[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 16 KB, 312x499, 7E6257DE-63F2-4563-9691-5BA80A91CD9E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16641128 No.16641128 [Reply] [Original]

Which version of the Bible should I buy?

>> No.16641130

>>16641128
Why are all of you on this board so obsessed with religion? Is this the fucking 1500s?

>> No.16641131
File: 275 KB, 882x1342, Holy Bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16641131

>>16641128
This one.

>> No.16641140

Depends. If you’re protestant then the King James is the best, if you aren’t then the New International Version is the best.

If you’re not reading it for religion then just get whatever is cheaper it doesn’t matter.

>> No.16641148

>>16641128
OSB and/or ABP

>> No.16641156

>>16641128
BIBLIA SACRA VULGATA

>> No.16641159

>>16641128
You dont ever have to BUY a bible dude people will give you that shit for free all day long

>> No.16641170

>>16641128
Douay-Rheims or King James. NKJV if you're a brainlet.

Orthodox tend to endorse the King James when it comes to English translations.

NIV and all the prole protestant variants are POZZED and you don't want to get POZZED, anon.

>> No.16641178

>>16641156
BASED...

>> No.16641180

>>16641159
Free bibles are shit translations, without critical or scholarly annotation.

>> No.16641195

>>16641130
Huh?

>> No.16641420

Sagrada Biblia by Universidad de Navarra

>> No.16641428

>>16641140
What's the best one for a Catholic?

>> No.16641502
File: 72 KB, 709x648, 2015 .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16641502

>>16641130
>It's the current year

>> No.16641518

>>16641428
New Jerusalem.

>> No.16641557

>>16641518
Thanks!

>> No.16641983

>>16641128
Norton KJV, NASB, Lattimore or Hart NT, Alter OT

>> No.16641999

>>16641128
learn ancient greek, then buy the ancient greek one... if not, learn classical latin, and the classical latin one... and then remember VERBVM means Logos.

>> No.16642001

>>16641999
>then buy the ancient greek one
he means the Septuagint

>> No.16642307

>>16641130
>Filtered by Religion
Surely if you've ever read a book you would understand that the Bible is a foundational work of western literature and among the most valuable texts ever created

>> No.16642343

>>16641180
trusting (((scholars)))

>> No.16642412

>>16641128
Pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims or 1611 KJB.
Knox Bible is a beautiful read
Interlinear or side by side is great for study
Read commentaries from the church fathers, I would also recommend Haydock commentary for Catholics

>> No.16642424

>>16641130
>obsessed with religion
I mean it's not like this is a literature board and the book in question is the most widespread and published text of all time.

>> No.16642445

>>16642412
The popularity of the KJV is why the Challoner revision was made. The original Douay–Rheims is comparatively cumbersome and difficult to understand. The modernized Wycliffe translation is also faithful to the Vulgate but probably more comprehensible.

>> No.16642472

>>16641128
Vintage copies of translations from before the 1950's.

>> No.16642486

>>16641130
yes goyim go read stephen king and harry potter

>> No.16642515

>>16642445
I would have to disagree on the difficulty of understanding the Douay-Rheims.
Reading any older translation is a different experience to anything modern. Yet they are crucial to understanding the connections between new and old testament. Specifically relating to Jesus and they do a better job referencing Satan. There are editions available in a modern script that make reading it simpler. I only recommend the KJV because it is difficult to find the original DR. I'll have to check out the Wycliffe

>> No.16642575

>>16642515
Well objectively speaking it had to have been more difficult for it to have been beaten out in preference by a revision of another translation. Even some sites that promote it currently acknowledge it as a slavish translation of the Latin. The Wikipedia article on the Douay-Rheims provides one example of were the mechanical nature of it is more apparent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible#Translation

>> No.16642646

>>16642575
Your premise is correct in the sense that biblical translations have become simpler to understand and thus more appealing to a wider audience through out time. This leads to abominations such as The Passion Translation which appeals to the lowest common denominator.
>a slavish translation of the Latin
that's the point. Reading the Latin or the Greek is ideal. I can't read Latin or Greek and even if I was to study them my understanding won't be any better than that of the early English translators.

>> No.16642679

>>16642646
So it seems. Regarding the Wycliffe Bible, its faithfulness to the Latin is apparent in 1 Samuel where Saul is referred to as the "Christ of the Lord" as in the Vulgate (mashiaħ YHWH in the Masoretic text) while other translations render it as the "anointed".

>> No.16642717

>>16642679
The whole Christ vs anointed was the reason I first seeked out the older translations in the first place. Seems like a huge error that has just been compounded ever since. Similar although to a lesser extent is references to Lucifer like Isaiah 14:12 where many modern translation will render it "oh shining one" or "morning star"

>> No.16642761

The KJV is not trustworthy.

