>New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition

>New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition
Is the update any good?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't there just be 1 bible like how there is 1 Quran or Talmud? Do Christians need software updates every once in a while or something?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Why can't there just be 1 bible like how there is 1 Quran or Talmud?
      homie, you are not even moronic you are just not even wrong.
      First of all, Talmud is not one. It is a word referring to many different books that are separate from each other.
      Second, a schizo neopagan larp about ancient Europe is not a Bible. And Bible is one book, different translations dont make it multiple book.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the Quran was controlled by a central power from the very beginning. the copies of the text circulating the christian communities were not controlled by any church, so by the 4th century you already have slight variations in the gospels, some added words here and there, some books more popular than others, etc. when it comes to textual criticism, it's actually remarkable how close the Bible is to early christianity. for example, we have quotations from church fathers before we even have original manuscripts of the New Testament, and we can compare those quotes to the text. this is why they're so many variations and Bibles, although the difference in translation from the original languages is also a problem

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There are more than 60+ mushaf of the Quran each with their own recitations.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This is why

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Your earliest complete manuscripts are third century. So you can only reconstruct back to that point. There’s no way to know what changes crept up in the copies before that. Even if you could reconstruct the original, how would you know if it was done successfully? You don’t have the original to compare it to. Scholars are still trying to reconstruct it even after 2,000 years it’s not complete. They’re now relying on computers to compare manuscript variants and make the right choice. Maybe in another 2,000 years it will be complete and people can finally come to know the word of God.

        • 1 year ago
          Dirk

          weak bait

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >So you can only reconstruct back to that point.
          That's radical skepticism that even hostile scholars like Bart Ehrman don't accept. First of all it's simply wrong because there are 2nd century fragments all of which are consistent with the complete manuscripts, but even if 3rd century manuscripts was the best we had they still give you a picture that goes well before themselves because they didn't drop out of thin air, and they are all generally consistent with each other.
          >You don’t have the original to compare it to. Scholars are still trying to reconstruct it even after 2,000 years it’s not complete
          You say that like we just don't know what the New Testament said. There isn't a single hole in the New Testament text, or even the Old Testament for that matter. We possess complete readings for every verse of the bible, the only question is which of the several readings we possess is the original. For example does Jude 5 say Lord, or does it say Jesus? That's the kind of work New Testament textual critics have to do, textual critics of other works like Plato's corpus would kill to have access to a fraction of as much data as bible scholars.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We also possess texts from varied regions, as well as translations into other ancient languages (Syriac, Latin, etc.). If there was some massive corruption it would be notable somewhere in the translation stream, in some language.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Also it seems like the main "corruption" that occurred was slightly modifying texts to read better in a liturgical setting. That is, where the text said "he" (referring to Jesus contextually), it's changed to "Jesus" so it can be read aloud on its own. This is innocuous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            On the liturgical point, that also explains how many of these "corruptions" are just adding the word "Amen" to the end of sections or books.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yep

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >That's radical skepticism that even hostile scholars like Bart Ehrman don't accept

            Funny you say that, because Bart Ehrman is where I first heard the argument from in his debate with James White. He said we can’t reconstruct the first century originals. Goes to show you’re just a name dropping psued.

            And it’s not just “Lord” vs “Jesus”. It’s “God” vs “Jesus” and Jesus appearing to be injected into Old Testament quotations about YHWH, that are the contested variants. Pretty big deal when it comes to proving if Jesus is God or not when debating israelites and Muslims.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >He said we can’t reconstruct the first century originals.
            That is literal nonsense. It is an objective fact that the first-century originals are in the Nestle-Aland edition, either in the text itself or in the textual apparatus waiting for additional manuscripts to elevate the reading into the text itself.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Watch this part 34:35

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Funny you say that, because Bart Ehrman is where I first heard the argument from in his debate with James White. He said we can’t reconstruct the first century originals. Goes to show you’re just a name dropping psued.
            I don't think you understood Ehrman, because Ehrman was saying this about a few words in a single verse, not the entire text, and on an entirely different basis than your insane skepticism
            >And it’s not just “Lord” vs “Jesus”. It’s “God” vs “Jesus” and Jesus appearing to be injected into Old Testament quotations about YHWH, that are the contested variants
            You have absolutely 0 clue what you're talking about, stop embarrassing yourself. The major variant in Jude 5 is kyrios vs Iesous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            1 Corinthians 10:9
            We must not put Christ* to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents.

