Has /lit/ read the bible? Whats the best version?

New king james

>>9107929
KJV is the only answer--especially in the world of English literature.

KJV and the apocrypha.

>>9107929
The one they give you incase you die in the hospital

KJV, but get the norton critical edition so you're aware of mistranslations and words that have changed meaning over the years and stuff.

It's the Gideon isn't it? They really care

The original

>>9107929
Also you should know that some bibles have more books in them like the catholic bible. This is because some books are considered noncanon by some denominations.

>>9107929
I read KJV growing up and it's good. It is definitely the /lit/ preferred version. NKJV is good as well.

However, as I've gotten older, I also like NASB and ESV. I'm curious about Robert Young's Literal Translation, and am currently reading through the NIV for the first time. So far, NASB is my preferred version.

>>9107940
>>9107941
>>9107951
>>9107967
>>9107971
>sure is Reddit in here

Don't listen to these faggots, OP. NASB is top notch.

>>9108050
I should have mentioned, Charles Ryrie's NASB Study Bible, specifically.

>>9107929
Douay-Rheims for Catholic religious studies in English
KJV is okay for literary studies because of Tyndale's turn of phrase becoming so popular
The originals for any exegesis though, obviously.

>>9108050
Have you tried the NRSV? What makes the NASB better in your opinion? Also, hire do you find the NIV?

>>9108051
You don't use greentext when you're submitting a new comment and not referencing other information.

In terms of literary value, no, the NASB is not top notch, or even comparable to the value of the KJV.

>>9108091
I'm unfamiliar with NRSV. Do you like it already, or are you just curious about it? I'm always willing to check out other translations. I prefer physical versions, but when I don't have those on hand I use Biblegateway.com. It is free and allows you to compare side-by-side almost any two translations.

I like the NASB because it is a very literal translation - one of the most literal from what I understand.

This allows for the reader to get, over time, a better sense of many things in Scripture - God's character, His personality, the way the ancient Israeli's and early Christians thought, the personalities of the heroes of the Christian faith, cultural nuances, etc.,...

That is also why I am curious about Young's Literal Translation, and also own a bilingual version of the JPS Tanakh. It is to see the way the text is interpreted into English by modern Jews. This adds layers to the understanding of Scripture and of the way the Jewish people and Rabbinical traditions have viewed their relationship with God.

This adds layers, of course, to our understanding of Church history, early Christianity, and many other things. This is also why concordences of Greek and Hebrew roots are so valuable in our study of Scripture, and analysis of the structure of books of the Bible by scholars are so useful (like the chiastic structure of Joshua, Jeremiah, and many of the Psalms, or the structure of Leviticus).

Anyway, I am just a person who likes to get to the source of things when I can. This is why I've also studied Latin (though I only have two years of study at it), and hope to delve into Greek once my Latin proficiency improves.

Willibrordvertaling

>>9107929

Where can I get a bible?

Do stores sell them?

More importantly where do I get a quran? I plan on reading one after I'm done with the bible

>>9108248
You can get a Bible at any bookstore, including used ones, and I'm sure any church would be willing to give you one, or help you get one if need be.

There is also a free KJV on Gutenberg.org, and online versions of a wide variety of translations on Biblegateway.com.

You can also get Kindle versions for very cheap on Amazon (like $1-$3).

There are also a wide variety of Bibles on Christianbook.com.

>>9107929
Joseph Smith Translation m'afucka

>>9108275
nice meme

>>9108192
>look how /lit/ I am for reading a translation that is literally hundreds of years old

Fuck off, pseud.

>>9109293
contrarian mongoloid

>>9107929
Brenton's Septuagint and Darby's New Testament.

>english translation
Septuagint or Vulgata, faggets

Someone give me a good book to start on other than genesis.

>>9107940
>>9107941
>>9107971
>>9108192
Have fun with your proddie Bible lite version. Read a Catholic Bible if you want the complete deal featuring the 7 books proddies and princes feared most.

>>9109875
>the 7 books proddies and princes feared most.
Apocrypha is accepted by Luther. For some reason, not as highly regarded.

