Good english translation

(For normies) I am looking for something that is accurate, but does not contain very archaic language like the dhouam reims and the king james bible. I need this for a project, not for myself. Thanks in advance.

Attached: st-john-climicus-9.jpg (338x500, 76.94K)

Other urls found in this thread:

A valid request, but were you aware of some of the benefits of keeping "thee" and "thou" as singular and "ye/you" as plural?

The KJB got an updated edition in 1769 with more standard spellings that makes it a great read and not so hard. Most of the ones you'll find outside rare antique stores are based on it. It's pretty much the basis for the standard of English right now, the opposite of containing a lot of slang terms.

The American King James Version removes the archaic pronouns and updates some spelling.
The other most fluid and scholarly translations might be the RSV and ESV respectively.

God speed, user.

Attached: jb.jpg (330x499, 24.99K)

The New Revised Standard Version is the version most commonly preferred by biblical scholars and used in the most influential publications in the field.

the lack of a proper 2nd person plural is a weakness in the english language. y'all sounds much too colloquial.

yes, also NAB and NASB (in spite of the similarity in name, two very different translations)

it's full of gender-inclusive language, aka absolute heresy.

It what way is it gender inclusive? Matthew 19 on marriage and divorce makes a distinction between male and female, husband and wife and the husband's authority under the mosaic law to divorce and refers to God and Christ as he.

Tbh the ESV and NRSV are both revisions of the RSV. The funny thing is the original and Catholic editions of the RSV, or at least the ones I've seen, engage in the same bickering between other denominationally focused translations with "divorce" vs "send away" in Matt. 1:19 and "full of grace" vs "favored one" in Luk. 1:28. Meanwhile the NRSV renders them as "dismiss" and "favored one" in both of its editions. There's also a Catholic edition of an ESV from my understanding.

People are going to laugh at me, but I've moved from being a huge KJV fan to liking the NIV. There's a reason why it's popular and surpassed the KJV in sales now. I think Catholics almost did something as good with the NAB, but the notes inside it are written by fags and apostates. Translation good, but their insistence on those notes make sit a bible worth burning.

For better or worse, the academic standard has been the NSRV for years.

Thanks for the responses, i'll keep those in mind.

Ezekiel 2:1- 'mortal' instead of 'son of man'
Hosea 1:10- 'children of the living God' instead of 'sons of the living God'
Mark 1:17- 'fish for people' instead of 'fishers of men'
Romans 1:13- 'brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' or 'brethren'

these are just a few examples. also, these inclusive translations tend to neuter male references, or add a feminine alongside them, while leaving female references intact.
maybe calling this absolute heresy is an over-reaction, but I do think this compromises the text.

I don't like replacing "Son of Man" either, but "mortal" is exactly what it means. It was a Hebrew euphemism.. "Man" is already a mortal, but a son of man was meant to illustrate how lowly and mortal it was.

It works when Jesus referred to himself on earth this way as well. He meant he was the earthly representation of the Trinity.

As for the rest, things like "brethren" in Greek did have a more expansive meaning (just as many languages to this day have neutral gendered words). I do think some of these translations go overboard though. I particularly dislike when the need for inclusive words makes the original singular language into plural.

Just to add to this, this is why I prefer the NIV over the NRSV as well. It tends to avoid pluralizing things like the NRSV. For example, in Psalm 1, it doesn't say "Blessed are those", but "blessed is the one" (traditional rendering would be "blessed is the man").

admittedly, 'mortal' captures the meaning, but it loses the rhetorical style.
those are a few convenient examples to give you a sense of it, there are more, but I'd have to dig them up.

I've read that the 2011 version of NIV is much more inclusive, so I'd recommend sticking with the 1984 NIV, which is quite good. it's more accurate than the easiest translations (NLT, GW, etc), while being an easier read than advanced works (KJV, NASB, etc)

Uh yeah, it's probably lower education standards by those doing the reading and a greater amount of brainlets taking up the task since the early modern era needing facilitated renderings. Sales and popularity can be influenced by various factors and don't always translate to the effectiveness of a particular product at its intended purpose over that of another, e.g. soap vs body wash. Similarly the KJV also shouldn't be favored solely on the account of its popularity.

One should also observe how it appears to have been the goal of all the classical churches and into the Reformation era as well, to produce highly literal translations on which their doctrines would be based on, sometimes to the point of sacrificing naturalness in the target language for it.

So the NSRV is the standard of people who are usually not even Christian? That seems like a good reason to avoid it.

