What Bible version do you do your personal reading out of?

What Bible version do you do your personal reading out of?

Are all the versions basically the same?

Other urls found in this thread:

lumina.bible.org/bible/Matthew 1
youtube.com/watch?v=htmQG6X0qGk
amazon.com/Word-God-English-Excellence-Translation/dp/1581344643/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1492020740&sr=8-9&keywords=leland ryken
bible.org/question/i-heard-you-were-involved-net-bible-translation-how-would-you-say-it-differs-nasb
esv.org/translation/oversight-committee/
campusreform.org/?ID=8986
books.google.com/books?id=xuR_tHSr2hwC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=leland ryken ps. 24&source=bl&ots=_Yubhqvnrf&sig=4mhfjIx17QaHQlXfAOK0409rw2A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRqIf3y5_TAhUFhbwKHVxMAooQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=leland ryken ps. 24&f=false
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

NET
New English Translation

you can get it in print, or use bible.org's study environment
lumina.bible.org/bible/Matthew 1

>Are all the versions basically the same?
nope!

The Non-american one you yankee SPASTIC!!
> sage

>Reading actual Jewish lies
>Thinking the God of the entire universe wrote it and wants you to obey.
Why the fuck are you so retarded? You know that garbage is nothing but the psychotic hallucinations of a bunch of inbred Jews, right? You do realize that the Bible has been re-written dozens of times, mostly by corrupt political leaders, right? You realize it's all lies, and you have never once had even a single shred of evidence for your "beliefs" a.k.a. pathetic delusions.

>You do realize that the Bible has been re-written dozens of times, mostly by corrupt political leaders, right?
? ? ?

>Christian have 12 different versions of the bible......
>Choose 1

Anything published after the 1970s is basically full of "gender-neutral" language.

WOW , are you really "???" to this, like it was a big shock? Isn't it kinda obvious?

KJV only. All other translations are adultered.

Why so much christian bullshit today? Fuck theyre the worst

>WOW
wow, if it's so obvious, substantiate this bullshit claim

>sorry you chose wrong and must die for it

Please leave. I want to discuss Biblical scholarship and arguments why one particular version is better than others.

>biblical scholarship

And they call atheists the fedoras

>Which version of a text specifically chosen to be made in 12 versions by 12 people is better
>Goyim see nothing out of the ordinary

New English Version.

And no they aren't all the same.
One of the translations reads like a novel written by some espionage writer or something and the meaning of certain verses is changed.

KJV for the most part
Versions are similar but it's useful to check out others

I recommend KJV to anybody who has an understanding of the Bible.

Here's my argument: Not a single word of a single book of any version of the Bible has ever had even a single, solitary shred of evidence of any kind that it is in any way related to any God.

That is an objective fact, and you fucking know it. Fuck you. I know for absolute certain you cannot say anything to this. Because there is no proof. You know you are a charlatan who prays to a nonexistent "god", but you cannot even accept your own knowledge, so you persist in delusion.

When something is obvious doesn't need any substantiation, unlike all the shit that's written inside that novel.

leave schlomo

>which lie is better

I can't wait until Christfag threads are banned or they have their own board. Besides r/The_Donald, you faggots are ruining this board with your self righteous, smug threads and tainted beliefs. Notice how everyone's suddenly a Christian after atheism/agnosticism became too mainstream but they still wanted to be edgy?

i'm not a kjv-onlyist but the kjv is great and i like that you guys exist,
keeps pressure on publishers/translators to be diligent

>can't substantiate the bullshit claim
ok bye then

>f-fuck you!!
why are all adherents to the religion of atheism so bitter and easy to offend?

And you prove my point by refusing to address the substance, and instead just attack a strawman that doesn't exist. Because you are a lying coward who knows he has never had a shred of any evidence.

Prove me wrong. Step up. Show me anything other than your own "bitter" religious attitude. I'm waiting. Oh wait you're a fucking cuckold Christian, clinging to a wooden cross while your entire civilization is dominated, raped, and destroyed by a superior religion Islam. Why don't you just turn the other cheek while Mohammed deep-dicks your nonexistent girlfriend.

