I want to read the Bible but I'm confused about all the

>>2190616

There is no such thing. All translation is interpretation; and that goes for any book, not just the bible. You can point to several, mutually contradictory interpretations of a single sentence and all could be supported by the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek of the passage you're looking at. Context could help, but you need to have some idea of what the language says to even take a stab at contextually interpreting whatever it is.

Ultimately, a translation is someone else's stamp on what they think the work means. Learn the language skills and read it in the original.

Unless you speak any of the languages it was originally written in and translated from, your best bet is the Douay-Rheims version, which is the first English translation of the Latin Vulgate. Even with the DR, your Ye Olde English fluency better be strong desu.

>>2190616
New International Version. Get a study bible where the footnotes take up a third of the page, or you won't get the half the context. The other half you're on your own to lookup.

>>2190616
ESV

>>2190709
'no'

>>2190693
>English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Firstly, you're wrong. The first was the Wycliffe bible. Secondly, the bible was not written in Latin.

>>2190693
Worst recommendation ever. Literally what were you thinking? Aside from the archaic language that would make it extremely difficult to read there's a completely unnecessary intermediary language in the translation.