>> No.16642774

>>16641128
just make sure it includes the deuterocanon. preferably the OT text should be based on the LXX (in accordance with christian tradition), not the masoretic text (medieval jewish textual tradition that prots and german “higher criticism” folk like to use).

>> No.16642779

>>16642717
Probably cause "christ" mainly connotes Jesus in English. It is rendered in the lower case to provide that distinction. Had Latins used a native term it probably would have been "unctus". Semitic languages use cognates of "mashiaħ".

>> No.16642780

>>16642646
the vulgate is literally derived/translated FROM the greek, hence why it can only be second tier.

>> No.16642786

>>16642780
>FROM the greek
No it's not and that is the reason why it was made.

>> No.16642792

>>16642786
??? are you living on mars lmao

>> No.16642800

>>16641420
Basado

>> No.16642828

>>16642774
Wow really dude?

Casting the truth away for some old catholic heresy?

>> No.16642834

>>16642792
No perhaps he just understands that St. Jerome also used Hebrew texts for example with the Psalms

>> No.16642840

Buber-Rosenzweig is the best version.

>> No.16642852

>>16642828
what are you talking about? casting the truth away for some modern heretical innovation?

>christians should throw away illuminating handfulls of their scripture because 16th century ragecuck didn’t like them
>christians should use jewish textual traditions because wellhausen, the guy whose explicit aim was to “decimate the unity of OT religion” said that is the way forward

nah m8

>> No.16642856

>>16642792
It was translated from Hebrew partly to debate the Jews who accused the Septuagint being flawed.

>> No.16642867

>>16642828
also the lxx (with deuterocanon) is older than christianity and the NT writers (including Christ himself in the gospels) quote from it, so how is it explicitly catholic heresy? I thought prots used scripture as a regulative principle

>> No.16642875

>>16642852
Luther liked them more than the spurious New Testament works which Catholics and other Protestant churches promote for their own means and were historically ignored by the rest of the churches in the world. Also Luther was only following the opinion of the Church Fathers.

>> No.16642894

>>16642875
>Luther liked them more than the spurious New Testament works which Catholics and other Protestant churches promote for their own means and were historically ignored by the rest of the churches
which ones? are you actually going to deny canonized scripture now?

>Luther was only following the opinion of the Church Fathers.
lol sauce? don’t give too much for what one father said one time in one text, as the consensus of the church is expressed synodally (and as far as I know the church never ecumenically denounced deuterocanon).

>> No.16642924

>>16642894
Canonized according to who? What one institution supports at a certain point in time isn't necessarily upheld by everyone (see modern era).

>> No.16642950

Which studybible is based on the septuagint?

>> No.16642968

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

The muslims have it right.

>> No.16642970

>>16642950
Muh orthodox study meme
https://archive.is/oBNvU

>> No.16642978

The NRSV in the form of the New Oxford Annotated Bible is the bible recommended by almost all current biblical scholars, and if you're annoyed by the gender neutral language, you can get it in RSV. The KJV is a great literary work but a very poor translation, so if you want to understand its literary impact read it but otherwise go with the (N)RSV. Don't trust any of the anons in this thread, actually read what biblical scholars think.

NIV is garbage, especially don't trust anyone who recommends it. NASB is a good translation, second to the (N)RSV, and most scholars would put ESV as third as far as common translations go. Alder's recent translation is very good, but it's a more liberal translation, so keep that in mind.

>> No.16642984

As an aside, I genuinely can't believe I'm the only person in this thread to bring up the English translation that >95% of scholars would recommend, Jesus I really shouldn't trust this board

>> No.16642994 [DELETED] 

>>16642343
Imagine trusting (((scholars))) on the OT, am I right?

>> No.16643002

>>16642984
>muh 95% of contemporary non-confessional researchers in secular institutions oy vey
Shilling for translations with diluted renditions doesn't actually contribute to the liberalization of scriptural doctrine fyi.

>> No.16643018

>>16643002
Why are you afraid of Jews translating their own holy book?

>> No.16643065

>>16643018
Oh so that's what this is about, ethnic dispute over claims to a written work and not objective aims at honest analysis. It's also not like the NRSV is attributable to Jewish efforts in a substantial manner.

>> No.16643110
File: 68 KB, 1022x731, It's_All_So_Tiresome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643110

>fanatical translation worshipers
>liberal revisionists

>> No.16643115

>>16643110
What bible do you like?

>> No.16643152

>>16643115
The RSV seems okay though I'd still point out that various other versions translate different things both better and worse in comparison to each other.