>>9109880
I got into an argument with a proddie about it once and they claimed it was because they were rejecting the books because the Jews did and the Jews rejected them because they were written in aramaic. I pointed out that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and most early Christians but this did not persuade her.

>>9109928
is this girl retarded?

>>9107929
There were always ped-rapist preachers.
Their perversion permeates all bibles (buy-bull) as the stench of rotting fecal matter. Keep this in mind when you feel disgusted by what you read.

>>9109864
Start the New Testament with Mark. Or read the Ecclesiastes which is the one book I think everybody should read, regardless of faith or lack of it.

>>9110034
No she is a raised proddie who now is an sjw who doesn't attend service regularly. My friend is dating her. I can't figure out why because I KNOW the pussy ain't that good.

>>9110270
Why is that?

File: asq.png (135KB, 288x415px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 288x415px

>reading protestant bibles

https://youtu.be/PGOl9IDA3zk

>>9107929
The Quran

>>9109875
The King James contains the Apocrypha you dumb fuck. It isn't normally published with most editions since they are not canon, but you can get editions that include it.

>>9109928
The language is irrelevant here, though some exist only in translation today; e.g. Tobit may have been written in Aramaic, but that no longer exists. They are rejected because they were never part of the Jewish canon, and there was never a universal acceptance among Christians that they were canon. Early canons used in the Church were varied, and the Catholic Church did not even officially declare them to be canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s.

>>9108266
Thanks

>>9109864

Read one of the Gospels. The best to start with is either Mark or Matthew imo. Mark is the most basic and simple Gospel, it's whole premise is simply what Jesus did, his birth, life and resurrection. Matthew, is similar but has more parables and among other things so is sort of a nice meeting way between Mark and Luke.

Acts is a very good book to read. It will describe the early Church to you and is a very fun read. Afterwards you could read either Romans or 1 Corinthians.

Now, do not neglect the Old Testament. In fact, much of the New Testament is simply a regurgitation of the Old Testament, however many books in the later were written to to either prior pagans who became Christians or Jewish Christians linking the Old Testament prophecies of Christ to His coming, therefore they are very good starting works for someone not familiar with the Bible.

Still, read something in the Old Testament after what I mentioned above. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, are good choices and easy to understand.

Regardless, I'd always recommend Proverbs. You could read a few Chapters in Matthew for instance and then read a chapter in Proverbs. Same with Psalms.

Also, get a New or Old King James Version, but with footnotes for the Septuagint as well as Dead Sea Scrolls.

File: 1487210405254.jpg (118KB, 732x685px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 732x685px

>>9109864
Start with Exodus, friend.

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

264KB, 1234x1200px

The only correct answer is pic related

File: 91A42oyQfaL.jpg (980KB, 1654x2319px)

980KB, 1654x2319px

>>9107929
Anyone know where I can get a Schottenstein Ed Talmud in English the Digital Version for free?

>>9108248
Sometimes the Gideon's army starts giving free bibles

File: Edward Hopper - Excursion into Philosophy.jpg (66KB, 1023x770px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1023x770px

>>9111172
fuckin dumb guy

Atheists that quote or refer to Dawkins are intellectual amoebas.
Rather, anyone that would quote any of these new atheism bullshilt instead of the most well settled atheist arguments are a disgrace to the whole group.
>what about Hume and causality?
>what about Kant answer to St Anselm ontological argument?
>NAH! Let me justify my atheism with sociologial critics to religion.

Pathetic

>>9112116
>At this moment i'm euphoric

>>9109875
If you're referring to the Apocrypha and the Gnostic "Gospels," we don't fear them.

I've read the portions of the Apocrypha.

The issue is we do not consider them worth the same level of attention as canonical scriptures - because we consider them inauthentic, or unreliable, presentations of Christ's message.

>>9110110
Actually, pedophilia, and all fornication, stands in stark contradiction with scripture, so far from permeating the Word it is actually condemned by it.

Which you would know had you read it.

>>9111172
Kek. Dawkins. What a goon.

