Only Bibles that use the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text. Masoretic comes from the Rabbinical tradition meaning it is literally the Jewish tricks Zig Forums always talks about also the Septuagint is the Scripture Paul is always quoting the Masoretic text was made hundreds of years after the death of our Lord by Jews who couldn’t even read Hebrew.
RSV is a solid go, good for both Catholics and prots.
NABRE is my favorite- great commentaries but it’s intended for Catholics
NASB is the most accurate word for word but the poetry and prose is really sucked out
RSCVE2 (Ignatius Bible) if Catholic.
If not Catholic BEGOME
NIV is easy to read but an incomplete bible and the meaning of lots of passages has been altered so its unreliable, especially for a novice.
*RSVCE2 but you'll find it as Ignatius Bible as well. God Bless!
NABRE has "great" commentaries, like the note on Matt 16:21-23 that tells us that Jesus didn't say the things the gosples record him saying:
"Neither this nor the two later passion predictions can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God."
Personally, I prefer commentaries by people who actually believe the words of Scripture over those that find Jesus' ability to make detailed prophecy improbable. When the Lord of Glory foresees something, there is no "perhaps" about it.
I think I have to exclude this one because I distrust jesuits and am non-catholic.
I used to use the ESV, and still do sometimes out of convenience, but now, and especially when I am reading the old testament I use the Orthodox Study Bible, as it is one of the only english texts which bases itself upon the septuagint text. ESV for most purposes, however is good. Besides that I like to read the authorized version, of 1611.
The primary reasons not to use the NIV are that it isn't translate very literally, and generally speaking is written at a middle school level. Really look into the complexity of the language and you'll see this. The book wasn't designed for people with an education. So while it may seem easier to you, you aren't going as deeper with the text as you could be. Also, the NIV uses some gender neutral language where the originals dont have it, and it once again is translated in a way to improve readability, at the sacrifice of faithfulness to the originals
I understand if you distrust Jesuits now, but Jesuits then were the Church's main defense against heresy, and Saint Ignatius of Loyola is no exception.
An issue I've read about with the NIV is that its translation seems to create a bias against 'traditions' and sometimes uses the word 'teachings' instead of 'traditions' when used in positive contexts. Please read below for more info.
KJV is objectively the best. Anyone saying otherwise are heretics.
The NIV (non inspired version) changes how to be saved based on """"new scrolls""" Same with ESV (extremely sucky version)
The KJV is objectively inferior because it uses the Masoretic text (moar like mass heretic text, amirite) text that were created by apostate Jews several hundred years after the Septuagint was made. It's bad enough that they took out wonderful books from the Old Testament, but they also took out beautiful passages from the books that remained. On top of the KJV just being filled with translation errors.
NKJV is what I read. I prefer it for the more modern language, but it still has many of the same problems as the KJV. Nonetheless, I highly recommend it. It never seems to be mentioned enough in these discussions.
I was wondering where the daily Bible Fight thread was …
Why? What do you think Jesuits are?
Everyone should take a look at Murdock's Peshitta NT. It could be a respite from the perpetual Cath-Prot bickering. It wasn't even translated by a practicing eastern Christian but as with Brenton's LXX translation, it's pretty reliable nonetheless. Being a translation from an Aramaic language source, the Aramaisms get translated also. I also find it more reliable and convenient than the other main Peshitta translations. archive.org/details/newtestament00murd/page/n9
The American King James is better although it only appears to be available in digital form. The NKJV makes numerous questionable changes to the original KJV text throughout.
I am disappoint
I grew up in a jesuit school and the brand of Christianity they thought was really not in line with the Bible and basically just memorization and repetition without Spirit.
I will singlehandedly debunk the whole "KJV is infallible/divinely inspired" argument.
Ask yourself if god really would wait ~1600 years after the death of Christ to finally give unto us his Word, collected and compiled into an official canon? If as some Protestants say, the Bible is the only thing necessary to understand Christianity and to come closer to God, and if you also accept that God naturally wants to come closer to Him out of his love for us, then it cannot naturally follow that he would only give us the best version of the Bible centuries later, presumably allowing earlier Christians to use false or heretical Bibles.
I personally would recommend the Douay-Rheims tfw no Haydock Commentary Douay-Rheims, but the RSV-CE and the Knox Bible are excellent from what I understand.
The problem is that they all are using the WH critical text that omits large parts of the original writings. Therefore even a very accurate translation like NASB will be wrong, not because it's a bad translation (on the contrary it's probably the most accurate translation of the critical text there is) but because the source material is maimed.
The kjv only thing refers to English only translations. There's ruckmanites and autists but overall it's English only.
Almost all KJV-Onlyists don't believe we didn't have an inspired Bible until the KJV. Just that the KJV is a perfect English translation and the English ones before are good too. And there are good translations in other languages, there isn't nything special about English or any other langauge.
Okay, even if I were to accept that, that would mean that as long as there have been English translations they have always been imperfect, in which case you would have to revert to the assumption that they weren't divinely inspired. But all Bibles are necessarily, to one extent or another, divinely inspired. Even the Message Translation has within it the truth about Christianity, albeit written down dreadfully. Even if the language itself is all screwed up, it is still the metaphoric lie based on a kernel of truth, and you're still stuck believing that if only for English speaking Christians, God would wait hundreds of years to give them a perfect translation.
I wonder if this chart, and by extension, KJV onlyists have actually bothered to compare it textually to other Bible translations of that time. What makes the KJV different or uninspired as opposed to the Douay Rheims, released in full two years prior? Or what even makes it different from other Protestant translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, or Matthew's Bible?
Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's were all released c. 80 years before the KJV and are said to be nearly identical.
The NIV was released in 1978, the NASB in 1971, and the NKJV in 1982. These are just selections from the first column in the chart, roughly made 360 years or so after the original KJV. That's cherrypicking if I've ever seen it