Here's your Bible bro

>ecumenical study bible

Attached: 1444176154514.gif (280x296, 1.61M)

Except they have a related word for sisters too which they opted not to use and only a retard would go as far as to interpret it as being exclusive of females because of it.

Dumb dumb dumb. Masculine collectives and pronouns were preferenced for a REASON. The work loses some of its historicity and meaning if they're done away with. Stop letting yourself be ideologically assimilated by liberalism.

>liberal manipulation
of the bible...

>that cover
that's fucking hersey

Knox translation

>2075
>Due to implementation of politically correct neutrally tolerant reforms Matthew 28:19-20 now reads: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you, insofar as they are willing to consent to it and with respect and tolerance for all beliefs, backgrounds, and sexual orientations.

Attached: 1445523337069.png (1280x1109, 536K)

>b-b-b-but the source culture is sexist!! r-r-removing the sexism changes the message!!
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

c o p e

why is this the go-to response when anons don't have any argument?

Yeah man, Jesus was a feminist n shit

not an argument unironically

>The Bible isn't sexist because it says one's relationship to God takes primacy over one's gender identity
Epic. Lets start killing roasties for being whores. It's technically not sexist

>An ecumenical edition

exactly
I know, saying something isn't an argument is not an argument, but just replying "cope" isn't an argument either. it immediately stopped being a formal argument as soon as that comment was posted. if you want me to make an argument, I expect the same from you
>>The Bible isn't sexist
the New Testament, to be precise
>It's technically not sexist
correct. no idea why you think I would disagree

>implying taking biblical passages out of context to liberally apply to translational conventions wasn't a shitty argument to begin with

>a shitty argument
>argument
thanks for confirming that what I said was an argument, unlike what you said. now take it apart if you really think it's bad

>implying being a christian won't be hate speech

are we gettin raided?

Attached: 406B9FDB52CB43DBBA342EB5D587291C.jpg (960x1280, 185K)

douay rheims

>being this butthurt about not having an argument

first you say I have an argument, then you say I don't. which is it?

Hmm I’m not keen on liberal reinterpretations of Bible but the gender neutral thing makes sense to me. No translation can be perfect, and it conveys to modern readers that such passages are not directed solely toward men—which is not an issue of social justice, but of textual intention. Since we have no equivalent phenomena in our language (except for informal words like ‘guys’), it’s a legitimate decision.

>probably same fag asking the question again because first attempt at arguing was terrible
It's because it can be interpreted to apply to everyone anyways including through extrascriptural means such as exegesis and commentary. Those of us who aren't utter brainlets do not require of a sanitized rendering for modern ideological sensibilities as we appreciate the culture of the period for what it was with its true seasoning and not aspartme sugar coating. It's like needing Whoopi Goldberg to explain all this crap before watching a Tom and Jerry DVD.

youtu.be/gDfEbnDeqpI

what is it with this site and the idea that it's impossible for more than one person to disagree with you at a time?

Maybe cause there are no ids unlike pool and the fact that the poster counter is about half the number of post, which is all fine by me.

>try to read the bible
>decide to look up what I have to read
>there's the old testament
>also the new testament
>but not the apocrypha that shit isn't canon
>there's actually like a thousand books by different authors and people pick which books are canon and part of the bible
>also there's different translations everyone nuts over KJV but then there's people that are like that shits old gotta read some of the newer translations brother
>also if you're protestant some books aren't canon but if you're catholic those same books are

I'm so fucking lost, I just wanted to be Christian, what the fuck is Lutheran evan mean

>thousands of books
Confirmed for disingenuous lurker.

Lutheranism is one of the earliest forms of Protestantism and as such is actually really similar to Catholicism in many ways. they're primarily distinguished from their fellow evangelicals by their "by faith alone" doctrine that everyone who believes in Jesus is saved without exception
as for different books, just pick up the book in the OP, it's a pretty well-liked translation, and the specific edition contains the more important apocrypha and notes about which denominations use each one

This meme explains much of what lies at the root of the bickering. Most rational people wouldn't mind a Bible with extra apocrypha/deuterocanonicals but sometimes those translations don't possess as good a rendering as others might, so you have to sift through a variety of versions to get the best out of all them.

English for better or for worse has several different translations of comparable accuracy and significance.

Attached: fd8.jpg (661x716, 140K)

>Most rational people
Hmm, could this be considered an oxymoron?

People can't be rational?

So do I read NIV? Or the OP book?

It's got extras.

Attached: D7Li3TCXoAA0Hdr.jpg (1200x900, 174K)

This culture of hysteria, magnified endlessly by corporate cellphone media, really accelerated things. I still believe the choice is to opt out, as I did, but we're (as in all of us) all be drone-servants in the near future.

That's all well and good, but if you read a translation you are inevitably reading an interpretation of the original text. Your language is not Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin or Koine Greek, our lexicon is not theirs. You can't authentically express "the culture of the period" in words from our own culture. Things are going to be lost, which is the value of multiple translations. In many translations, the fact that it is addressed to both sexes is lost. In this translation, the fraternal tinge to the word is lost.

does it have the original hebrew "don't rape other men" translation instead of the "no homo bro" version?

If you're gonna read one of the popular commercial versions I'd say the Catholic editions of the RSV and ESV are the best choice because they also contain the apocrypha. I still prefer older translations to those though, such as the trusty ASV followed by Brenton's Septuagint for the apocrypha.

It's not exclusive to ancient languages and has in fact been a known part of English linguistic heritage.
Some tomboy in my class got mad at the old timer instructor one day for continually using he as a pronoun when speaking about hypothetical scenarios pertinent to the field of the course.

based and cathpilled

Pic is the best bible

Attached: 77453601-D80E-49B2-86E3-C97DFB0E3920.jpg (188x267, 6K)

Gee it's literally the same thing as the OP did you really feel there was a need to repost it?

