/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>729432

My first bible was RSV. I learned a lot from it. You should study different versions, however, to get a greater picture. No one version of the Bible is perfect for everyone. >>729435 is a great chart.

After going through many Bibles I can confidently say the NAB and Interlinear are the best.

>>729455

OSB is an utter meme that only larpers use because it's the only english translation that is explicilty "orthodox".

Between the KJV, ESV, and NAB, which is the best?

Got the NAB Saint Joseph Edition, did I do good?

Actually decided upon just getting the KJV and the Apocrypha

>>729492

>>729496

I like it because it ties the prophesies and explains symbolism of certain things that don't seem obvious to me, plus I like to have information drilled into my head.

Plus it comes with an English translation of the Septuagint

>>729501

Kjv. Only read esv if you can't understand the 17th century English of the kjv. Just remember not to fall victim to kjv-onlyism

>>729585

the KJV is 1769. That's the end of the 18th century, same language as the US constitution

>>729587

Is it? Wikipedia says 1611

>>729592

It was updated. The KJV everyone owns and reads from is 1769

also on wikipedia

1611

<5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

<6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.

<7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.

<8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.

1769

<5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

<6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

<7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

<8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

>>729595

Oh interesting

Thanks for clearing that up anon

>>729432

The Passion Translation (TPT)

Avoid The Message, the NRSV and the NIV.

RSV with apocrypha is good and has the Orthodox canon. NKJV is good for both OT and NT. OSB has the Greek canon. And the Catholics in America officially uses the NABRE. Catholics in the UK use the Jerusalem Bible.

>>729432

My first Bible was KJV. I'd suggesting that for the poetry and writing style, NKJV for better source material. It really doesn't matter too much which Bible you'll get first, since you're going to read and reread it over again and you can pick different versions each time.

>>729614

How does NKJV have better source material than KJV? It still uses the Textus Receptus right?

>>729655

I have no clue. I just prefer reading the NKJV over the KJV because English isn't my first language and the thees and thous get annoying. I did hear that the NKJV fixed some of the mistranslations in the KJV, though, and I'll note that the NT of the OSB is just the NKJV.

For an example of a mistranslation, see 1 Corinthians 1:18. KJV:

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NKJV:

>For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The NKJV is the one that uses the corrent tense. I'm annoyed because the "are saved" crept into the Louis Ségond Bible in French and as such it makes Protestants confident in their ideas of what salvation is and when it happens.

My favorite Bible is the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, in French. I don't read the Bible in English a lot.

>>729657

Oh, okay. I read NKJV mostly so I thought maybe I missed something. Do you know where I could find a list of the differences between KJV and NKJV, by chance?

>>729660

I'm sorry, I don't know. You might find something on Google, like this: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp

RSV is a good start.

>>729432

Protestants: ESV

Catholics: RSV

Fundamentalist Baptists: Kang Jim Only

Larpers: Douay-Rheims

Jews: JPS and Artscroll Tanach

A modernized KJV for easier reading.

RSV for best modern commercial version.

ASV for most literalism.

NIV, Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, Knox, NABRE are less ideal.

One wouldn't ask for Harry Potter or Tolkien to be dynamized would they?

>>729728

The Catholic Edition is still a Protestant translation with a few edits.

I do agree that having apocrypha to go with it is ideal.

>>729729

No she's not a cat she's a whore.

>>729455

This or a KJV (but preferably the above).

>>729735

She's still Greek, and I think has some Eastern sensibilities.

>>729497

>It has miraculous ordering and number patterns

Numerology is divination, brother. What do you think we are, Kabbalists?

>>731399

>Numerology is divination, brother.

Yes and no - Hebrew letters are also numbers, so by definition and implicitly OT exegesis always implies a numerological aspect as well.

ESV. Modern language but doesn't detract too much from KJV's more poetic sounding approach. Also very conservative translation - as in very close to the original languages.

>already a believer

>hasn't read the Bible

>best version

Christ yourself.

>>729435

>King James Version

>word-for-word translation

You absolute tigger, the King James is universally regarded as "great literature, not quite accurate". It's even based on an inaccurate translation.

>>729492

>OSB is an utter meme

Hello, where is the proofs? :DDD

>>729761

That type of halo is reserved for Christ. please delete that picture.

>>731769

But why would a translation to anything that is not Hebrew be expected or desired to also hold numerologic significance?

>>731854

KJV isn't based on any translation. It IS the translation. The underlying Masoretic Hebrew however has faults.. but that's 99.9% of Bibles out there. Only very few weigh the witness of others correctly. As for the NT, it uses the Textus Receptus, which is very close to the Greek Majority/Ecclesiastical texts. It's closer to those than the Alexandrian copies which many modern Bible versions use and which delete whole passages (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc).

>>731858

Not even the Hebrew holds much weight on a numerological front. It's been tampered with. It reads unlike the OT the Apostles themselves quoted and also differs from the DSS. It's made 10 CENTURIES after the Church and has passages that are intentionally meant to boost Jews and destroy prophecies of Christ. Besides all that, numerology is Kabbalah hocus pocus and the only Christians who would do it aren't actually worshippers of Jesus, but worshippers of Jews.

RSVCE

>>731904

NABRE is good too. If you aren't catholic, then the KJV and ESV.

>>731905

My dream would be something that reads like the NABRE, but without the skeptic notes and some traditional passages restored (big ones like Isaiah 7:14, for example. Why a Catholic translation renders it like some gay episocopal would is beyond me).

>>729432

I have to be honest at this point … reading any Bible is better than reading no Bible.

>>729432

The Joseph Smith Translation.