Want to begin reading the Bible to see if Christianity is right for me...

Want to begin reading the Bible to see if Christianity is right for me. What version of the Bible is the most 'genuine' or closest to the original?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y
amazon.com/Tyndales-New-Testament-David-Daniell/dp/0300065809
youtube.com/watch?v=IrHEO9XszSQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I would go with the NIV. I am happy for you, friend. Seek the truth and you will find it.

King James

The original Hebrew.
All other versions are bastardized to some degree to fit the agenda of the audience they were shilling it to.

With that said, just read King James.

But it's kike trash that has no relevance in the 21st century. If you can't make it past Leviticus and Deuteronomy you are a god.

Luke.

Just read Luke. If I can convince you to read anything, it has to be Luke. It shows Jesus' love for impoverished women and his naturally libertarian nature. It's the Jesus that couldn't exist in violently authoritarian Rome.

Then smoke weed. Smoke more weed. Just a little more, read John, smoke more again, read some more. Did I mention you have to smoke weed to "get" John?

Good, you now understand Christianity.

I find ESV my favourite.

A new cuck is born today

The Thomas Jefferson version

can make it past*

>The original Hebrew.

I should have made it clear that I can't read ancient hebrew.

The oldest Gospels we know are in Greek.

Nah it seems to be the biggest red pill I've experienced. What's the point of life? I live, I have children, I die and I remember nothing. My children do the same and so will their children. This cycle continues until we exhaust all resources within the universe to sustain ourselves until the heat death of the universe and everything we have ever done would have been for nothing.

I can't and won't accept that. There must be some meaning to it all. Religion is an answer.

Septuagint for the OT

The Jews have edited all of the references to Christ out of the Hebrew but they are still in the Septuagint - which was translated over 100 years before the birth of Christ

I like the KJV user, the poetry and the prose is beautiful and it is the least fiddled with. Of course all versions are fiddled with..
If there's some phrase or word that doesn't make sense, maybe have a modern translation nearby.
I find though that the poetry and way it's translated shows more respect to the subject matter.
I'd also advise you to steer clear of the version the Jehovahs witnesses use. I don't want to be mean to people trying to live their faith but their version of the Bible is by far my least liked. Hell, I'd take the bible version translated into negro speak over that one.
Any questions in general about the bible or Christianity?

If you can't read Hebrew, KJV.

All future versions are so sanitized that they remove all of the mystery.

In my opinion, KJV is the last one that still contains all of the hidden meanings of the text.

I recomend the douay rheims translation. It is the first english bible

>or Christianity?

Which one is the real one.

NIV for the New Testament, KJV or NKJV for the Old.

Read the Gospel of John, Romans, and 1 John first.

I too took up Bible study for, if nothing else, better connection and understanding of my cultures mythical structure. You don't have to be a believer to value it and defend it. I flavor my study with more esoteric and Gnostic texts as well. I went with the NRSV personally. Also consider getting the Bag Hammadi for a better collection of apocryphal books

Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism

ESV was the first bible i ever had. A lady at the bible store next to my local parish gave it to me for free when i told her i never had one before. it wasn't cheap either, it was like a $30 leather bound bible. I still have it. I bought the King James version not to long after that. It is the most based version.

*Nag Hammadi

I read the Condordant Literal Version free online

I can't stand reading books on a digital device

Hey OP, first, I want to say that God loves you and wants you to join the body of Christ, that is, the community of Christians.

This is a hard question, but I will try to be thorough as I am taking your question as being sincere.

When translating any text, imagine it being on a scale from right to left. To the left, you have what we'll call "Word for word" translations. These are harder to understand, are often written in old english, and often times will confuse you, or at the very least, may cause you to pause and have to reread whole pages occasionally unless you are already comfortable reading this way. To the far right, you have what we'll call "Thought for thought" where the words are not translated directly, but rather their meaning.

It is obviously better to go further to the left, because as you approach the right, you will essentially be reading another's interpretation of the Bible.

I'm going to take a brief pause here in case we need to bump the thread.

>Which one is the real one.
Ho ho, now that's a question.
That's a question and user on the Internet cannot answer, that question comes from God through first, study and investigation of faiths and second, prayer with real intent. Meaning you'll follow the answers he gives you.
I'm a Mormon myself, but God needs to answer you my friend.

>surely Sup Forums wont realize they are being astroturfed if I only make 40 threads about christianity in 2 hours. Good thing I didn't tip my hand.

That said christianity isn't the worst. Just go fuck yourself in general.

The original Tyndale in English is the most accurate translation of the New Testament. About 85% of the KJV was taken from Tyndale, with modifications, e.g. substituting the translation of ekklesias as "Church" (i.e. Rome) instead of the correct "Congregation". The body of Christ is not the hierarchy of self-appointed "priests" -- it is wherever two or more congregate in His name.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't even browsed the catalogue today.

King James isn't modern English.

The bible seems to have what I can only describe as "life" when translated the right way, and it's best when translated into your native language. There's a really recent ESV version that is very close but I think they changed it again.

That's very nitpicky though. Even RSV isn't bad.

New testament wasnt hebrew

The bible is essentially a living document
There are as many versions of the bible as there are sects of christdom
There are things added and removed all the time.
Truth is there was no original version
It is essentially a compounding of fables from the ancient civilization.
Then religious groups formed and decided to use these fables with some other stories to give their religion context and validity.
So they held councils in which they wrote and edited these fables and stories together.
Multiple groups have done this through the bibles history, what you see, even in the earliest texts are exactly this product.

