem is that the quote that follows comes from a combination of Malachi and Isaiah. Part of the quote is only found in Malachi, so to say that it is "written in Isaiah" is factually inaccurate, yet this is what the Revised version of 1881 does.

Again, I know of hundreds of errors and inaccuracies in the Revised version, but those are a couple examples of how it is specifically less accurate to the received and original Greek text of the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.21442942]

bump

[Anonymous No.21443146]

KJV for spirituality
NIV for understanding

[Anonymous No.21444009]

ASV Byzantine from eBible.org

[Anonymous No.21444285]

>>21443146
NIV is pretty pozzed though, NKJV or NASB is better

[Anonymous No.21444576]

>>21438666
Kek

[Anonymous No.21444974]

I was gifted a NRSV Bible for Christmas. Would this be a good translation to read for my first reading of the Bible?

[Anonymous No.21444982]

>>21436637
KJV and NKJV are both the best. I use NKJV because its easier to read.

[Anonymous No.21445425]

>>21444974
NRSV is a gender neutral translation.

[Anonymous No.21445689]

>>21436637
How do you read the bible? I tried reading it from the begining and I got fed up with
Joshua gave birth to yusuff
yussuf gave birth to serath
serath gave birth to mussad

[Anonymous No.21445720]

>>21438666
Demonic digits confirm. Lucy wins today.

[Anonymous No.21446248]

>>21438215
>>21439180
came here to post this.

[Anonymous No.21446252]

>>21436660
>why discuss literature on the literature board!?!?!?!

[Anonymous No.21446281]

>>21446248
The version of the Septuagint that all modern versions are based on is missing 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah and it is missing more than 30 verses in Proverbs. The following entire verses of Jeremiah are omitted in the Septuagint:

7:1
8:10b-13a
10:6-9a, 9c-10
11:7-8
17:1-5a
25:13b-14
27:1, 7, 12b-13, 20b-21
29:16-20
30:10-11, 22
33:14-26
39:4-13
46:26
48:44b-47
49:6
51:44b-49a
52:2-3, 15, 27b-30

The same septuagint is also missing messianic prophecies in places like Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2:12.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
- KJV Isaiah 9:6

>"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."
- same verse in the Brenton Septuagint

[Anonymous No.21446310]

>>21445689
Start with reading the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and whatever you want after that. Don't read it cover to cover else you will get burned out by the time you reach Leviticus and Numbers. To make things easier, I suggest reading other books between the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) since they are all similar and you can get burned out that way too. For example, you can read a Gospel, then Acts, an Epistle, then another Gospel, (maybe throw in an OT book like one of the prophets (Isaiah is quoted a lot in the Gospels) one of the Wisdom books, Histories, or a Torah book), then another Epistle, then another Gospel, and so on. It's pretty hard to screw up and get tired if you do it this way.

[Anonymous No.21446324]

>>21437468
this is typical circular christfaggot logic

[Anonymous No.21446881]

>>21446281
so what are the options? where are these missing verses?

[Anonymous No.21447022]

>>21446881
>so what are the options? where are these missing verses?
The verses are in the original Hebrew of Jeremiah and can be found in any translation of this.

Bible translations that you will find fall almost entirely into three categories for the Old Testament. The main option is the received Hebrew Old Testament. This is what the KJV and many other accurate Bibles are translated from. It is represented by texts like the Bomberg 1525 second edition Tanakh, but also others as well such as the Complutensian edition which came a few years earlier as well as other accurate editions of the Old Testament Hebrew (mostly Hebrew w/ some parts being in Syriac-Aramaic where appropriate) that came somewhat later, like Elias Hutter's 1587 edition of the Tanakh which came with hollow-type letters (for identifying root words).

The above is your first text type, it is the oldest and goes back to the original manuscripts, predating the others. The next text type appears to be the Greek "Septuagint." However, there is an issue with this one that needs to be noted, because according to our historical sources, the original translation by the seventy elders (where this version got its name "Septuagint") was only a translation of the books of Moses, not a translation of the entire Old Testament.

It isn't until the 3rd century AD that a complete Greek Old Testament is confirmed to exist, and it came from the scriptoria of Origen in the 3rd century AD, not BC. This version of the Old Testament is the primary basis of modern translations of the so-called "Septuagint." Really they are based almost entirely, if not entirely, on Origen's work, and not on the older pre-Origen version, which we know little about as it is mostly lost except for a few fragments. It's likely that other writers translated various other passages of the Old Testament into Greek - aside from the books of Moses - between the original translation of the Torah and Origen's edition, which Origen neatly gathered together into his own edition before putting some edits of his own into it.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.21447030]