The fact that you people start foaming at the mouth at a benign thread asking about Biblical translations just shows that you're religious zealots in the bad way.

Again, if you have nothing to offer then leave.

>Are all the versions basically the same?

this isn't a theist vs atheist debate thread, this is a bible thread
go be euphoric somewhere else

The updated version :^)

no catholics popped in to recommend douay rheims?
what's up with that?

Why is the King James bible at the bottom for intelligibility? It's just early modern English with a peculiar syntax.

I recently joined a KJV-only fundamentalist Baptist church and I've been reading out of my Bible and generally speaking I can follow along. I'm also constantly going on BibleHub and comparing what I read/heard in the sermon to things like the NIV and ESV and a lot of the times what is clear in my King James bible is hazy or shitty sounding in the modern translations.

You can't even get most Catholics to attend mass. Do you really think any of them are reading their Bibles?

ITT: Which version of Jewish fairytales is the best way to completely enslave our minds to a delusion that has never been real? Which stories shall we use to ignore science, culture, politics, economics, and all the actual real, objective parts of life? Boy I sure love my book of comforting lies and hallucinations! I have no need for evidence or truth, but I claim to worship the God of the infinite universe!

Seriously religion is such a fucking disgrace. You should all be ashamed of how you abandon the mental faculties that nature evolved you to have. Still, not one of you has said anything about evidence or reason to believe. Because you have nothing. If you did you wouldn't need 2000 year old Jewish goatherders' lies to comfort you.

The original version ;^)

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

youtube.com/watch?v=htmQG6X0qGk

The New International Version is probably the most reliable translation. It was translated from the original manuscripts by a group of around 100 theological scholars from many different universities and virtually every major denomination. A version is available in which all the possible translations of a passage are given in the footnotes.

what am i looking at here?

new american bible revised edition....revised standard version 2nd catholic edition....these are the bibles i read

Stay on KJV.
The Biblehub app is pretty good if you want to read more into things including the Greek.

I have used the KJV, the ASV and now primarily the NASB 1995 update, but I really like the ESV. Pick up a book from Leland Ryken, one of the translators of the ESV. It is good to know the mind of the translators and what method they chose and why. It is good to understand why an "essentially literal" translation is superior to a "dynamic equivalency" translation.

> "man does not live by bread alone, but by every WORD which proceeds out of the mouth of God."
> WORD not THOUGHT

amazon.com/Word-God-English-Excellence-Translation/dp/1581344643/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1492020740&sr=8-9&keywords=leland ryken

>aka the HIV Bible
Not even once, son of Belial.

KJV

If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible.

That's a fact, Jack

The red planet translation (you) nigger!
> the american bibles are all written by possessed people

any English language bibles are cucked. If you're monolingual you're probably too dumb to understand the Bible anyways, so don't worry about it.

>It is good to understand why an "essentially literal" translation is superior to a "dynamic equivalency" translation.
why?

bible.org/question/i-heard-you-were-involved-net-bible-translation-how-would-you-say-it-differs-nasb

are u kidding me? this catholic bias.

also, protestant bibles are missing 7 books

Does Sup Forums attend preacher Charles Lawson virtual church? As of right now I don't even bother trying to find a fundamentalist church. I study a messianic jew for the Hebrew interpretations of the scripture and everything Charles Lawson preaches adds up

Douay Rheims

What do you mean by "reliable"? The NIV is a "dynamic equivalency" translation or otherwise known as a "thought for thought" translation. This means that the NIV translators attempted to determine the "thought" in the mind of the writers and then attempted to choose words to create the same "thought" in the mind of modern English readers. I see this process as being more subject to bias and interpretation than simply choosing the best known word for each word being translated. Yes, this could make the translation clunky, but I will make my own interpretation about what the original writer meant thank you.

I won't have translators/pastors/teachers standing by my side arguing my case before the creator in judgement so I want the purest, cleanest translation possible so I can make up my own mind and answer for myself.

> inb4 "learn Koine Greek and Hebrew".

1. Reina Valera 1960 (spanish), King James (english)
2. No, translations and omissions.

Normally read the KJV, but would like to read another version for ease of readability. Sometimes I just get lost in all the metaphors and old timey speak.

