/lit/ - Literature

>>15759089
Some newer translations use different source texts which are missing verses found in other texts. I prefer the KJV, myself.

Here :)

>>15759105
Whats the history behind this? What are these verses about?

>>15759089
The Orthodox Study Bible
plenty annotations etc. you wont miss anything if you go with this one.

>>15759135
KJV has some verses that don't exist in the earliest copies of texts (texts that were discovered after KJV so it isn't KJV's fault). Some people see these later additions as important and canonical, others don't. Many editions that omit these verses from the main text will still have them in footnotes.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

>>15759089
Depends on why you're reading it. There is nothing wrong, IMO, with the New King James Version if your purpose for reading is purely for personal study/interest. The KJV is significant since it is the first English translation of the Bible. Having been completed in 1611, it can be a challenging read if you aren't familiar with the older style of English. Which is why I recommend starting with something like the NKJV. That said, I must recommend the KJV over any other version for the purpose of practice. Especially if you aren't too concerned with the difficulty in reading.

>>15759089
Doubt Rheims

>>15759443
*Douay Rheims

>>15759089
The Bhagavad Gita as it is, or KJV/NKJV/DR if you already read it.

>>15759426
>The KJV is significant since it is the first English translation of the Bible.
Imagine being this ignorant.

Why would someone say this?

>>15759089
The Didache Bible (RSV-2CE)

>>15759089
I cross-read a Douay-Rheims bible and a King James bible. But that's just me- read any biblical translation that doesn't contain the words "New," "international," or its publishing year.

>>15759460
Why the fuck is New International Version the #1 bestselling Bible translation? Liberals, conservatives, and scholars all hate it with a passion.

>Authorized Version (King James Version), 1769 Oxford Edition

>>15759089
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5.htm

>>15759089
KJV is a word for word of the original manuscripts. Dead sea scrolls confirm. Many newer versions are purposely corrupted.

>"the Bible will be changed. It will be written to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized and then gradually that word replaced with another word.
>the idea is that everything in scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. The variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference. The few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."

tl;dr
KJV is the way to go.

>>15759089
The New Internalational Version is the best available translation. I can't believe people purporting to be literate are stupid enough, on here, to be recommending the abysmal horror show that is the KJV. The New International Version is the English language translation closest to the oldest available sources. Shit like the KJV is pure garbage so skewed by the people "translating" it that it contains very little that is accurate, and all of it is heavily weighted by the politics of the authors. Those authors did far more rewriting than they did translating.

>>15759674
Hahaha. No. KJV is straight up the least-accurate bible there is. It's 100% trash. For instance, God's name appears in original texts over seven thousand times. In the KJV? Seven. One one-thousandth of the number of times it's in the source material. Tell me more about how word-for-word it is, you ignorant fuck.

>>15759712
>that apostasy
>ignorant fuck
the irony!

>>15759480
It was dispassionately written by scholars of language relying on the oldest available sources. It doesn't serve any agendas. So no one can tout it as supporting their pet theories. A collection of books written two to three thousand years ago don't really apply to any of us, and an accurate translation of them turns mostly makes the authors look like a buncha ignorant yokels who lived two thousand years ago.

>>15759720
Well if you posted an infographic you found on the internet, who can possibly argue with that?

Jehovah/Yahweh appears 7,000 times in the source material. 7 times in the KJV. That's a lot of fucking words missing, and that's just one of the countless edits they made.

>Hahaha. No. KJV is straight up the least-accurate bible there is. It's 100% trash.

>>15759734
>NIV
you have to go back reprobate

>>15759734
>A collection of books written two to three thousand years ago don't really apply to any of us
Source?

>>15759743
>>15759747
Go suck your queen's cock.

>>15759749
I mean I'm discussing the content of the bible. My source for that content is, you know: it.

>>15759769
What makes you think it doesn't really apply to any of us?

>>15759758
Now I'm convinced. With saintly language like that.

KJV it is!

Oxford Annotated Bible if you want to study it in its historical context and through comparative literature, which is the right way to do it.

>>15759776
Yes: the NIV does not contain passages that are not found in the earliest sources. The KJV does because someone made those passages up and inserted them at a later date.

>Go suck your queen's cock.

>>15759774
Then what are you asking for?

>>15759790
Earliest extant manuscripts does not mean most accurate manuscripts.

>>15759790
shut up. Your agenda is see through.

>>15759803
Right tell me more about why 12th century manuscripts are more reliable than 1st century. That'll make sense as soon as I get into my time machine.