            Variant: Lord / Christ

            Numbers 21:6
            Then YHWH sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died.

            So if the Christ variant is the correct one, then Jesus is YHWH. If Lord, then israelites and Muslim criticism still stands.

            Get fricked israelite worshipper.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >He said we can’t reconstruct the first century originals
            You don't understand what he means. He means we can't reproduce exactly what the 1st century original was, that doesn't mean we can't know what the texts looked like before the 3rd century, and it certainly doesn't mean the original wouldn't be quite similar to the scholarly reconstruction with some passages being slightly different.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, playing word games with me isn’t go to change what he said. Bart destroyed you in that vid. James White looked like a homosexual and has the mannerisms of Frasier Crane.

            Scholars using CBGM say we can’t reconstruct the original, we can only make our best guess.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, playing word games with me isn’t go to change what he said. Bart destroyed you in that vid. James White looked like a homosexual and has the mannerisms of Frasier Crane.

            Scholars using CBGM say we can’t reconstruct the original, we can only make our best guess.

            You're bringing up James White like he's some textual criticism authority. He got his doctorate as a degree mill, so I don't see why I should care about what he says.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hey baby I hear the blues a-callin’
            Tossed salads and scrambled eggs

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            Where'd you get yours?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ehrman isn't "hostile" to the Bible or Christianity. Nine out of ten times what comes out of his mouth is the most milquetoast consensus position you'd find in top universities like Yale or Oxford. The other 10% is original ideas that aren't particularly well-accepted by other scholars nor heretical enough to get angry about.
            Fundies just seem to think he's the devil himself because (a) they absolutely hate the concept critical scholarship in general, (b) he provides in his popular books in simple words access to common academic knowledge that comes as a surprise to those who only listen to Pastor JimBob with education from Pensacola Degree Mill, and (c) he's willing to publicly debate anyone from consevative scholars to apologists.
            As for his personal beliefs, he's a gentle polite agnostic who lost his fundie faith not through anything he discovered through his biblical studies but by the philosophical problem of evil.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Ehrman isn't "hostile" to the Bible or Christianity. Nine out of ten times what comes out of his mouth is the most milquetoast consensus position you'd find in top universities like Yale or Oxford
            So very hostile, got it
            >they absolutely hate the concept critical scholarship in general
            When you say "critical", do you mean hostile?
            >he provides in his popular books
            What he provides in his popular books and his popular speaking is red meat to his audience of low IQ anti-Christian atheists because he basically sees you as vermin whose only purpose in life is to provide him wealth
            >he's willing to publicly debate anyone from consevative scholars to apologists
            As long as they pay up front
            >he's a gentle polite agnostic
            Lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians
            >IQ

            You believe in Noah’s Ark.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You believe bananas are your ancestors

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Gene sequencing comparison shows our DNA has 40% in common with bananas. That is because we all descend from the same tree of life going back to the first cell.

            I knew you were a moron since you first started talking. Keep thumping that Bible against your head, moron. I’m sure Jesus is going to fly out of the sky and save you any day now. He’s only 2,000 years late.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You believe bananas are your ancestors.
            >Yes.
            Who's supposed to be the moron again?
            Look I can accept descending from chimps, but not fricking bananas, okay? I don't give a shit about what the science says, it's fricking wrong.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Who's supposed to be the moron again?

            You are.

            Look, it’s not my fault you can’t comprehend what I told you. I think you’re more suited for the Bronze Age fairy tale explanation of life and the universe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Your ridicule is pretty empty in the wake of telling the world a banana is your grandpa

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Again, you’re unable to comprehend what I told you. You need to stop, you’re making the rest of the Christians here look bad.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe this is why atheists like to get intimate with bananas

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You want to talk about bananas?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Bronze Age explanation makes more sense than coming from a fricking banana.
            If reality is THAT absurd then I don't see why anyone should object to anything in the Bible ever again.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What makes you think humans and bananas didn’t descend from a common origin?

            >MUH israelite GAWD DID IT

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            At that point the "israelite God" is more reasonable.
            Seethe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >”Seethe.”

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes you think humans and bananas didn’t descend from a common origin?
            My brain works.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You have banana mush for brains.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No problem then, just being my father's son according to you

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans can’t come from apes!
            >Why yes, Jesus is his own father and his own son.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus is the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are also not father and son in an earthly way.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, so deep.

            They also don’t exist.

