English Standard Version vs. King James Version
Give me the breakdown Sup Forums. I've finally decided to read this thing and I've narrowed down my choices down to these 2.
My close friend who is saved recommends ESV for first timers, while stressing the message is what is truly important (ofc). Yet I also hear many say KJV is based beyond any other.
Give me the breakdown please Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Thou shalt not murder, not Thou shalt not kill.
your friend is an idiot who thinks his one interpretation of the bible is right and thinks you need to be guided to it by reading the right bible even if he double thinks the existance of other interpretatons.
the break down you need to understand is that the bible is full of contradictory bullshit at every turn, so you really need to read it in the context of your church group to really have any idea of how they apply their interpretation to the text you will read no matter which book you choose. odds are though, he doesnt like the more visceral king james version so hes recommending an updated version suggesting that the book he wants you to read is more modern sounding and probably a little white washed (IE interpreted for the reader as the langauge must be updated which will change it no matter how true they try to be, just as the KJV changed before even it.)
This is not your Jewish safe space
they both say the same thing, the difference is only grammatical
I see. So you recommend the KJV overall for its reality?
So there are no omitted verses or phrases or words in either version or anything like that?
anyone advocating KJ-only is retarded. It's one thing to recognize KJV as a cornerstone of English literature, but it was translated from less reliable manuscripts than we have today.
It's also not as easy to pick up and read, although that can be fixed by just learned 17th century english
Study Greek and make up your own mind
KJV is probably the best, if you're a Protestant. It preserves the original tone of the Bible and gives it an air of grandeur and seriousness, and does so better than any other version. ESV is OK if you absolutely can't stand thees and thines, but I wouldn't recommend it. Most newer Bible versions out there are completely shit-tier and ought to be burned desu
KJV is from king James I who ruled from 1603. It's old english and difficult to understand. I'd recommend New International version
Does the ESV ever omit words though? I can understand differences in interpretation, but I am worried about the content itself all being there.
the ESV might not have words the KJV has, but that would only be due to translating from different manuscripts
As long as the version you read doesn't omit text or alter it to be politically correct, then it doesn't really matter. Don't get hung up on it - King James only people will poison your mind.
Someone else posted the importance of context. Get together with a good Bible reading church group to go through it. Also, watch The Bible Project on YouTube.
Watch thins peanut get himself into all sorts of twisted contortions if you want a scholarly view on versions...
Stop being a pleb and get an Interlinear Bible and a Strong's concordance. KJV and NIV together to compare between translations. Young's Literal Translation for a (mostly) literal translation without the extras (e.g. clear divisions between books).
Douay Rheims.
>NIV
Twisting and changing so many words.
What does it matter? Jesus wasn't actually a real person, just a mythological one.
Read about ancient Jewish lore, if that interests you, but otherwise don't bother.
The Book of Mormon is the best translation of the bible and the most recently updated. You can get a free copy from the Mormon Church's website.
Alas, Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, but not a word about Jesus.
It omits entire paragraphs mate. Search youtube for pastor anderson bible versions for an important documentary about it.
He did. Also Tacitus, both were contemporary historians. Not to mention the 20 or so contributors and eye witnesses of The Bible
Read the havamal.
Hail Odin.
fucking neither. If you want to read the bible learn how to speak fucking hebrew unless you like centuries of purposeful mistranslation and deceit bundled into a package for sheep.
You should learn greek too
"""Eyewitnesses"""
Don't do this.
Time to swallow the biblical red pill, my friend.
Josephus was read throughout the Roman world. People wrote commentaries on his works. But none of these commentaries, not even those written by devout Christians, mention Jesus until the 4th century. Therefore it's a later addition.
Tactitus reports what Christians believed in the second century. It's not independent of the gospels so it's not evidence for a living Jesus.
None of the new testament authors claim to be eye witnesses. Luke claims to have used an eye witness as his source, but he actually copied everything from Mark and Matthew, so we can't trust a word he says.
It's early modern english and it's perfectly clear
>don't agree with the historical consensus, it's preposterous
The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the King James Bible!
Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16.
That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. The word "sodomite" is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.
It also removes the name "Jesus" in 38 places, removes the word "hell" 40 times
Niv or learn Greek.
/thread
>>don't agree with the historical consensus, it's preposterous
Ummm, that IS the consensus among historians.
KJV with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
I went for the neet bible. Did I fuck up goys?
Lol, at least spend five seconds on google before spewing this nonsense
>removes the word "hell" 40 times
King James added "hell" 51 times compared to its source material you retard! "hell" was only in the bible 3 times before KJV cultists printed that abomination.
Acts 8:37 completely removed from modern versions
because it shows you how to get saved!
Acts 8:37
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.
1 Timothy 6:10 changes "the love of money is the root of all evil" in the KJV to "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil"
New World Order Bible Versions (Full Movie)
youtube.com
Do KJV with apocrypha
Two reasons to start with KJV and why it's easier to get right before you get into any of the other versions.
1. Language is CLEARER (by this I mean that in modern english YOU applies to both singular and plural, which means that you can't tell if something being told applies only to the person hearing it, or to a subset of humanity, while in the KJV the older english actually clarifies whether something being said is said to just that man at that time, or if it's something more generally applicable)
thou - singular informal, subject
thee - singular informal, object
ye - plural or formal, subject
you - plural or formal, object
2. ESV in particular was translated by adding stuff from the "Dead Sea Scrolls" Which are some scrolls written by a cult of 200 people who isolated themselves from the rest of believers for a long ass time, hell they found two copies of Isaiah there, both one next to the other, one older, which is true to the version we used back from the textus receptus to KJV, and one other newer version (which means less authentic there) in the same cave, they decided to go with the new one that spouts heretical garbage and replaced a ton of shit in Isaiah because of it. God promised to preserve his word, and God cannot lie, be extremely careful about new versions from new-found texts, they are trash. Old version that were preserved are the Truth. (look up the dead sea scrolls things, there are other changes than Isaiah, that's just the one that comes to mind because it made me pretty fucking mad when they talked about Immanuel as the Cap-Stone instead of the Corner-Stone since the Cap-Stone is a satanical simbol related to the eye of horus)
Lastly, I suggest you start with the New Testament start to finish, then Old Testament. New Testament is so easy to read, especially KJV, and most important things are there. (Don't neglect old testament after)
Don't need to use (((Google))). I've read the source texts and the critical literature.
Clearly you've done neither of those things, and that's ok. Most people are willing to swallow whatever their priests tell them. I'm not judging you for it.
Forget to mention the kjv has god tier prose
Yes yes, your ctrl v of some pop history was very enlightening, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of historians would laugh in your face
Your friend is likely suggesting the ESV/RESV over the KJV because it is the direct revision/update in the English speaking world.
As beautiful as the language in the KJV is, and as much as it shaped modern English, it was not a perfect translation, and improvements in translation were made. Just look at the Tyndale Bible if you want to see what the first English edition looked like.
However, people will have their favorite translation, and it usually occupies a special place for them spiritually, and that's fine. I'm still partial to the psalms as translated by Coverdale, mostly because they're what I learned to chant, and even if they aren't perfect translations, the meaning is still there.
Revised Standard Edition (RSV) Saint Benedict Press
How would you know that? Apparently, you haven't read any of them.
start with the basics OP
ESV was corrupted in 2016 to support a complimentarian view of marriage. Don't believe me? Look it up. Now Genesis says "your desire will be against your husband." That's not even close to what the original meant.
KJV is missing books. Read a Catholic Bible only. I recommend NABRA (New American Bible Revised Edition).
Aren't they updating the New Testament
>I'm so autistic I forgot to put ? at the end
the overwhelming resonance of the KJV in Anglo-Saxon culture (basically everyone who speaks English), is undeniable. If you can understand words of 4 syllables you should have no trouble with its grammar.
I am a baptized Catholic yet despite the theology of my Church, I still appreciate KJV most of all.
>It's old english and difficult to understand.
