[ 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: 70 KB, 1697x992, bibles.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9196798 No.9196798 [Reply] [Original]

I made a bible translation guide yesterday, and I've taken people's comments on board and made a better version.

I hope you find it helpful.

>> No.9196813
File: 56 KB, 400x346, Hail+satan+arrogant+happy+holloweed_9591a1_5705717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9196813

Add Young's Literal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

>> No.9196831

>>9196813
I tried to keep it as simple as possible, so bibles like Young's sadly don't fit, even though it's an interesting read.

>> No.9196845

Replace both NRSV and NRSVCE with NRSV with Apocrypha so it's really ecumenical.

>> No.9196846

>>9196798
your effort is appreciated.

>> No.9196852

>>9196798
fukken saved

>> No.9197074

>>9196798
You still haven't added the Douay-Rheims which is the standard Catholic Bible

>> No.9197091

>>9196845
^

It's the GOAT. As perfect as a Bible can get.

>> No.9197290

>>9197074
Better sources branch or nicer language?

>> No.9197291

>>9197290
Archaic

>> No.9197345

>>9197290
Nicer language, it's the Catholic equivalent of the KJV, in fact the KJV translators used it as a reference.

>> No.9197365

The only problem with your chart is that it includes the Orthodox Study Bible under the "better sources" segment. It just uses the NKJV New Testament. There isn't a full Orthodox translation of any merit available in English. Many use the RSV as the Oxford Annotated RSV has an edition with all of the Apocryphal Books the EO Church uses.

>> No.9197375

>>9197365
I think the OSB deserves to be on there simply for the fact, as you said, that it's the only decent Orthodox Bible in English. It should be on there just for people who are using the chart specifically to look for an Orthodox Bible, it's really the only option.

>> No.9197376

>>9197074
>which is the standard Catholic Bible

This hasn't been true for decades. It is only used in certain traditional circles today.

>>9197290
Lol, it's not even a translation of the Greek and Hebrew, but a translation of the Latin Vulgate.

>> No.9197390
File: 50 KB, 449x642, free-shrugs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9197390

Which Bible Should I Get?
>Do you want to read it for prose or education?
Prose
>>King James Version
Education
>>Old Testament: Jewish Study Bible
>>New Testament and Deuterocanonical books: Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha

There you go. Fixed it for you, OP.

>> No.9197394

>>9197376
The Latin Vulgate is objectively the best Bible with the most beautiful language

>> No.9197401

>NKJV
I refuse to believe this belongs on a bible recommendation chart. Just leave it at KJV.

>> No.9197404
File: 843 KB, 1200x704, Codex_Sinaiticus_open_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9197404

>>9197394
>cherrypicking bibles for translated prose

I hope you dont do this anon.

>> No.9197417

>>9197401
It's a modern English translation using the NT Byzantine text-type, with all of the major Critical Text differences footnoted. It isn't just a simplification of the KJV. That is a common misconception due to the name.

>> No.9197424

>>9196845
This

>>9197074
This (if KJV is listed so should this be)

>> No.9197486

>>9197424
>This (if KJV is listed so should this be)

Then so should the Geneva Bible.

>> No.9197500
File: 72 KB, 1697x992, bibles.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9197500

>>9196845
You're absolutely right, I forgot to add a note about the Apocrypha version. But Catholics will still prefer their canonical order if they're going to get an NRSV so I'll leave that in.

>>9197365
I thought so too, but EO consider the Septuagint of primary importance so I figured if they're looking at the chart they'll consider it a "better source". There's also the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible but they've only done the NT so far.

>> No.9197861

>>9197500
mirin

>> No.9198006

>>9196798
Where's the Knox, OP?

>> No.9198022

Why do people hate NIV again? It's the only one I've read.

>> No.9198048

My parents are Syriac Orthodox Christians, so they have the Eastern Orthodox version, but in Arabic, not in English.
In Arabic, the language is quite easy to understand, but it isn't so easy in English, unfortunately.

>> No.9198056

It'll make it easy.

KJV or Douay-Rheims. The end.

>> No.9198079

>>9198022
It's good for casual reading, but not great for study. The translators "fix" quite a few passages to match other parts of the bible (or their theology), even when not supported by the text.

>> No.9198092
File: 1.10 MB, 275x187, 1468093556551.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9198092

>The RSV, second Catholic edition is the only Bible translation that uses standard (non-feminist) English
Shedevils BTFO

>> No.9198095

OP have you read the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translation? That's the best one IMO. I love it. You should really add it to your chart. Beautiful balance of readability and accuracy. It should have it's own branch right down the middle from the top of your chart.

>> No.9198287

Replace the KJV with the Douay-Rheims. The KJV is straight up garbage.

>> No.9198307

>>9198287
>The KJV is straight up garbage.

This. The KVJ bible is "The Beatles" of bible translations.

>> No.9198555

>>9198307
> Hating the Beatles is cool now

>> No.9198569

>>9198056
t. retard

>> No.9198603
File: 264 KB, 1234x1200, lattimore_newtestament.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9198603

>no lattimore

pic related

>> No.9198605

>>9198603
Could they make a more disturbing cover?

>> No.9198614

>>9198287
KKV stays for historical/literary relevance

>> No.9198620

>>9198603

Nobody but you posts it because its garbage.

>> No.9198637

>>9198620
>implying anyone but a handful of people from /lit/ have read it

I've read it. NRSV is probably better overall but Lattimore is a great replacement for the KJV if you're only reading for literary reasons.

>> No.9198646

>>9198637

How many copies have you sold?

>> No.9198831

Is this a meme or is it worth reading the bible as a non christian?

>> No.9198843

>>9198831

If you have to ask you're not ready to read it.

>> No.9198863

>>9198831
>is it worth reading a book that defines the western civilization
You have to be extremely mentally challenged to ask a question like this, so in your case probably not really worth.

>> No.9198887

>>9196831
Why did you leave out ESV? That is such a good bible.

>> No.9198929

>>9198831
Definitely worth it, but stick to the highlights at first. Don't listen to anyone who tells you to read it from cover to cover, nobody needs to read Leviticus first time around.

If you want to start at the new testament, Gospel of Mark is super short and gives a basic run down of Jesus' ministry. Then read the other gospels, Acts, and Romans, and you've got a good foundation. If you want to do the old testament, you can read the narrative books as one big epic (see below) or look at some morality tales like Jonah or poetry in the Pslams.

OT narrative if you're interested:

Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Daniel 1-6
Ezra

>> No.9198935

The NRSV is really bad. They changed the text in a lot of places to be gender inclusive where it's not even appropriate for the sake of political correctness. They changed the "Hail Mary full of grace" to say "Greetings, favored one" and that's reason enough to toss it.

Use the RSV or RSV2 instead.

>> No.9199329
File: 379 KB, 741x1711, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9199329

>>9198929
Job and Ecclesiastes are the greatest works of the OT and you skipped them

>>9198935
Can you cite some sources on PC changes? Not calling you out unless you are full of shit. Also, your second point, well, pic related

>> No.9199345

>>9198935


>" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

>"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

It seems like a translation thing, which is what the NRSV strives for right?

I mean, i

>> No.9199402

>>9198929
Thanks

>> No.9199484

One question:

So the bible wasn't translated into various language for quite a while, and was usually used in Latin. How exactly did average plebs understand what was going on?

>> No.9199514

>>9199484
>So the bible wasn't translated into various language for quite a while, and was usually used in Latin. How exactly did average plebs understand what was going on?

They didnt until the printing press and translations into the vernacular, at which time the protestant reformation started.

Council of Toulouse, 1229
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.