[ 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: 170 KB, 661x716, 1431ca4a8d0c6e28d88d7ae5eff33dd763a3d1d69eec1951f88ae8b398126764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17259559 No.17259559 [Reply] [Original]

>Top Tier
Authorized Version 1769
New American Standard Bible
English Standard Version

>High Tier
New King James
Christian Standard Bible
New Revised Standard Version

>Mid Tier
1984 New International Version
New American Bible

>Low Tier
2011 New International Version

>Paraphrases for Children Tier
The Message
Good News Bible
Living Bible

>Honorable Mention
Open English Bible
World English Bible
1611 Authorized

>Not even a direct translation tier, do not use alone
Douay-Rheims

>Cult Tier
New World Translation

>> No.17259631

Nigger sneed my diary desu.

>> No.17260232

>>17259559
>esv and asv are top tier
>but rsv/nrsv are down
Why? Also the fuck is wrong with the Douay Rheims?

>> No.17260250

>>17259559
Read the vulgate

>> No.17260255

>>17260232
RSV is surpassed by ESV
NRSV is less literal and went the way of gender inclusivity

The DR is a translation of a translation

>> No.17260275
File: 1.02 MB, 3881x3843, english_bible_history5.19.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17260275

>>17260232
Also ASV stands for american standard
Authorized version is KJV

>> No.17260378

>>17260255
I didn't know the nrsv was a gender neutral translation (or at least I forgot it was), I guess that alone would make the rsv better than it. I personally primarily use an rsv, can you show something(s) that would say it's less literal than the esv too?
>The DR is a translation of a translation
The original is, but pretty much all versions of the Douay Rheims used today have been revised by Challoner heavily revising the text according to the Greek and Hebrew, so the DRC isn't really just a translation of a translation but is a mix of the vulgate, Greek and Hebrew. The vulgate is overall a good translation anyway, no?

>> No.17260423

>>17259631
>Nigger sneed my diary desu.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I CANT BREATH IM DYING HELP ME

>> No.17260424

>>17260378
It is always preferable to translate directly from the source to the recipient language. Editing a translation using original language sources is good, but even better is to base your translation on the source languages in the first place

>can you show something(s) that would say it's less literal than the esv too?
Here's Wayne Grudem's analysis
https://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-advantages-of-the-ESV.pdf

>> No.17260523

>>17260424
It's very likely Greek was not the original language of the Gospels either. Also older Syrian, Egyptian, and even Latin translations seemed to preserve elements of the original text lost on later manuscripts.

>> No.17260539

>>17260523
I disagree but its normal for modern translations to consult other manuscript sources

>> No.17260665
File: 6 KB, 250x200, 1605557020766.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17260665

>>17259559
New American Bible Revised Edition
>Imprimatur.
>Nihil Obstat

Yeah I'm thinkin it's based.

>> No.17260701

>>17260665
The esv catholic edition was given the imprimatur by the Catholic church in India

>> No.17260859

>>17260701
>esv catholic editon
Other than the deuterocanonical books what's the difference?

>> No.17260869

>>17259559
Top Kek Tier: 1599 Geneva Bible Patriot Edition

>> No.17260883

>>17260859
It has the deuterocanonical books
The differences is the esv is a way better translation

>> No.17260898

>>17259559
I feel like The Message deserves it's own category. Reading a few passages from it injured me both mentally and spiritually

>> No.17261231

>>17260898
>I feel like The Message deserves it's own category. Reading a few passages from it injured me both mentally and spiritually
Is there something wrong with the translation that made you feel that way?

>> No.17262206

>>17261231
He's being a dick. People shouldnt be expected to read and understand a first century Greek text if they have no prior exposure to any thing like it, the message is more than fine

>> No.17262383

>>17259559
What tier would be learning greek and Aramaic and reading the original version?

>> No.17262407
File: 78 KB, 489x370, 8E127CA8-C561-43CB-8488-6A368780CC0D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17262407

>>17259559

>> No.17262427

>>17262407
he based

>> No.17262562

You missed lattimore

>> No.17263389

>>17262206
Theres actually an entire class of options besides the original languages or paraphrases, we call them translations

>>17262407
The KJV has the apocrypha

>>17262383
Misguided tier

>> No.17263408

>>17263389
>The KJV has the apocrypha
I heard some don't though

>> No.17263424

>>17263408
If you want to read it you can get a book of just the apocrypha, if your bible doesnt have it. Nrsv, RSV, esv all also habe apocrypha translations

>> No.17263597 [DELETED] 

>Literary English/Protestant
KJV

>Scholarly Research
NRSV

>Catholic
NABRE (Catholic Study Bible, 3e)

>Orthodox
Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV for NT, new translation of Septuagint)

>German
Luther Bible

>Latin
Vulgate

>> No.17263663

>Literary English/Protestant
KJV
NKJV (for accuracy)

>Scholarly Research
NRSV

>Catholic
NABRE (Catholic Study Bible, 3e)

>Orthodox
Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV for NT, new translation of Septuagint)

>Latin
Vulgate

>German
Luther Bible

>English (OT/Tanakh)
Soncino Books

>English (NT)
David Bentley Hart’s
Richmond Lattimore’s

>> No.17263797

>>17263389
How is it misguided? Asking for guidance

>> No.17263831

>>17263797
There is no way to become competent enough in Greek an Hebrew that you would benefit from reading the original languages in place of a translation prepared by a team of experts without a decade of study and natural high intelligence

Studying the languages is a good thing to do alongside reading a good translation immediately

>>17263663
If by "scholarly research" you mean fitting in with atheist academia you're right
I don't think the OSB even fits on a list of translations. Even the original translation old testament has Eastern Orthodox critics and there are better Septuagint translation options

>> No.17263856

How do modern day Christians excuse the anti semitism/racism/sexism found in the Bible? I know that just made me sound like a redditor but I’m asking honestly as a anti semite/racist/sexist

>> No.17264027

>>17263856
You're going to have to provide specific examples, it's not like there's a single answer. Also, what anti-semitism? The protagonists of the old testament are all jews. Jesus was a Jew.

>> No.17264042

>>17259559
Best bible for orthodox? I have KJV, but when I reread it I want something slightly easier to understand. Thanks

>> No.17264362

>>17259559
Fucking heretics in this thread. The only true way is to start a crusade to re-take Afghanistan, die in battle, and ask the Almighty personally what he said.

>> No.17264438

>>17259559
>>17259559
>be me
>Hungarian
>Have like two Bible translations, the second one just a modernization of the first
>Watch Americans and English tear each other to shreds over which of their gajillion translations is the most faithful to their belief
>slurp coffee

>> No.17264651

>>17264027
Revelations

>> No.17264687

>>17259559
Pre-Challoner Douay Rheims is my preferred choice. Haydock edition for commentary
Just avoid most anything after 1800

>> No.17264706

>>17264042
Lots of Orthodox seem to recommend The Orthodox Study Bible