I like to use the ESV (English Standard Version) when I'm talking to people about God. It's pretty literal/word-for-word, written in modern English and it's not complicatedly literal. Pretty simple.

Doesn't matter a whole lot unless you're going to be doing in-depth studies of stuff. The basic message will be there regardless.

I would recommend starting with the book of John.

Actually, Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (not Greek or Aramaic). Mel Gibson's "scholarship" notwithstanding, Yeshua and his disciples spoke ancient Hebrew.

So you are saying there is nothing inherently divine about it?

Two good examples of this are the King James version, and the New International Version. These are both good translations. There are minor differences between them, but if you decide to go with the NIV, you will be fine.

I would strongly reccomend going with the NKJV (New King James), and here is why. Many interpretations are out there, but the King James is more or less the gold standard. I know that it may leave a sour taste in your mouth as it is often what we associate southern baptists with thumping on people. The thing about the KJV, though, is that the authors felt they were dealing with the very word of God. To a christian, this is basically saying that if you goof something up because you're tired or hungry, you are perverting the very thing that created the Universe. I could go on with this, but I think you catch my drift. The KJV was written from the Vulgate, various translations, and compiling many many many scrolls to look for the authentic and true meaning. The main reason I attest to this, is that other translations are always compared to it. You rarely see someone trying to compare a Holman to American Standard, it is always this vs the KJV. It isn't under copyright. This is also important.


I would reccomend KJV, as it is more word for word, but the NKJV is probably better if you aren't familiar with reading older books. In reality though, any translation is fine. Just make sure to steer closer to word for word and come up with your own meanings to things. If you have any questions about anything, I'll stick around for a bit. I'm insanely tired or I'd give you a better response here.

All of the Protestant bibles had books taken out by Martin Luther and he tried editing the Bible by adding words to support his quackery.

Go with Douay–Rheims Bible. It is the earliest English translation, the DR New Testament was published 30 years before the KJV

>fables
our sky tells the story of what happened 2000 years ago

reject this god of the hebrews, white man

reject this lamb god, this nailed god, his god of weakness

reject this god that tells you to embrace foes, abandon industry, and venerate failure

reject this god that is so impotent his own faith splinters off into a thousand fractions

reject this god and find a god worth worshipping

I have to disagree with you here. I have a Douay-Rheims and everything in the New Testament is identical. Words can be flip-flopped, but the only difference you will really see is the "apocrypha" which was really the only reason I got one to begin with. I have nothing against catholics, but the assumption that protestant bibles are vastly different from catholic bibles is for the most part false. Everyone agrees with the new testament, even Eastern Orthodox which has 80 something books has the same new testament.

An ancient Hebrew scholar and former Talmudic Jew speaks about Yeshua from the point of view of textual criticism. Worth the watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y

Doumay rheims

None of them, it's altered by the jews aND is missing a tonne of scriptures that are not found (hidden by jews). Instead I think the Quran is a better choice.

The joy of the life you were lucky enough to experience is not enough? You have to have a fake carrot on a stick leading you on? Life is wonderful don't waist your time with. 1500 year old religion.b

Tyndale predates Douay-Rheims, and has the added benefit of having been suppressed by Rome. (Think real Good News being suppressed by fake Good News.)

You could have read a totally different bible between regions even, the entire point of the first ecumenical councils was to unify these regions amd religions to garner political power. Which they did, with extreme success

>The joy of the life you were lucky enough to experience is not enough

The joy of life I won't remember?

Tyndale in readable English:

amazon.com/Tyndales-New-Testament-David-Daniell/dp/0300065809

A lot of different translations went into producing the NIV. It's definitely one of the most readable and it has footnotes showing differences in the various texts.

Im reading it right now. Once you get through the first 5 books of the OT ot gets easier.

You can't find a genuine version unless you understand really old Greek maybe hebrew I think is the oldest bibles are written in. Even then, they're 400-600 years of changed versions of the writings of Christ and his followers.

OP, you now have some good answers. Read through here and decide. Do you have any other questions?

Neither Christ or his followers wrote a single word

Fuck you, the jews wrote the bible.

Unfortunately, *many* modern translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament have used problematic source texts and/or diluted, problematic, erroneous, omissive and otherwise misleading translation (unintentionally, or worse, intentionally) and fall short. As your initial question suggests, be very careful of what translation(s) you read.

>Want to begin reading the Bible to see if Christianity is right for me.

are you right for Christianity?

youtube.com/watch?v=IrHEO9XszSQ

I don't think Luke was Jewish, but I could be wrong. Other than that, pretty accurate.

Christ did not. I don't see any evidence that suggests that the new testement writer's weren't follower's of Christ. At least Matthew and John were direct disciples, and Paul was chosen. Paul definitely wasn't a follower of Christ until the road to Damascus.

This. KJV. Not because of the translation exactly but because of the manuscripts used in the translation are much more trustworthy.

Expecting us to read ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek though is a bit much and we should expect God to faithfully translate His Word into all languages seeing the Holy Spirit (God) clearly knows all languages.

That said some translations are corrupted and use bad manuscripts at the behest of the Vatican.

>Even then, they're 400-600 years of changed versions of the writings of Christ and his followers.
Manuscript evidence of the OT and NT show that nothing has changed.

The only thing that has changed is people are no longer reading or listening to the Bible and doing what it says.