            I promise you this, Jesus is never going to return, and you will not be going to live in a magic castle in the sky after you die.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's nice. Do you have anything of value to say or are you just here to tip your fedora?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I’m the only one saying anything of value in this thread and putting you Christian imbeciles in your place.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You believe bananas are your ancestors.
            >Yes.
            Who's supposed to be the moron again?
            Look I can accept descending from chimps, but not fricking bananas, okay? I don't give a shit about what the science says, it's fricking wrong.

            Behold, a man!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Frank Turek
        HAHAHAHAHA

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      KJV is a literal translation in English. Objectively the best bible, unless you intend to teach millions of people Greek and Aramaic and have them study the original texts.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >REMOVED

        Late manuscripts KJV used added all those forged verses. That is an objective fact.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Matthew 17:21 was struck because some 4th century codex did not contain it but it dates back to Origen's 3rd century commentaries and other contemporary 4th century codices contain it.

          It is a kind of arrogance on the part of modern scholars, they convince themselves they are more honest and objective than backwards medieval and ancient scholars, but in reality their forebears were genuinely faithful, far more thorough, perhaps had access to texts that have since been lost or missing and did not leap to conclusions.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >commentaries

            Yeah, already looked into that. It’s a bunch of purposely mistranslated garbage done by KJV-Onlyists to make it look like those verses appeared there. Heard it all before.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Matthew 17:21 was struck because some 4th century codex did not contain it but it dates back to Origen's 3rd century commentaries and other contemporary 4th century codices contain it.

          It is a kind of arrogance on the part of modern scholars, they convince themselves they are more honest and objective than backwards medieval and ancient scholars, but in reality their forebears were genuinely faithful, far more thorough, perhaps had access to texts that have since been lost or missing and did not leap to conclusions.

          >commentaries

          Yeah, already looked into that. It’s a bunch of purposely mistranslated garbage done by KJV-Onlyists to make it look like those verses appeared there. Heard it all before.

          Not to mention, many of those added verses aren't even supported by the Byzantine tradition the KJV claims to stem from.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are right to mention that there is a difference between the majority and received text, but the EOB isn't the best way to exemplify either of these. It follows the critical text in places, for instance, in Acts 9:29 the words "in the name of the Lord Jesus" are removed in the EOB. The words "of all the commandments" are removed from Mark 12:29 in the EOB. And the words "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" are removed from Revelation 1:11 in the EOB. The word "Amen" is removed from the ending of John in John 21:25 in the EOB. Additionally, the EOB follows the modern translations/versions in more places through the including the same word changes, such as "damnation" being changed to "sin" in Mark 3:29 in the EOB. And the word "God" is changed to "the throne" in Revelation 20:12 of the EOB. Also the words "his name, and" are added to Revelation 14:1 in the EOB where they do not occur in the received text of Revelation at that place.

            Furthermore the EOB has some inaccurate translation choices that seem to come from modern translations as well. For example, in John 1:18 the term "only begotten" is changed to "unique." In Colossians 2:2, "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;" (3 persons) is changed to "the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ" (2 persons). Also the words "the son of Cainan" are place inside brackets at Luke 3:36 in the EOB, which is not based on any manuscript. This placing of part of the text of Luke 3:36 inside brackets by the EOB editors is not based on any manuscript at all. The ending of Ephesians 3:9, which says "through Jesus Christ" is also placed in angle brackets by the EOB, even though it is in the received text just as much as the rest of Ephesians.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The EOB doesn't follow the TR or the MT 100% because it follows the PT, which is an ecclesiastical text formed from a handful of Greek lectionaries and manuscripts from Mount Athos, Constantinople, Athens, and Jerusalem, specifically in response to the Westcott and Hort critical text of the same time. That graphic isn't about the EOB as a translation; it's about the underlying PT Greek and how it differs from the MT and TR.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" seems like a problematic rendition. Perhaps it would be better rendered as "the mystery of the god and father, and of the christ" or "mystery of the god and father and the christ".

