What modernly is the best bible translation? I've been wanting to read it but I only have King James Versions sitting around the house which are a trudge to get through due to the language.
>>856657
Young's Literal Translation
Everything else is trash, and possibly heretical
>>856657
The New American Standard. It's the most accurate version so far, ahead of the KVJ, and is eminently more readable (although a bit less poetic.)
The only translation of the bible in English worth reading is the King James Version. It's the only one with an ounce of literary merit. This is true to such an extent that I suspect the untranslated original to be a piece of shit in the writing department.
>>856657
>Not learning Greek and reading the Septuagint
Stay heretical my friends.
>>856683
>not learning Aramaic and reading the original untranslated scriptures
Get a load of this pleb.
>>856657
I find that the NASB is the best myself.
>>856685
>He hasn't learned Aramaic, migrated to the Levant and heard the oral traditions from an old desert goatherd-sage as was originally intended by G-D
Profligate
>>856685
>Not building a time machine and going back to experience biblical events firsthand
Apostasy, apostasy everywhere
>>856679
>This is true to such an extent that I suspect the untranslated original to be a piece of shit in the writing department.
M8, the Bible is a compilation of a ton of different books written by a ton of different people in different languages. The original is anything but uniform in the writing department, e.g. Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are very literarily worthwhile while Chronicles and Kings are as shitty as they sound.
>>856700
Chronicles is boring and tough to read through, but what's wrong with Kings? It has some of the best boasting lines in all the Bible, especially Rehoboam's.
>>856700
>Song of Songs
I'm still unsure about how literal sex poetry made it into a religious text, especially for a set of religions generally considered to be on the pruder side.
>>856759
Not him, but it's not the only bit. Esther has a ton of sex double entendres, and Ruth only slightly less so.
>>856657
Douay-Rheims the one and only.
>>856843
Yep. Read this and a SUPER modernized (CEV CEB) downright heretical translation at the same time, side by side. Thats the best way.
>>856657
KJV for literary influence and merit.
For modern translations it isn't hugely important what you get. Most of the popular ones will get the job done.
I would look for one that has the deuterocanonical books in it, though (so a Protestant bible with the "apocrypha", or a Catholic translations). Eastern Orthodox translations aren't common in English yet, they usually use a modified NKJV I think.
>>856679
Based Chick
>>856843
I'm a fan of the NRSV-CE myself.
>>857248
>"based"
>pic related
>where's my pet Coelophysis which was the size of a modern wolf
>why are African megafauna still alive if the dinosaur species of the same size are extinct
Read the King James Bible. The modern versions are forgetful and overall just complete rubbish.