>>21447022
Scholars widely accept that Origen edited parts of this "Hexaplar Septuagint," which comes to us from Origen's Hexapla, and other copyists who came after him. This "Hexaplar Septuagint" is the source for the version of the Old Testament which is missing all of these verses in Jeremiah and Proverbs, and the omitted Messianic prophecies mentioned previously, and it contains many other errors besides these. In Genesis chapter 5, for example, the ages of some of the patriarchs are changed, in such a way that Methuselah actually outlives the flood of Noah by fourteen years. Some translators of the Septuagint are too embarrassed by this fact and have taken the numbers for their ages from the Hebrew version in this part of Genesis in their translations in order to avoid this glaring error. For instance, the 2008 Septuagint translation, the OSB, borrows the numbers "187" and "182" for Genesis 5:25 and 5:28, respectively. Whereas the Greek Septuagint actually has the numbers "167" and "188" here, as can be seen in the 1844 Brenton Septuagint English translation or in the 1935 Rahlf's Septuagint (in Greek).

The third option beside these two is the Ben Asher Masoretic text. This is what modern versions, like the NKJV, the NIV and others use. It is based on the Biblia Hebraica of Rudolf Kittel, first published in 1906, and is also in Hebrew. This text is based on the Codex Leningradensis, among other sources, which comes from the Masoretes. The Masoretes were a medieval religious group. The "Masoretic text" is generally close to the original Hebrew, as mentioned in my first post, but it differs in some respects. For instance in 1 Kings 20:38 and 41, the word "ashes" from the original Hebrew instead says "bandage" in the Ben Asher MT. Also, in Zeph. 3:15, the phrase "see evil" is changed to "fear evil" in the MT, among other minor differences. These differences are not as numerous as the differences that exist with the Greek Septuagint, but still noteworthy.

I always recommend one take the first option, which is the oldest and the original version for both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.21447285]

>>21446881
If you're Catholic or Protestant, you just stick to the Masoretic. If you're Orthodox, you tell that anon to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.21447647]

>>21447022
Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible is literally an edition of the Masoretic Text
>This edition consists of the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-great-rabbinic-bible

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia editions just have better textual apparatuses.

[Anonymous No.21447687]

>>21447285
Modern Orthodox translations use the Hebrew as a base for the OT, not the Septuagint.

[Anonymous No.21447907]

>>21447647
>Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible is literally an edition of the Masoretic Text
Those who actually produced and used the MT would not have been complaining about Bomberg's editions in that case. They even complained that the person who helped Bomberg edit the second edition was a convert to Christianity. The two text are also clearly different, as one was produced by the actual Masoretes (Codex Leningradensis being the exemplar of this type) while the other was preserved by others and has concrete differences in a number of places. Another place where the received text (as contained in the editions of Bomberg, the Complutensian, Hutter's editions etc.) differs from the Ben Asher MT is in Malachi 1:12, where the older Hebrew OT says יְהוָה (the tetragrammaton, aka LORD in small capitals) while the newer MT says אֲדֹנָי ("Adonai," aka Lord written without small capitals).

[Anonymous No.21447917]

>>21447907
>text
texts*

[Anonymous No.21447964]

>>21436637
Don't listen to KJV onlyers. It's just the least corrupted. of course not counting the 10th century AD (((masorectic text))) OT vs the preserved within church 2nd Century BC LXX untouched by jews who rejected Jesus (otherwise they'd be christians) But a lot of minor differences don't matter to much because you should seek guidance within the church as well to help steer and stay on the right path. If you're just reading secularly or for literary canon purposes, KJV is undisputed for such means.

[Anonymous No.21447994]

>>21444982
I use NKJV in my Orthodox Study Bible since I'm a layman and then compare to my thinline KJV which I travel with.

[Anonymous No.21448005]

>>21447964
bottom line:, there's corruption everywhere including in the "original sources" which a bunch used for older translations have been lost to time. KJV is standard and a good exercise in learning middle english and antiquity. it's archaic nature adds a sort of feel to it you don't get elsewhere but the scriptures are also meant for the common man so using an easier translation is fine as long as you involved with a church (preferably orthodox, or at least paying in mind venerated saints of the original church, Luther was an Augustinian monk after all).

[Anonymous No.21448104]

>>21447907
You're just assuming that 16th century printed editions contain earlier readings than a 10th century manuscript. What are the actual manuscripts used ilfor the early printed versions?

[Anonymous No.21448119]

>>21436637
ESV Study bible, archaeology edition.

[Anonymous No.21448278]

Why don't you learn Hebrew and Greek?

[Anonymous No.21448284]

>>21447964
Modern translations are not straight translations of the Hebrew. They use that as the overall basis but make comparison with the Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta, etc. and weigh the issues on a case-by-case basis. This is the case with modern translations by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

[Anonymous No.21448293]

>>21436637
BBC
best bible collection

unironically you could just watch cuck porn bc it has basically the same message for you