Best bible translation

the only GOD tier translation is pic related

Attached: 1575824727598.jpg (334x499, 18K)

nkjv

>YEAH PUT THEM ALL IN EVEN IF THEY ARE FAKE

Based Protestant fullfrontalism.

ESV

based

>that Shakespeare helped to write
*de veers into your path*

hardcover looks preeeemo

It’s to do with the transmission of the text. The NT was handed down to us by scribes making copies of the texts they had, and oftentimes they made errors or (as in some cases) downright fabricated some passages. We now know, for example, that the famous story in John where Jesus pardons the adulteress is a complete fabrication by a scribe, appearing in none of the earliest manuscripts. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” in Luke is also not in the earliest manuscripts. The most interesting one to me, though, is the number of the beast in Revelations — most scholars now believe that it is not ‘666’ but ‘616’, which means tons and tons of Christian eschatological literature has to be thrown away.

which is not even recommended by the orthodox church themselves

Wouldn't this be all the more reason to include them since Catholics maintain that "Catholics wrote the Gospels"?

How do you know those earlier manuscripts didn't just omit those verses intentionally, and there isn't an earlier, earlier version (Perhaps destroyed) which did include those verses? You can't just say, the "earliest" version we can find is correct.

Pretty sure some of the Marcionite versions are earlier, with omitted verses but are rejected by the church.

this one

Attached: 20200220_224922.jpg (5664x4248, 2.78M)

>We now know, for example, that the famous story in John where Jesus pardons the adulteress is a complete fabrication by a scribe,
No, we don't.
>...appearing in none of the earliest manuscripts.
Which doesn't mean anything except that manuscripts that may or may not have existed might have been destroyed.

For cultural purposes, there are only two English Bibles: for the Protestants the King James Version and for Catholics the Douay-Rheims. Both are literary masterpieces as none other even remotely is. Since spiritual mysteries can only be communicated through poetry, whatever more modern versions may gain in accuracy is nothing compared to what is lost.

douay rheims is literally just a shitty copy of the kjv, it's worse in every way

all that history as a discipline does is deal with the available evidence. what results from it is simply the product of applying historical methodology to that evidence. if new material is found tomorrow then the process will be applied again and the result might be dramatically different, but imagining evidence that doesn't exist cannot be the basis of history. you imagine the earlier earlier version that matches your belief, i imagine an earlier earlier earlier version that matches mine and so on ad infinitum. the only way out is to accept the limitations of what we have.

As far as I'm aware, the NRSV uses the oldest texts we have available. As a result, does it omit the passages you mentioned? Do any bibles do that?

Every Bibles fucks with the text in ways that can't be described as translation or localization.

NRSV has a strong mainline bent.

depends on the editor, but scholarly versions of ancient texts will typically print sections like that and mark them as spurious in a footnote. the jesus and the adulteress story, for example, is present in the new oxford annotated bible with a footnote about it being "absent in major manuscripts".

I see. Can you redpill me on what we actually know about the historical Jesus and his teachings? Which other parts are made up by naughty scribes?

just read some bart ehrman or something, you don't have to agree with him on everything but you'll get a good general overview of what the mainstream historical criticism of the bible is.

Challoner endorses young earth creationism in his Genesis commentary. Makes one wonder what else he's wrong about.

Scholarly Secular Study Bible
>NRSV

Scholarly Christian Study Bible
>NASB

Literal Meme Bibles
>DRB
>ESV
>KJV
>NJPS

Post excerpt.

>Scholarly Secular Study Bible
>>NRSV
>Scholarly Christian Study Bible
>>NASB
So one is the best Bible for Christians and the other the best for...non-christians?
>ESV
I remember a thread a long time ago where ESV was recommended along with NASB as the best translations by some user who seemed to know what he was talking about. I've read passages from both and they seem close in tone and style. What makes you say ESV is a meme and NASB much better?

>So one is the best Bible for Christians and the other the best for...non-christians?
Depends what you want to study. Typically the only people that are going to get super autistic about word order are evangelical Christians. For everyone else having a readable yet essentially literal translation is more fruitful I feel.

>What makes you say ESV is a meme and NASB much better?
The ESV's claims of translation literalness are just marketing, according to Rodney Decker, the guy who literally wrote the book on Koine Greek.

>In terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB. This is contrary to the popular perception of the ESV [...] both [the NIV and ESV] contrain much more functional equivalence than does NASB.

ntresources.com/blog/documents/ESV_ReviewFull.pdf

Attached: decker.jpg (359x512, 49K)

I swear these people are the biggest nitpickers imaginable. Even the KJV, which is supposedly horrifically inaccurate and SO different according to people like this, is often pretty damn similar if you compare passages to the NRSV. I have to imagine the ESV is literally indistinguishable in most cases.

