What is the best non-KJV Bible translation?

Yes, because there are so many fags in academia. For those who want the holy word of God it is worse that trash. It served as Satan's stepping stone towards the NRSVue. It's the best over Catholic made versions though, I will give it that.

Douay-Rheims
Televangelism is the natural conclusion of the King James Version.

RSV for clarity
KJV for literary value

How is God so easily defeated by Satan just re-translating the Bible?

It's not God being ultimately defeated, it's sin and discord sown by misinformation. They took out "sodomites" and changed it to "men who practice sexual immorality". They made a board decision for that which even overrode the translator themselves. They changed malakoi to "male prostitutes" and "arsenokoitai" to "men who engage in sexual immorality". That will not only fail to warn homosexuals who read it, but will fuel the "bible doesn't say that" and mistranslation claims. They are literally changing the bible to make faggotry just fine.

It's not. It's another bastardized bogus modern bible that distorts the Word of God with the subtlety of a serpent.

God isn't defeated by bogus bibles, but you can be led astray by them in the same way apostate and harlot churches lead people astray.

Attached: 1627653010842.png (555x555, 340.56K)

So it's that easy for Satan to lead astray like 50% of the Christian population by just changing a few words?

Seems like a book from God with no offered guidance on how to translate it is a pretty terrible way to get your message across to the world.

Seems like you're a retarded scoffing troll who's deliberately obtuse.

So what translations would you recommend then? KJV for instance is an utterly worthless translation that is only notable for its literary importance.
I do not know of any other translation that uses more up to date textual sources then the NRSV.

You obviously have no experience with comparative parallel study between the translations and the original languages. Using "more up to date textual sources" with terrible word choices will put you farther away from proper Scripture than old sources used with higher word for word accuracy. About the only bias influence corruption in the King James Version is using "church" instead of "congregation".

Stop making shit up

Leviticus 18:22
New Revised Standard Version
22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
New Revised Standard Version
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New Revised Standard Version
9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-11
New Revised Standard Version
9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Romans 1:26-27
New Revised Standard Version
26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

The NRSV is the most accurate English translation there currently is. Stop seething like a retard over it just because it is MORE accurate and specifies when "man" was being used to mean males or humans. You're just as bad as the fucking heretics who make those 'thought-for-thought' translations which actually do make shit up to suit themselves.

This

Pay attention to the contextual flow of conversation, fagtard.

duckduckgo.com/?q=1 Corinthians 6:9 "nrsvue"&norw=1&t=fpas&ia=web

>They are changing the bible to appease xyz.
Like they have been doing for the past almost 2000 years. Nothing new here.

>annotated
cringe

Except you (or the original poster) said NRSV is a stepping stone to that--even though absolutely nothing in the NRSV supports those changes in any way, shape or form. Saying the NRSV is bad because another translation based on it is bad is fucking retarded, and you might as well say that the Greek manuscripts are bad because the NRSV is based on it. Fucking moron.

The Knox translation is the ideal for Catholics in my opinion, however it is hard to get nowdays.

Me? (Smirks) I prefer paraboid-schizophrenic anagrams on cereal boxes.

The organization that commissioned it started with the RSV in 1952 and changed "virgin" to "young woman". Then they came out with the NRSV in 1989 and implemented gender inclusion pronouns and butchered Gen 1:2. Now they have released NRSVue and removed faggotry and butched Gen 1:2 far worse. They are an organization of Satanic faggots. They have had known CIA and KGB connections and leadership. They have liberal activism as stated goals. Educate yourself before speaking on a subject.

christianity is dead, move on.

Depends what you want and what your reading level is. Personally, I like the NASB; however, it can be a difficult read because it is a very literal translation.

Not a Catholic or even remotely Christian but that's the version I'm using, it's mostly very good. Besides a few odds word choices and typos.

David Bentley Hart's NT translation if you want a pretty literal look at the koine Greek.
Hawaiian pigdin for the zozzles.

Attached: 1647687776503.png (720x688, 846.37K)

What do you anons think about the ESV translation?

It is trash. It says that the serpent was more (subtle/crafty) than any *other* beast of the field. The original Hebrew does not have an "other" there. This was put in by the RSV, which the ESV is based on and I think at least around 70% identical to. Then they changed Genesis 3:16 to "contrary to". There are so many subtle issues all through it it boggles the mind how it gets so widely accepted. Well, it doesn't boggle *my* mind, I know how it gets accepted. Marketing, and NPCs. The whole thing really started as a venture so that certain Christian authors could write books and quote a Bible without having to pay royalties to another publisher, and so that they could publish their translation with various study bibles also. The organization itself is "non profit", but the authors whom they publish are not, and make a great deal of money from the operation.

Anything based on the RSV from the National Council of Churches is cursed.

Well what translation would you recommend then? NABRE? NKJV? NIV?

>NABRE? NKJV? NIV?
Good lord, man.
The King James is unironically *the* way to go, but if you just insist on having something "modern" then the NASB is the most literal and solid, and not of the RSV lineage.

Interesting observations. My mother tongue is Hungarian, so whenever these controversies come up regarding English translations, I check what the Hungarians are like, and they fall on the conservative side every time. Both Catholic and Protestant translations and even the newer ones.

