Need a new bible

Hey guys, how ya doing today?

I need a new bible.
I've recently decided to become more religious. It's been a solid
couple of years since I've really been devoted, mainly because
most of my childhood was comprised of the public school system
making me think the Church is nothing but a bunch of cultists.

Being older and wiser than I was, I see the errors in my ways.

I have a beginners bible from my first communion, but I'm thinking
I need something more in depth.

Should I get the KJV or what should I get?

Attached: THECROSSSTANDSDEFIANT.jpg (733x741, 210.5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Yes, just get a KJV. I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but a KJV supremacist, if you will. If you insist on something more modern, I wouldn't stop you and say it's bad.. but they have more flaws. Try the KJV first.

Thanks man, appreciate it.

Douay-Rheims with Haydock Commentary is excellent

Douay-rhiems or rsv-2ce if you're a brainlet. KJV isn't even a Bible, it's a modified Talmud.

What's the difference between the two?

DR is a middle English translation, so it reads similar to the KJV. rsv2ce is more literal and uses contemporary English, and is overall just easier to read and study. DR is more beautiful and inspiring, but rsv2ce is easier to study.

That's silly, man. The RSV is a revision of the KJV, but with modern faggotry. The RSVCE2 is only good because it restores the actual KJV readings that the RSV removed in the 50s. While Challoner himself was a convert from Protestantism and knew how based the KJV was. It's why he revised the clumsy Douay Rheims, which Catholics in his own day hated, to sound more like the KJV.


Rheims 1582:

2 last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom he made also the worlds.
3 Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and carrying all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty in the high places;
4 being made so much better than angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name above them.


2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Challoner 1752

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high,
4 being made so much better than the Angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

Unlike you, I'm not going to call anyone a brainlet. Just badly informed. The example above speaks for itself.

Oops, forgive the bad quoting above. Didn't realize I needed more symbols on those scripture line breaks.

Douay-Rheims is a horrible translation, compare Genesis 3:15 in the DR bible against the original Hebrew text. It changes the gender of the subject of the verse from that in the original and helped to spawn the Catholic dogma surrounding Mary.

I never said the KJV was a bad translation. It's just not a Bible.

Lol, you speak Hebrew then?

I don't, no, but anyone can read the translation of the original Hebrew, compare it to the DR, and see that there's an inconsistency.

Today's Edition of

All day! Every day! Without ceasing!


Since nobody here can ever agree on what is and is not mistranslated, this whole thing is just an exercise in futility. It should just be a reality show. 300 Bibles enter, but only 1 can be crowned "KING OF THE BIBLE FIGHT!!"

We have this thread twice a day and there is never a clear winner, so the Bible Fight continues, without ceasing, all day, every day …


Lol you know nothing about Hebrew and you're trying to talk about translations. This is your brain on heresy.

Can you not read? Look at the link I provided, scholars who know Hebrew a lot better than you or I know it translated the language for us. The translation says:
Meanwhile, the DR bible says:
So who is it talking about that will bruise the head of the serpent? A man (Jesus) or a woman (Mary)? The original Hebrew says it's a man, but the DR says it's a woman. If you can't see how that's a false translation you need to get your eyes checked.


Go away Shlomo.

Attached: 96e6210333e53d702852db26fba47e131b1586843ed1bcf96bfa48ed9f21c145.png (800x1024, 1.74M)

Lying is a sin.

It is boring when you see the same thread posted twice a day and you can literally predict what's going to happen - mostly a bunch of armchair scholars pretending they know more than the hundreds of years of writings and commentary put forth by actual, literal scholars. The fact that OP can't use a catalog makes it even worse.

It could at least be made interesting. Like a Hunger Games style thing for Bibles. The winner gets to be Zig Forums's "Bible of the Week" and all Bible citations must be from that edition of the Bible and no other!

You think that's middle English? No it's not. Wycliffe's Bible was middle English.

The KJV was originally in early modern English and the 1769 edition of the KJV was formatted into the standard spelling of modern English. This makes it much easier to read.

Contemporary English has a lot of less well-defined slang terms, and is much less precise, for instance it has no "thee" or "thou" to differentiate from the plural "you." This already changes many things by making scripture less clear.

Hey you know what, that would be a lot better than all these modernists who tell you that the massive differences between books publishing themselves as bibles doesn't even matter.

Many people will insist you should pick the Bible you like based on personal fancy. They will do bible studies using multiple versions. That is a far, far worse hellscape than this.

Yes, (((scholars))) who deny that God preserved his word to every generation. Scholars who are pro-sodomite and who refer to mishnaic hebrew and Judaism as authentic. Should we really be making an argument from authority on THEM? And not on God's word which directly prophesies it shall never be lost or corrupted?

Isn't it your naptime?

Fund it!

It's people so insecure they can't even deal with the existence of a thread about biblical issues without feeling threatened and trying to come disrupt it.

I like the ESV.

Try 5.

And that's just a quick ctrl-f in the catalog for "version". There are probably more.

Thanks for giving us the run down. Definitely some threads worth checking out.

Start with the NABRE (New American bible, revised edition), the translation are easy to read and the commentaries are fantastic.

Do the KJV on your second read, but be aware that it isn’t perfect (e.g. the name of the trinitarian God is grammatically incorrect)

That's just it, user. For "hundreds of years", scholars were far more in agreement (across the whole Prot/Cath/Ortho spectrum) and understood what the word of God was and had an essential faith. It's only in the past 50-100 years that things changed and now you have academia that is agnostic (or in the cases of some, like Bart Ehrman, actually atheistic and actively hostile). You have to be more cautious about what they produce.

In the end, we should remind ourselves what Jesus considered important. "Amen I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." He didn't say anything good about scribes. But if we keep our childlike love and wonder of God, that's what matters in the end.