/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>573398

I have read The Bible in it's fullness twice in the KJV. However, I also really like the NET. Since I grew up in an Catholic background, I did read most of the RSVCE (also called the Ignatius Bible. I was reading it in book order starting in Genesis, but I stopped at some point in Isaiah. I actually still have the copy with the black rope thing placed in Isaiah to hold my page). OSB is nice just cause it has all the apocrypha and the format isn't fucky. Some Christian campus group gave me a free NASB, and so I do plan on reading that sometime. I have been thinking of doing the "read The Bible in a month" plan every month next year (I've done it once and it was nice) and I was thinking maybe I'd do it with a different translation every month.

I started to read the common english bible new testament but then I got on dat andersonite IV drip and now I'm a KJV-only super hero.

NET2

>The translators and editors used the notes to give a translation that was formally equivalent, while placing a somewhat more functionally [or dynamically] equivalent translation in the text itself to promote better readability and understandability

My go-to for personal reading, CCB

My go-to for personal study, RSVCE or RSV2CE

If that's unclear, NAB or NABRE

If that's unclear, TJB or NJB

If that's unclear, DRV

It rarely ever gets past NABRE

My go-to for nondenominational bible study groups is generally whatever everyone else uses, usually the NIV because that is the most popular.

I use the KJV only. Every modern Bible I tried to read is complete trash.

>>573398

https://choosebible.com/

/thread

>>573410

>if that's unclear, if that's unclear, if that's unclear,

that's weird, if i were catholic i'd just whip out haydock's commentary if my go-to personal study translation is unclear, instead of reading different translations.

>>573412

That website is shit. Good idea, bad execution. There are so many more factors that go into a Bible

ESV/NRSV w/Apocrypha

>>573412

I prefer a Bible that more closely conveys the words and grammatical structures of the original texts, even if it is more difficult to read and understand.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

YES YES YES

>>573416

>haydock's commentary

I don't have one–a complete copy is like 200 bucks.

I might pick up one of those Didache Bibles soon though, those are supposed to be good. What I'm really holding out for is the complete Ignatius Study Bible, not just the NT that is available now.

>>573417

The guy who first linked it to me said it was under production, so we might see updates soon but that was two weeks ago…

>>573419

Then read the original manuscripts. smh

>>573422

>a complete copy is like 200 bucks

i know the smell of physical books is nice and all, but it's available online for free on a ton of different websites (not talking about piracy or copyright infringement)

>>573423

>he hasn’t taken the yes pill

Get in the drivers seat

>>573424

>it's available online for free on a ton of different websites

Yeah I know. I guess I find it easier to focus and read from paper than screens. I've never really thought of it as that big of an issue.

>(not talking about piracy or copyright infringement)

It's public domain, so you don't have to worry about that

>>573417

More factors than reading level, translation method, and sources used? All those seem to be encapsulated by that one question.

NKJV and LXX interlinear for OT

DBH for NT (his translation is good enough not to need an interlinear)

If it removes Acts 8:37 or Matthew 18:11 I can't use it.

If it removes the name of Jesus Christ from Ephesians 3:9 or the name of the Lord from 1 Corinthians 15:47, I can't use it.

If it adds the word "merely" in 1 Peter 3:3, or if it removes the word "Study" from 2 Timothy 2:15, or if it tells you to strengthen yourself instead of being strengthened by the Lord in Psalm 27:14, then I also can't use it. That leaves the KJV.

>>573574

You don’t try to encapsulate all factors into one question, you split up the factors and weight then all separately to come to your conclusion

Kjv, BoM, Pearl of Great Price and D&C quad combo.

>>573398

Douay Rheims, pre Challoner. I actually have the 1st edition in pdf.

I use the RSV-CE (Ignatius Bible).

>>573430

>I find it easier to focus and read from paper than screens.

Print it out?

>>573778

Printer ink is really expensive. It would probably cost over $100 to print the entire Bible.

>>573781

Go to a copy shop, you might be surprised at how cheap a bound print can be. Don't forget to ask about their binding techniques to see which one you like best.

>>573398

English-Koine Greek interlinear, the ABP.

>>573398

Modern Literal Version for new testament, NIV for old testament. Is there any project like Modern Literal Version, but for the old testament? I only found one which takes word-for-word translation to a new extreme, and translates from the Septuagint for the old testament.

https://sites.google.com/site/literaltranslationofthebible/genesis/gen-1

>In unto-a-firsting it-did-unto, the-one a-Deity(Elohim), to-the-one to-a-sky and to-the-one to-a-soil.

>>573419

How literal do you want it?

>>573847

There’s the mechanical translation of the MT, but it’s ridiculously jewd

Currently on the original NIV translation and not the cucked "new NIV" translation. I'm a pleb.

>>573879

The old NIV isn't too bad as far as dynamic translations go. There is a reason it was the best selling. You're right to stay away from the new ones though.

>>573398

NASB is my sole translation.

Using a NAB study edition because it's what they use for RCIA. I really need the footnotes and explanations coming from a non-religious background, otherwise I can't pick up anything but a surface level reading. I have a KJV I use just for daily Psalms readings right now, just because it sounds so A E S T H I C when read aloud