Which version of the Bible would you reccomend to a first-time reader? I'd prefer for it to be as close to the original as possible
Then use the Oxford Annotated
Annotations point out ambiguities and explain both narrative context and translation choices
Get fucked nerd
>>7416105
Thank you friend
I would read two bibles. Yes, this is kind of a task, but the KJV is 100% essential reading for being part of western culture. Read both KJV(N O T NKJV) and the oxford annotated.
>>7416105
This works well, but only the RSV. The NSRV is terrible because even thought Oxford annotates it, it's a terrible translation that caters to political correctness--Oxford even says it's wrong several times in the appendix and the annotations.
My preference is for the Orthodox Study Bible. It uses the New King James, but corrects it where it doesn't line up with the LXX (Septuagint). If you want a Christian translation (because Christian and Pharisaic translations of the OT are going to differ significantly) of the Masoretic text, the King James Version is actually very good, provided you keep in mind that terms meant something different back then than they do now--for instance, "charity" back then was synonymous with caritas, but now it basically just means giving money. But you are familiar with Early Modern English, the King James Version is really, really good.
KJV or nothing
translations that claim to be closer to the original hebrew or whatever are full of shit
>>7416086
Depends. What are you reading it for?
>>7416169
Orthodox Study Bible all the way, good choice.
KJV or ESV, that´s what amish use.
Anglicans use only KJV,
kathlics take the esv I believe.
Protestants and evangelicans go with the lutheran bible (german text to english). You should think about an annotated vulgate as well.
>>7416293
>kathlics take the esv I believe.
Nah lad my family is catholic and we have a KJV, could just be us though
>>7416296
Super devout household. Dad does kjv while mom does evg. Dad is less religious but more educated
>>7416086
douay rheims was designed for the Catholic Church
>>7416296
King James is a Protestant Bible that does not contain seven books found in Catholic Bibles. You need to get an approved version of the Bible ASAP.
>>7416315
The KJV does have the 7 deuterocanonical books, they put them in the middle under "Apocrypha"
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-Version-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199535949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449123775&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible+oxford
>>7416301
> less religious, more educated
Well imagine that..
Post over priced bibles
http://www.foliosociety.com/book/BBL/bible-apocrypha-king-james
>>7416339
Not every KJV will have that in it. I had to go out of my way to get a Bible with the Apocrypha.
>>7416363
>bound in goatskin
>blocked in calligraphy with gold
No wonder it's so expensive...
>>7416180
this guy's an idiot
Guttenberg
>>7416086
Whatever you go with, tryto haave a strong's concordance handy, ithelps terribly with so many strnge instances.
>>7416207
I'm reading it as literature, not for religious purposes
I think I'll go with the suggestion of reading KJV and Oxford Annotated
Good News Bible.
>>7416121
Kjv is completely irrelevant if you aren't from English speaking country
>>7416367
Anglican KJ Bibles will invariably have it, because the Anglican liturgy has readings from there.
learn hebrew or greek faggot
>>7416086
If the archaic language of the KJV is a distraction, the NKJV is more updated while preserving something of the literary quality of the KJV.
>>7416345
Kek. Worth noting that while there are religious denominations with higher average educational attainment than the average atheist, those denominations are things like PCUSA, super liberal Lutherans, "Judaism" and Unitarian churches that the southern baptist convention and Pope would send to the ovens given the opportunity.
What about Robert Alter's OT translations? Anyone?
>>7416315
Catholic here, but Catholic english bibles are generally embarrassing and shit-tier. The New American bible is ok if you're reading it as holy scripture and not for appreciation as literature. The douay rheims is embarrassing from a literary standpoint, filled with clunky prose and frankly retarded latinisms.
>close to the original
why are monolinguals always asking for this
"close to the original" is a meme and an illusion, and it's an artificial style like any other.
Every translation takes countless liberties with a text.
Also, you probably have a very false and confused conception of what you are doing.
If you want to study the Bible that influenced early writers, you need to look for manuscripts extant at that time. If you want a Bible that influenced late medieval and Renaissance writers, read the Vulgate. If you want a Bible that influenced Victorian English writers, read the KJV.
If you just want to read the Bible for your own edification, find a Bible that sounds good and isn't heretical.
But you fucking kids think there is always an English translation for any given text that will spell out for you the secret internal logic of the infallible original and give you a deep and contextual reading. Meanwhile anybody who reads a shitty translation four times will no doubt have a better reading than you, no matter what your edition, because you teenagers only read books once.
>>7417476
wow who would have thought that "educated" poseurs were more likely to pick snowflake religions than common people
atheists 1 christians 0
>>7417584
>Judaism and any branch of Christianity that isn't evangelical-hillbilly or medieval-tier is for special snowflake poseurs
I can see that God speaks through your wise arguments. The spirit of sophistry be upon you.
>>7416335
The CoE of was only Protestant in the sense that it didn't like the Pope. It still has seven sacraments, requires Apostolic succession, etc.
>>7416335
The King James was essentially a revision of prior Protestant texts to make them more accurate (which in this case, means agreeing more with Catholicism).
