Who did it better

KJV or nothing

>>8226599
retard spotted.
KJV is fine but ESV and NLT are both great (on opposite ends of the hand-holding spectrum)

>>8226585
Why read translations when you can read the original one as it was written by the Lord Jesus Christ himself? KJV is the answer.

>>8226616
For a bunch of supposed literates you people lack a vocabulary for disagreeing civilly.

File: 1371289140072.jpg (4KB, 176x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 176x160px

>>8226616
>>8226628

Yeah Anon, that really hurt my feelings. I actually don't have learning disabilities and the R-word is very offensive.

You should think about the person on the other side of the screen.

>>8226616
Which one of those two is on what side of the handholding spectrum?

>>8226585
Get the NRSV. Very scholarly. I recommend the HarperCollins one.

>>8226784
Would you pick Harper Collins over Oxford, and why? They're both based on the NRSV.

>>8226599
/thread

>>8226667
>the R-word
Not him, but die in a fire.

>>8226585
only the KJV has literate qualities. it is the foundation of a lot of english literature.

the rest are just bible for juniors and stupid americans

it's just a made up bunch of shit anyway so you might as well get one that is fun to read

oxford annotated bible/nrsv
kjv is a meme for wannabe reactionaries

>>8228823
>kjv is a meme for wannabe reactionaries

"No."