            Beginning with Tyndale it was rendered as "the mistery of God the father and of Christ.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Translation

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The King James Version Bible is more accurate than any of the earlier manuscripts

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Your mind in protestantism. Only an anglo or one infected by anglo mind poison could type this post

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you linking a video of a Black person who says Mary is not the Theotokos? I will not watch this dirt

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's almost impossible to reason with KJV Onlyists. It's basically a cult. We (Protestants) try to deal with this on our own end but there isn't much you can do. Some of them do eventually break the programming at least.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My condolences, my brother in Christ. We (Catholics) rarely even encounter them, they're so far down the rabbithole of King James' arsehole that they rarely even crawl out of the sea of protestant denominations to even encounter us. The most contact I've had is with random morons on the street (In Dublin, Ireland) who read pastor jimbob in America and got sucked up into kjv onlyis

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Wait until you encounter that weird tradcath Douay-Rheims-Onlyist who claims an English translation of a Vulgate translation of a Koine translation of a Hebrew text is the most accurate way to know God because something something Magisterium.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I rarely come onto IQfy these days but I'm sure he'll show up after being summoned. I myself read the DR, but I'm not an onlyist by any means. Knox translation I hear is meant to be good. And regardless, I'd prefer an Irish version if there were any good ones to one in English. I know there are some people who have a particular liking for one revision of the DR over another. That all goes over my head to be honest, I just like to read the Bible

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Knox translation I hear is meant to be good.
            It is. I listen to the audio Gospels, Acts, and Revelation in the Knox translation at work. As Knox himself said, it's not meant to be anyone's primary translation. The Knox had a lot of interesting commentary resources keyed to it back in the day. Other than it, I use the Challoner-Douay, the RSV, sometimes the NRSV, and a few oddballs. Onlyists of any kind are weird. If you're going to be an "onlyist" of something, then become a Greek onlyist lol.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Tradcath Douay-Rheims-Onlyists make less sense because they can be self-contradicting in their onlyism. The more extreme ones who reject the Challoner revision in favor of the original 1582 Rheims, but then praise the Clementine Vulgate, contradict because the 1582 Rheims was based on the older Leuven Vulgate, not the Clementine. So, they can't be both in favor of the original of 1582 and the Clementine Vulgate because the Clementine Vulgate wasn't published until 8-10 years after the Rheims translation was published. That won't stop them from doing so, though. And besides, most of the Clementine additions to the Leuven were removed in the Nova Vulgata, and ironically originated from the Textus Receptus in several places.

            Douay-Rheims-Onlyism also makes no sense because the original Douay-Rheims translators never once claimed their translation was the be-all, end-all. In fact, reading the preface shows they were rather self-loathing about it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm pretty sure that Douay-Rheims-Onlyism is just a joke to make fun of King-James-Onlyism

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Onlyism makes more sense than trusting any modern translations, including the KJV, because Jerome had access to early manuscripts we don’t have today. Are you really going to put your trust in modern day scholars with their fourth century manuscripts as they desperately try to piece that shit together with software like CGBM and have to release a new Bible “update” every few years. Word of God v3.82, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Onlyism makes more sense than trusting any modern translations, including the KJV, because Jerome had access to early manuscripts we don’t have today.
            Sure, but even if you grant that, the Clementine is not Jerome's original. Reading something like Codex Amiatinus will get you closer to Jerome's original Latin. And the closest translation of that is the 1582 Rheims, not the Clementine-based Challoner-Rheism. Hell, Wycliffe's heretical translation is closer to Jerome's Latin than the Challoner.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            God should have preserved the 1582 Rheims then. Now everyone is reading the Queen James translation.

            All this “Which is the true translation???! Which are the correct manuscripts???!” nonsense is just further proof the Bible is not the word of any god.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My condolences, my brother in Christ. We (Catholics) rarely even encounter them, they're so far down the rabbithole of King James' arsehole that they rarely even crawl out of the sea of protestant denominations to even encounter us. The most contact I've had is with random morons on the street (In Dublin, Ireland) who read pastor jimbob in America and got sucked up into kjv onlyis

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Respectfully, my brother in Christ, shove your king james "bible" up your arse. There is more of the Word of God to be found in the ingredients on a shampoo bottle

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            All other translations are heresy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So no one before 1611 was saved?

            You’re a fricking moron dude.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >So no one before 1611 was saved?
            Irrelevant

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Textus Receptus is compiled from 7 late manuscripts, which are proven to have verses added by scribes, and don’t even agree with the rest of the 5,000+ Majority Text. Why would I trust that shit?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So no one before 1611 was saved?

            You’re a fricking moron dude.

            Is this Christlike? Will you be praised before the throne of Jesus for this conduct?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I’m an atheist. Frick your KJV. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the accurate ones.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you here, heathen?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            To show you even I know more about the Bible than you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And if you don't speak english, let's say chinese instead? Which one's the true word of God in chinese and why?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          See

          It's almost impossible to reason with KJV Onlyists. It's basically a cult. We (Protestants) try to deal with this on our own end but there isn't much you can do. Some of them do eventually break the programming at least.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NRSV is one of the MOST pozzed translations, they literally had nonchristian israelites and ATHIEST WOMEN on the translation commitee

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >n-no you can't have israelites translating the israeli holy book, that is gonna make our manipulated "fulfilled prophecies" fanfiction look like sheer bunk!

