/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22384823]

Is the King James Version the best version of the Bible to read?

[Anonymous No.22384830]

>>22384823
Pleb here, can someone explain how there are different versions of the bible? Isn't there just one bible?

[Anonymous No.22384842]

>>22384830
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic (for the Old Testament), and Greek (for the New Testament). There are different versions based on different ways people have translated the original language.

[Anonymous No.22384902]

>>22384830
adding to this answer >>22384842 the book can be interpreted in various ways because of how its written and because hebrew is retarded, thus why so many translations. For example, the hebrews used the same word for "side" and "rib", so in Genesis when it says that god created women from the man's rib, it could also perfectly mean that god created women alongside men.

>>22384823
I'm a Reina Valera enjoyer

[Anonymous No.22384966]

>>22384823
In English, I would say yes, alongside NKJV, for clarity where there might emerge confusion.
But for this kind of work it is advised to read it in multiple languages if possible. Generally, the older the better.

[Anonymous No.22384990]

Geneva Bible is better. No clue why that is the one that didn't catch on.

[Anonymous No.22385023]

>>22384902
>in Genesis when it says that god created women from the man's rib, it could also perfectly mean that god created women alongside men.
t. can’t actually read Hebrew

[Anonymous No.22385040]

>>22384902
>For example, the hebrews used the same word for "side" and "rib", so in Genesis when it says that god created women from the man's rib, it could also perfectly mean that god created women alongside men.
Funnily enough, Polish has the same thing with the word "bok", which means "side," but can also be understood as the rib (as in side of the body, though today it is a tad archaic). So it's pretty close to the original Hebrew dual meaning.

[Anonymous No.22385042]

Brenton Septuagint for OT

[Anonymous No.22385059]

>>22384823

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

Word on Fire bibketfor a rich experience

Great Adventure Catholic Bible for learning

[Anonymous No.22385071]

>>22384902
I'm curious for Reina Valera but the fact they translate YHWH as Jehova annoys me. Yeah Yahve isn't better but Jehova sounds retarded

[Anonymous No.22385180]

>>22385059

Bible for*

[Anonymous No.22385239]

>>22384823
For English readers, yes.

There are other received text or textus receptus or majority text bibles for other languages. Most modernist and Catholic bibles come from Alexandrian occultists/perverts, many Bibles even make Jesus a liar and sinner, and most modern bibles have introduced errors and contradictions leaving people with doubt (or even not translating certain words) forcing them to go to the "experts" and the "scholars" and their "pastor" to tell them what it all akshually means or how it all akshually should be interpreted which is really just another or new priest class -- but you don't need priests if you have God's preserved words in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxV8cqE3B28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ3LUvKKiKY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VkU7hGkym0

The bottom line is God said he'd preserve his words, and the KJB is God's words preserved for the English-speaking world. Most "scholars" and "experts" today call God a liar and they want you to do anything but put your faith in God's words and promises.

>>22384830
God has a lot of enemies and Satan has made a lot of counterfeits once it became clear he couldn't suppress Scripture, once burning "heretics" at the stake along with their manuscripts and scripture couldn't prevent the spread of scripture.

>>22385059
Codex Vaticanus is a blatant forgery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6C6CIyGj8M

And the Catholic cult denies the historicity and truth of Scripture (probably because their tradition and religion goes against God's Word)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqw2doe-AJo

[Anonymous No.22385443]

>>22385071
If what appears in source biblical manuscripts as "Yeshua/Yesus" can become "Jesus" then it should also not be too irrational that Y(ɘ)h(o)w(a)h become "Jehovah" to the readers and translators of the early-modern period.

[Anonymous No.22386213]

>>22385239
Whats your opinion on the NIV translation?

[Anonymous No.22386348]

>>22384823
If you want accuracy for English then yes.

>>22384966
Unfortunately NKJV has some issues, for instance where it changed the meaning of 2 Kings 23:29 to be the opposite of the meaning that can be found in the KJV, which also contradicts the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 35:20. The KJV says that the pharaoh went up against Assyria in both places. But the New King James says that pharaoh went "to their aid" in the Kings reference and "against" them in the Chronicles verse. It's also got other problems, such as actually following the Alexandrian text in a few places such as Matthew 22:10 and Jude 1:3. And the NKJV changing a singular seed to a plural ("descendants") in Genesis 22:17 - directly contradicting Paul's entire point in Galatians 3:16 of the New Testament about there being a singular seed in this prophecy that is very explicitly NOT plural.

