I'm planning to study the bible, do I go for the King James Version? it seems like the most literary version however i feel like it would be tedious having to look up all of the archaic language? Which edition do you use?
>>7836750
>Study
What do you mean?
>>7836755
i should have just said read really, but i want to read it in depth and make notes and shit
>>7836755
probably read and truly understand as opposed to reading and remembering little
"STILL READ IT THOUGH, I CAN TELL PEOPLE I HAVE READ IT ALL NOW. I AM SO PRESTIGIOUS"
>>7836763
this kind of shit pisses me off
>>7836761
If you want to study it, read ESV. If you want to have an easy read, read NIV. If you want something literary, KJV.
>>7836771
Is the KJV the one that is referenced the most? Will it form a good basis for reading and understanding the likes of Milton et al?
>>7836750
I would say it depends on what you're reading it for. If you're hoping to understand the philosophy and theology of it, I would start with something more comprehensible like ESV or NIV. If you're mostly interested in the parts that are often read for their beauty like the psalms or any minor prophets, you might enjoy KJV more.
>>7836774
I think it's Biblical stories and concepts that are referenced, not specific quotes.
Just to make it clearer;
>ESV
Word for word, very close to the original
>NIV
Phrase for phrase, much more readable, no weird sentence structures and more accessible text
>KJV
The OG Bible, great prose, probably the hardest to read of these all.
There are hundreds of Bible translations. These are just the most popular. When I was a Christian, ESV was always used for study, and NIV was often used for more Bible devotion and casual reading stuff.
>>7836774
To add on, why are you reading the Bible? To get references?
>>7836750
KJV, as someone said before, is the most literary one in English. I'd advise you read that. It's one of the most challenging but it's rewarding and beautiful. I can imagine getting bored very easily reading a version in a plainer English.
>>7836774
it's unfortunate that you'd say Milton in particularly because he notably read pretty exclusively from the Vulgate (Latin), but more to your point, yes.
Most importantly, it is worth reading in and of itself, without the need to justify it with references.
>>7836809
It's a good book, but why is it worth reading on its own if not for references? Ex-Christian, maybe I'm just used to it
Really don't understand these people saying the King James Version is hard to read. Haven't had a problem with it.
>>7836818
The Bible is hard to read. Some versions just make it easier.
>>7836801
So i can understand references yes but also because it is the most important work of literature ever written and i feel like i would be doing myself an injustice by not reading it
>>7836824
How is it hard to read?
>>7836750
The main thing with the KJV are the Thees and Thous, and some archaic verb forms, so there's a lot of 'thou hast' and 'the Lord giveth.' The New King James modernizes those archaic forms but retains much of the literary flow of the prose.
>>7836824
It's the most straight-forward book.
>Jesus did this
>It was good
>He then did this
>>7836814
>Ex-Christian
Same here. But I was born into CofE and may have received less exposure to it at any age where I might have viewed it as a monotonous tome.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe anyone should read it as casually as you would any novel. You've definitely made a wise decision in taking extensive notes as you go along.
If you mean to ask what is the point in reading the KJV Bible on its own merits as opposed to the Bible in general, I would say that it is because stylistically and symbolically excellent. Which I'd consider to be enough to attempt the feat. The diction is oddly familiar - due to the multitude of cultural references - and yet, in comparison to the texts it is said to have influenced - Moby-Dick, for instance - it is strikingly unique.
You probably already know of the particular historical significance of the KJV; remember that there were some interesting motivations in the production of this translation. One cannot ignore the fact that it is moored in the didactic realm - it's principle intention was and always has been for ethical and spiritual teaching. But they wanted something more to show of it for such a momentous production. Nothing of this sort had ever been authorized by the monarch, and so they wanted something great to show for it. They brought in some of the greatest living scholars from Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, they extracted large swathes of the pious and priestly excerpts from Tyndale and tried their darndest to make it the greatest work of English Literature of that era. And if there hadn't been such immense works in the theatre at that time they would have probably achieved it.
I think going any further would constitute an essay that would require more of my time then I can suitably allot, and their are leagues of writers who could it explain it to its fullest. If you find me unconvincing just read Genesis in the KJV and you'll probably come to agree.
Somewhat related: read Auerbach's essay 'Odysseus' Scar' to get an idea for the peculiar greatness of the Bible's language and diction. Of course he wasn't reading from the KJV but his work is still very relevant.
>>7837048
What made YOU lose your faith?