In any case, the NRSV has one major problem that the ESV doesn't - it replaces every gendered pronoun with gender neutral pronouns, even if this comes at the expense of clarity and accuracy.

No

Thanks for the response, I've always seen that image posted but never knew what it's referencing.

sorry i only have physical copy

>ehrman
yeah not going to trust someone with that name to talk about christianity

Could you maybe post one verse that your think it's especially good in Lattimore's rendition? Maybe from a Psalm or somewhere you think he was especially deft.

The gender neutral language isn't as big a deal as you may think given how extensively things are footnoted, and the ESV has a bunch of other problems because adds and/or translates a whole bunch of things not literal to the text in order to fit Christian theology, the most glaring example being translating almah as virgin. So it arguably causes more and bigger problems than it corrects.

YEC is a possibility

I don't know why retard is refusing to post excerpt, but I'll post a few passages
>John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be destroyed but may have everlasting life.
>1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient, is kind, love has no jealousy, does not swagger, has no pride, is not immodest, does not look for its own advantage, is not stirred to anger, does not keep count of evil done, is not happy over wrongdoing, shares the happiness of the truth; all-sustaining, all-faithful, all-hopeful, all-enduring. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will come to nothing; if there are speeches, they will be stopped; if there is understanding, it will come to nothing. For we understand in part and we prophesy in part; but when completeness comes, what is in part will vanish away.
>Hebrews 12:1-2 “Let us also, therefore, surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses, putting aside every obstacle and the sin that easily besets us, run with tenacity the course that lies before us, looking to the originator and perfecter of faith, Jesus; who, instead of the joy that lay ready before him, endured the cross, despising the shame of it, and has sat down to the right of the throne of God. ”
Seems pretty average to me, I don't know why user loves it so much

Currently reading NIV

Is NIV good?

Not even Catholics think that anymore

bible-researcher.com/lattimore.html

KJV is an okay bible. But it is far from the most accurate translation for a modern reader.

>Point 1
You don't speak 17th century English. You speak 21st century English.
Therefore, a better translation is one that speaks in a modern tone, regardless of if it is translating thought for thought over translating word for word.

>Point 2
Archaeology now has revealed things that change our understanding of the cultural, historical, and linguistic nuances of the Bible. KJV is literally outdated by 400 years. Thus making it far less accurate than modern translations.

>Point 3
KJV doesn't do any one thing particularly well.
If you want a bible that is easily readable, that you can take with you to a small group, and is widely read, NIV is your best bet.
If you want a more scholarly Bible that is a more literal translation of the text for use in personal study, NASB and ESV study bibles what you want.
KJV does neither of those things well.

The KJV bible is outdated, inaccurate and doesn't fulfill any need a modern person has for their Bible and the only people who use it are pompous morons who claim that its the best translation because its the first, which is like saying an anatomy textbook from the 50s is better because its 1st edition.

If anyone is interested in what passes for acceptable with Bibles and translations in seminaries, at least in most Protestant ones, you'd be hard pressed to find any professor teaching something other than an NRSV study bible. Most common you run into are Oxford Annotated and the Harper Collins Study Bible. Haven't read the latter but classmates of mine use it and seem to like the translation. Oxford Annotated is high-quality, lots of solid information on historical context and history of translation. If you want to study the Bible in an academic manner, you should stick with those two

niv is like harry porter of the bible in my country

>You don't speak 17th century English. You speak 21st century English.
So? The older language sounds nicer and it is beautifully written. No other bible can compare in this respect.
>Archaeology now has revealed things that change our understanding of the cultural, historical, and linguistic nuances of the Bible.
Has it though? I challenge you to go to biblegateway right now and pick some random passages to compare the KJV to your bible of choice. I guarantee that unless you specifically cherry pick, they'll be nearly identical. There's probably like one or two legitimate mistakes in the entire thing.
>KJV doesn't do any one thing particularly well.
Could you be more wrong? Even the most ardent KJV haters admit that it's one of the finest pieces of English writing ever created, thought to have been worked on by Shakespeare. Further, it has had an enormous impact on literature, which is particularly relevant if you're the kind of person who browses Yea Forums

definitely opt for based russian orthodoxy
youtube.com/watch?v=7DVyaAfgLb4

It doesn't "omit" anything. Regarding that specific passage, it's included in my NRSV with a footnote explaining that it does not appear in the earliest extant manuscripts.

why is this? i remember it being memed a lot in this board and all of a sudden it stopped, why is it no longer a good translation?

>Even the KJV, which is supposedly horrifically inaccurate and SO different according to people like this, is often pretty damn similar if you compare passages to the NRSV.
The viciousness of some of the commentary you can find on differences between translations is a combination of bad-faith attacks on Christianity from (((scholars))) and petty uncharitable denominational disputes. As you've noted, any reasonable person can easily see for themselves that there's no serious dispute about what's actually being said in the received text.