What Bible translation do you guys prefer? I like the King James

I don't know. I've read just KJV and now reading NIV. Will read ESV and NRSV next.

>not reading the Bible everyday for the rest of your life
>not reading all major translations

>>7558186
A lot of the translations are awful. NIV and NRSV included

>>7558192

What's bad about them exactly?

>>7558192
Read them and judge for yourself. I'm gonna read the Bible for the rest of my life so why not?

>>7558197

I guess we'll never know what's so bad about them.

Here's a question that I don't think comes up often: What translations of the Apocryphal books are available, and what are the best ones among them? Anyone explored this?

>>7558165

You could not possibly get a better foundation in English writing or develop a better taste in it than by reading the King James Bible many times. Cover to cover, Genesis to Revelation.

>>7558197
They play fast and loose. The RSV is okay though.

>>7559768

But the RSV plays fast and loose moreso than the others. The big one is that it renders in Is 7:14 as 'young woman' instead of 'virgin', despite its meaning as such in the rest of the OT and its translation going all the way back to the Septuagint.

>>7559823

renders עַלְמָה* in Is 7:14

>>7558192
>NRSV
lol KJV is the worst translation.

>>7559823
Yes, that is the only problem with it.

Even my priest likes it, except for that one passage.

But the KJV and the NKJV are both superior to the RSV (which is essentially an revision of the KJ). I'm just saying that, apart from that passage (which was influenced by a contemporary understanding of Hebrew), the RSV is much, much more faithful than the NRSV. Of course, all translations which use the Masoretic text for the OT are, in my eyes, flawed. The Orthodox Study Bible modifies the NKJV to accord more with the Septuagint. That said, if you have to go with Masoretic, there is simply no better resource than the KJV; it's principle flaw is translating both Gehenna and Hades as "hell", but otherwise it is a nice translation.

>>7559843
KJV is one of the few translations that isn't working to promote an agenda. It just tries to be faithful.

The same could be said of the Orthodox NT (and hopefully the OT as well), which has been accused of being useful to Arians. But the Orthodox response to this is that the Orthodox NT is meant to be read by the Orthodox in the context of the Church, it's not meant for a sola scriptura reading, and can only be seen as promoting Arianism if you subscribe to sola scriptura. But the point is that it is very faithful and doesn't push any agenda with the translation.

>>7559843
>>7559906
The KJV is great in terms of the flow of language, but it's not the best as a translation (being centuries behind on manuscript evidence, for example). Also, claiming that it doesn't have an agenda behind it is disingenuous; no translation is free from an agenda due to its setting, etc., and the KJV is certainly no exception. It's best to just acknlowledge that no translation can claim objectivity. And this isn't to say the KJV is bad per se; there's nothing glaring about it in terms of doctrine etc.

Kappa

>>7558165
The Vulgate is the only way you should be reading it

>>7560018


If the KJV had any agenda, it was to have no agenda, since it was supposed to placate Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants alike.

>>7560018
>(being centuries behind on manuscript evidence, for example).
By the way, from my point of view (Orthodox), everyone is behind on the text. Not only because of the Septuagint (whose Pentateuch is closer to the Samaritan Torah than the Masoretic text is for a reason), but on the NT. The text of the Orthodox NT is the original (Greek...that is, the Orthodox Church says the Gospels apart from Luke were originally written in Hebrew, but stopped being copied when gentiles dominated Christianity). The Orthodox Gospel of Mark, for instance, ends abruptly after the Apostles are told by the four women that Christ is risen. All the material after that is seen as an interpolation by the Church.

>>7560144
Septuagint and the original NT is better, imho

File: COVCB-2.jpg (262KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1200x1200px

>>7558165
This is the best translation period

>>7561561
Came to post this

>>7561561
You sure it isn't full of heresies? I've read their pamphlets.

>>7561620
What heresies do you speak of?

>>7558186
Too bad literally none of them are even close to correct

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Blows all the other versions out of the water.

>>7561664
>For nearly two billion people, the Bible is a holy book containing the revealed word of God.
>thinking that the majority of Christians believe the Bible is a revealed text
>blowing anything out of the water

I've never heard the New English Translation discussed in one of these threads. It's my favorite by far because of all of the scholarly notes and annotations included that give you a good idea of the historical context, meanings behind names, various interpretations of passages etc.

>>7561565
>>7561561
Haha there it is at last

>>7561620
Yes it's more than likely a joke, especially since >>7561637 pretends not to know about the criticism of the NWT denying the divinity of Jesus.

>>7561658

Tell us how so. The language of the Bible isn't exactly Finnegans Wake-grade levels of difficulty; even the poetic sections don't face the same strictures that ordinarily make translation of poetry so treacherous.

I'd suggest getting a separate one for the hebrew bible. The jewish study bible is good.