  4. 1 year ago
    Dirk

    It's alright

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's been a while since I've been here, Dirk. Tell me, do you still shill the CSB?

      • 1 year ago
        Dirk

        The CSB is easily the best recommendation for someone new to the bible and wants to read the whole thing. It's the easiest to read while still faithful to the original text, and the publisher being so large means there's lots of high quality editions for little cost.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I see. I don't have much against it, but I did start to become iffy about it while reading an old book on Pauline theology and noticing in a verse in question only the CSB and the NIV translated it in an overly interpretive way imo, whereas every other translation, from formal to dynamic, translated it word-for-word. Also, I always kinda think about that autistic Orthodox video on the CSB "Ancient Faith Study Bible" where he trashed the whole thing lol. There's also all the baggage from how the CSB owes its existence to the SBC not wanting to pay licensing.

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            What's the video? Sounds highly biased. All it does is insert quotations of the fathers alongside the relevant passages, unlike the OSB which leverages a modern idea of the "orthodox" interpretation onto a protestant translation

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Heh, I never said it was a good video. I always think about it simply because of how over-the-top his hatred was. To date, the fairest video on that Study Bible is R. Grant Jones's. He highlights the good and the bad, and in the end, he recommends it.

            Though, to be fair, the idea of the CSB "Ancient Faith Study Bible" was pretty dumb, tying a translation with highly Masoretic OT usage to patristics footnotes that almost exclusively quoted the LXX readings. And sometimes, because of that, the footnotes aren't very clear. And finally, if you actually have the ACCS series volumes, it's pretty clear how selective the CSB AFSB's patristic mining was.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wait but I thought the word of god was immutable and infallible? Why do people get to muddy it through translation?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the original text, called the autograph, is infallible obviously

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the original text, called the autograph, is infallible obviously

      Do we have the original texts?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        idk, do you?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and no. Some KJV readers will say the english version is a perfect translation of the original texts, for example. Some will say the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church regarding His word. Others will say we must keep finding new manuscripts and studying the greek, in order to know what is the closest to the original.

      • 1 year ago
        Dirk

        We don't have the autographic manuscripts themselves but with an extremely high degree of certainty we have the text of the autographs. The transmissional reliability of the gnt is really not a serious debate.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How does translation "muddy" anything?

      [...]
      Do we have the original texts?

      Texts or manuscripts?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Translations always deviate from the original text, no matter how good they are

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >tapes plastic Bible tabs into a premium goatskin Bible
    Somebody stop me, I'm on the loose.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We like the new Bibles so much that we Burned all of our old Bibles.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Better than the ESV. The ESV has got to be the most astroturfed, forced translation I've ever seen. All the evangelicals claim it's the best, and then I try to read it, and it's just a shittier RSV.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      jews wrote it so beware

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >it's just a shittier RSV
      How do you know? Have you read the original texts? Or do you just pick a translation based on your own subjective preferences?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >How do you know? Have you read the original texts?
        Yes. I've compared hundreds of RSV/ESV verses with known translation variance with the Nestle-Aland Greek text, as well as the RP Majority text and the WH text, and in virtually every place, the RSV has a better, clearer reading than the ESV.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The only difference I know is the first line is default translated as 'When God began to create' rather than 'In the beginning God created'

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That's just adopting the original NRSV's footnote reading, which is the 1985 JPS Tanakh's in-text reading. Weird, but not really out of left field.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > in Genesis 1:2 the RSV’s “and the Spirit of God was moving” has been changed to “a wind from God swept.” In Psalm 23 the RSV’s traditional renderings “valley of the shadow of death” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for ever” are changed to “the darkest valley” and “my whole life long.”

    > The most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, “a young woman shall conceive,” is revised only to put the verb in the present tense and add the definite article: “the young woman is with child.”

    also nrsv uses gender neutral language

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That sounds like "The Message" paraphrase that so many people inaccurately describe as a "translation."

