What is the /lit/ approved translation of the Bible?

>>8661492

for literary value? KJV of course
for patrician points? Vulgate
for extra points? Septuagint
for the logical conclusion of that line of thought >translations mfw and so on

>>8661492
James the first, King of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith's translation

File: buhble.png (267KB, 601x835px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 601x835px

>>8661492
As literature, KJV
As a biblical scholar, pic related.

>>8661492
KJV for literary purposes.
New Oxford Annotated Bible and Lattimore's New Testament for study

>>8661492
>mfw everyone is hard for kjv
>all the best parts are plagiarized from Tyndale
>he never received any credit
>burned to death by the catholic church
feels bad man

KJV is a spineless translation made to make the English monarchy look decent. By nearly all modern standards, it's a subpar translation and should absolutely not be read within your first 2-3 readings of the Bible.

Furthermore, on a more reasonable note, many words used in the KJV have radically different meanings in contemporary English:
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_1.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_2.html

And Bible scholarship was worse in the 17th century than in the 20th, so there are genuine mistranslations.

In a nutshell, reading the KJV is -- at worst -- like reading other dynamic equivalence translations, but with "prettier" and harder-to-decipher language; at best, it's literally a copy-and-paste of another translator's hard work. And quite often in the OT, it's littered with awkward stumbling throughout the verses.

>>8661609

in other words it's perfect for /lit/

File: ignatius.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

GOD TIER:
Douay-Rheims
Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition

Plebestant tier:
All others

Why does the media associate the KJV with Catholics? Because the language sounds old?

>>8661492
New Revised Standard Version is the most "accurate" if you don't want to learn a bunch of dead languages

>>8661645
This is the correct answer. I'd add the Knox Translation too.

I prefer the New International version myself, but it's honestly a matter of preference. If you want to have an accurate answer to your question, you're going to have to start a poll.

This is /lit/ so go for KJV. It's more ornate than other translations, but it's also Protestant filth and very inaccurate. If you want /his/ then go for NRSV.

>>8661492
Just read the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. All the English translations are scrappy.

>>8662784
>>8661645
Whats wrong with Protestants

>>8662775
NIV obscures meaning with its translations by making all the more violent parts of the Bible more tame

>>8662791
They're closer to God so Catholics get jealous.

File: 1457191713554.jpg (30KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x368px

>>8662791
>tfw you a heretic

>>8662819
A valid point. Again, personal preference. I was raised on it so it's more familiar than other versions.

>>8661521
>for literary value? KJV

What other reason is there to read the Bible?

>>8662830
Go Orthodox or go home.

>>8662848
Umm… spiritual value?

>>8662851

The NRSV is full of errors, and is missing books that the KJV contains. Plus, the Catholics added their own stuff to it for absolutely no reason. It's inferior.

>>8662858
>is missing books that the KJV contains
such as?

>>8661528
>James the first, King of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith's translation

You mean King James the I of England, VI of Scotland, King of France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Father of the man who would bring about the end of any sort of Abolitionism in England?c

>>8662848
Historical, philosophical value

The KJV has pretty language but the translations are shit and its biased towards the Anglican stuff because big boy James made it that way

>>8662858
The NRSV is one of the best translated Bibles out there. There is nothing missing but there are additions because the Catholic and Orthodox churches have deuterocanon that Protestants reject. It's superior.

honestly the fact the NRSV is considered to be the best "scholarly" translation redpilled me hard on the bias of academia

>>8662924
Honestly, fuck Protestants

>>8662936
>bias of academia
It took you that long to figure out?

can someone post the christian /lit/ chart

thanks

>>8662943
no but that made it clear how brazen they are about it

>>8662791
Their literature is not as good as Cathodox

File: lattimore_newtestament.jpg (264KB, 1234x1200px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1234x1200px

Pic related

>>8662858
NRSV is a scholarly translation. They have translated everything.

>>8662791
They treat Catholics like they're the scum of the Earth but then proceed to use their rituals, art and shit for aesthetics

>>8661492
Vulgate bible

>>8661492
KJV is recommended because it's flowery. It's good if your only language is English and you're a Protestant. This board seems to hate Protestants though so it's kinda ironic. Go for D-R if you want something Catholic.
>>8662858
NRSV is /his/-approved for translation accuracy. Good for serious Bible study.

>>8662858
>The NRSV is full of errors, and is missing books that the KJV contains.
False. In fact, Catholic bibles have certain books in the Old Testament that were REMOVED by Protestants during the Reformation.
In one infamous example, Martin Luther expressed his desire to "throw [the Epistle of James] into the stove..." because it was an "epistle of straw" until his friends convinced him it was too radical.

>Plus, the Catholics added their own stuff to it
Name an addition to the actual text (not a footnote or some other BS response) that Caholics added after the Reformation.