>> No.16643207
File: 30 KB, 640x640, 1578625745549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643207

People that use 'biblical scholar' to vouch for a translation don't understand what biblical scholars actually do, they incorrectly believe that they study the Bible in it's original languages.

>> No.16643224

>>16643207
What? Biblical scholars literally do read the bible in Hebrew/Greek

>> No.16643264

>>16643224
Wrong, a vast majority of modern biblical scholars only have rudimentary knowledge of either, most biblical scholars are exegetes and criticists.

>> No.16643318
File: 45 KB, 400x400, GUEST_eb8b0009-fa7e-41b2-a926-271d70e51aff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643318

>>16641128

>> No.16643350
File: 1.14 MB, 1617x2500, 8793426588976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643350

>>16641128
Here's a sirius answer for you OP
This Grand Gold-gilted mystical Tome that your bookshelf probably isn't high enough for:

It's a dual-print, contains both BIBLIA SACRA VULGATA (Latin), the Official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and its near word-for-word 16th century English translation, the Douay-Rheims.

>> No.16643353

>>16641428
just get some rope

>> No.16643373

>>16643264
nigga seminaries still make you go through years of Greek and Hebrew

>> No.16643412

>>16641428
Dewey raims

>> No.16643417

>>16642978
read the nrsv if you are a jewish scholar sure, it's useless to a christian and is pozzed, NASB is much better.

>> No.16643424

>>16643018
specifically translating them into english for goyim though? They have their own translations

>> No.16643431

I highly recommend the Catena app for commentary on scripture verses by Church fathers.

>> No.16643459

>>16641428
Dooky rims

>> No.16643666
File: 28 KB, 400x375, s-l400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643666

Start with the supressed books. They actually have the most truth.

>> No.16643676
File: 69 KB, 1570x1016, bibles chart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643676

>>16641128

>> No.16643698

>>16643676
This chart is so bad.

>> No.16643747
File: 27 KB, 300x414, 0120703ba576d0de6d987a4e4fa4efe7_300x414.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643747

This. Plus a background in Kabbalah and commentaries. The Bible had many levels. The literal. The allegorical. The esoteric. Each has a different level of truth.

The literal tells of a history where God must ask Adam where he is, because He does not know. Lot must barter with God to save innocents. In the Torah and historical books, genocide and even child blood sacrifices to God are demanded.

The allegorical level tries to smooth these issues over by elevating the actions of God to various levels of abstraction.

The esoteric readings look for the hidden meaning placed in the book by God's Wisdom, Sophia. Sophia is personified in the Book of Proverbs and the many books banned and supressed by Christian and Jewish leaders because they threatened temporal power and social control. These are the Sethian Jewish books, and Gnostic Christian texts.

The method for reading in the edition fashion is long and difficult. You learn the vengeful and impatient genocider of the OT, creator of the material world, is not the perfect God, Ein Soph, the Monad, who we can only know by Its lower aspects.

Read these, but also look to the Kabbalhists and read the Gnostic Texts. The Kabbalah itself was refined from Gnostic methods.

>> No.16643788
File: 30 KB, 336x499, 51ujXSopk-L._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643788

>>16643747
I'd start with Schloem. Modern philosophy and cognitive/linguistic science adds important context too.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scholem/

I recommend the Teaching Company's Mind Body Philosophy and Redefining Reality as solid college level overviews of physics, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy of mind (East and West), information science, computer science, and neuroscience/neurology. They're on Audible for much cheaper.

Then Husserl on phenology, Wittgenstein on language and space-time as relationships, not a Newtonian receptacle-container. Spinoza and Hume are instructive too, and William James to a lesser degree. Jung as well.

Then, with that background you're really ready to dig into the Gnostic texts and Bible again, with fresh eyes.

>> No.16643805

I have a copy of the Jerusalem Bible that I really enjoy for regular reading. I also have an Ignatius Study Bible, though it is just the New Testament.

>> No.16643906
File: 355 KB, 1638x690, 2020-10-24 08_49_37-Window.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643906

I wanna get the holy bibizzle since it's finally on sale but it's 100 god damn dollars
I'm so tempted but I don't even know if I should
I'm building a high end computer but I don't know if I'll ever get the chance again

>> No.16643953
File: 85 KB, 700x700, The desert quadrilogy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643953

Pick your poison

>> No.16644361

>kjv
>the nag hammadi library
>the complete aporrypha

>> No.16645222

>>16641128
buy a catholic bible like NABRE, don't buy a heretic version like KJV

>> No.16645242

>>16642924
The one that has 2000 years of continuity, not one that was founded 200 years ago or yesterday.