I want to start reading the Bible, which version should I read, /lit/?

Hey we just had this thread every day for the past 5 years. Check the archive.

>>9633845
Depends on the level of insight you want into the texts

>>9633845
Vulgate.

KHHV

File: renassaince pepe.jpg (11KB, 236x187px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x187px

Non native English speaker here, I heard a lot about the King James Version being the true legit one, because its influence in works like Moby Dick and Dylan's songs. How true this is? It's essencial to understand the aglo-wiew of the world? I find a hard time relating to the Spanish versions and I think that an English version may be more enchanting or poetic.

>>9633929

It's a meme. If you were trying to read any other book would you buy a old Middle English translation of it or would you prefer a more readable and accurate modern translation?

If the idea that this specific translation influenced literature in any meaningful way is laughable. Why the King James Version and not the Coverdale Bible? Any conceivable argument for one having a major influence could also be used for the other. The entire thing is absurd. Protestants have an unhealthy love affair with the KJV and this is the only reason people read it today.

>>9633955
>If the idea that this specific translation influenced literature in any meaningful way is laughable. Why the King James Version and not the Coverdale Bible? Any conceivable argument for one having a major influence could also be used for the other.

Because of the scale and length of its use which exceeds any other english bible

"The Authorized Version has been called "the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language", "the most important book in English religion and culture", and "the most celebrated book in the English-speaking world". David Crystal has estimated that it is responsible for 257 idioms in English, more than any other single source, including more than double Shakespeare;[citation needed] examples include feet of clay and reap the whirlwind. Although the Authorized Version's former monopoly in the English-speaking world has diminished – for example, the Church of England recommends six other versions in addition to it – it is still the most popular translation in the United States, especially among Evangelicals.[6] In addition, in the Orthodox Church in America, the King James Version is used liturgically, and was made "the 'official' translation for a whole generation of American Orthodox". The later Service Book of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in vogue today, also uses the King James Version.[h] The King James Version is also one of the versions authorized to be used in the services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion,[161] as it is the historical Bible of this Church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Influence

>>9633955
>would you buy a old Middle English translation of it or would you prefer a more readable and accurate modern translation?

Preferably a modern translation, but a middle English translation sounds Awesome too.

What is the main difference between the Coverdale and the KJV?

>>9633845
All of them side by side so you lose nothing.

>>9633845
RSV is the standard modern translation (non-denom)

Protestants have the KJV (read this if you're interested in the Bible for literary reasons; otherwise take your pick of any of these)

Catholics have the Douay Rheims and the Knox

File: 1468899129621.jpg (24KB, 226x346px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 226x346px

http://www.pidginbible.org/Concindex.html

thank me later

>>9634025

I don't care what your stupid Wikipedia article says, especially when they make outlandish claims like "the most influential version of the most influential book in the world." What about the Latin Vulgate? Do you really stand by this idea that any English translation was more influential than that?

It's just a bunch of anglocentrism. It's shortsighted and it's ignorant of history.

>>9633845
Septiguant

>>9634049
Currently, it quite obviously is more influential than the Vulagte

>>9634170
Absolutely autistic famalam.

>>9633845
/dbet/
daily bible edition thread

>>9634049
But Midwestern literature about corn and the speeches in cowboy movies wouldn't be half what they are without the KJV!

>>9634170
The Vulgate would have been what Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton read, so no.

>>9634281
Shakespeare cared about Ovid, not Jesus.

>>9634281
Milton knew Greek and Hebrew and would not have been reliant on a translation.

>>9633845
Look at every translation of each verse and go with the one that supports your personal views the most.

>>9633845
New Living Translation crushes the outdated KJV

DRV.

ignore heretics

>>9634281
I believe that, while Shakespeare could and did read Latin, he read English primarily and only turned to Latin to check the English translations. I believe he used Arthur Golding's translation of Metamorphoses and the Geneva Bible.

>>9634302
He was a good Latinist, though. I'm not sure he would have seen it as an adulteration, at least not compared to the Greek.

If you're reading it for lit reasons (muh references; muh influences) then go with KJV or NKJV. If you're reading it for more direct reasons (you want to read *The Bible*) then I'd go RSV. If you want clarity and don't mind being called a pleb, then there's always shit like the Message or Youth versions. Or you can be a memer and read the pidgin one.
Or you can do some more research, because there're a fuckton: /r/academicbiblical is helpful to lurk on, or you can use a study site to compare translations by line and just pick whichever one you like the best.

how can you not already know

>>9633955
fucking retard

there are literally 3 options

if you are a brainlet: NIV
if you are reading for the influence on literary canon: KJV
if you want to read the most accurate bible: learn hebrew and aramaic and read the original texts

>>9633845
Norton KJV

>>9633929
If you're reading purely for poetry and feeling, KJV is fine. If you want a more accurate read, go NIV. It's not as poetical, but more sublime ideas will stand out instead of being buried in archaic language.

If you want insight into an anglo view of the world, read Chaucer and Malory.

File: 95fe5f25e1d25da567e91547b42c5262.jpg (45KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x315px

What bible translation doesn't sugar coat things the most? NLT? NET?

I don't want one that purposely obfuscates all mentions of sex with words like flesh and union

>>9633845
>Not reading the uncorrupted word of God, i.e., the Qur'an.

>>9634025
>Because of the scale and length of its use which exceeds any other english bible
This is also a meme though. The KJV Bible was a conservative reconstruction of older Early Modern English translations. David Crystal also stated that only 16 of these idioms are unique to the KJV as the others can be found in older Bibles and other literature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSDd6Bkatg

I guess the argument "well its the one most people have read!" rings true except when you consider the request "which one should I read". Why not more readable modern translations and/or more scholarly ones? They are more readable, especially to non-English anon, and might clarify the original intention better.

Most people have seen Transformers but would you really recommend that movie to someone trying to study the Transformers mythos?