What version of the Bible should I read? Which is most authentic?

Start with the Gospel of Judas. Disregard the rest.

>>9952150
Don't fall for the christcuck meme, anon.

File: c9b2f01c08bb11745066a7da357ffe22c4168252_hq.jpg (23KB, 365x403px)

23KB, 365x403px

>>9952194
>there are people on /lit/ who haven't studied the Bible

>>9952244
>hurr tip durr
Go away faggot, nobody cares about your jewish "masterpiece".

Why does it have to keep being repeated again and again? You would think people would have a clue by now. The KJV is the one you are looking for.

>>9952254
KJV is garbage

>authentic
Doesn't matter.

What you want is prose ergo what you want is the KJV.

File: bible-transchrt-js3.jpg (175KB, 2717x632px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 2717x632px

In English? It depends what you mean by authentic. Leftmost on pic related is the most word-for-word, obviously interlinear Greek/Hewbrew will give you the closest to the original text. But then there's the case of multiple different manuscripts too.
Altogether the translation matters far less than actually reading it. Just pick up something common like ESV/NIV and worry about the little differences later if you're reading it for religious reasons. Probably will want the KJV is you're interested in reading it for literary reasons.

File: Ctxdz_fXYAE1n0N.jpg (37KB, 521x509px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 521x509px

>>9952244
this
>>9952194
I am so sorry, anon. But don't worry, Jesus still loves you and if you become Christian and decide to take Confession, your sins will be forgiven.

Christianity is fucking gay.

File: Christ_79377d_5948066.jpg (55KB, 680x451px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 680x451px

>>9952295

>>9952291
>christcuck
>weebshit
Checks out.
Go be a jew somewhere else, will you?

File: 1503825764992.png (461KB, 640x1000px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 640x1000px

>>9952307
Read these books, anon. Jesus loves everyone, even degenerates!

>>9952288
My interest is somewhat academic

As long as it is decipherable, I am fine with dated prose.

>>9952288
I guess my concern is that the true intent of the literature may have been distorted in more recent versions

Don't read the bible OP

File: 1502583319249.jpg (285KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 640x480px

>>9952150
>>9952316
just read the KJV op, if it's too hard, read it more. if you still can't get it, read something else

Here's my stock response.
KJV is a masterpiece of English.
NASB is a very good literal translation, commissioned by the Catholic Church.
There Interlinear is the most scholastic, with the original language presented like by line with the English translation.
Avoid ESV, NRSV, NIV, NKJV, and any colloquial translations like The Message or The Word on the Street.

File: 1503901420140.jpg (128KB, 887x496px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 887x496px

>>9952357
I'm not OP.

>>9952365
>Do you really want to embrace those consequences
Yes.

>>9952365
no shit?

>>9952150
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/da-jesus-book-is-the-best-bible-translation?utm_term=.suOKlw3xm#.ik2x5QJNR

>>9952365
>do not visit sinful BuzzFeed

Wow I feel redpilled as fuck already

Quick question: do I have to read every single word of the bible? There's paragraphs of just names and I don't really see the benefit of reading those parts. Or maybe I have to read every single word because it's the word of God?

>>9952387
Fuck off

>>9952387
no reason not to
they serve a purpose to show that Jesus's ancestry is tracked

>read eddas and sagas
>be strong
>go to valhalla

>read (((bible)))
>be weak
>go to hel

>>9952333
The ESV was produced by evangelicals mainly in response to two issues in the NRSV:
1. Secularisation (conforming to modern bible criticism and historicity).
2. Gender-inclusive language
Although 1. is would unquestionably lead to distortion from the original intent, 2. is debatable considering the Greek terms usually translated "brother", for example, would be gender-neutral.
Basically I'd avoid a more secular version (such as the Oxford Annotated Bible so popular on here) in favour of one produced by a Christian publisher if you're looking to preserve to original, religious intent. I'd recommend the ESV over the NRSV, for example, but there are plenty of others. NIV was produced by Zondervan (although now owned by News Corp if that makes a difference), and KJV was produced by the Crown, although it has its own issues (we have more, older manuscripts to translate from now).

>>9952409
Thanks senpai, I've saved your post for future reference

>>9952397
read both boofhead

>>9952504
No, no... that will never do, boofhead.

>>9952539
not to mention chivalric romance

File: captain m.jpg (42KB, 220x346px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 220x346px

>>9952541
Mordred did nothing wrong.

Read lattimore's translation for no denominational bias

>>9952365
>nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism
How about no, you plebby untermensch

>>9952394
>tracked
>can't even decide who his grandfather is
Lmao

>>9952387
The geneologies show that it took 5500 years from Adam to Christ, which is also a prediction that the second coming will be in anno Domini 5500

>>9953176

You can't derive any sort of date from the genealogies of the Old Testament because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived.

>>9952365
>Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism.
so this is the power of Christianity.... Woah

>>9953191
I'm not saying they are meant to be exact chronicles of history, but predictions of the future. Prophetic.

>>9953202

If you recognize that the genealogies can't be used for dating then how do you get 5500 years?

>>9952362
NASB wasn't commissioned by the Catholic Church; it was commissioned by fundamentalists. You're thinking of the NAB/NABRE.

>>9952280
>I don't know how to read
t. NIV cuck

>>9953192
Is it not?

>>9952150
What do you mean by authentic? If you mean literal, the NASB or Interlinear are as good as any. Robert Alter's Old Testament translations are pretty good, as is Richard Lattimore's New Testament. KJV is the best as literature.

