b0834f No.850186
Just a simple question.
Which version of the Bible do you read?
Which denomination are you a part of?
Why have you chosen this version?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2f7002 No.850187
>>850186
I usually consult KJV simply because i find its prose beautiful.
I own
Anglicised ESV
New King James Version
Catholic NASB study bible
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2f7002 No.850191
>>850187
>Catholic NASB study bible
NABRE*
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850196
>>850186
KJV, Methodist. Some days I wish I was some form of Western Rite Orthodox, but nothing like that exists here.
But I'm not a KJV onlyist. I decided to stick with it because nearly everyone respects the KJV. It's a kind of a shared heritage for any English speaker. And as traditional as it is, it's more "ecumenical" than any other translation. Everyone from Anglicans, Methodists, and even many Orthodox love the KJV. Then of course, other Protestants love it. As for Catholics, the KJV translators said themselves that they borrowed some turns of phrase from the Douay Rheims which had been published before them. Then later, Bishop Challoner in turn revised the Douay Rheims to use some KJV language as well. So there is some shared heritage between the two.
Who else? Even heretics like Rastafarians insist on the KJV. Even Atheists like Richard Dawkins acknowledge it's heritage to the language at least. He even wrote an article where he said he wants all children to read the KJV. Hah! And it's still taught in College courses about Literature. Even Jews love it, and originally used it as the basis for their JPS 1917 translation. The current English version used by Jews and passed to Israeli soldiers (the Koren translation) is still very KJV like, with thees and thous. Last, but not least, most of the reference materials created for it over the years are great too. Easton's Bible Dictionary, the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Cruden's Concordance, Strong's Number system, etc. The entire bulk of translations of Apocryphal texts and Early Church Fathers were also done by Anglicans to emulate the KJV. They handed down so much to us. I think it's best to use it all and not jump on fads. Back in the day, when there was just one popular bible translation, scholars devoted all of their energy to it. There's no equivalent to that anymore. Modern translations can't keep up with the amount of references the KJV has built up over the years. And half of these translations get revised within 20 years anyways. It's constant change and not conducive to teaching or memorizing scripture. I appreciate modern vernacular versions and actually like the NIV and NABRE, but none of it is stable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
08b2cd No.850238
ESV / Lutheran
ESV is my go-to, but I also like the KJV and the RSV
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850239
>>850186
But I don't read the Bible. I watch Veggietales and listen to the New Testament parts in mass. I don't trust the Bible and Talmud. They're so old the definitions and semantics used don't even make sense, making it so vague you can twist it to mean anything. St. Augustine is pretty clear cut but he's only a few centuries later than those two books. Why are his Latin writings and homilies so much better preserved than the Hebrew/Greek Bible?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07710c No.850248
>>850239
>anime
>catholic
>thinking the Talmud is in the christian bible
>Latin homilies are better preserved than the Greek Bible
I hope its bait but this is the kind of post you'll see often on cuck/pol/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850249
>>850248
>anime
It's Touhou not anime, libtard.
>thinking the Talmud is in the christian bible
I never said the Talmud is in the Bible. It just reads in the same vague and awkward way. Most books from that time do.
>Latin homilies are better preserved than the Greek Bible
Go ahead and compare Revelation to Confessions and tell me the messages in Confessions aren't far more obvious.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07710c No.850250
>>850249
>It's Touhou
Its for gays
>more obvious.
You're confusing perspicuity and preservation
We have more extant manuscripts of the greek new testament than can be compared with any other literary work
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5473fb No.850251
NLT, thinking about getting NKJV for Christmas
No denomination at the moment, although I consider myself a Methodist-Wesleyan theologically, with some Orthodox elements
I intended to get a NIV Bible, mistakenly bought a NLT. Good thing I did.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850255
>>850250
>someone posts a picture of an attractive woman
>must be a gay
You must be very proud of your detective skills.
>You're confusing perspicuity and preservation
I never said it wasn't preserved. I said it was vague. You're hallucinating things to cope with the fact your worldview is so fragile.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07710c No.850256
>>850255
>never said it wasn't preserved
>>850239
>Why are his Latin writings and homilies so much better preserved than the Hebrew/Greek Bible?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850257
>>850256
Oh lol, well I meant the intention is better preserved hence my focus on vagueness.
