What English Bible To Read

I want to read the bible in its entirety, but don't know which one to choose. My church uses NRSV but I've heard that it's simplified in ways that could take away from poetic and allegorical value. I've read portions of it but want to hear some input from others before diving in. The apocrypha would be interesting too but I'm not sure whether or not they should be included as scripture.

On the same note, any notes on order of reading? I had been planning on reading from Genesis forwards.

Attached: GENE.png (760x390, 494.58K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSV
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Septuagint_version_of_the_Old_Testament_(Brenton)
biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/24-3.htm
scribd.com/document/345097920/the-original-true-rheims-new-von-peters-dr-william-g-4514-1-pdf
scribd.com/document/345098302/The-Original-True-Douay-Old-von-Peters-Dr-William-G-4511-pdf
scribd.com/document/345098181/The-Original-True-Douay-Old-von-Peters-Dr-William-G-4513-pdf
adelantelafe.com/biblias-en-espanol-buenas-y-malas/
iglesiacatolicablog.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/descarga-gratis-la-biblia-catolica-en-pdf-las-mejores-versiones-online/
mediafire.com/file/8svdq2cdcc9ce4g/BIBLIA GUILLERMO JUNEMANN.zip
bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I like ESV personally and I did a lot of research when picking a translation.

If someone recommends King James (as opposed to NKJV) as the ONE TRUE BIBLE please go read some KJV-Only sites and see how mad they are then read some scholarly articles on Textual Criticism.

ESV is essentially literal as opposed to NIV which is dynamic. Difference is whether you err on the side of poetry and ease of reading (dynamic) or word-for-word accuracy (formal equivalence).

They're both good for diff reasons… are you a casual reader or a serious student?

NIV is Harry Potter
ESV is Lord of the Rings

In terms of how to read there's no hard and fast rule. As a Christian the gospels are… well, gospel… so maybe start with Matthew or Mark then go back to Genesis and read through at least up to Noah.

Then go back to NT and read John.

Then go back and read through the rest of Genesis (Joseph) and Exodus (Moses) then back to NT for Luke and Acts.

Then maybe the Wisdom books: Proverbs/Ecclesiastes/Job

Isaiah and Psalms are pivotal to predicting Christ.

The letters then maybe and Revelation. Revelation should be read and studied with Genesis side by side.

After all that, the rest of the bible.

THEN… maybe start looking at Apocrypha and Book of Enoch and whatnot (Enoch first actually)

Also, check out Chuck Missler's Learn the Bible in 24 hours series on YouTube.

Oh and check out Daniel Wallace for textual criticism and why the older manuscripts are way more accurate than the 1000ad manuscripts which add a lot of stuff that wasn't originally there.

Any "Bible" with only 66 books and Luke 1:28 not having the words "full of grace" belongs in the trash.

Douay-Rheims or RSVCE
Like this:

1. Gospels*
2. Acts
3. Pauline Epistles*
4. Catholic Epistles*
5. Apocalypse
6. Job
7. Psalms*
8. Proverbs*
9. Kohelet
10. Song of Songs
11. Book of Wisdom*
12. Sirach*
13. The Pentateuch
14. Major Prophets
15. Minor Prophets
16. Historical Books

*should be read regularly after completion of the entire canon

For reading that is reasonably fluid to the contemporary mind either a KJV with modernized spelling or the RSV.
KJV bibles follow majority/Byzantine readings in the NT but most probably differ in some place from the original KJ in some way or another.
The RSV follows critical readings in the NT

For the most literality and similarity to the speech of the pertinent languages, either the ASV or the Darby Bible.
The ASV is pretty much a revised KJV with the archaic grammar intact but edited to be more in accord with the critical/Alexandrian NT reading. Some of the obsolete terminology found early modern Bibles is also replaced.
The Darby Bible appears to follow Byzantine readings more.

Apocrypha translations for the RSV have been made. Brenton's Septuagint translation also included apocrypha which would be from or follow the Greek as opposed to other versions which might have used Latin manuscripts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSV
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Septuagint_version_of_the_Old_Testament_(Brenton)


For all the praise the Douay-Rheims gets I'm surprised any versions of it with modernized spelling haven't been made or promulgated. Instead Catholics will defer to other modern translations like the NRSV, RSV, NAB.
Also not much is mentioned here about the difference between the original DR print and the post Chanlloner revisions which brought it more in accord with the KJV and are more popular.
The Wycliffe Bible follows the Vulgate in a surprisingly precise manner and modernized versions of it have been made.

