/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>601445

Any of the ones on this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible#Catholic_English_versions

>>601446

Do you count New King James Version or Revised Standard Version as valid descendants of King James? Personally they're easier to read, like English language comprehension-wise.

KJV and Reina Valera only

>>601445

RSVCE is Church approved

>>601445

All translations are flawed by fact of being a translation, so please don't LARP as a language lawyer if all you have is one translation. Other than that, the best one is the one you can understand. With that said, of course certain translations are better than others, so don't run with the first one you come across either. I'm afraid that's the most I can contribute to this discussion, I'm not a native English speaker.

>>601445

Just read the KJV, or NKJV.

They are some of the most widely available translations, and they are based on a historically significant text.

>>601451

No, they still cahnge stuff. NKJV is still bad but it's probably the least bad out of the new ones

>>601445

Here's my basic guide to Bible translations. First, here are the top five most popular Bibles in English right now

>New International Version

>King James Version

>New Living Translation

>New King James Version

>English Standard Version

Of those five, the KJV, NKJV, and ESV will probably be recommended a lot in this thread. They are very conservative Bible translations that lean more towards literal translation than paraphrasing. The New International Version and the New Living Translation are more liberal versions, that are often trying a "though-for-thought" rendering of the Bible.

Here are some Bibles you should avoid:

>The Message

>The VOICE

>The Living Bible

The reason is because these are all paraphrase Bibles. These are massively changed from the true word of God. The VOICE and The Living Bible both received criticism when they came out for how the rendered the word of God, and the Message is a flat out joke on this board. Should you avoid it like the plague? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Here are some more Bibles to avoid

>New World Translation

>Joseph Smith Translation

These are both abominations. The New World Translation is a "Bible" created by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their horrible non-Christian beliefs. It's so far removed from the original that Jehovah's Witnesses in Greece have to use a translation called the Greek New World Translation, because the Bible as it was originally written doesn't conform to JW theology. The Joseph Smith Translation is worse. It's not even a real translation, it's a claimed "revelation" on how to revise the Bible in order to line it up with Mormon beliefs. It's nothing like a real Bible, and it's so crazy that even Mormons had to reject it in favor of a real Bible.

I think that's it for Bibles to avoid, here are some Bibles split into groups so you can choose which one you want.

>The King James Version

>The Douay Rheims Version

These Bibles are both old Bibles that have stood the test of time. They are so popular that even have "onlyist" movements surrounding them, with some people claiming that they are the only proper Bibles in English. The King James Bible is a traditional protestant Bible, and the Douay Rheims is a traditional Catholic Bible. They both are very beautiful in terms of language and style, but they can of course be a little hard to understand.

>The New King James

>The Orthodox Study Bible

I put these together because I didn't know where to put them. The New King James is a revision of the King James into modern English, so you can understand it more easily. The Orthodox Study Bible is an Orthodox Christian revision of the New King James, and it's the most popular Bible among Orthodox Christians in English. Both these Bibles are actually very popular among Orthodox Christians, most of them use either a New King James or an Orthodox Study Bible

>English Standard Version

>New American Standard Bible

>Holman Christian Standard Version

These are all very popular modern conservative protestant Bibles. They are different from the King James and New King James, in that they are based on newer scholarship and have more manuscripts consulted. They're very popular and common here

>Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (also known as the Ignatius Bible)

>New American Bible

>New Jerusalem Bible

Outside of the Douay Rheims, these are the most popular Catholic Bibles in English. The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is not only one of the most popular, it's also the Bible translation used by the Vatican in official English statements

>New English Translation

>Modern Literal Version (New Testament only)

>David Bentley Hart's translation of the New Testament

These are all very literal Bibles, that come with a lot of footnotes and justifications for their translation choices. If you want to study the Bible as a book, these are the way to go.

I hope this has been helpful, this should give you a good basic guide.

The KJV is no meming a shit translation, but is extremely beautiful to read. There are PDF's online of the original DR, douay rheims, it is very literal to the vulgate. Do recommend. I printed it out and put it in a binder

>>601529

>The KJV is no meming a shit translation

t. memer

>>601516

>New Jerusalem Bible

I've heard it's better to go with the old Jerusalem Bible over the new one. It's also interesting for the novelty of being partially translated by J.R.R. Tolkien.