Yeah, if you're thick as pigshit.
Read the RSV.
should probably just go with nkjv, get the understandability whilst staying truer to translation. then switch to kjv.
I listen to my bible because reading anything for too long gives me a migraine.
>Pic related
fucking newfags...
KJV is the only one untouched by Jewish/Satanic influence
Compare both side by side as you read, if you aren't sure.
The real answer is the Douay Rheims bible.
The Catholic Bible is heretical. KJV isn't "missing books." Catholics simply added their own books to their bible. They also deleted one of the 10 commandments, pic related
Also, keep Saturday as holy, not Sunday. Spend time worshiping and doing good, not indulging in your own hobbies.
Protestantism didn't exist until the sixteen century so your narrative is complete bs. There was no other Christian faith bar the Catholic faith until heretics like luther came along. You seem to think that it was the other way around.
The Orthodoxy, the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and St. Thomas Christians existed. Nice try, though
I was honestly just regurgitating someone else's argument as it's still valuable for critical thinking. The thing is, Protestants aren't stupid; there are Protestant bible scholars and I'm sure they have good arguments for Protestantism and against Catholicism. It seems to me that Catholics are far more likely to be the ones who are wrong, considering you take the word of your church as being divine in itself, which means you are far more susceptible to manipulation and lies than a group of people literally named for protesting. If Satan could infiltrate your church, he would, and I believe he has. When Jesus told Peter that upon him He will build His church, He wasn't talking about Catholicism - a word never once used in the bible - He was talking about Christianity, which is indeed incorruptible, not Catholicism.
Oh, and the Moravian Brethren
Also, feel free to explain the missing commandment.
I think he left in rage
King james.
Also do what someone above me suggested, read the new testament first, this is a common mistake people make.
More specifically, i would recommend starting with john.
technically those are all parts of the catholic church, eastern orthodoxy is still even called the orthodox catholic church. All those parts, including roman catholicism, are still kind of the same thing with theological differences, they are simply out of communion with each other.
It was protestants who really went off on a crazy tangent and decided to just base everything off of interpreting a text book.
>It was protestants who really went off on a crazy tangent and decided to just base everything off of interpreting a text book.
How is that not what Catholics did? Oh, because their interpretation is divine whereas Protestants' interpretation isn't, right? What better way for (((them))) to corrupt a church than by claiming (((they))) have divine understanding and only (((they))) can interpret the bible or decide what should be in it? I suppose (((they))), in their divine understanding, decided God made a mistake with commandment number 2 when they removed it?
>How is that not what Catholics did?
Christianity is the religion started by christ and spread by his apostles who became the first bishops and oversaw the early church and passed on his teachings.
The bible is a compilation of commonly used texts within christianity, it is one of several commonly used books within traditional forms of christianity. It is the core theological text.
It is important to note that included in the bible are various letters and things written long after christ was crucified. These are simply the early church fathers communicating with one another. For some reason protestants accept these but then think any later letters or discussions by even later church leaders should be ignored?
The pope:
>Says Islam has the same god
>Says hell isn't real and as long as you lubb god you go to heaven reguardless of sin
>Believes in global warming propaganda
>Says homosexuality isn't a sin
>Speaks openly against nationalist movements
>Blesses gay marriage
>Absolves abortion
Sounds like someone who should be ignored, yes. Also pretty sure no writers of letters and such in the bible were ever busted for diddling kids. As for any distinctive characteristics in the reasoning of Protestants for following the bible but not Catholic 'fathers', you're better off googling it than assuming there's no answer.
>Read the bible to be saved
>100 different versions
This is why people don't bother with your religion. They just can't be arsed.
>There was no other Christian faith bar the Catholic faith until heretics like luther
>Coptics don't exist
>Nestorians don't exist
Just stop.
Yeah, I'm not sure where King James supporters get their numbers of what has and hasn't been taken out.
Everyone takes out YWHW thousands of times and complain that other people remove stuff. If the original writers put it there, it should be there.
well i like to look at all sides, but for you i recommend you watch this first. youtu.be