>>7837420
There was no pivotal event, it just happened over time. I can see why it might be incredulous as to why I would find the Bible to be so great in spite of my lack of faith, but I don't really distinguish it from other mythologies. For instance, if there was a text that existed detailing Greek mythologies in a similar form as the Bible i. e. an authoritive text that in its composition had no other intention than to convince the reader of the existence of the Olympian Gods would it not be a fascinating work in spite of your lack of belief? The Bible is going to be viewed much more through the lens of a mythology as time goes on. But of course that says more of why others consider it boring - in that they were forced to learn from it in the dullest possible context that could ruin one's enjoyment of virtually any text.
KJV is the worst translation.
>>7836750
I read the ESV because it was the cheapest in the bookshop.
>>7838689
>>7837420
lel, my parents are very irreligious, although that didn't stop everyone in my family being Christened. I'm actually the only person in my family who wasn't Christened because at the time my uncle and my dad were having a huge fight and I don't think I was ever religious in anyway, I guess that's just the world we live in.
>>7836774
The KJV is the least accurate of the major modern English translations. If you are serious though you are going to have to do a lot of secondary reading to get to the bottom of things. For some books of the bible you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. The amount of inaccuracies and changes in any English bible is going to be large. Also you will just generally make a lot of mistakes because without the correct historical understanding you will misread many things that are said. For example, in the Gospel of Mark there is no reason to believe that Jesus is the son of God. Sure at one point it calls him the son of God but this is a common expression that is used for many people including king David, but you would never know that without prior knowledge and so just assume it was the Gospel affirming what you understand about Christianity.
DOUAY-RHEIMS
It is quite literally impossible to understand American literature (that is classic European-American) without reading the KJV.
This is the Cotton Patch Version:
18. The beginning of Jesus the Leader was like this: While his mama, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they had relations, she was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Since Joseph, her fiancé, was a considerate man and didn’t want to make a public scandal, he decided to quietly break up with her. As he was wondering about the whole situation, a messenger from the Lord came to him in a dream and said, “Joe Davidson, don’t be ashamed to marry Mary, because the Holy Spirit has made her pregnant. Now she’ll give birth to a boy, who you’ll name Jesus,1 because he will deliver his nation from their errors.”
25. “Be courteous at all times towards an opponent. Otherwise, you might he dragged into court, turned over to the sheriff and thrown into the clink. I’m telling you a fact, you won’t get out of there until you have paid the last cent of your flue.
1. When Jesus was born in Gainesville, Georgia during the time that Herod was governor, some scholars from the Orient came to Atlanta and inquired, “Where is the one who was born to be governor of Georgia? We saw his star in the Orient, and we came to honor him.” This news put Governor Herod and all his cronies in a tizzy. So he called a meeting of the big time preachers and politicians, and asked if they had any idea where the Leader was to be born. In Gainesville, Georgia,” the replied, “because there’s a bible prophecy which says:
8. Again, the Confuser gets him way up on a mountain and points out all the nations in the world and their splendor, and he says to Jesus, “Now if you just let me be boss, I’ll turn all this over to you.” Then Jesus tells him, “Scram Satan! The scripture says, ‘You shall let the Lord God be your boss, and you shall give your loyalty to him alone.’ ” At that the Confuser leaves him, and you know, angels came and began waiting on him.
12. Now when Jesus learned that John had been arrested, he set out for south Georgia. Then he moved from Valdosta and located in Savannah, which is on the coast in Chatham County and next to Effingham. (This gave meaning to the words spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
>mfw
>>7836761
Get a Study Bible. It's like a regular Bible except filled with footnotes
>>7839970
holy shit
What's the best bible to read as a Catholic?
>>7836858
I take it you haven't read the old testament then?
>>7836771
>>7836774
>>7836778
>>7836785
>>7836750
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the NRSV. It is based on the oldest reliable texts that are known, and incorporates a lot of legitimate biblical scholarship in attempting to address problems of confusing grammar, antiquated words that we know from older bibles, and such.
The group that made it is ecumenical, as among the scholars who worked on it are included some protestant congregations, Roman Catholics, and even a Jew, however it does not seem to be leftist at all.
Also, if you really want to study the bible, get an annotated or study bible with whichever version you choose.
>>7840180
DOUAY-RHEIMS
Harold Bloom recommends Authorized KJV version
>In the Gospel of Mark there is no reason to believe that Jesus is the son of God. Sure at one point it calls him the son of God but this is a common expression that is used for many people including king David, but you would never know that without prior knowledge and so just assume it was the Gospel affirming what you understand about Christianity.
Offcourse he is. It's plainly written in stories. It's the favourite gospel of unbelieving scholars though, and they tend to just take stuff that they like out of it and ignore the rest.