>inb4 semantic trolling and ignoring the point because of a single cherrypicked word
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07710c No.850258
>>850257
OK you just didn't know the usual meaning of preservation in this context
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850259
Also why are people fighting with me and yelling at me for posting a girl instead of answering my question in the first place?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850260
>>850258
I just want to know why the Latin texts after being translated into English are so much less vague than the Hebrew and Greek ones. I didn't grab a thesaurus and didn't meticulously scan my post for things that trigger autists like artwork that vaguely looks like anime. I just attached an image to get attention and quickly asked a pretty reasonable question without expecting a fight…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
146ca6 No.850262
>>850258
And of course you run away after I corner you into having to say something of substance.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
51a0cc No.850263
I primarily use my DRC1899. I sometimes use a RSV2CE or KJV for comparing translations though.
See flag. I prefer the DRC as it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate (rather than the KJV's 9th century Masoretic influence), contains the deuterocanonical books, and has good footnotes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850266
>>850196
>As for Catholics, the KJV translators said themselves that they borrowed some turns of phrase from the Douay Rheims which had been published before them.
They didn't say that anywhere in their epistle to the reader or epistle dedicatory. Where did they say that?
They did write this about Rome and their translations:
>The unwillingness of our chiefe Adversaries, that the Scriptures should be divulged in the mother tongue:
>Now the Church of Rome would seeme at the length to beare a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift […] Howbeit, it seemed too must to Clement the 8. that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture (Lucifugæ Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set foorth by their owne sworne men, no not with the Licence of their owne Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touch-stone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactour, lest his deedes should be reproved: neither is it the plaine dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the waights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and returne to translation.
in: 1611 King James Bible, Epistle to the Reader, pp. viii-ix
>A satisfaction to our brethren:
>And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. The Judgement of Aristotle is worthy and well knowen: If Timotheus had not bene, we had not had much sweet musicke; but if Phrynis (Timotheus his master) had not beene, wee had not had Timotheus. […]
>An answere to the imputations of our adversaries:
>Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs [e.g. Roman Catholic translations] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sence, every where. […] No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850267
>>850266
I forgot to add, the KJV was translated over the course of 1604-1611. The finalization stage took place where the 47 translators re-reviewed it line-by-line from January 1609. They could not have made use of a translation that came out in 1610 like the Douay-Rheims.
But if you have actual examples of places where they did this, and examples that do not already match the earlier English translations like the Bishops' Bible of 1568 or the Geneva Bible of 1560, then please point out where the 1610 Douay-Rheims supposedly influenced the 1611 Bible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850268
>>850266
>They didn't say that anywhere in their epistle to the reader or epistle dedicatory. Where did they say that?
>They did write this about Rome and their translations:
Yes, it's not in the Preface. There are partial notes of the translation work that exists though. I shouldn't say "translators" in the plural though. It was apparently John Bois who borrowed some of the DR language and defended renderings of the Vulgate in general (even outside his work on the KJV). I think I originally ran across this information in David Norton's Textual History of the King James bible, if you're interested. He's the same guy that Cambridge got to make the "New Cambridge Paragraph" bible, if you've seen it. It was an attempt at getting as close as possible to the intended choices of the KJV translators, free from the printing errors of 1611, as seen by their notes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850269
>>850268
>Yes, it's not in the Preface. There are partial notes of the translation work that exists though. I shouldn't say "translators" in the plural though. It was apparently John Bois who borrowed some of the DR language and defended renderings of the Vulgate in general (even outside his work on the KJV). I think I originally ran across this information in David Norton's Textual History of the King James bible, if you're interested. He's the same guy that Cambridge got to make the "New Cambridge Paragraph" bible, if you've seen it. It was an attempt at getting as close as possible to the intended choices of the KJV translators, free from the printing errors of 1611, as seen by their notes.
Oh, and for the record, I don't necessarily like all of the choices Norton makes in the Paragraph bible. The existing translators who were still alive in 1629 made a later printing then, that I think is the final say of what they intended (and it's mostly what's reflected in our current KJVs). Norton intentionally avoided this, and only wanted to reflect 1611 choices.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850270
>>850263
You realize the Hebrew and Syriac Old Testament text used by the KJV and the earlier English translations is actually based on the original Hebrew and not the 9th-century Masoretic, right?
