Since people keep asking about bibles, I've made a handy

NRSV for the win

>NSRV with Apocrypha in the Eastern Orthodox
No, just no.

The Orthodox use the Septuagint as Old Testament, not the Masoretic Text with the Deuterocanonical books added to them.

Here's Asser's English translation of the Septuagint: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

And Here's David English translation of the Patriarchal Text of the New Testament:
http://www.christianorthodox.net/orthodox-new-testament/

KJV is really beautifully written

>>9188722
I know that, I only said it contains the books. But it's sadly one of the only widely-available print bibles that contains the Orthodox deuterocanon, the chart's for beginners looking to buy after all.

>>9188693
That's actually really good.

Needs a better colour scheme though. I recommend bronze with a hint of red.

Perhaps you can also include several different prints/editions of translations?

For example, NRSV has a regular, Anglicised and popular text edition, sometimes I even spot a Catholic version.

Then there's the gift bibles which are terrible because small/cheap materials, or the fancy overpriced gold-edged edition. Browsing the landscape is a nightmare.

So far I think the Oxford annotated edition is the most neutral, complete edition, while still pretty affordable. There's a hardcover and softcover, but currently the hardcover is as cheap as the softcover on BD: https://www.bookdepository.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-with-Apocrypha/9780195289558

>>9188693
Explain "Bible Consistency" and "Academic Developments"

File: netbible.jpg (201KB, 352x500px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 352x500px

>>9188693
I like this chart, although the NKJV is kind of meme-ish.
Wish there was room for NET on there, but simpler is probably better in this case. Thanks, OP

NEB, DRV, and Knox are also good.

>>9188889
Biblical consistency: translates the Bible as a single document.

Academic development: translates each section according to the latest linguistic scholarship, regardless of whether it conflicts with another section. Also updates for current language, e.g. using "friends" or "believers" rather than "brothers" when someone refers to a group containing a mix of males and females (that was their most contentious change)

They're not official titles, just the best shorthand

>>9188892
Yeah, I'd like to slot it in somewhere, it's a good compromise of accuracy and reading well. But like you said, I wanted the minimum number of options.

What's the most absurd bible translation?

>>9189001
Run the bible through google translate

>>9189009
Maybe absurd isnt the best word, i mean ones that leave in the weird stuff like the ezekiel verse about horse cum

>>9189014
Every bible has that in, the old testament is just nuts in general

>>9189069
A lot of translations take out the ugly bits by using obscure language so most people dont understand when they talk about how priests used to give abortions through potions (only for infidelity babies) or rape victims become property of their attacker if they have some silver and a few farm animals or anything else that would give a 90 year old woman a heart attack if she read it in the bible

>>9189001
Hawaiian Pidgin translation.

>>9189001
I've seen a version of the Bible written entirely in Australian slang

> No mention of the ESV
good idea and nicely made chart, but try again.

File: 17196981.jpg (49KB, 596x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 596x600px

>>9189449
Literally nothing special about the ESV

I just finished the new testament, enjoyed it a good bit. What are your favorite books/passages? I particularly liked the gospels, acts, & revelation.

>>9190874
I recently finished Luke and Acts, really liked them. I really got the impression of Jesus being a fiery preacher with a magnetic personality, nothing like the hippy Jesus of pop culture.

Acts was fascinating, seeing how the early viewed themselves (who knows if it actually happened thay way).

Just finished Daniel and you can see the huge impact it had on 2nd temple judaism and then Christianity. Much more apocalyptic and less specific than the other prophets, with hints of a messiah figure, and prince Michael (who became arcangel Michael in popular eschatology)

what about dead sea scrolls? and whats the original bible?

>dumb chart doesn't even include Lattimore's New Testament

>>9188724
This. KJV is best.

>>9190874
When Jesus dies.

>>9191298
Thanks for using spoiler tags. Fucking arsehole.

>>9191250
There's no single original Bible, what we've got are multiple manuscripts amd fragments which get synthesized into a "standard" version of what the earliest manuscripts probably said, and the synthesis is in turn used as a basis for translations into English (good translations also consult the manuscripts and fragments themselves).

Modern translations like NRSV use the dead sea scrolls as sources, so they're probably what you want.

File: 1451346446841.png (214KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 499x499px

>implying I just don't read the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament

Learn Greek plebs.

>>9191412
>Reading the septuagint
Learn Hebrew and Aramaic, you pleb

>>9191416
No ty. Not gonna learn sandnigger languages.

>>9189304
That ones the most fun.

>>9191439
John 3:16
>God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.
Amazing

File: 2rxrTGd.jpg (368KB, 1251x846px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1251x846px

>>9188693
Where is new international you imbecile?

>>9191506
In the trash where it belongs.

>>9188693
Where the fuck is the Douay-Rheims? If you put the KJV on there you should at least put the Catholic equivalent on there as well.

>>9191574
Genuinely curious. What is wrong with the New International Version?

>>9191701
Dudes probably a catholic or muh king james person

>>9191701
>>9191707
NIV is a pretty poor translation, no matter your denomination.

See these articles:

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html