>>15759798
Pardon? I'm asking why you think books written 2-3000 years ago don't really apply to any of us. What is your reason for thinking this?

>>15759089
that shit is boring as fuck don't bother

>>15759817
Because there are more of them, that agree with each other, and come from a wider area. If you knew anything about textual criticism you would know this. Instead you are probably just regurgitating whatever James White fed you.

>>15759426
>The KJV is significant since it is the first English translation of the Bible
This is your brain on protestantism

>>15759828
Apparently that which was, isn't what is to come. Like the Bible says it will. But it was written 2-3000 thousand years ago, so it doesn't apply to us.

KJV is the most iconic one and the most relevant to western literature at large, but it’s a bunch of protestant lies, so you’re better off getting a newer translation with apocrypha

>>15759880
>but it’s a bunch of protestant lies
>is still more "Catholic" than modern Catholic translations

>>>/x/

>>15760193
>>>/r/eddit

>>15759734
>It was dispassionately written by scholars of language relying on the oldest available sources.
HAHAHAHAHA.

>>15759743
>soiposting
ofc you're living in a place filled with whole shit joke and nonsense

The only acceptable version is the Legacy Standard Version. It properly calls black people slaves.

>ofc you're living in a place filled with whole shit joke and nonsense

>>15761491
Based if true. Cringe if fake. Also it's not even out yet.

It's hard to find a reason to invest in a hardcover Living Bible or in leather bound NIVs.

>>15759089
Depends on what you mean by best. For sheer literary value, the KJV. Alter's OT and Lattimore's NT are good modern versions.

>>15759169
theres still endless debate about which earlier copies are the 'most accurate' or whatever, which kind of defeats the purpose of myth and spirituality desu, but yeah.

>>15759132
What the fuck

>>15759747
because the line is repeated, look just a few passages earlier and you'll see it's present in the NIV too.

>>15759817
you realize that those earliest few manuscripts also drastically disagree with each other, right?

Interesting that the various NT manuscripts are all only about 2/3rds identical.

Christogenea NT

>>15761719
fancy shit i know

>>15761761
Different translations of the bible vary for the same reasons as any translations, as well as having thousands of historic reference manuscripts that also don't agree and which come from different regions where they may have been subject to changes for cultural reasons by early writers.

it's a miss desu.

>>15761774
>thousands of historic reference manuscripts
This chart is comparing seven major NT editions.
>In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[15]
>It's a miss.
What is a miss?

>>15761761
This is misleading. The vast majority of extant manuscripts are in agreement with each other 99% of the time, with slight variations in spelling or punctuation, but every time there is any variant at all, it’s counted among the variants in that table, even if it’s only incidental or extremely minor.

Then there are a few manuscripts (few relative to the overwhelming majority) that leave out words, and whole verses, like the last 11 verses of Mark, and these are the manuscripts that modern bibles use i.e. the cucked bibles like NIV, NLT, ESV, etc.

>>15761834
This table doesn't count orthographic or differences of one word.

>>15761857
Okay. Now I see. That table is basically comparing the similarities between all the corrupt text versions that exist, and has nothing to do with the Majority Text which is the many more extant mss that are in 99% agreement with each other.

This is actually really informative, because it shows how much difference there is between modern Greek texts because of the addition of gnostic texts that added, removed, or changed verses to be in line with their various doctrines. The reason why there are so many changes is because there were so many gnostic sexts competing with each other, and they couldn’t agree with each other on anything. Fast forward about 2000 years, and the modern text is basically an amalgamation of those corrupt texts.

As opposed to Textus Receptus (KJV) that was collated before these other texts were discovered, making that version the purest form in English.

>>15759089
Do yourself a favor and read the NRSV.

Do a few seconds of research into the subject and you'll find that it is the most faithful-to-the-original, well-written translation around.

>>15759734
thats cause the KJV translates it as The LORD

>>15759712
Translation by ecumenical consensus is a mistake. You end up with a mish mash of interpretations and something that neuturers the vigor of the Word of God, and no denomination ends up being happy about it.

>>15761794
mess.
i know what the chart is, and i'm saying that its basely even the start of it. these are so many different version of manuscripts and almost as many differences between them. even the most commonly used manuscripts all have different origins to them and have subject to the whims and machinations of writers. and as it relates to the the op, this means translations can be different to a degree that may perhaps be surprising to some.