>>8662917
Putting that under the same umbrella as literary value and it's still all KJV

>>8662791
people just enjoy irish and russian literature too much

>>8663006
KJV is a bad and biased translation. It's influential on the English language and for Protestants. But the majority of Christians are not Protestants nor did they speak English.

>>8663006
>literary value
>KJV

That Bible removed a shit ton of text.

>>8663006
The Catholic traditions have had a greater amount of influence on Christian mythology, philosophy and history than Protestantism. They also don't use KJV, which was for the Church of England. I mean, the Catholic Church rejects the KJV due to the Anglican theology saturated throughout.

>>8663000
Luther hated Jews so thats one of the reasons he tried to destroy the Epistle of James. It was written for a Jewish Christian audience iirc.

>>8663056
No, he wanted to destroy the Epistle of James because he thought that a man could fornicate a woman 1000 times a day and still go to heaven. He falsely percieved that other texts prove "once saved always saved" (which they actually do not).
Also, more importantly, I think that to attribute Luter's hate of the Jew to his desire to destroy the Epistle of James would be a logical fallacy, primarily because, if I recall correctly, all of the New Testament books were written by converts from Judaism, and, to give a more specific example, Matthew's gospel was intended for a Jewish audience.
But you are correct about Luther's hate for Jews. I cannot remember what his book was called but he basically says Jews are not worth attempting to convert, which is an interesting book itself.

>>8663072
>all of the New Testament books were written by converts from Judaism
>Jews are not worth attempting to convert
I don't understand this logic

>>8662935
This.

>>8663089
Yep, that's what Luther said.
Remember, this is the same guy who recorded his dreams wherein he and the devil would shit on the ground and then throw it at eachother.

>>8663089
>>8663094

PROTESTANTS ARE PLEB TIER

>>8661492
Look at this thread and you will see there no /lit/ approved Bible translation.
/his/ has approved of NRSV though.
I recommend reading a whole bunch of Bibles

>>8661521
>for patrician points? Vulgate
>for extra points? Septuagint
It's like you dont understand what translation means

>>8662858
>The NRSV is full of errors
Wrong. No translation can be 100% accurate but it is the most faithful out of all of them

>missing books that the KJV contains.
Nothing is missing.

>Plus, the Catholics added their own stuff to it for absolutely no reason.
They are not additions, the Protestant canon was what removed those books in the first place. NRSV is a translation of everything.

>It's inferior
You're really trying to smack-talk the NRSV when you have a boner for the extremely inaccurate KJV?

know i asked a while back but could a nigger get the christian chart

thanks

>>8661609
This.
KJV had a big impact on the English language but it's a bad Bible translation overall. It's just good for monoglot idiots.

>>8661492
1) For the literature (KJV)
2) For the accuracy (NRSV)

Do both

>>8662935
>The NRSV is one of the best translated Bibles out there.
How? They dumb down Hebrew idioms. For instance, they translate "said in his heart" as "said to himself," "seed as "descendants" and "known" as "had sex with". At least the King James is faithful to Hebrew idiom, the NRSV is extremely dumbed down.

>>8663329
>>8663346

>>8663346
>For instance, they translate "said in his heart" as "said to himself,"

Not always. The contexts for which it's just translated as "said to himself" make sense -- no need for overly flowerly language when they're just saying something to themselves, especially considering there are other stylistic/thematic needs to address.

Still, "said in his heart" is still used in Psalms, big moments (like 1 Samuel 27:1), and the only time it's used by God himself (Genesis 8:21). The only truly iffy case might be Genesis 27:41, although verse 42 and onward suggest that Esau actually said "once my dad dies, i'm going to kill Jacob" aloud. So, "said to himself" -- albeit weak for such a strong sentiment -- makes a bit more sense than "said in his heart".

File: Catholic_reading_chart_1.jpg (2MB, 2396x4680px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2396x4680px

>>8661492
You should probably get a Jerusalem Bible. It's the best edition with a lot of very useful annotations and commentary.
>>8663195
It's a pretty bad list as far as advanced steps go, there should be a lot more on this chart, but a lot of the stuff is pretty good.

File: image.png (1MB, 1125x2001px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1125x2001px

What does /lit/ think of the version chosen by the Vatican itself?
>pic related the New American Bible

>>8663425
>no need for overly flowerly language when they're just saying something to themselves,
That's not the translator's decision to make. Neither is it, in Hebrew idiom, "over flowery language."

>>8663496
Thanks for sharing the chart brother.