>>22385071
I have a recent revision of the Reina-Valera that tries to get closer to the received text, and it uses Señor in most places instead of Jehova like the historical Reina Valera editions. The closest one historically was the 1865 revision. I don't really have an opinion on the word choice since I don't read Spanish fluently, but I do like the idea of an edition that's accurate to the Greek as much as possible

>>22386213
Not that anon but the NIV is highly inaccurate and it also includes lots of known corruptions to the New Testament text. For example, in Mark 1:41 the NIV says that Jesus was "indignant" meaning angry, instead of "filled with compassion," because a leper had knelt in front of him and asked to be made clean. This is based on a single ancient Greek manuscript with an errant reading. The NIV also changes the name "Barabbas" in Matthew 27:16 to "Jesus Barabbas." And again that is also based on an errant manuscript. Like many other modern versions, the NIV also skips over entire verses among the other changes. For example, no Matthew 18:11 in the NIV, and no Acts 8:37 or Romans 16:24 either. It also does things like translate "fornication" as the vague term "sexual immorality," which lets you define what you think it means. Despite the reputation that it had at one point, the NIV is generally a very loose translation and it often inserts what the editors think a word is supposed to mean. It's not for somebody who prioritizes accuracy, then.

[Anonymous No.22386355]

>>22384990
The Geneva Bible was used by puritans from 1560 to around the 1640s, which is when Cambridge University had been printing more accurate (and readable) KJV editions. The older ones were riddled with typographic errors and they didn't like that. The two translations are very similar in the main text in any case, and the 1611 KJV is very clearly influenced by lots of the Geneva translations.

The reason I think the KJV did better was because it had a bigger committee and more time to do a careful and thorough revision, and look at all of the manuscripts and editions of the received text, basically taking everything into account. And then they spent more time and put more people to work on each passage. However, most of their work in practice would have involved checking and verifying the correct existing translations in the earlier English Bibles and confirming them for inclusion, and less frequently did they actually change anything significant as far as main text goes.

[Anonymous No.22386370]

>>22386355
>taking everything into account.
When I say everything, I mean like all the evidence, including patristic citations, etc. This being done in addition to sorting through the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament themselves. This is in order to retain the best-supported readings, which generally involved following one of the Textus Receptus editions, which had also been built on the same concept (especially the Stephanus and Beza editions of the Greek New Testament, which were published in many different editions between 1546 and 1604).

[Anonymous No.22386519]

>>22386355
Didn't the kjv replace the word tyrant and try to make kings look better?

[Anonymous No.22386554]

>>22385239
/x/ tier nutcase

[Anonymous No.22386649]

>>22386519
The word "tyrant" appears a few times in the Old Testament in the Geneva Bible and it is instead translated as "oppressor" or "terrible" in those places in the KJV. An easy way to see if there is a bias is to check other translations of the same time period from languages that also had the word tyrant, so I went to these same places in the Luther Bible, the French Geneva Bible and the Biblia de Reina (1569). They all seem to use the same terms as the KJV here rather than "tyrant."

The French Bible in particular uses "terribles" and "l'homme fort" (the strong man) in the place of "the terrible" or "the oppressor" as in the KJV. The Luther Bible seems to use the German equivalent word for "tyrant" (tyrannen) a lot more, but not in the same places as the English Geneva did. And the Spanish Bible seems to use the term "los violentos" or "al violento," although in Psalm 54:3 it used "buscado" (strong). There doesn't seems to be a particular bias in the KJV, considering it still uses the term "oppressors". In fact that word appears 22 times in the KJV, while "tyrant" only occurs 7 times in the Geneva Bible, three of which became "oppressor." The other four times, the KJV seems to line up more with foreign translations of the era, using the term "terrible" (3x) and "mighty" (1x) in these places, which is more similar to the foreign translations.

[Anonymous No.22387136]

>>22386348
>Unfortunately NKJV has some issues
That's why I told OP only to use it for clarity wherever the KJV might get a little confusing. I wouldn't recommend reading just the NKJV.

[Anonymous No.22387316]

As a literary piece sure, for biblical accuracy it's not required to read the KJV

There are plenty of good bibles
Stop focussing on what minor translation difference or a missing maccabean book
Focus on the message of Christ

[Anonymous No.22387335]

>>22387316
>Focus on the message of Christ
Yes, I actually am focused on it.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
- Matthew 4:4

It says every word right here in Matthew 4:4, so I am concerned about every word. Also look at what it says elsewhere in the Bible.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
- Proverbs 30:5-6

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
- Deuteronomy 4:2

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
- Luke 16:17

"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"
- Proverbs 22:20-21

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
- 2 Corinthians 2:17

[Anonymous No.22387479]

>>22387335
I'm pretty sure God didn't mean "word" as in grammatical unit. You'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.22387515]

>>22387479
Sure thing keed

[Anonymous No.22387576]

>>22386554
It's funny how there are two camps: people who use the KJV and goats like you who hate it and hate those who use it. Enjoy the lake of fire, scum of the earth.

[Anonymous No.22387688]

>>22384830
there are multiple underlying manuscripts that are chosen for translation and they have small differences among them
e.g. the Septuagint (greek), the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls (hebrew)