>>15761834
Stop trying to minimize the discrepancies. Face it: Yahweh never existed, and you will very likely end up in some other god's hell for eternity.

>>15759712
Who the hell defends the NIV? Lmao. The (N)RSV or KJV, sure. But the NIV? This has got to be a troll.

ESV gang. Just finished Genesis tonight, excited for Exodus.

>>15762148
rsv and esv have good study bibles, but kjv is best for literary interest due to its massive impact on english works and indirect impact on western european works as a result. ultimately you should lean koine and possible hebrew so you can read more complete manuscripts of the NT from each major lineage as well as OT. why didn't you guys start with the greeks?

>>15760193
>tripfag

>>15762194
Tyndall-Coverdale is obviously the best in English. KJV is basically Tyndall copypasted and ruined by a committee of 47 inept academics.

>>15762186
I wouldn't recommend reading straight through, cover to cover, but if you insist on it, you're in for a treat. Savor it before you get to Leviticus, which is a much duller read for most people.

>>15759674
Incidentally, here's Jack Moorman from your pic getting his ass kicked in a debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHR8wJAjNFo
There aren't two distinct and exclusionary lines of manuscripts. That's just bullshit. There's a few general streams of texts. An analogy of rivers occasionally intermingling is more apt.
>discarded and hidden for 1500 years
Those two manuscripts aren't the only sources of information on early Greek texts. They're just two strong examples. There's also the papyri, and other resources in later texts that textual critics can use to collate more accurate editions.
What TR onlies and KJVOs fail to realize is why TR-like texts tend to dominate in certain readings: because many surviving manuscripts were produced during the Medieval period in the surviving Eastern Roman state we know as Byzantine. Many produced through methods innovated in their scriptoriums, which often make the texts more ornate and readable through lower case, but that's besides the point. The minority/majority distinction is not the hard feature that TR and KJVOs think. Very obvious reason for this: the Eastern church still spoke Greek so made more common manuscripts. That's why this stream is called the "Byzantine" by many.
The funniest thing is that the "majority-text" crowd will arbitrarily give up this principle where it's inconvenient, like for the Comma Johanneum.
When manuscripts are actually examined, there many places where one might read like any number of different texts. They don't read just as an example of the TR or a modern critical edition (by the way, critical doesn't mean what some KJVOs think it means, it means using critical methods to make the most accurate text possible, and many of the techniques were used by Erasmus of the TR and even the KJV translators centuries before textual criticism was considered a field). The KJVO isn't even a one-for-one translation of the TR.

In fact, the Textus Receptus is just a name contemporaneously given to a printed edition of a collected Greek text. It's not some ancient doctrinal idea, anymore than calling the ESV the "English Standard" is. It's just a name.
>>15761886
Give an ounce of primary historical evidence for this narrative.
>and has nothing to do with the Majority Text which is the many more extant mss that are in 99% agreement with each other.
What's so strange about this topic is that 99% of the differences between the most distinct manuscripts are basically untranslatable and don't effect the meaning.
You don't even need to read Greek to see how well the NT has been preserved, that such wildly different editions and manuscripts from split churches are so similar. You can compare the Greek version of Westcott and Hort or the Nestle-Aland with the TR. You act as if every drop of it has been """corrupted."""

Here's a great series of videos on the subject on KJVOism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI7fbQc1Oyw&list=PLLzmXcZm0N8XurIebjYH5ruhSE105--3d

>>15762213
>Tyndall-Coverdale
Yes because its spelling is even more obsolete

>>15762552
The New Matthew Bible updates the spelling and language.

>>15762546
>You act as if every drop of it has been """corrupted."""
I didn’t say every drop. To be fair, the W&H and N-A texts are very similar to TR, so similar in fact that most people don’t bat an eye at it. But there are many changes from TR in the modern text that does in fact alter verses doctrinally, or otherwise tries mess with the text just enough so that certain key verses are called into question, or left out entirely in certain translations.

That W&H are known to have added Greek text into their mss that had no providence in any other mss is alarming, and if enough for me to call it sufficiently corrupt, even before you get to their sad attempt of a translation that was the ERV.

> In the New Testament alone more than 30,000 changes were made, over 5,000 on the basis of what were considered better Greek manuscripts.

In other words, they were picking and choosing, or otherwise just guessing, about which mss to use and which to exclude.