      I like the AMP, fwiw.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      All of these newer verses more accurately reflect the underlying Hebrew, so seems like a good translation overall.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NABRE is all I need, brohirrim.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >NABRE
      Atheist translation. It, along with most Catholic resources, dates Matthew as after 70AD. They do this because Christ prophecies the Temple will be destroyed. This happened in 70AD, therefore their logic is that Jesus could not have possibly known this would happen, so he didn't say it, and thus the writer made it up after the fact and put the words in Jesus's mouth. No Christian can possibly make this argument. The NABRE even tells you that's the reason for its dating of Matthew in its introduction to the book.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >t. doesn't read Goodacre
        ngmi

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The only reason to make this dating claim, for this reason, is that you reject any supernatural truth within Christianity.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Translations don't say a single thing about dating any of the texts. Were you thinking of some kind of a commentary?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The commentary is part of the NABRE as a total work, and it is always published with it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >NABRE
      Atheist translation. It, along with most Catholic resources, dates Matthew as after 70AD. They do this because Christ prophecies the Temple will be destroyed. This happened in 70AD, therefore their logic is that Jesus could not have possibly known this would happen, so he didn't say it, and thus the writer made it up after the fact and put the words in Jesus's mouth. No Christian can possibly make this argument. The NABRE even tells you that's the reason for its dating of Matthew in its introduction to the book.

      Translations don't say a single thing about dating any of the texts. Were you thinking of some kind of a commentary?

      The commentary is part of the NABRE as a total work, and it is always published with it.

      In case you guys aren't aware, the NABRE's final revision is set to be completed in 2025, bringing it fully in line with the lectionary text, and is planned to have both a "full-notes" and a "basic-notes" edition. The "basic-notes" edition seems to be the long-overdue response to people who want to give the NABRE a chance but can't stand how shitty and skeptical the notes can be. Additionally, there's talk that the 2025 revision will be given a brand new name in an effort to distance itself from the reputation of the NAB/NABRE.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > Paul nerfed AGAIN
    > Book of Enoch patched out
    > The Betrayal of Man quest still only rewards 30 pieces of silver

    It's shit

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Only Bibles worth reading are KJV and NIV if you can't read Hebrew. KJV is kino and the dated language makes everything more poetic. NIV is an accurate translation and you don't have to be 160 IQ to understand the text.
    Oh, and don't forget trinityfrens, 1 John 5:7 is a fabrication.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >NIV is an accurate translation
      >NIV
      >accurate

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Oh, and don't forget trinityfrens, 1 John 5:7 is a fabrication.
      It's a good thing that verse has never been essential to the Trinity. In fact, by some readings, the Comma is not even a trinitarian verse.

    • 1 year ago
      Dirk

      Sorry for you that John 1:3 is original

      Heh, I never said it was a good video. I always think about it simply because of how over-the-top his hatred was. To date, the fairest video on that Study Bible is R. Grant Jones's. He highlights the good and the bad, and in the end, he recommends it.

      Though, to be fair, the idea of the CSB "Ancient Faith Study Bible" was pretty dumb, tying a translation with highly Masoretic OT usage to patristics footnotes that almost exclusively quoted the LXX readings. And sometimes, because of that, the footnotes aren't very clear. And finally, if you actually have the ACCS series volumes, it's pretty clear how selective the CSB AFSB's patristic mining was.

      Jones is a treasure

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The comma johaneum isn't a "fabrication", it entered the text by a scribal mistake not tampering

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It entered into the text the same way "blessed art thou among women" entered the Byzantine text version of 1:28, whereas it's only in Luke 1:42 in all other texts. To put things in a modern context, the comma ending up in 1 John 5:7 would sort of be like today if a printer accidentally printed a commentator's marginal note or a footnote for a verse into the text of the verse itself.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Oh, and don't forget trinityfrens, 1 John 5:7 is a fabrication

      Cope. It's in the Latin Vulgate (real Bible) which is 1000+ years older than the KJV and modern meme translations.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >It's in the Latin Vulgate (real Bible)
        Which Latin Vulgate?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The Clementine Vulgate has been the standard printed edition since 1592. Baronius sell an English-Latin version of it, or you can probably find Latin only version if you look for it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But the Clementine Vulgate has Byzantine additions, and even some from the TR. Why not the pre-Clementine Vulgate which underlies the original Douay-Rheims of 1582 and, ironically, has more in common with the modern Nova Vulgata?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >It's in the Latin Vulgate (real Bible)
        Which Latin Vulgate?

