/lit/ - Literature

>>13980029
Depends on what you mean by accurate.

There is a cool pamphlet I saw yesterday in Barnes and Noble that put every popular English translation of the Bible on a spectrum ranging from "word for word" to "thought for thought".
Some would say a more "accurate" Bible will modernize the old Greek and Hebrew ideas in order to make them make sense for a modern audience because certain things that were understood in their culture has been lost to time, while others would say that a more "accurate" Bible is one that retains as much of the literal meaning of the text as possible.

NRSV is certainly not the most word-for-word out there, but it is definitely a more literal translation than something like the NIV (which a lot of people would call a pretty good neutral ground) or other translations that are getting into paraphrase territory.

Not saying that a more word-for-word translation is bad, just that it has its place and ideally you would also read something like NIV or NLT.

Just read ESV

How is this not a cult?

>>13980029
No, read the Latin Vulgate or the original Hebrew-Greek.

>>13980029
what's the one that Anglophone Catholics use?

>>13980029
No. It's a secular translation, and thus translated from the perspective that the Bible is contradictory and false. For example, if two segments might be interpreted to contradict, or could be interpreted as in accordance, the translation will render them as contradictory since it fundamentally assumes that the Bible is not a cogent whole but a collection of various disconnected documents.

>>13980680
It also renders the text as gender neutral, such that when the Greek uses masculine terms, like "brother" it will be translated as "brothers and sisters', "men" translated as "humankind" or something like that, in order not to offend feminists. It thus deliberately misrepresents the Bible's social and cultural context.

>>13980696
>Greek
wasn't the bible written in Arameic before Greek?

>>13980696
The bible wasn't written in Greek.

>>13980701
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek.
>>13980703
I'm sorry you're retarded.

>>13980641
>You have to love God more than you love humans
Wow, bizarre!

>>13980641
>Hur durr it sounds like a cult so it's wrong

Please leave this board

>>13980029
NKJV

>>13980029
I used BibleStudyTools.com and compared every translation for a few verses. The stand-outs so far are Young's Literal, Jubilee, Complete Jewish Bible, and ASV.

>>13980029
Get this instead

kjv is the most literary and has been cherished for hundreds of years.

>>13980029
No way anon, get another one.

>>13980641
>You have to love God more than anything (including yourself) in the world
oh no, we need to stop this CULT!

>>13980641
What's wrong with this?

>>13982123
disregarding something that certainly exists and is certainly good (family) for something dubious (God).

>>13982076
The best part about the OSB is they purposely used the NKJV which is considered inferior to the KJV by literally all Orthodox scholars.

>>13982196
>disregarding something that certainly exists and is certainly good (family) for something dubious (God).

>>13982306
not an argument

>>13982441
go home Stephen

>>13980645
New American Bible, Douay-Rheims, or my preferred Ignatius Bible

>>13980818
Should also checkout Darby and Rotherham then. In my opinion the RSV2CE and ESV are the most accurate yet readable contemporary translations.

>>13982242
If you can read it on a device you could use the American King James Version and LXX2012 if you want translations without archaic pronouns and suffixes, and they're both in the public domain. There's also the NETS translation for the Septuagint.

>In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.[2] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neuter word. This move has been widely criticised by some, including within the Catholic Church, and continues to be a point of contention today. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]

>>13982441
>>13982450
molyfags are literally worse than aids or cancer

>>13980029
Examples of problems with gender neutrality

>Ezekiel 2:1- 'mortal' instead of 'son of man'
It says "son of man" though, ben-’ā·ḏām (בֶּן־אָדָם֙), and this is repeated in the Greek of the NT, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (huiós toû anthrṓpou), and this was also the interpretation of all the main ancient translations.

>Hosea 1:10- 'children of the living God' instead of 'sons of the living God'

>Mark 1:17- 'fish for people' instead of 'fishers of men'
Greek actually has two words for 'people/folk' already, λᾱός (lāós) and δῆμος (dêmos), from where words such as 'democracy' are derived.

>Romans 1:13- 'brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' or 'brethren'
Could have used sibs/siblings if they wanted to be neutral. The fact is though that a feminine form of the word is used for 'sister', ἀδελφή (adelphḗ), and a feminine gendered word is used for 'brotherhood', ᾰδελφότης (adelphótēs), similar to Latin fraternitas and germanitas and its derivatives. The English word was also feminine in Old English apparently.