>>15759089
KJV and Oxford Annotated Bible. Read both side by side

>>15762689
>In other words, they were picking and choosing, or otherwise just guessing, about which mss to use and which to exclude.
How do you think Erasmus collated the TR?
>> In the New Testament alone more than 30,000 changes were made, over 5,000 on the basis of what were considered better Greek manuscripts.
See: >>15762546
>99% of the differences between the most distinct manuscripts are basically untranslatable and don't effect the meaning.

>>15762711
>How do you think Erasmus collated the TR?
What Erasmus did was different from W&H. Erasmus took the mss he had and collated the text based on their similarities, and excluded anything that was different from the majority, which is what any honest collator would do.

W&H on the other hand collected the various altered mss that had been discovered, chiefly Sinaticus and Vinaticus (the latter of which having been rejected by the KJV translators based on its variances), and then literally merged them together. W&H did not have any two mss that were in 99% in agreement with each other. Even with Sinaticus and Vinaticus, they both vary widely with each other, even if they are in relatively close agreement with each other, while at the same time both are widely different from TR. Sinaticus has the highest variance of any mss known to date, with over 23,000 alterations.

So Erasmus used mss that were in near perfect agreement, and excluded anything else. But W&H used basically any mss they could get their hands on, and none of them were in near perfect agreement with each other.

>>15759089
The Satanic Bible Mass Market Paperback – December 1, 1969
by Anton Szandor Lavey

any version is fine on first read

Read an easily comprehensible translation. The two most notable ones are the NRSV and the NIV. Whatever you do, don't read KJV.

>>15762703
I just bought the Norton Critical Bibles. Please don't tell me I wasted £40.

>>15763215
>paying £40 for progressive theology
You certainly did.

>>15759851
I think you mean on Anglo-centrism, any real protestant would know that the Geneva Bible was out before the KJV, and that neither of them were the first

>>15762269
What are some downsides to reading straight through? I feel like I don’t want to miss any information before I get to the NT and it’s a study bible as well so even for the monotonous genealogies there have been fascinating notes.

Not reading the original Greek version
t.brainlet

>>15759089

KJV strong

>>15760193
dilate

>>15759858
You're not making any sense. The Bible is significant as a roadmap on the human soul and our relationship with God. These themes are eternal.

Help me out please
I am portuguesa and for most books I trust english translations more. Does this still hold true regarding The Bible?
Should I get a portuguese Bible or an english one?

>>15765284
*portuguese

>>15759089
KJV if you want the best prose.

David Bentley Hart's New Testament if you want the most accurate prose. (Preserves the distinct tone of each author in the original greek.) Robert Alter's Translation for the same in the Old Testament.

>>15759817
>What is silent evidence

>>15765284
A Portoguese one of course,why do you want to take part in the cultural dominance of English?

>>15765284
honest question: do portuguese have a functioning language or do they just replicate nasal sounds? I speak a high level language (Greek) so I am intrigued by more barbaric languages (they sound like bar bar bar in my ears).

>>15765333
Aristotleposting

>>15759743
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUTlvAsLyPM&t=3s

>>15759089
none

>>15765356
Where did anyone in this thread claim it was infallible you insufferable catholic twat?

>>15759089
im reading the jerusalem bible translation to help me out with the septuagint greek but i dont always agree with its choices, it feels like it stretches the meaning beyond whats actually there if that makes sense

>>15764648
If it's a study Bible you'll be slightly better off, but
>burnout, because some of the OT is a rough read. Not because it's "problematic" to our modern sensibilities, but because it reads like a tax code.
>you can miss some of the slightly prophetic moments in the OT, because the ESV uses the Masoretic Text (as do many translations) so some of the prophecies about Jesus are obscured. With a study Bible, this might go better
>There are some parallels between the OT and NT, and some reading guides have you read an OT book and a NT book at the same time that will make those parallels line up for you
In all honesty, the biggest thing to avoid is the first point (burnout) and when you're done and "digesting the book" so to speak, understand the OT in light of the NT. It's easy to miss that though, even for people who read it following a study guide, just because it sounds easy and to some degree is, but it's rarely brought up to people reading the Bible, especially first timers, at least in my experience.

>>15765284
Probably more options than in other western languages where the most popular classic Protestant translation is typically the best.

>>15765284
Then again the classic Almeida Bible would be a more logical and convenient choice if considering the KJV. More contemporary English translations might appear more diluted.

>>15765410
Yeah it seems pretty dull desu. Should probably check out the LXX2012 instead.

https://ebible.org/eng-lxx2012/

>>15760193
based

>>15765679
Thanks anon