>>601529

King James is good if you're very familiar with the type English spoken in 1611. Nowadays, since English has changed a lot over the past 400 years, certain passages of it can cause confusion. A lot of words don't mean exactly the same things now that they did then, like cousin or unicorn.

>>601445

>using one Bible translation

Risky. Compare two or three because some have verses that are slightly different in meaning.

>>601516

>They are very conservative Bible translations

The ESV could not be considered "conservative" due to cutting out entire verses and words that Jesus spoke. For instance, consider,

>Matthew 5:22 the words "without a cause" removed from ESV

>entire verse Matthew 18:11 is removed from ESV

>Mark 9:42 "that believe in me" removed

>Mark 10:47 "for them that trust in riches" removed

>Luke 2:33 changes "Joseph" to "his father"

>Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed

>John 3:13 "which is in heaven" removed

>John 4:42 "Christ" removed

>John 5:16 "sought to slay him" removed

>John 6:47 "on me" removed

>John 9:4 "I must work" replaced with "we must work"

>John 16:16 "because I go to the Father" removed

>The entire verse of Acts 8:37 removed from ESV

>Romans 11:6 second half removed from ESV

>1 Corinthians 16:22 the words "Jesus Christ" removed

>Colossians 1:14 "through his blood" removed

>1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" removed

>1 Peter 2:2 "up into salvation" added

>1 John 5:7 removed

>2 John 1:9 "transgresseth" changed to "goes on ahead"

These are only a few among the most significant changes. If you check any of them compared to the KJV, you will see serious doctrinal differences in every single one of these cases. In addition, in the ESV, Mark 1:2 is factually incorrect, because it says that the following is "written in Isaiah the prophet" and then quotes something that is only found in Malachi and is NOT written anywhere in Isaiah, making this a false statement. Also, here's a few more to consider whether these two Bibles really say the same thing:

>KJV: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

>ESV: For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Luke 23:42

>KJV: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

>ESV: And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

1 John 4:3

>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>ESV: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

There are more changes than what I have listed here. As for the NKJV, it includes many changes of its own. Most of the changes of the ESV are present there in the form of footnotes, casting doubt. But also, for instance, NKJV adds the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3, shifts the tense of "saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18 and Acts 2:47 and of "sanctified" in Hebrews 10:14, it alters the wording of the prophecy in Genesis 22:17 (note Galatians 3:16), and it changes Titus 3:10 to claim being divisive is a wrong (condemning Christ, see Luke 12:51) and it removes the word "sodomite" from 1 Kings 15:12. If that's not enough, I have more.

>>601460

>Germany

>Luther Bible

Couldn't be more unspecific, mate. Every Luther Bible from 1912 and earlier are absolutely halal certified™ and every post 1912 belongs into the oven. What's also missing is the Schlachter2000 for the best TR translation.

>>601445

why so you could shit on it? nah mate

you're an atheist at heart by atheist i mean anti-christian so even if you think you will argue with it with rationality it will be you having a child like tantrums

>>602211

Also, the Schlachter2000 is in some respects, more accurate than the KJV. I'd go as far and say, that the Schlachter2000 is the best Protestant Bible out there. It is only too bad that it only offers 66 books like every other Protestant Bible today, not even Apocrypha.

Everyone here supporting the NKJV, why? The NKJV is not even TR-based. It's a mockery of the King James Version. It has nothing to do with the original translation committee. Putting King James' name on this false Bible should be illegal. What, was he disinterred 200+ years after his death to put his stamp of approval on this "improved" Bible version?

The NKJV is a trick from the pit of Hell.

>>601552

These aren't revisions of the KJV. Your arguments might hold weight with the NKJV, but not these other Bibles. These Bibles are new translations based on different manuscripts. Any difference between them and the KJV is not a removal or an addition or a replacement.

>>602516

well you clearly speak english

>>601460

This is a really shitty guide and it seems whoever made it typed "german/italian/etc. bible" into google and picked the first result without comparing any

>>602516

Consider yourself lucky

>>602542

akshually there was thread dedicated to it or to bibles in various languages in general where we discussed it

>>601460

I cringe every time I read "Official Catholic Translation"