Pretty much, as far as I can tell. It's also used by misguided Catholics (Canadians use it in their liturgical readings) who aren't apostates, but live in such pozzed jurisdictions that they are apostate even without willing it themselves. I don't even know why academics use it, as the extensive gender inclusive language gets away from accuracy (I'm the user who mentioned the plural/singular issues above btw.. my IP changed). Otherwise, it's accurate, much like the RSV (and even fixes some issues with the RSV), but that might be a dealbreaker for some.

I'm not totally against gender inclusive language.. as I said, I like the NIV. They're just more careful about it's pitfalls. The previous "TNIV" went overboard, so I think they learned some lessons there. It's main fault is a lack of apocryphal books, since it's Evangelically oriented.. but that's OK. I hold to the smaller canon anyways, and have plenty of apocryphal materials just in case I need them. The great thing about the NIV is it's conservative while being modern, and has a wealth of reference materials. Only the KJV matches it in extraneous references and commentaries. Both of them are awesome for this.. all kinds of biblical scholars write for one or the other in mind. While NASB and ESV are good, they don't even have half of the support behind them as the KJV and NIV. The NRSV has a wealth of materials too, but like we're saying, it's on the apostate academic side.

You realize the NIV removes Acts 8:37 where Philip says the man had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before he was baptized, right? It just removes the entire verse and goes verse 36, verse 38. Most NIV readers probably didn't notice it. The NIV also removed Matthew 18:11 the entire verse, as well as the same part of the parallel passage in Luke 9:55-56.

The NIV says Jesus was "indignant" in Mark 1:41. It's the only translation that attributes a sense of anger to Jesus here. Everyone else said he was moved with compassion at the man kneeling and praying to him to have himself healed if Jesus wills.

The NIV changes Proverbs 17:11 to say "rebellion against God" instead of just "rebellion." So in other words, its okay to rebel as long as you think it's not against God. But they added that extra word changing the meaning. Also in Job 1:6 the NIV changes "sons of God" to "angels" but yet they admit that's just their interpretation, as the footnote at the bottom of the page still gives the actual meaning. So the question becomes why didn't they just leave it in the main text then. Are they admitting to inserting their own ideas here? Are the NIV translators dynamically connecting the dots, as it were, for the readers' own good?

Also the NIV removes the word "Christ" from Acts 2:30. It merely says "a descendant" thus removing another fulfilled prophecy about Christ and turning the whole passage on its head.

Just to place one more, what about Revelation 22:16 in the NIV? It says there that Jesus is the bright and morning star. Yet in the NIV it also says that the person called "morning star" was cut down from heaven, back in Isaiah 14:12. The NIV translators replaced the name of Lucifer or lightbringer with "O Morning Star!" in Isaiah 14:12! So I would ask the NIV readers, was Jesus, who is the bright and morning star, part of that prophecy in Isaiah 14:12? According to your NIV it's the same.

Attached: kjv_1.jpg (480x360, 9.29K)

OP said it was for "a project". I wasn't necessarily recommending it, but knowing which translation is preferred in academia is useful information.

Greek actually has two words for 'people/folk' already, λᾱός (lāós) and δῆμος (dêmos), from where words such as 'democracy' are derived.

Could have used sibs/siblings if they wanted to be neutral. The fact is though that a feminine form of the word is used for 'sister', ἀδελφή (adelphḗ), and a feminine gendered word is used for 'brotherhood', ᾰδελφότης (adelphótēs), similar to Latin fraternitas and germanitas and its derivatives. The English word was also feminine in Old English apparently.

It says "son of man" though, ben-’ā·ḏām (בֶּן־אָדָם֙), and this is repeated in the Greek of the NT, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (huiós toû anthrṓpou), and this was also the interpretation of all the main ancient translations. This is why translations should stick with translating the wording and leave interpretation of it to separate exegesis.

yes, but the word in that verse is ἀνθρώπων (anthropon).

the word used is ἀδελφοί (adelphoi).

both of these are masculine.

Correct, therefore men is more accurate.

Again, I agree. For this reason brothers/ brethren is very accurate but I also suggested siblings as possibly a better choice if they were trying to be neutral.
A denomination like the Church of the Brethren wouldn't be taken to be exclusive of females.

indeed. just making sure we're on the same page.

Fair enough. It's the route I would prefer too, but I kind of want to give the benefit of the doubt that they're just doing it for clarity (while older translations, such as Syriac/Latin/etc didn't need to clarify and it was understood).

These kind of things used to bother me even more until I started seeing that even Homer and the "Tao Te Ching" had a ton of English translations themselves.. all in the name of capturing the original idiom or poetry. So clarifying rather than always being literal seems to be a practice across all translation. I still prefer literal translation as my primary (KJV here), but on the other hand, I've softened my stance a bit on some modern stuff. I'm not a KJV-Onlyist at least, where they always imagine there's a nefarious purpose behind everything. I think that's slander and that most modern translators can be God fearing people too.. even if they go overboard in places.