Depends.
I'd recommend one of these:

Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
New American Bible Revised Edition
New American Bible
Revised New Jerusalem Bible
New Jerusalem Bible
Jerusalem Bible
Confraternity Bible
Douay-Rheims Challoner
Douay-Rheims

What's the difference between the first and second editions of the RSV?

Virtually nothing. The first edition uses thou/thy when referring directly to God the Father, where the second edition just uses you/your. There are some other word or vocabulary changes, for example the word ‘cup’ was replaced with the word ‘chalice’, but they're not significant.

1 Samuel 24:3

KJV
And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.

Hebrew text analysis biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/24-3.htm

Clementine Vulgate
Et venit ad caulas ovium, quæ se offerebant vianti: eratque ibi spelunca, quam ingressus est Saul ut purgaret ventrem: porro David et viri ejus in interiore parte speluncæ latebant.

Modernized Wycliffes
And he came to the folds of sheep, that offered themselves to the way-goer. And there was a cave, into which Saul entered, that he would purge his womb; forsooth David and his men were hid in the inner part of the den.

(And he came to the sheepfolds, or the pens, that offered themselves to the way-goer. And there was a cave, into which Saul entered, where he could empty his bowels; and David and his men were hid in the inner part of that cave.)

RSV
And he came to the sheepfolds by the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself. Now David and his men were sitting in the innermost parts of the cave.

DR
And he came to the sheepcotes which were in his way. And there was a cave, into which Saul went, to ease nature: now David and his men lay hid in the inner part of the cave.

New Oxford Annotated is pretty decent, also contains the Apocrypha if you want to study that. It's pretty stumpy though, so it's something you'd keep around home rather than something you can take with you.

I asked greeks and they told me NRSV is a good translation of the New Testament.
There is no perfect translation though, your best option is to have several and compare them when you have doubts. Unless your want to learn old languages ofc.
You can easily download an app where you can compare all translation verse by verse.
Then buy the one or two translation you like the most in physical copy, don't forget to pick the edition with the deuterocanonical/apocrypha.

we have this thread every day.
kjv.

Make sure it uses the Septuagint for the OT. You don't want your Bible to be (((corrupted))).

Attached: lxx_vs_mt3.jpg (769x993, 265.81K)

Gonna rehash what everyone else said:

-Catholic or High Church Protestant: KJV, RSV (with apocrypha or Catholic edition), Jerusalem Bible (I recommend actually getting the New Catholic Bible, which is a British edition that changes back all the Yahweh’s to The LORD” , DR (the revised version is fine, literally the only version with the original text is over 70 bucks and is a PDF)

Protestant: ESV, RSV, KJV (The NASB is good for “word studies” but is too literal to be read comfortably, the NIV to a certain extent and definitely anything with “Living” in its title has the opposite problem of being basically a paraphrase, don’t even Pooh with the Message or the Passion “translations”)

Orthodox: KJV, NKJV (the OSB is just a NKJV with the Old Testament changed to be in line with the Septuagint), NETS (if you want a Septuagint that reads and was worked on by some of the same people as the NRSV). There WAS going to be an entirely new Eastern Orthodox Bible, but it was nipped in the bud after the New Testament was published, and most Lectionaries use either the ethic-dioceses own particular translation or one of the above anyways.

The Septuagint, quoted by the Apostles is from 2-3 centuries BC.
the oldest complete masoretic text we have is from the year 1000 AD.

I bet those sneaky rabbis changed the hebrew words to invalidate Christ fulfilling prophecies.

The Jerusalem Bible of 1973 is decent (but inferior to the original French translation) but avoid the 1998 revision, the text and the notes are very modernist: the introduction to the gospels and the notes deny their historicity and makes them look like a 'legend'.

Only Boomers still read English.