Here's an article criticizing the application of gender neutralism to translations of Coptic texts as well.
http://gospel-thomas.net/noman.htm

At this point it seems most of the people defending gender neutralism and the NRSV on here are probably either 1) shills from their publishing house, 2) militant feminists wanting to dissolve biblical heritage, or 3) NRSV owners with buyer's remorse.

>>13980029
It's decent. NASB or ESV would be a more accurate choice.

However, if you're speaking, English, why not read the version that hugely influenced the English language? The KJV?

I mean, it's like asking somebody to re-write Shakespeare, and reading that. Instead of Shakespeare.

The only major justification for reading non-KJV, would be that you're interested in historical accuracy, and have literary desires.

>>13980029
It's pretty far from it anon, stick with kjv, pic related. watch this documentary if you are interested in why all the modern versions are seriosuly messed up desu. also watch it before youtube deletes for offending it with the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

>>13980029
RSV-2CE from Ignatius Press or nothing else. That is, if you're a catholic.

Douay-Rheims
Baronius Press
Clemintina Vulgata
Challoner Revision

>>13983422
This is nonsense. Our understanding of the textual tradition is better now than when the KJV was translated, we have access to earlier manuscripts and fragments. KJV-onlyism starts by assuming that the KJV is the only correct translation and tries to prove this by pointing out differences between the KJV and other translations, which is entirely circular and unsupported. The KJV itself was revised multiple times, which of those is correct? It was also itself a revision of the Bishop's Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible which descended from Tyndale and Coverdale's translations. The KJV has no claim to be the "original" translation that others have to be measured by.

>>13980029
Get the David Bentley Hart version of the New Testament for tr00 metaphysical depth

>>13984757
Modern textual theories are just that, theories. They aren't necessarily correct. For example, we assume that an earlier manuscript is likely to be more accurate, but this isn't necessarily the case. Manuscripts wear out with use, so the older manuscripts we possess were likely not used, perhaps because of textual defects. You end up with incorrect manuscripts being preserved while the correct ones are copied and wear out. Similarly, we assume that a concordant reading is incorrect when compared to a contradictory reading, because we like to think we can read the mind of the scribe who would supposedly be more likely to correct an error than introduce one. But you really have no way to know that, do you? You end up with the current situation, in which the textual stream that has been used by Christians throughout time is disregarded in favor of obscure and contradictory textual variants that were lost for over a millennium, which you can only privilege by baseless conjecture. I am not a KJV-onlyist and I'm not the anon you were responding to, but I do believe that prioritizing the Byzantine textual stream is the correct practice.

>>13984835
Older textual theories are also theories. The KJV used text editions made by compiling the most common variants, which means lots of medieval variants were used since that period saw the most scribal activity.

>>13984835
And perhaps the most damning assumption of all: modern biblical text criticism works on the assumption that the Bible should be treated as any secular text would, that it is essentially just like every other book. This is not a Christian sentiment, which makes one wonder why secularists should have any hand whatsoever in determining what the Christian religious text consists of. Pardon me if I disregard every single one of their decisions as they have no authority to make them in the first place. If you want to read the Bible from this perspective, that is your own decision, but if you have any religious feeling, know that modern biblical criticism is a fundamentally non-Christian practice.

>>13984885
Correct. From a secular perspective you have no possible way of establishing the correct text with any surety, and any textual critic worth his salt will tell you this.

>Why yes I do only use translations based on the Textus Receptus. How could you tell?

>>13980029
The NASB and ASV are more literal, if that is what you mean by accurate. Alter's Hebrew Bible and Lattimore's New Testament are pretty good, but might not be what you're looking for.

>>13980029
There is no accurate bible: it has been reformated a thousand times, with parts added and others removed for political reasons. It is thus impossibly a holy book as it is sullied by politics and pragmatism.

>>13985088
>it has been reformated a thousand times, with parts added and others removed for political reasons.
This isn't true. It's a commonly repeated myth but it is not demonstrable in any way. Issues like canon are denominational disputes and the number of serious textual issues is small. "Reformatted a thousand times" is nonsense.

can the devil create aesthetically pleasing things?

Buy this instead