Greetings friends, I understand that there were many threads like this made, however I do not seem to have saved any of them. I am going to purchase a new Bible soon, and I would like to ask you guys which one is the best, in terms of of least translation

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 18498efcd2d8fba⋯.jpg (67.3 KB, 781x444, 781:444, 1514723634516.jpg)

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 16:15:19 0d4b1b No.581277

Greetings friends, I understand that there were many threads like this made, however I do not seem to have saved any of them. I am going to purchase a new Bible soon, and I would like to ask you guys which one is the best, in terms of of least translation mistakes, if you will, to choose from. Is pic related a somewhat good summary? Thanks.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 16:42:45 1212c0 No.581283

File: e309a93e092b9e8⋯.jpg (3.24 KB, 100x150, 2:3, NET.jpg)

>Is pic related a somewhat good summary?

sort of, but it's missing the best version: NET

NET has the readability of a dynamic equivalence translation (thought for thought),

and with the 60,000+ translator notes, it gives you the ability to obsessively pore over one verse that word for word translations offer.

there is a "reader's edition" that doesn't have the notes in it (they cover 9/10ths of the page sometimes.)

NET with the notes is better viewed on some electronic platform like bible.org's lumina study suite or logos Bible software.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 16:43:10 b5a379 No.581284

If you are inclined to purchase a King James Bible, I would strongly recommend the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. It corrects large number of small errors which have crept into later editions of the KJV, with the aim of producing something as close as possible to the text of the originla translators, and also standardises spelling in order to make it easier to read.

You can read more about it here:

http://biblebuyingguide.com/david-norton-interview/

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 16:50:00 0d4b1b No.581285

>>581284

>>581283

Thanks guys, happy new years!

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 17:54:09 cf6f19 No.581317

I guess the 3 most popular are 'New' versions are the NASB, NRSV, and the NIV along with the NKJ bible.

NASB seems to be the best out of these since the NRSV reportedly contains gender neutral crap.

My opinion is that a translation's job is literality and faithfulness to the source text while interpretation is the job of exegesis and commentaries which may vary across denominations. Otherwise you get some conventional "follow along" bible for retards to follow through with their preacher's doctrine.

The mystery is the beauty of it.

There really is no easy answer as marvelous translations are scattered about each with their own perks and as anyone doing translations would see, it's difficult to get a translation absolutely right since there may be multiple ways of doing it and difficult to narrow them down to perfection across such a large body of texts. No to mention all the source texts and the debates about these.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 21:46:10 083ece No.581410

>>581283

Too bad the NET is factually incorrect in Mark 1:2. It says "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," and then immediately quotes Malachi 3:1.

Who would take any such version that says this seriously? I wouldn't.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 22:01:31 cf6f19 No.581422

>>581410

>It say's so like in every serious critical text does but you wouldn't know that from my autistic babbling.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 22:22:59 083ece No.581443

>>581422

I'm not using untrue garbage claiming to be from God, nor recommending it to anyone. I don't care how many you make, you still haven't proven it isn't dead wrong and false.

Christanon 12/31/17 (Sun) 22:49:55 24fc0a No.581460

What is the best KJV for Kindle?

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 02:21:18 77ca43 No.581537

File: dc10a8e6b206604⋯.jpeg (107.2 KB, 463x686, 463:686, 7E1B3E07-F35F-4CE0-A282-D….jpeg)

File: dde966f6e994d47⋯.jpeg (297.75 KB, 736x1546, 368:773, B002E5C7-F54C-4AAB-A8AB-7….jpeg)

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 02:22:10 77ca43 No.581538

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>581537

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 02:52:58 cf6f19 No.581550

>>581443

>Calling an early witness to the holy scriptures garbage

wew, interpolations are garbage and man made.

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 04:29:18 721007 No.581584

>>581277

This is a harder thing than mistakes. You can go super literal, but you might miss subtleties that are meant to be drawn out. You can go paraphrase, and miss interesting grammatical notes. I'd recommend not one - get a few. I use ESV and NRSV regularly. You can also use sites like Bible Hub which let you compare translations and pull up interlinear (original language) and correspondences (find other uses of the same word).

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 04:31:43 721007 No.581586

Or go full MSG and find out who's in the driver's seat :^) I kid. It might not be bad for kids.

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 04:32:14 083ece No.581587

>>581550

Isaiah 40:8

>The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Where was that "early witness" just 200 years ago? Because the word of God is never lost. Did even a single person know it or consider it scripture? Right, I didn't think so.

And for all you think you know, we may still not have the real thing. So kindly stop pretending you believe the word of God when you don't. Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, Luke 16:17, and 1 Peter 1:23-25 are all true, meaning this factually incorrect corruption was never preserved by God for all generations. And no, God didn't make a mistake in accidentally hiding the real thing until 1881 with Westcott and Hort being his modern day prophets bringing new scripture to light. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 04:42:20 2513c0 No.581595

>>581587

>And for all you think you know, we may still not have the real thing. So kindly stop pretending you believe the word of God when you don't

>Unlike me, for I have the Word of God which I just said might not have been discovered, so I can safely say that this isn't part of the Word of God

Can you stop your sperg out?

Christanon 01/01/18 (Mon) 04:50:34 083ece No.581602

>>581595

Either it really exists and the scripture is fulfilled or else it just doesn't exist. Logically speaking, those are your options. So state which you believe, but please stop pretending you believe it when you say it wasn't truly discovered by anyone until a thousand or more years later. You're misleading people and you're putting corrupted material in their hand. Like I said, Mark 1:2 is factually incorrect in all of those critical text Bibles, and once this is pointed out by someone, what else will it lead them to question.