Attached: 6aaf40e083ebac349fd9c00026cc885ac032cd97145165e27c7be79915de3d5a.gif (467x398, 68.76K)

Is this it?
scribd.com/document/345097920/the-original-true-rheims-new-von-peters-dr-william-g-4514-1-pdf
scribd.com/document/345098302/The-Original-True-Douay-Old-von-Peters-Dr-William-G-4511-pdf
scribd.com/document/345098181/The-Original-True-Douay-Old-von-Peters-Dr-William-G-4513-pdf

Yeah. The pdf is free because the DR is public domain. I think user meant a print version is around 70 bucks though

Attached: 3151f6c9f7307847bfa5ed27decadb14--catholic-memes-anthony-hopkins.jpg (736x527, 87.83K)

>Pay no attention to the number 66 due to the removal of 7 holy books despite the great importance given to numbers in Scripture, don’t mind that the protty canon is based on a post-Christ jewish council and ignore this one voluntary blatant mistranslation of Luke 1:28 which out of pure coincidence infects every single protty "Bible".
No, you get behind me, Satan.

That's some serious autism user.
And look, you got a 7 at the end of your post. Surely you will be saved and I will forever go to hell.

Attached: 6944540332450f6f4c395a968fb17ffa139e5e948fb3d9a88c4bd8437e547693.jpg (970x1103, 250.7K)

🙄

I personally like the KJV, but I have a few others translations in PDF for study purposes.

Any one here from a Spanish-speaking country? Would you lads recommend Reina Valera for Spaniards? Also, I'm curious about German too, though mine is very basic.

For regular reading and study, NASB, ESV, or RSV. For sheer style and poetic value, not to mention its impact on the English language, the original 1611 KJV is an obvious must.

Remember, "Deuterocanonical" means "a second canon" or "apart from canon," and therefore should be discarded as un-Biblical and not divinely inspired. Don't be a retard. Free yourself from Papist mind tricks.

Attached: 8599c9f485cde1a90c53456a9675470a20bc6e440a331a37b3510cf2f1b476bb.jpg (529x640, 88.75K)

If you're a Protestant, yes. Just make sure that it's pre-1960.
If you're Catholic read this: adelantelafe.com/biblias-en-espanol-buenas-y-malas/
If you're Orthodox there isn't an Orthodox bible like the OSB in Spanish yet. In fact I'd be curious what do Spanish Orthodox use.

bump. Would also like to know if I should get DRA/DRB/DRC1752.

The DRA is the same as the DRC, or as you called it, the DR1752.

The differences between the D-R and the DRC are not significant. Get a DRC and then just download the D-R pdfs for free.

jajaja

Catholic mod mafia strikes again

who are you trying to fool?

Reina-Valera is like the Spanish KJV.
*a.k.a. Protestant poo.*

What rule did this break? Why was this banned?

The following are some quotes from former threads I've copy&pasted for my own use.

ESV is not bad but it lacks the poetry added back in some of the more dynamic translations. NKJV or RSV will be more beautiful.

ESV, NKJV and RSV are all popular non-equivalent translations, but interesting is the fact that they don't agree with each other in certain places. For instance, the ESV removed Acts 8:37, but the NKJV keeps it. Also the ESV removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22 and removes the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. This is just one of the many choices you will have to make when choosing between non-equivalent translations, like deciding whether Jesus said the words "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22, or whether Acts 8:37 or Mark 16:9-20 is actual scripture or not, and that really makes a big difference in what you believe. So choose carefully because it's more than mere stylistic differences.

The RSV was avoided by conservatives because of one verse: Is 7:14 following MT "young woman" as opposed to LXX's "virgin". Because of this ONE verse, it was shunned as being "too liberal". Ironically, it's the much favored version of "conservative" Catholics and is used commonly by Catholic apologists.

NRSV is excessively gender-inclusive (see Ps 1:1), though is commonly used in seminaries, liturgy, and with progressive mainline Protestants. It is probably the most ecumenical of the modern versions.

The NASB is supposedly the most faithful translation to the original Greek/Hebrew and is used by scholars. The flipside is that the language is often a bit stilted because they're trying to fit the square peg of English into the round hole of Greek grammar.

The main problem I have with the NASB is the fact it uses corrupt sources (and calls them "the most reliable") to get entirely new readings that no one had until sometime after 1860 with the first discovery and publication of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

But even beyond the crucial fact that it is a translation of a different/wrong document, the NASB isn't even that great when it comes to translation methodology. For instance, as an example they just blatantly inserted the word "merely" into 1 Peter 3:3 to "soften it up" a bit.

