Which is the best edition of the Bible?

Depends what you need it for, mate.

>>8832310
Enjoyment.

For the book of psalms I use the RSV.

For everything else I use the OSB.

>>8832313
>enjoyment?

ESV or OSB

>>8832293
You can't even spell right you fucking retard. Get the fuck out of here
It's the KJV by the way.

KJV unless you're studying it, then you'll probably want something like Oxford annotated.
The real question is, which edition is the worst? The worst I've discovered is the recovery version.

>>8832313

Well I get my jollies from NKJV because the language used is a cornerstone for all of modern English.

If I fancy a quick read I like NRSV for it's plain language and attempts at making the book true to source.

>>8832324

Hawaiierin is the most laughable English-ish attempt.

>>8832313
If you want pure enjoyment, fuck the ESV or OSB or RSV. Use the Jamaican Patois (Patwa) Bible.

With truly beautiful translations. Every word is poetry.

>'The Gospel according to St. Matthew' becomes
>'Di Gud Nyuuz bout Jizzaz azkaadn tu Matyu'.

>'And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins'
becomes
>'Shi a-go av wan bwai pikni an yu fi kaal im Jiizas, kaa im a-go siev im piipl dem fram dem sin'

>'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him'
becomes
>'We di pikni de we baan di ada die, we fi kom ton king fi di Juu piipl dem? Wi si im staar iina di Iis, we shuo se im baan, an wi kom fi shuo im nof rispek.'

Have you ever wanted to know what it's like to read in niggaspeak? Well now you can! The Jamaican Patois Bible is truly a 'WE WUZ KANGZ' of biblical proportions. Fuck James Joyce, fuck Walt Whitman, fuck Shakespeare, this is the greatest thing ever written.

The Jamaican Patwa Bible: the blackest thing you will ever read. Shiiiiieeeeet.

>>8832318
>OSB
damn, never heard of that. I love the NKJV though. This seems like an incredible package. Might have to pick it up for sure. Thanks for the rec.

>>8832293
New King James is the least boring one. Not that this means much...

>>8832363
>‘Hail though that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.’
>This now reads ‘Mieri, mi av nyuuz we a-go mek yu wel api. Gad riili riili bles
yu an im a waak wid yu all di taim.’

This is pure gold.

File: 1480036141978.jpg (99KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 517x768px

>>8832363

Whatever you do, do NOT read the KJV. Especially if you want to read for enjoyment

KJV. Some editions have removed a few passages, I think NIV is one of them.

>>8832912
evidence please

>>8832929
Westcott-Hort

>>8832929
I don't remember what passages, but my mother showed me using her bibles.

This is probably it, you can decide if you care or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

File: a05ca8b4feeca7cebe7a227502eb70bc8c14a20a85b6587d3a408f16e8e5fbd8.png (12KB, 195x202px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 195x202px

>>8832363
This is the best.

>>8832326
kjv for relevant language, yea

The original 1611 KJV (specifically, the printed book) is one of the best versions of the Bible ever made.

It had gorgeous presentation and had many of the things we take for granted (and sometimes even decry) in modern translations: cross-references, translation notes, summaries, section titles, and even illustrations, along with a reasonably filled Apocrypha section.

It's a fucking shame that almost no modern publishers of the KJV print a version that has even half the additional material of the 1611 complete version. The result is that modern readers of the King James Bible get a book that's butchered solely for profit. It's disgusting.

>>8832912
More accurate to say the KJV added passages that were not originally there.

Even if you're not Orthodox this is pretty informative.
http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm

>>8833148
>It's a fucking shame that almost no modern publishers of the KJV print a version that has even half the additional material of the 1611 complete version.
Which one still in print is the closest?

>>8833174
The problem with this article is that he's yet another person saying, "I don't actually read Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek but here's my opinion on translation accuracy".

T he says "The King James is in fact generally so accurate that one could reconstruct the original text with a high degree of accuracy by translating the text back into Hebrew and Greek" is utterly absurd, and clearly the mark of someone who's only given a passing glance to fully literal bibles.

Plus, in a word, he supports tradition over manuscript accuracy:
"And so, even if one might argue that the question of the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 could not be definitively proven one way or the other, the fact that the Church has always understood it as speaking of a virgin being with child absolutely settles the question for a believing Christian."

>>8833184
The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, although it still lacks the cross-references and many of the other things.

http://www.cambridge.org/bibles/bible-versions/king-james-version/text-editions/new-cambridge-paragraph-bible/

>>8833719
Thanks!

>>8833148
I have this one, can confirm.