NOAB is fine, and among the better choices if you are reading the bible for non-religious purposes.

>non religious
What's that supposed to mean? Some door to door missionaries might benefit from a more fluid translation than a more literal one actually but the alternative could also be desirable under a different circumstance.

what's the best Quran translation?

It's also fine for religious readers, but most people reading the bible as literature will likely be better served by a bible with ecumenical or secular notes, than with notes devoted to a particular sect (like an orthodox study bible), while the opposite is going to be true for people reading religiously. Obviously both will be usable for either group, but each group has different needs.

Pickthall is often recommended on this site.

his name has "th" in it, give me a different one

What's the best translation sutta to sutta of the Pali canon?

Attached: peace-buddha.jpg (640x463, 138K)

How about The Koran Interpreted by ArTHur Arberry,
The Qur'an: The First American Version by Dr. THomas Ballantyne Irving,
The Qur'an: A New Translation by a well-known California-based translator of numerous Buddhist works, Dr. THomas Cleary,
The Quran: A Reformist Translation by the team of Edip Yuksel, LayTH Saleh al-Shaiban, and MarTHa Schulte-Nafeh,
or Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Exegesis of the Grand Holy Qur'an by Abu-l-Fidaa' 'Imaadu-d-Deen Ismaa'eel Ibn 'Umar Ibn KaTHir Al-Quraishi Ash-Shafi'i Al-Ash'ari Al-Busrawee Ad-Dimashqi?

t. child with instruction comprehension difficulties

an epic btfo..

I refuse to read any books or even speak any words containing dhe digraph "th"

>Some tomboy in my class got mad at the old timer instructor one day for continually using he as a pronoun when speaking about hypothetical scenarios pertinent to the field of the course
Interesting, but hardly relevant to the question of how to accurately translate the Bible.

brothers and he are used generically though. They're not gendered in that use. Words are not the spelling and pronunciation. Thinking this is gendered language is wilful ignorance and the height of petty politicisation. Same as generic 'man'.

generic he, generic man, and generic brother are all ambiguous and underused in Modern English. to translate it word for word into English makes it gendered, even if it's not gendered in the original language

If you can't figure it out by understanding the historical context that the narrative is set in, then you probably shouldn't be preoccupied with how accurately it's translated at all. Focusing on the gender aspect is cherrypicking.

>I'm not going to translate this into the target language correctly because my intended audience is already aware of the intricacies of the source language!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't unique to ancient languages either but you can observe similar customs in any gendered modern language. Maybe such a thing flies by the thought of those who are bilingual more.

>I'm not going to translate this into the target language correctly because it has a feature that is not present in other, completely irrelevant languages that I happen to know and like

Well they should be. It would make everyone's understanding more accurate and easier and not be an improvisational crutch.

if it matters so much to you that the language remain the same, then why not translate it conventionally and then leave a footnote with the direct translation? that's what the NOAB from the original post does

Might have to learn old english then. But even works in that appear to contain some.

time to move to Russia, learn dheir language, and never touch English again

I'd prefer the reverse but generally I'd prefer to not do it all.

>the new oxford
More like the Jew Oxford.

is all you have to offer a textbook slippery slope fallacy

It's about as close as you can get to the original text in English as possible. People who don't understand how language works throw a shit fit over pronouns.

>not reading the bible in hebrew and ancient greek
never gonna make it

Attached: 220px-OrthodoxStudyBible.jpg (220x332, 25K)

>hebrew

Attached: E6AA81CC-BF52-44A1-B13A-E7010D356C24.png (500x500, 73K)

the virgin kjv vs the chad NKJV

Literally just request a free study bible online. Can't be that hard, there are about a billion Christian organizations that are happy to give them out like candy.

Zarathustra by Niietzsche

oof. Aside from the autistic debate on gender neutral pronouns, do other modifications change the spirit of the text? Also, are the annotations good? Although, probably a silly question considering any thread this popular generally implies no one's read the actual book in question.

>do other modifications change the spirit of the text

I have a copy of the JPS Jewish scriptures that has a different last book than the Old Testament in Christian bibles. The Bible is arranged in a way that implies messianic foreshadowing of Christ's birth - not present in the Jewish interpretation.

Is it? Is it just books or the actual paragraph structure? I've always wondered about the Jewish parashot divisions which I have yet to see implemented in any translation.

>oof

yep, the NSRV is for you.

I'm out of the loop here, what is this a quote of?

?

who are you quoting

?? Can you be more specific.

Attached: IMG_20190123_192012.jpg (400x400, 19K)

RSV-2CE

i am a prot but i have to say i really enjoy reading osb

>tranny lover citing the holy scripture
Yikes

This thread.

Attached: shitstorm.jpg (800x572, 165K)

This is good. It's a shitty cucked religion for morons.

God, why are buttholes so sexy to me.

Pedicabo et irrumabo vos

JPS also uses more conventional paragraph divisions in their translation, as opposed to the much more noticeable line spacing and indentations in most Christian bibles (NIV, ESV, etc.)

>line spacing and indentations in most Christian bibles
Nah Christian bibles also possess paragraph formations. I was just curious as to whether it follows the Jewish tradition of text division and if it too could be interpreted to deliberately deemphasize the significance of Jesus or not. Otherwise it might be interesting to incorporate in some manner. The differences between the JPS and its base the ASV and other translations is minimal anyway.

Attached: IMG_4958.jpg (3004x2253, 1.49M)