But this completely changes its intended meaning and turns it into a green light to do those things, as long as they aren't merely doing them only. Even the other modern translations don't do this in 1 Peter 3:3, only the NASB (and NKJV) do. This is just blatant corruption by the translators.


Let me know if you find a modernized KJ translation that doesn't deviate much. I've seen several that try, but they still manage to somehow insert some corruptions. For example the WEB still removes the word "diligently" from Hebrews 11:6, it still cuts off part of Jesus' statement in Revelation 1:11, and it changes Acts 2:47 to say "being saved" instead of "be saved" and has other random changes too, like changing the angel to an eagle in Revelation 8:13.

And another one, the MEV, has its own problems. The MEV reverses the meaning of Philippians 2:6 from the KJV, and it tells you that being divisive is bad in Titus 3:10, yet see what Jesus said in Luke 12:51. And I could still go on about various word choices it makes that exculpate sodomites in Jude 1:7, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Kings 15:12, or word choices that blur the connection to prophecy like in Genesis 22:17 saying "their" enemies instead of what it should say "his" enemies (see Galatians 3:16), or where the MEV says "being saved" instead of "are saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18. The list of major differences here is still long, if you really want to get into it. So I'd like to see a translation that doesn't change these major doctrines which the Authorized Bible consistently depicts in very clear language. From looking closely at these translations, the difference is not a matter of merely changed grammar, as far as I'm concerned. Oh and of course, the NKJV is yet worse than the ones I just mentioned, if such things can be quantified.

From what I see a version called the King James Clarified and the American King James seem to be the most faithful to the original KJ wording.

Reject literally any “Bible” which mistranslates Luke 1:28 (kecharitomene). In KJV Mary is "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace".

Tbh I checked a bunch of versions popular versions carefully including the ones on that link and I haven't found that is more accurate than the RVA. Anyone who has done similar and knows Spanish would have the same opinion. There's probably a good reason why it might be considered 'the' Spanish bible in a predominantly Catholic culture.
The closet contenders I found were other RV variants like the 1960 revision, the first Biblia del oso, and a Jubilee bible.

All in all it appears the situation is different from English bibles where the competition is more hard-fought.

Posting this link where I found a lot of the translations. This one interactive program on there by a Guillermo Jünemann appears to be a good concordant translation.
iglesiacatolicablog.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/descarga-gratis-la-biblia-catolica-en-pdf-las-mejores-versiones-online/
mediafire.com/file/8svdq2cdcc9ce4g/BIBLIA GUILLERMO JUNEMANN.zip

I posted that.
I'm not against Alexandrian texts though. The best in my opinion is the ASV which is pretty much a revised KJ and probably Brenton's Septuagint or the Revised Version for apocrypha.
If modernized grammar is needed for easier reading then yes one of the modernized KJs or the RSV are probably the best options.

You just love to mix and match your scriptures don't you?

Wouldn't have to if everything were more uniformly compiled and agreed on. It's out of necessity more than anything.

John 10:4-5
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words:

The Joseph Smith translation obviously.

First edition called the ancient Hebrews as Hebrews instead of jews. That caused a lot of jimmies to be rustled

Found this page and it says Matthew 16:18 is changed to 'gates of Hades' (footnote 'powers of death') from 'powers of death' (footnote 'gates of Hades').
bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html

Why this order though? I read it front-to-back my first time. I don't understand the idea of starting with the NT. The OT perfectly fills the reader with understanding on why we need Jesus. Starting with Jesus is like starting dinner with dessert.

Dang I've been reading it wrong this whole time. Going from start to end and it got so confusing. So much information.

Unless youre a jew religion is pointless, jesus was designed by israel for the slave class to worship them. Youre wasting your time, take the red pill on zionist terrorism israel.

Lamsa bible

King James, the only perfect edition

It broke the unwritten rule that tou must worship the pope as your god-king

Gay Catholic's Bible

Wait, you mean that the Pope isn't above Jesus Christ? That's heresy, I'm going to Crusade you. But first I'm going to molest you

Is this satire or?

Not a KJV-Only person, but I recommend it as well. I'd only suggest to compare it with a Septuagint translation.

Stop spamming this everywhere please it's frustrating

Attached: septuagint-readings-incorrect.png (1786x421, 273.68K)