I mean the two are similar, but not exactly the same. I know of several differences. The Masoretic such as the ben Asher edition has some minor errors in it. The KJV mainly used the 1525 Bomberg edition, printed in Venice by the Christian Daniel Bomberg as a source for proofreading. Bomberg had a second main editor besides himself by the name of "Iacob ben Chajim," who was actually a convert to Christianity. He handled a lot of the cantillation and vowel points. Predictably, this edition was criticized for not being perfect according to rabbinical writers ever since then.
Another source that was possibly used in 1611 (and earlier English translations) was the edition of the Hebrew text published by the Complutense University in 1517. These versions differ somewhat from what the academic community calls the "ben Asher Masoretic Text," which is exemplified by the Leningrad Codex (penned c. A.D. 1008, appeared in Odessa 1838, first widely published in 1937 while it was being housed in Leningrad). If you want I can tell you some of the differences between the old Hebrew text of the KJV and the MT of the Leningrad codex. This is of interest because most modern versions, such as the New King James, actually use this Masoretic Text and so differ from the KJV in a number of these places.
The two might be considered to be of the same "type" by academia (they call it "proto-masoretic" for lack of a better term), because compared to medieval translations and such, they are pretty close relatively speaking, but they are not the same.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850271
>>850270
>"Iacob ben Chajim," who was actually a convert to Christianity.
Cool. Learn something new everyday. I always thought it was a straight Rabbinic text.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50791b No.850274
>>850269
I have extensively reviewed the editions of the KJV. Including the 1611 1st and 2nd editions, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617 editions (all by Robert Barker) which had quite a few spelling errors but gradually got better. Then Cambridge made the 1629 and 1638 editions, which brought the Bible into much better form with most spelling errors gone and the normal usage of the letter J, the letters U and V not swapped, switching to the readable Roman typeface instead of medieval blackletter, and apostrophes introduced, to name a few of the improvements.
The improvements continued through the 1762 and 1769 revisions, which further normalized the spelling rules for the more well defined English norms of the day, as helped by the release of Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary. After 1769 there were a few very minor updates that mostly reverted a select number of places that had been overcorrected in 1769 back to the 1611 version. Most of this was completed in 1817, but a few very minor updates continued (changing things like capitalization of spirit in a few places) until 1900. After 1900 version, the text of the standard Cambridge version of the KJV did not change by a single letter for 85 years, although a single letter was changed to a capital letter in 1985. You will find the 1900 format of the KJV text on many sites such as Biblia, listed as KJV1900. Pretty much 99% of the Cambridge KJV floating around now were printed after the year 1900.
Having said that, Norton's version in 2005 and Scrivener's version in 1873 changed and removed quite a lot of things in comparison to the above mentioned.
For instance, Scrivener combined Psalm 9 and 10 into a single chapter (it actually only has 149 Psalms therefore), placed 1 John 5:7 in italics, and a number of other changes, such as adding parentheses around Luke 1:70 and removing parentheses around Romans 5:13-17 to name a few.
I haven't looked into the NCPB as much, but it seems to have even greater changes than the CPB of 1873 made by Scrivener did. I also don't really use/trust his version of the TR either, though others swear by it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850275
>>850274
I love Cambridge Cameo bibles. Perfect typeface and size. I'm not particularly keen on "Pure Cambridge" editions, but apparently these Cameos only depart from the "Pure Cambridge" in a few or just one place (? I assume that's what you meant by the change in 1985, to 1 John's de-capitalization of "Spirit/spirit"). Norton's bible is interesting, but I wouldn't recommend it as a main KJV. If you can find it in a library, it's worth going over though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850276
>>850275
The "Pure Cambridge" idea was created by an Australian pentecostal named Matthew Verschuur in 2007. He basically had some kind of a epiphany around the year 2000 that the capitalization of that one word was important to supporting modern pentecostal tongues movement.
Needless to say, the KJV has existed since long before pentecostalism emerged or such sperging out over the format of a translation could thrive. How do you pronounce capital letters?
The KJV 1900 will have the same text/format, it is true. And that is convenient, it is also true. This is just because it was largely controlled by an "authorized" printer (actually three, but since then it has de facto become two). Most places that print Bibles do not consciously change this versions because being from that long ago it was basically the base text for just about all other modern bible printing. There will only be accidental typos away from this.