>>8662791
>claim scripture is infallible even though they removed seven books from scripture
>believe that faith alone is enough for salvation even though james clearly states in the bible that faith without works is not good enough (James 2:14-26)

>>8663506
And this is, by the way, why I think the NRSV is a mendacious translation: because they do not just translate, they make arbitrary stylistic choices, and they do it by the buttload. And to what end? Everyone will agree the King James Bible has much better literary qualities--and the reason it does is because it is faithful to Biblical style. The NRSV has no literary merit or soul, and not because it is more accurate, but because it is LESS accurate.

>>8663513
Here is the NRSV soulless version of a beautiful passage

>Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and departed, taking all kinds of choice gifts from his master; and he set out and went to Aram-naharaim, to the city of Nahor. 11 He made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water; it was toward evening, the time when women go out to draw water. 12 And he said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. 13 I am standing here by the spring of water, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. 14 Let the girl to whom I shall say, ‘Please offer your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels’—let her be the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac. By this I shall know that you have shown steadfast love to my master.” 15 Before he had finished speaking, there was Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, coming out with her water jar on her shoulder. 16 The girl was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up. 17 Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please let me sip a little water from your jar.” 18 “Drink, my lord,” she said, and quickly lowered her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. 19 When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels. 21 The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.

>>8663524
Here is the much more faithful translation of the King James

>And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. 11 And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. 12 And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. 13 Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: 14 and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. 15 And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. 16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. 17 And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. 18 And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. 19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. 20 And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. 21 And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

>>8663513
Here is the NRSV Nunc dimittis
>Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; 30 for my eyes have seen your salvation, 31 which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”

Here is the King James Nunc dimittis

>Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Note that this is a song, a piece of poetry. Do you think the NRSV stylistic changes here are warranted?

>>8663496
That's a Catholic list. Got any for Orthodox folks?

Huh, I'm surprised that people in this thread are literally defending the plebestant kjv

>>8663545
Intro: The Orthodox Church, by Kallistos (formerly Timothy) Ware

Novels: The Way of the Pilgrim, Laurus

Theology: Philokalia, Ladder of Divine Ascent

>>8663547
I'm Orthodox and we like the King James. All except for their using the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament, but our standard Bible is a NKJV with the OT corrected to coincide with the Septuagint.

>>8663547
That's because most are plebestant Americans.
If this wasn't an Anglo board nobody would care about KJV.

H-how's the New King Jame Version and English Standard Version?

>>8663560
ESV is okay, still inferior in terms of faithfulness to the King James.

NKJV is, as far as I can tell, very good, though I prefer the KJV for purely aesthetic reasons.

>>8663547
KJV is a mess but it was important for literature. Also Anglicans are basically Catholic lite.

>>8663573
Anglicans became Catholics lite due to John Henry Newman in the latter half of the 19th century.

>>8663576
No, they were originally Catholic lite. They just fluctuated back and forth due to politics, and in the wake of the English Civil War, obviously not catholic at all

>>8663576
No, they kept many Catholic traditions. They didn't break off from Rome due to any theological difference but because their king wanted a divorce. So yeah, they are Catholic lite.

>>8663550
Thanks.

>>8663148
>the Vulgate and Septuagint aren't translations

>>8663496
Why are Catholics so good at literature?

>>8663687
They were obviously looking for English, smartass

>>8663688
because they are miserable and guilty
true art is angsty

>>8663688
Natural predisposition for contemplation. Prayer is 20 minutes of introspection and meditation every day + mass and need for reading religious writings alongside the Bible.
>>8663685
They are closer to Catholicism than other protestants, but they removed a number of sacraments and liturgical practices. Their High Church is the one which is close to Catholicism.

>>8663689
>this hostile
>on a Bible thread
I thought it was obvious that >>8661521 was mostly tongue-in-cheek, given >patrician points and the last line

>>8662872
I mean the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

>>8663688
Scary nuns and no potato.

>>8663688
One of the largest groups of people in human history had quite a few good writers between them? Why are you so bad at simple statistics.

>>8663723
Haven't you figure out that no one can do math on this board?
Go back to /sci/

>>8663723
It's an in-joke. Calm down, bro.

>>8663723
The group is much smaller than the statistics show, since the 'Catholic writers' group only accounts for very pious people and excludes cultural Catholics. It's true that it is still a very large group, but I don't think it's only due to statistics. Even Japan had 2 major Catholic writers out of the 0.5% or so of their total population.

File: T.jpg (107KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 480x360px

>>8663733
So excluding millions of illiterate catholics in the last 2000 years makes your point rather than breaks it. There's something quite disgusting about enjoying the support of those millions of co-religionists but condemning them as merely 'cultural'. Thought the church got a lesson early on about denying.

>>8663502

The Vatican uses the Latin Vulgate and English speaking churches use the Jerusalem bible.

>>8663743
>dab

>>8663733
>e 'Catholic writers' group only accounts for very pious people and excludes cultural Catholics
Who is Graham Greene