File: bibles.png (71KB, 1570x1016px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1570x1016px

>>9952150
Depends what you're reading it for

>>9952409
>Although 1. is would unquestionably lead to distortion from the original intent,
But the entire point of critical scholarship is to understand the original intent. Distorting the original intent is to translate the ancient texts with current Christian theology in mind. For the Old Testament especially, the ancient Israelites weren't Christian and had a very different world view.

I agree about the gender-neutral language, it's not necessary, but critics of it blow it out of proportion.

>>9953211
Even if the dates aren't historically accurate you can still add the years.

>>9953395

Yeah they can, but why should anyone believe the sum means anything?

>>9953411
I don't know. I think it's interesting that 5.5 (or 6) shows up in other places in the bible too though.

The height, width and length of the ark of the covenant amount to 5.5 cubits.

Jn. xix. 14 ' it was about the sixth hour '

God creating to world in 6 days.

It's not a official prophecy, but that's when I think the second coming will be.

>>9953220
You are correct, thanks. I still stand by my statement that it's the best literal translation in English though.

>>9953532
But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)
The numbers likely have nothing to do with the Second Coming, if anything at all.

>>9953824
You'll see, just give it 3500 years or so

>>9953243
Not him, but to unironically suggest it is implies simply being a Christian looking at atheism at an extremely superficial level, I would be very interested in someone showing how nihilism would be the logical conclusion of atheism in any way

>>9954373
Because there is ultimately no objective basis for purposeful meaning in life for the secular atheist. Inventing meaning is neither rational nor logical (rational and logical thought being the only thing the secular atheist believes).

>>9954373
If it doesn't lead to atheism, what does it lead to

>>9954445
Wat?

>>9954425
There's no objective meaning even with God

>>9952150
Well I read the Bible growing up with my
>mormon
family, and the only version we ever read was the King James version.

File: 1501701671562.png (227KB, 1430x1332px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1430x1332px

Don't fall for the KJV meme. Its garbage
New International all the way, nothing else comes close

>>9952280
KJV is [not] garbage

>>9954489
>But when that which is perfect is come

Yes it is. I can't understand the defensiveness people get about what some dimwitted Limeys slapped together

>>9952194
t.Mehmet Uzardon

Douay–Rheims is the only option.

>>9954472
ESV > NIV desu

File: 1499463961775.gif (219KB, 1772x2250px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1772x2250px

Bunch of unsaved people trying to determine what Bible God preserved.

kek.

KJV is the ONLY bible God preserved.

>>9954524
Prove it

>>9954577

You should post this on every thread related to the bible.

I heard that the New American Bible was the best in term of fidelity to the original text (catholic Bible so you have more books than a protestant Bible).
I bought it for increase english, but the level is too hight for me, so i don't read it.

>>9954653
>fidelity to the original text

This is literally impossible to objectively know

>>9952362

this boy has it down 100. NKJV and NLT read less like epic poetic gloriousness and more like See Spot Run.

if OP can get the Oxford annotated KJV, that shit'll set u for liiiiiife

Anyone got thoughts on the Lexham translation? I've been reading a bit from it and think it's pretty good.

>>9954662
We have the original version of the texts in their original languages, no ? So i don't see why it is impossible to know.
Maybe the experts don't know the original languages at 100 % so maybe you are right.

So /lit/, do you like jack chick?

File: angry christ chan.png (90KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1500x1200px

>>9952150
I myself prefer the Ignatius Bible if you're Catholic. That or read the original Hebrew and Greek. (and Aramaic)

>>9952251
Regardless of religious beliefs, it is the single most influential book in human history.

>>9952251
Jesus was not a jew, he held contempt for them for their merchant ways.

>>9954690
I think he was referring to the fact that we don't have the original autographs for any biblical texts.

>>9954690
>We have the original version of the texts in their original languages, no ?

We don't, actually. The Bible has been written down many times, including in its original languages, but we don't have *the* originals. It's the same with, for example, Homer: what currently goes around as the original version of the Iliad is really just the written version that was around and existed for the longest time.

And there are tricky areas, since in many of those cases, the "standard" versions that we possess only came about after centuries worth of tinkering (e.g. the Moses books), and we currently don't have those pre-tinkered versions (perhaps never having existed as actual text but only as the predominant oral versions, which due to the shift to text traditions, meant that they'd lose staying power).

As an added difficulty in Bible translations, there's a constant force to translate while keeping historical and contemporary traditions in mind. An example is Genesis 1:2 -- most Bibles (in keeping with the Trinity) say something along the lines of "...the Spirit of God swept over the waters." The NRSV and NJPS effectively translate it as "a wind from God swept over the waters" -- which is more accurate to the text and to the thoughts of the Hebrews who wrote Genesis 1:2. And yet, the NRSV is highly criticized for that translation choice.

So, even if we got those original manuscripts, it might prove troublesome for major translations to incorporate them or for a new translation using them to ever become known to anyone besides biblical scholars (who, although /his/ seems to like, /lit/ fully ignores).

>>9954612
If people find it important they will share it. If not, the knowledge will not be before their eyes or their peers and they will search in the dark, whispers "God, God, where art thou? Where is thy word O Lord?"

Most sold book in the history of mankind: Bible, specifically KJV.

God made it easy for the smart and stupid alike, thankfully.

>>9954873
>God made it easy
>his word was only given to a tiny section of the world in a tiny sliver of humanity's time on earth
>multiple translations cause loss and degradation of the concepts
>inefficient system of conveying information, compared to, say, beaming the knowledge directly into everybody's head
>only way to say kjv is the right translation is by falling for an ad populum fallacy

>>9954577
impressive how a single shitpost engage me in hours of futile researches on biblical source texts