        The Clementine Vulgate has been the standard printed edition since 1592. Baronius sell an English-Latin version of it, or you can probably find Latin only version if you look for it.

        among us

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Memes aside, what are the preferred translations for each denomination? I know Protestants are usually KJV or ESV, Catholics typically Douay-Rheims or NABRE or RSV-CE, and Orthodox seem to only have the OSB which is a modified NKJV.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm Catholic and I use the ESV-CE. Am I a heretic?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No, but based on sales, you're one of the few unless you're British or Indian. Apparently, the ESV-CE flopped hard in America so the Augustine Institute, which holds the publishing rights to it, is doing its own new translation called the Catholic Standard Version (CSV), with the Gospel of Matthew releasing first sometime early next year. However, its text actually leaked out already, according to the sleuths at Catholic Bible Talk:
        >https://online.fliphtml5.com/agyab/mdip/#p=1
        It's yet another ASV-based revision, so it'll probably flop, too.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a Catholic who goes to the Traditional Latin Mass.

    In English I prefer to read the Douay-Rheims.

    In Irish I like Father Peadar Ua Laoghaire's translation from the Latin Vulgate into the Irish language (those fragments that have been published, the unpublished manuscripts are in Gaynooth University). There's only 1 fully published Irish language Bible, the Maynooth Bible, that had protestants as part of its translation team. If there were other options I'd disavow it, but for Masses in the Irish language it's the only option as Father Peadar Ua Laoghaire's work will probably never see the public light of day.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Looking into translations was my first big black pill on the fact that God does not preserve his word, or protect his manuscripts, or oversee his translations. All this shit is man made and there is no God. That’s why it’s such a mess, just as you would expect.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      In addition to forgetting to greentext your post, you also forgot to post an image of a soijak

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This is how I know I’ve won. You have no argument. Nothing.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You did it again

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Can you show me the original first century Greek manuscript so I can compare the accuracy of your Queen James translation?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You don't need any old manuscripts. As I said earlier, the King James Version Bible is more accurate than any older manuscript

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And why is it more accurate?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            See

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef6ozJb-XZE

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Public Domain Bible Translations:

            ASV
            DARBY
            Douay-Rheims
            Geneva
            NHEB
            WEB
            YLT

            NET is free

            It means nothing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant. The King James Version Bible is the literal word of God

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Every time you get BTFO you say “irrelevant”. It’s pathetic.

            Which version of the King James Version is the word of God?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Every time you get BTFO you say “irrelevant”. It’s pathetic.
            Irrelevant
            >Which version of the King James Version is the word of God?
            The real one

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The 1611 "he" Bible or the 1611 "she" Bible?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The King James Version is a half-assed revision of the Bishop's Bible.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            As someone who has studied the English translations, I can tell you that in practice this is not true. It is closer to the Geneva Bible than the Bishop's. Though all three of these Bible translations, in their main text at least, are vastly more similar than anything made today, including supposed TR translations made today like the NKJV (see how the NKJV reverses the meaning of Hebrews 3:16 for example, or where "uncorruptness" is de-linked from "doctrine" in Titus 2:7 and 2 Cor. 2:17 in the NKJV, or where "Son" is changed to "servant" in Acts 3:13 & 26 in the NKJV).

            The 1611 "he" Bible or the 1611 "she" Bible?

            The 1900 format is the most technically correct edition of the KJV, but some of the earlier editions like the 1611 "he" Bible had some unintended typos in them that were pretty quickly fixed by the translators in subsequent printings. For instance, the 1611 1st edition (called the "he" bible) repeated a sentence twice in Exodus 14:10. This repeated sentence wasn't intended by the translators, it was just a printing mistake that was soon fixed. All future editions of the KJV correctly had the sentence a single time with no repetition in it (and I should add the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles and many earlier translations had Exodus 14:10 as normal as well, becaue clearly it was just a typo in one particular printing of the KJV).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Revised Version of 1895 has most of the apocrypha.

            I prefer its use of "Lord" in the OT to the ASV's "Jehovah", but I prefer the ASV's use of "Holy Spirit" over "Holy Ghost" as "spirit" links up better with other terms related to it and uses of the word than "ghost".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There's an Interlinear Bible with the KJV/RV text. I'd recommend it to get the RV text.