When it's definitely informed by apostate views, then all bets are off. i.e. The infamous Isaiah 7:14 change from "virgin" to "young woman". This is clearly Rabbinic trickery (always was even back in Jerome's day, when they tried to convince him too).

Seconding Jerusalem as a Study Bible. I also recommend Knox as a good casual reading at home Bible.

'almah' could be translated as 'young unmarried woman' or 'virgin'. I think the closest equivalent is 'maiden', which has a connotation of chastity. I'm not sure if there's a better Hebrew word; some argue for 'bethulah' but there seems to be ambiguity there. in any case, the greek 'parthenos' certainly means a chaste young woman, and that's how it's translated in the LXX (which pre-dates Jesus' ministry).

I'd recommend Wycliffe's Bible if English is your native language. It's the oldest full translation available.

That's the rabbinic trickery I speak of. They've redefined their own words out of pure hatred for the Lord. St. Jerome knew of this even in his day (circa 300s). He presented the original definition and why the LXX translated it as it does. The more common word for a young woman is "naarah", but an almah is a "hidden" young woman specifically. As in, cloistered or kept under watch of parents. i.e. A virgin, and one that is kept prized and guarded by her father until the time is right for marriage/suitors. It's not merely a virgin (bethulah), but a virgin +++. A girl who doesn't and/or isn't allowed to venture out and even be mistaken as promiscuous. And in the context of Isaiah, it only makes sense this way. He tells King Ahaz "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."

"But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.."

So Ahaz wasn't willing to ask of "depth" or the "heights above", so the Lord himself decides it. In other words, the Lord proclaims through Isaiah: "Fine. How is this for heights. I'm going to blow all of your minds: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.." This context makes a "young woman" rendering completely stupid. That is neither heights above or in the depths.

Anyways, here's Jerome:

Lying Jews who hate Christ have been with us since the beginning - and killed Christ as well. So it isn't a modern insight. The only difference between Jerome's day and now is apostacy and giving Jews more importance than they deserve. It especially started happening after WW2, where they constantly play the sympathy and can't be questioned. It was finally in the 1940s/1950s when the RSV was made and they made the leap to be the first apostates who translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman". Why? Because they had a Jew on their commitee who was adamant and guilted them into it.

Seriously, we could just call many of these translations the "stupid goy" translations. That's what they literally are. They're made by people who kowtow to whining Rabbis. Even the Catholic NAB has fallen for the trap now, surprisingly. It was a decent translation (sans notes) until the 2010 revision, where it now has "young woman" there as well. I can't fathom how Catholics deal with cognitive dissonance here. On one hand, they revere the Virgin Mary.. yet their own Bible tells them she isn't a virgin. Then in the same breath, they rely on stupid suspicions about the KJV - that it's a "Masonic" bible. When it's more based and reveres Mary than the piece of trash their own bishops force on them.

ahh, that makes sense. yes, I came across a reference to the 'hidden' aspect, but that clears it up. the more common use of 'naarah' is also very important, yet I hadn't realized that. alot of resources seem intent on muddying the waters on this particular topic, I wonder why?
and yes, there's nothing remarkable about a young woman conceiving and having a child, why should that be a sign from the Lord? but a virgin becoming pregnant would most certainly be worthy of prophecy.
I hadn't realized the extent of this deception.

having reviewed various Bible translations, it seems that most revisions after 2004 are suspect. not that there weren't issues before, but it's gotten worse in the past decade or so. the 2011 revision of the NIV is another example of this.

Didn't know that about the RSV. The Ignatius Bible however appears to use virgin and puts young woman in the footnotes.

I think it's the least of the offenders, but I understand the suspicions. The gender issue can be a mess in some places. Yet not as bad as some that have attempted it. For example, the 2011 NIV still uses "mankind" and things like that.. simply because it's still widely used. They don't use inclusive language in a way that forces new forms of speech. They only use it when they think it actually represents modern usage (like "brothers and sisters"). But that just tells me they could very well be open to more radical language down the line, depending on if something becomes widely used or not.

Ignatius publishes the RSV CE 2 (even the first Catholic Edition didn't change it). They made a few good changes (or rather, things that should have been in there from the beginning).

NKJV for the NT. Essentially an update of vocabulary and grammar only. It was used as the basis for the NT in the Orthodox Study Bible, which contains an all-new translation of the Septuagint OT.

If you want "accuracy" in terms of the content of the OT, you want a translation of the Septuagint. The Masoretic texts which are the basis of most Protestant translations were altered by the Jews in the 1500 years between the Council of Jamnia and the time Luther used them as a basis.

NASB is the best among the not-Textus receptus ones.