What is the most /lit/ translation of The Bible?
King James read with Strong's Concordance
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
dead sea scrolls
>>7822954
Ash
>>7822954
English Standard Version.
liking KJV is cargo culting hard. they were written in the common vernacular of the time (rendering Walt Whitman a n00b in that he took his inspiration from it because he believed it betokened grandeur)
>>7823029
This is why you need Strong's concordance with King James
>>7823023
Don't cut yourself on that edge.
>>7823029
Seconding ESV. It's probably the best translation for interpreting the original language, and also sounds at the very least okay on the ear.
>>7823044
*tips*
ROBERT ALTER
O
B
E
R
T
A
L
T
E
R
King James Version by far, just get used to the language usage (still English) and anything else will sound like 6th grade level English vs. Poetry after that (which the Bible also has)
Would you take Shakespeare and translate it all into 'modern English'? no...
Don't do it with Holy Scripture either
Learn Hebrew or Greek if you'd like the real deal
>>7825877
>Would you take Shakespeare and translate it all into 'modern English'? no...
the comparison doesn't even make sense since both KJV and NIV are translations. who is to say that the language of Shakespeare is better than modern english
>>7825995
this. evolution and natural selection would suggest that today's english is better than shakespeare's.
>>7826004
That's not how evolution or natural selection works, dumbass.
>>7826009
>doesnt understand evolution
>>7826009
straight from the dictionary pleby
evolution:the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
The Oxford nsrv annotated Bible is quite good for understanding the text. But the bible must be read many times to be understood. So buy kjv and Douay-Rheims versions as well, with annotations and commentary if possible. It's monumental task to read, study, and understand the bible.
>2016
>believing in evolution
I seriously hope you heretics don't do this.
K J Vwith apocrypha
>>7822954
>translation
>>7826044
>current year
>saying current year
I seriously hope you youngsters don't do this.
>>7822954
The Jerusalem Bible
It's the most widely used bible in the catholic church. Plus, the Book of Jonah was translated by Tolkien
>>7826077
You weren't here back in 2011, huh?
>>7822954
Young's Literal Translation should be the official translation of lit.
>>7822969
Whats wrong with this?
>>7826568
Its incompetent treatment of John 1:1, for starters.
Be still, and know that I am God
Now, you see, this thread just makes me want to cobble together a program that randomly fuses together a complete bible by drawing off of every version available so you're never quite sure which page is from which version.
I'd call it, "Worms: Reloaded".
>>7826568
Give this a read:
http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/major-problems-with-the-new-world-translation/
>>7826643
>http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/major-problems-with-the-new-world-translation/
interesting read. Thanks a lot
King James if you're reading for literary purposes.
NRSV if you're reading for accuracy or purely theological purposes.
Best for accuracy? NRSV
Most /lit/ in the sense of literary quality? KJV
Most /lit/ in the sense of being contrarian? The Message or NWT
For someone who has almost no knowledge in the bible does the king James version have both the old and new testament or are those separate books?
>>7822954
King James of course, fucking shakespeare wrotes pieces of that.
People have often wondered if William Shakespeare had any involvement in the most important writing project of his time, the translation and prepartation of the King James Bible. Although there are no ways to verify this, at least one set of clues indicates Shakespeare probably had some involvement with at least the Old Testament part of the book.
William Shakespeare lived from 1564-1616. The creation of the King James Bible began in the year 1610, the year in which Shakespeare would have been 46 years old.
If you turn to Psalm 46 in the King James Bible, and if you count exactly 46 words into the psalm, you find the word "shake." If you count 46 words back from the end of that psalm, you will find the word "spear."
It just seems too coincidental to think that it was by fluke circumstances that the 46th Psalm would be translated around the time of Shakespeare's 46th birthday and that the 46th word from the start and the 46th word from the end would be "shake" and "spear." My professional opinion is, Shakespeare translated that section of the King James Bible and he slipped in a secret byline to prove it was his work.
Dr. Dennis E. Hensley is director of the professional writing department at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana. He holds four degrees in linguistics and literature, including a Ph.D. in English from Ball State University. He is the author of 52 books.
>>7827149
memery aside it's an appealing thought to have but judging by the mostly clergy based translation group and rigidly hiearchial society of england at the time, it's unlikely. It's too bad.
>>7827139
Yes, it has both.