The only real changes that exist are one of two things, 1) the minor "branch" editions still printed by Oxford, and the American Bible Society since the 19th century, of which a small amount exist with negligible differences - mainly amounting to spelling, and 2) the two newer versions made by Cambridge itself (both Concord edition starting in 1950's and Standard Text Edition in 1993) even while it continued to print the "legacy" KJV 1900. These again are negligible in difference to the 1900 format.
The Concord edition is basically a blend of Cambridge and Oxford spellings, while the STE is a continuation of the London spellings. You wouldn't even notice the difference except in a very, very limited number of places.
Outside of this universe, you have things like the CPB/NCPB, and a few other texts that will take the KJV as a true base and modify a handful of words, such as Webster's 1833 Bible or KJV 2016. These are just highly modified KJV, but why not use the original, and write in the margins instead. Anything else would be a different translation: whether good (truly TR-based like the Geneva Bible was in 1560) or bad (probably anything else that you might be thinking of, Pseudo-TR like the NKJV, modern critical text versions, or etc).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850278
>>850276
Well, if Norton or the 1611 is anything to go by, the capitalization of "Spirit" in 1 John is the original translators' intention. So in a funny way, that 1985 change is more "Pure Cambridge" than what is supposedly considered a "Pure Cambridge" edition.
But yes, these things are negligible, and I have no time for the sperging either. The only reason I don't like some of the Oxford/Allan KJVs (like the Longprimer) is they took away the italics and added new translators notes. The italics are crucial. The footnotes are more extensive and more helpful in their own way, but I'd rather get the original translators' notes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850279
>>850278
>Well, if Norton or the 1611 is anything to go by, the capitalization of "Spirit" in 1 John is the original translators' intention.
Well it's funny because the word "Spirit" had, by far, the most changes because of its various capitalizations. It seems like in the early blackletter editions, the capital and lowercase S looked very similar and people didn't care much. When they went to Roman typeface in 1629, you start to see tons of "spirit" being capitalized and uncapitalized all at once, like they were trying to aim for a certain regularity. It was breakneck at first, and gradually slowed down. The second-to-last change was in the Cambridge version of 1835 which capitalized "Spirit" in Matthew 4:1. I very much agree with this change, and it returns it to the 1611 state. I think it was likely a mistake. You will still find some non-Cambridge editions, rarely, that have not included this. Two other big ones that some editions are truly faulty in, are not capitalizing Spirit in Genesis 1:2 and in Job 33:4.
The final change in capitalization was the one we were discussing, in 1 John 5:8. What's interesting about this change is not only that it is the last change, 85 years after 1900. In fact it is also the only place anywhere where the capitalization was changed three times (in 1629, 1769, 1817, 4x if you count 1985).
The two other places where the same word was changed more than once, also happens to be the capitalization of spirit: in Acts 11:12 (in both 1629 and 1817) and in Acts 11:28 (in 1769 and 1817). Interesting how that pattern played out. They ended up all-lowercase according to the 1817 editors, unless you take the 1985 update in which case 1 John 5:8 changed four times and is capital now. It seems there was some uncertainty about how to handle these three cases.
>The italics are crucial.
To some degree. What is more important is having a good TR resource so you know for a fact. I happen to know that the italics are not 100% (see Luke 17:27 vs. 17:29), but that is okay because it is an apparatus.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b0de4 No.850280
>>850279
Man, you are a wealth of knowledge on this subject. I've learned a few new things today. I'm surprised you haven't read Norton's Textual History. On second thought, it's probably up your alley.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f482b9 No.850281
>>850280
Yeah, I have been meaning to read it. I am aware of the book and have read sections of it but not the full thing. I have been working on my site (https://avblog.org) trying to make it more readable and friendly. If you want to know more you can check it there. Scrivener did a similar thing back in the 1870s and I have read through his entire book of changes, as well as other compilations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07710c No.850284
>>850260
Exegetical writings are by nature easier to comprehend because they are written to explain the original text. A book like revelation full of symbolism is by nature hard to understand because it is prophetic, apocalyptic and symbolic.
Read Karl Barth and you'll see theology that's almost incomprehensible, and read Luke and you'll see scripture that reads plainly like a narrative.
>>850262
Chill out
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.