>>9111218
np

File: 1486771833073.jpg (169KB, 756x638px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 756x638px

>>9111172

>In the 21st century, outspoken English atheist Richard Dawkins has described himself in several interviews as a "cultural Christian" and a "cultural Anglican"

I sometimes wonder if all that anti-religious baiting of his wasn't just an excuse to criticize muslims without getting accused of racism.

>>9112381
WHO IS THIS GIRL???

>>9112557
Read Neetchee and then you'll know what a waifu is!

>>9114045
I HAVE BUT I NEED MORE PICS OF THAT GIRL

>>9111198
>You just can't usually find them because they aren't canon.
You know where you will find them? Every Catholic Bible because they ARE Canon
>>9112319
Don't you find it odd that one of the main wedge issues of the Protestant Reformation was that the word ought to be taught, and loses no value from, being taught in common languages, yet they demote books due to them being written in a contemporary common language spoken by Jews and gentiles alike? Aramaic was nothing short of a Pentacostal miracle that allowed Christianity to spread through many nations.

>>9107929
the original latin

>>9107929
ESV and NKJV are good for easily digestible and lucid. I have a copy of the KJV and it's great for what it's worth, especially the narrative portions, but it can be difficult to track ideas in books like Romans and Hebrews. I need to check out Geneva and Wycliffe. Messenger is pretty funny apparently

File: 1478431487365.jpg (14KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x192px

>>9115701
>latin
>original

>>9109293
>>9108051
But the point is that it's hundreds of years old, and pretty much the definitive version for the english language for that time period. The KJV is next to Shakespeare in terms of influence on sayings and such, and the new translations just don't preserve the intensity of KJV.

Compare

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

to

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

>>9107929
Yes. Multiple versions here and there. I've re-read the gospels in multiple translations.

>>9115672
>You know where you will find them? Every Catholic Bible because they ARE Canon

They are not canon.

>>9115672
>was that the word ought to be taught, and loses no value from, being taught in common languages

Hmm, you'd think Catholics would agree with this sentiment given that they used a vulgar translation as well (Latin).

>yet they demote books due to them being written in a contemporary common language spoken by Jews and gentiles alike

Wrong. The issue of canon is not about language, as I already stated.

>Aramaic was nothing short of a Pentacostal miracle that allowed Christianity to spread through many nations.

The miracle at Pentecost was the ability of the Apostles to speak in all the tongues of the people there so that everyone could understand. Early Church services in Jerusalem and Rome were conducted in Greek, which was the lingua franca at the time (not Latin).

>>9112319
"we"
lol, who are you, the pope? stop imposing what you believe on others.

>>9116721
I'm not. If you were listening rather than judging you'd understand the clear implication.

The "we" is Protestant Christians, and was not a division imposed by my own argument, but was the division made by the poster to whom I was responding.

Do you really think that by making a paragraph long post on 4chan I can force a belief on anyone? Grow up.

>>9115672
No. It isn't odd at all.

The language is not what is in question. It is the authenticity of the authorship.

is niv fine?

>>9117581
It's more readable than the NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV and their family and much more readable than the KJV, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, especially if you're unfamiliar with biblical language or the Bible in general or if you have English as a second language. Its language is "clean" and contemporary and "inclusive". For the exact same reasons it is resented by those who prefer (and are able to understand) a more literal version, such as those mentioned above. Go to thebiblegateway.org and compare for yourself.

There is no shame in reading the NIV if you think it's best for you. If you're going to read one of the more "liberal" translations of the Bible, I'd argue the NIV is preferable to the NLT or "The Message" and their ilk.

Or you can always go for the Hawaiian Pidgin translation.

>>9117581
>>9117834
The current edition of the NIV (2011) is feminist-influenced and certain passages are mistranslated to give the impression that it is permissible for women to hold ministerial roles. I would suggest the ESV but they have also deliberately mistranslated several passages to support their complementarian agenda. The best modern translations are the NASB (critical text) and NKJV (traditional text). It is better to simply get used to the slightly more difficult language, than bog oneself down in inaccuracy. Purchasing a study bible should obviate most difficulties. If English is your second language then get a Bible in your first language.

>>9117581
>>9117834
>>9117861
They don't call it the New Invented Version for nothing.