Anyways, I am only looking at English Bibles because I would like to buy a nice study Bible with lots of extra information. You don't really have those in Hungarian. I was going to go for the ESV Study Bible and I still might buy that one, since most of the subtleties mentioned will escape me either way as an ESL...

I'm using the 1954 printing so no typos, but I've heard the Baronius version available has a bunch. Shame.

Yep, I've done the same test with the Japanese JBSIV that came out in 2018 as a revision to their NIT. It's basically their NRSV, but when checking select verses so far, it appears to align to the conservative wording every time. Then again, a lot of that stems from other factors. For example, all the possible choices for Isaiah 7:14 (virgin, young woman, maiden) can all be rendered with the same Japanese word おとめ (otome), and so both the JSBIV and NIT do so, with the same word being used in Matthew's Gospel when quoting Isaiah.

jewish study bible + jewish annotated new testament + jewish annotated apocrypha

Douay-Rheims. Easy.

But the official Douay-Rheims text has typos in it.

Well, the ESV is considered "conservative", but again, that strikes me as just more marketing. They had some "big names" early on just singing its praises (like John Piper, who still regularly publishes books through Crossway), and there was no way that those people had taken the time to read the entire thing, and to compare a sizable sampling word for word against the Hebrew/Greek. They *wanted* it to be "really good" for more reasons than deeply serious dedication to accuracy in the word of God. I do parallel translation comparisons against each other and Hebrew/Greek every single day and see the differences in patterns.

I'll add another thing to this, the issue of "supplied words". These are words that are theoretically intended to flesh out ancient Hebrew/Greek characters into readable sentences in English, without sounding like "broken English". Thus, they are not instances of 1:1 word by word translations. In the King James, these "supplied words" are in italics so that one knows they are there and can handle them internally as one so desires and understands. The ESV and most other moderns do not identify these in any way (NASB *does*). The original languages did not read like a modern English novel, nor should a legitimately accurate Holy Bible. There are many subtle nuances throughout it that actually hold incredible information of mysteries that get smoothed out by translators who rely on their own limited understandings of what is being said. Just give me the closest to the original words, 1:1, please and thanks.

>the woman rather than her seed will defeat the serpent
No thanks, I'd like to remain free of Satanic Babylonian paganism from "Saint" Jerome's corruptions.

St. Jerome is a saint in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, though, silly, including by those who only use the KJVAARP.

I haven't checked to see how Hart's translation stands re: manuscript selection, but for the Hebrew bible, hands down makes NRSV look amateurish.

Yes on Alter, no on Bentley. Bentley makes too many amateurish mistakes. Alter, meanwhile, is the best option for an OT from the non-Christian Jewish perspective, and is the closest you can get to the English actually sounding like the Hebrew rather than being a wooden attempt that reads more like a dictionary than a proper rendering. Makes the NJPS Tanakh and the NRSV OT look like total jokes.

>It says that the serpent was more (subtle/crafty) than any *other* beast of the field. The original Hebrew does not have an "other" there. This was put in by the RSV, which the ESV is based on and I think at least around 70% identical to. Then they changed Genesis 3:16 to "contrary to".
I think those are both infelicitous renderings, but neither is grammatically wrong with the hebrew. For 3:1, the "other" is implied by the genitive construction "hayah arum mikol chayat", (lit. He-was shrewd from-all/any animals); unnecessary, but not wrong. For 3:16, "yimshol-bakh", the suffixed pronouns ("be", "at, in"; "akh", "you") can accurately be translated "against-you"; obviously for English we tend to phrase it "over you", but "contrary to you", while dumb sounding, isn't wrong (though it does soften the force of the verse).

Guys, I'm trying to compile a collection of OT verses where either there are notable variants between the LXX and MT that are obvious, but nevertheless have been adopted in certain mainstream translations so they're not fringe readings, or ones that are subject to theological litmus tests like Isaiah 7:14. I want to perform some tests, but finding NT verses for testing has proved much easier than OT verses.

>a bunch of people think a thing, therefore it must be so
I doubt many are familiar with the actual details of his life and doings.
Nah, it's just wrong, and obviously the serpent of the garden was something far more than a beast of the field, therefore not an "other".

>doesn't know beebie heebie language
>"it's just wrong"

Attached: 0d5.jpg (736x315, 14.14K)

biblehub.com/genesis/3-1.htm

It's the regular word for "snake", "nachash"; cf. Gen 49:17, Exo 4:3, 7:15, Num 21:6-9.

Gen 3:14:
>Kiy asiyta zot
>Arur atah
>Mikol-habehemah
>Umicol chayat hasadeh

Lit:
>Because you-did this
>Cursed (are) you
>From-all the-beasts
>And-from-all animals (of) the-field

/thread

The one that doesn't have verse numbers or passage titles.

Anything approved by the USCCB. I personally read a Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.

>Anything approved by the USCCB.
>I personally read a Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
The 2CE isn't on their list, though, m8.

fpbp

No, nachash is just the root. The word in Gen 3:1 is wehannahas, *the* serpent, almost like a title, and definitely set apart, not just "a" snake. You seem to share its attempts to use subtlety to circumvent truth.