Please have more patience

Yes, douay rheims

try NET

>There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually? (Nahum 3:19 KJV)

>Your destruction is like an incurable wound; your demise is like a fatal injury! All who hear what has happened to you will clap their hands for joy, for no one ever escaped your endless cruelty! (Nahum 3:19 NET)

>What do you mean by "reliable"?

What I mean by "reliable" is that more scholars had to agree on the final translation than any other translation available. And they've also included all the alternate translations in the footnotes so people can still choose to make up their own minds if they don't agree.

Also, there's nothing wrong with translating something from ancient texts "thought for thought," and most people would consider that to be the optimal type of translation from languages in which intent and inflection can only be guessed in many cases. Not really sure why you are acting as if this extremely advanced translation technique is some kind of trick or gimmick.

Sounds to me like your best option is to surround yourself with a team of professors while you read. Good luck with that.

Catholics are actually missing 7 books.
The KJV 1611 has 14 Apocryphal books, goy.

I like his sermons a lot, but I don't buy into the pre tribulation rapture like he does.

The Day of The Lord and The Day of Christ are the same day.

The rapture is at the 2md coming. Sometime mid tribulation just before God pours our His wrath.

The article appears to be arguing in favor of letting the brilliant, intellectual translators do the hard work and you pleb readers just accept it. The Word was given to the common man, not the elites and was written in the common man's language of the day (Koine Greek).

> Finally, the translation philosophy of the NET was faithfulness to the original meaning, while NASB's philosophy was more faithfulness to the original forms

This means the translators believed they were the one's capable of determining the MEANING or THOUGHT and not you. Interesting the word "forms" was used instead of "words".

> "If we give you the word for word translation, you will get the meaning """wrong"""".

it designates the real 7 put together by the church as fictitious and the added another 7 to that are actually fictitious and not approved by the church (the first bible makers)

They are all different and they all suck. What doesn't change is that the Old Testament was written by barbaric Bronze Age jews, the New is about a jew hippie.

You don't know what you're talking about, tbqhf.

First off, you said (((they))) the (((scholars))) translated it from the original manuscripts.

That is a lie.

The originals have all long since disintegrated. What we have is the copy of a copy of a copy passed on down from Antioch for 2000 years.

Then we have a bunch of Gnostic heresy hidden in pots in Egypt for 2000 years.

I'll pass on the Egyptian heresy bruh.

My biggest problem with a lot of the new versions is that they all seem to ignore the poetry of the work. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean, but in all their attempts to get a "correct" translation, they lose a lot of the magic the words are supposed to bring. At least, in my opinion.

I've yet to find a modern bible translation that has retained this sense of poetry and wonder. Others may disagree.

This is the only version people should read. It's the ye olde version

If you speak american english, NRSV. If english is a second language NIV.

/thread

What you are saying is that you are a fucking liar in your original post, a real piece of shit. Backpedaling son of Belial.

Which doesn't surprise me one bit coming from a pagan Roman.

revised standard version second catholic edition...check it out. it's like a more readable king james

What is with Cuckstianity threads lately. I don't want to seem rude but FUCK OFF. Pol is an agnostic board.

Manuscripts can't (((digitize))) themselves

wtf? lmao you're looney. protestant versions are missing 7 books. apocrypha doesn't count as part of the bible bro. protestant counts those books as apocrypha...meaning "this is fake"

pagan roman? as opposed to a pagan germanic? i don't get it

I advice you all to read DSM IV instead of that bullshit.

thanks user, I'll give NET a shot

>Are all the versions basically the same?


No.

>version

NABRE.

Sup Forums approved versions are NABRE, Douay Rheims, and RSV.

KING JAMES ONLY. ALL MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS ARE ATTACKS FROM SATAN ON GODS WORD IN THE LAST DAYS THAT WE LIVE IN.

NIV TAKES OUT ACTS 8:37. GO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT ACTS 8:37 SAYS IN YOUR KING JAMES.

>Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

Maximum harbinger of His coming in full effect lads.

can you give me a basic gestalt of what 'bel and the dragon' is about in your own words?

this, the NABRE is good..i live RSV2CE better than RSVCE

>Are all the versions basically the same?
HELL NO. The modern versions are globalist, satanic trash. Watch NEW WORLD BIBLE VERSIONS. It proves only the KJV is the English bible.

it's not inspired by God so i haven't read it

the douy reims predates the KJV

I'm not even sure about the quality of translation, started reading new tastement in bulgarian a while ago, in the beginning it was fine, on the 5th page I saw the following: "Jesus will come down and wipe away his shit" or something, then I asked a greek friend of mine about it and he bursted laughting and told me it is bad translation from greek, where it is supposed to mean "Jesus will wipe away all evil", but it turned out that in Greek the word for evil may also mean shit.....

oh wow my comprehension is shit, i thought you were catholic

Kjv was translated from Latin. The ESV version was translated from the original Aramaic and Greek texts with great attention to detail. ESV is a better version

Know who has worked on your translation of choice, if the list is not secret. Especially on which translation you use for matters of doctrine.

esv.org/translation/oversight-committee/

And while many people DO prefer a "thought for thought" translation as it is easier to read, I would never decide matters of faith based off of that type of translation. And no, it is not an "advanced translation technique", it is just a group of people telling you what it means. Do you want to see where it eventually leads? Check out "the message" or the myriad "fireman's bible" or "seamstress's bible" or any other hobby/occupation. As though the bible cannot be understood unless I read it to you like a child in your own special limited vocabulary.

Just wait until the "thought for thought" adopts the gender neutral ideas of modern society and Jesus is no longer God's only begotten "son", but "child".

"Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." Gen. 5:2 ESV

"He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created." Gen. 5:2 NIV

campusreform.org/?ID=8986

King James Version (Germanic)

I like the bible version from before the mandela effect.

Wait...what? I just said I struggle to find any of the new editions agree with my love of poetry?

For example, a ton of the new versions completely mess up Genesis 1:2, again IMO, and it completely takes me out of it right away. Many of these new versions often translate "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," to something like, "and a wind moved over the waters," which I believe is a complete mistranslation/corruption of what is being taught. And then I think, "well shit if I don't agree with the second fucking verse, I'm never going to get through this..." And I drop it.

I realize it's a bit nitpicky, but I can't help it. I'd really like to find one with a more modern word and revisit.

Yeah, I'm reading KJB and listening to the entire audiobook dramatised. I started a few days ago and am on book 13.

>Kjv was translated from Latin
Incorrect.
Also, why did the ESV remove Acts 8:37 and other verses?
>And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Really makes you think...

>my Globalist Catholic pedophile manual is a MUCH better translation
It's garbage translated from the Latin. It's like taking a Spanish bible, translating that into English, inserting all manner of perversion and calling that the Bible. Retarded.

>kjv is translated from latin
Retarded.

CATHOLIC GENERAL MADE FOR YOU

books.google.com/books?id=xuR_tHSr2hwC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=leland ryken ps. 24&source=bl&ots=_Yubhqvnrf&sig=4mhfjIx17QaHQlXfAOK0409rw2A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRqIf3y5_TAhUFhbwKHVxMAooQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=leland ryken ps. 24&f=false

Nrsv and kjv

i am...that is not an approved book

I mostly use the Oxford study bible (NRSV). It's translated from Hebrew and Greek with absolutely tonnes of notes and annotations along with extensive book introductions. Furthermore wherever it differs from other versions (e.g. KJV) it will have a note to say so, which helps you know where discrepancies are in the text and explains it rather than leaving you with doubts about the authenticity, like the NIV does.

wat do?

>it is viewed as canonical by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon
? ? ?

Ezekiel 23:20

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

HCSB

oh, you mean that shit at the end of daniel, ok what was your question again?

new question, why are you whining about protestants not having the apocryphal writing in their canon when you don't even know what they are?

M8 i'm a Wodenite pagan and dislike the abrahmic faiths. The bible is heavyweight literature though. Probably best book ever written.

It's not that there are multiple versions. It's just different translations. The fundamentals don't change all that much.