I just orderd this. Did i fuck up?

File: oad-rsv.jpg (37KB, 355x550px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 355x550px

>>9282194
Should have gotten the RSV version.
Anyways, the best Bible is the one you actually read.

I have that one too now OP, it's fine.

Yes you did. The translators for the NSRV were politically motivated and inserted gender neutral language where it isn't appropriate.

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5Bible/TransWhatsWrongGenderNeutralBible_Grudem.aspx

>>9282341
wake me up

Can someone explain why I should pick these up instead of KJV? A lot of people say KJV is the best, it rises to the realm of poetry and literature, etc.

>>9282194
Nope, it's very good

>>9282217
>using 60 year old scholarship
For what purpose?

>>9282341
>le vast gender neutral conspiracy meme
It was done for ease of understanding in contemporary English. We don't use the word "brothers" to mean a mixed-gender group anymore, unlike in the original greek where it could be masculine-only or neutral depending on context.

In some specific areas, the NRSV does go too far with gender neutrality where it wasn't needed, no translation is perfect. But the vast majority are simply making sure a modern reader will understand when someone is addressing a mixed audience, the aim was for ease of understanding.

>>9283113
In terms of earlier and more reliable manuscripts, better understanding of ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, and history by scholars, plus being much easier to understand, it's the better option.

You read KJV for the beautiful language, not for the translation.

No, the NRSV is the best translation, used by scholars everywhere, and the Oxford edition is the best.

You did amazing.

>>9283143
>For what purpose?

Probably to avoid the overemphasis on the historical critical method that's plaguing modern scholarship.

>>9283165
You want to avoid critical scholarship? Why?

>>9283173

No I don't. The problem I have is the overemphasis of that particular method to the exclusion of others.

>>9283173
Most prefer RSV translation. That's it.
I mean honestly, no one really takes literature/historical study of Bible that seriously. They made a lot of shit up. A lot of the humanities people do. Nevertheless, secular commentaries might be fun to read. That's why some people buy OAD.

>>9283113
>>9283143
That, and the KJV uses a lot of outdated language -- that is, some words have drastically different meanings in contemporary English than they did before.

On a personal level, I think the KJV is mostly fine. The main flaw is that all publishers of the KJV butcher it: the original 1611 KJV was a modest, scholarly translation of the Bible that -- even in its first pages -- made no claim to be "the only Bible you need to read" and had multiple readings and notes scattered through the tome.

It's not uncommon to see atheists criticizing the bible for having "mythical creatures" like unicorns or dragons but these are specifically a KJV problem. The KJV translates Jeremiah 8:17 as "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bight you, saith the lord." and Isaiah 11:8 as "and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the ask, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den."

However, the cockatrice, a mythical creature that can kill its victim with a casual glance, is a product of the medieval imagination and would have been unknown to prophets like Jeremiah or Isaiah. Allusions of the creature can be traced back to Pliny the Elder, the dissident Catholic John Wycliffe first used the term "cockatrice" in 1382 in his popular translation of the bible. It was later used in the 1535 Coverdale Bible, which may have been the source for the KJV's use of the word.

Although Isaiah and Jeremiah would have been unaware of the cockatrice, the would have known what a tsepha' was. This is the Hebrew word used in passages like Isaiah 11:8, and it simply means "poisonous serpent." Today, most modern translations use the word "adder" in these passages.

Other biblical creatures that could fall under the category of "mythical snakes" are the so-called feiry serpents found in passages like Numbers 21:6. This verse says, "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many sons of Israel died." So what is a fiery serpent?

The Hebrew phrase is hasseraphim hannekhasim and, according to one commentary, the fire probably refers not to the snake itself but the "burning sensation and pain brought about by lethal injection of the venom through the serpents fangs."

>>9283252

I forgot the unicorns

The Hebrew word the KJV translates as "unicorn" is re'em, which modern scholars have identified with an auroch, or a large horned cow that is now extinct. This is why modern translators render the word as "wild ox" instead.

No, it's excellent

>>9282194
Other than the fact that it's kind of expensive for something you could read for free on the internet, you got a good edition. Kind of big, though.

>>9282341
some people are just born triggered

I vastly prefer "pretty" translations ie KJV, New Jerusalem, and Knox translations.