    • 1 year ago
      Dirk

      There are zero significant textual variant issues which impact doctrine and zero significant translation issues which impact doctrine. No translation team claims inerrancy or that their version is the only acceptable way to translate a given package.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The bible is there to be believed in, not to read from.
    Now give all your money to the pope/patriarch/preacher.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Unless you're going to be really serious about the details of languages and translations of the bible just buy a rsv, the very first rsv not the nrsv, if you want something in more modern english, and a kjv to get a sense for why it was so impactful on a long line of well regarded english speaking authors. After hours of reading about translations I've repeatedly found it boils down to the rsv being the least contentious 20th century translation for general use.
    After that there are translations that may be quite literal for the sake of studying more in depth and comparing but the experience can be like watching paint dry. And other more lesser known novelty translations someone can get as extras like the knox bible or richmond lattimore's new testament

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >After hours of reading about translations I've repeatedly found it boils down to the rsv being the least contentious 20th century translation for general use.
      Yep. At the end of the day, while it was contentious in its original 1952 form in its day, there's nobody today who genuinely finds the RSV-CE or RSV71 controversial. It's sufficiently literal without being wooden, and there's really no Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox who will look at you funny for citing or quoting it. The NRSV has all the baggage from being perceived as "liberal" and the ESV has all the baggage from being perceived as "Calvinist", whereas the RSV doesn't really have any baggage anymore.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There's a reasons Catholics tried to move to the ESV. Very funny that Crossway fricked them, though. The Holy Infallible Creator, Owner, and Interpreter of scripture should be able make its own translations IMO.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, the Augustine Institute tried their hardest to shill the ESV-CE, but as

          No, but based on sales, you're one of the few unless you're British or Indian. Apparently, the ESV-CE flopped hard in America so the Augustine Institute, which holds the publishing rights to it, is doing its own new translation called the Catholic Standard Version (CSV), with the Gospel of Matthew releasing first sometime early next year. However, its text actually leaked out already, according to the sleuths at Catholic Bible Talk:
          >https://online.fliphtml5.com/agyab/mdip/#p=1
          It's yet another ASV-based revision, so it'll probably flop, too.

          said, it flopped in America. Digging deeper into Catholic Bible circles to find out why reveals a combination of factors: the Bible in a Year podcast using the RSV-CE came out around the same time and caused RSV-CE sales to soar at just the time the ESV-CE would've gotten its early adopters; the very "conservative" Catholics who would've been drawn to the ESV-CE were turned off by its rendering of a few select passages; there were not, and still aren't, good printed editions of the ESV-CE for reasonable prices and no commentary/study resources tied to it like other editions, likely due to Crossway restricting them; and finally, a recent book by the Augustine Institute's Dr. Mark Giszczak, which was a full-on apologia for the ESV-CE, was met with backlash when people read it and realized how manipulative and deceptive it was in its "history of the Bible," essentially acting like the only Bibles that existed between the KJV and ESV were the NIV and NRSV. There's no wonder the Augustine Institute has decided to do its own "[X] Standard Version" Bible translation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >there were not, and still aren't, good printed editions of the ESV-CE for reasonable prices and no commentary/study resources tied to it like other editions, likely due to Crossway restricting them
            That was enough to kneecap it. I'm surprised Crossway even allowed it at all.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that the ESV Diadem w/Apocrypha now exists, with the same translations of the deuterocanonicals as in the CE, coupled with just how minor the changes in the CE NT text were (half of which, it turns out, were just capitalizing the word Council), made people realize the Augustine Institute's offering seemed like a scam. Any Catholic wanting the ESV is just buying the Diadem, which actually has cross-references unlike the CE, and anyone who doesn't want the ESV obviously wasn't going to buy it anyway. Crossway's kneecapping has simply given the latter group a better excuse than "I don't like the translation." Instead, they can argue "I would've considered it had it had actual support." They wouldn't have, but they can say they would've.

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            >Flopped
            How do you figure? It at least exists, it has a valid imprimatur, and being a simple revision I can't imagine much cost went into it. Crossway and Augustine inst. couldn't have thought it was going to supplant any other catholic version.
            I think it's analogous to those catholic adaptations of the Anglican prayer books.

            >there were not, and still aren't, good printed editions of the ESV-CE for reasonable prices and no commentary/study resources tied to it like other editions, likely due to Crossway restricting them
            That was enough to kneecap it. I'm surprised Crossway even allowed it at all.

            Crossway is keen to allow something like that since the ESV itself was born out of the refusal to make an RSV evangelical edition

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you figure?
            Why would the Augustine Institute start its own "Catholic Standard Version" translation now if the ESV-CE was going swimmingly? No major American Catholic authors adopted it, all the countries that did adopt it are outside of the Augustine Institute's distributorship, and they ironically have to rely on Ignatius Press (sellers of the RSV-2CE) to let them advertise the ESV-CE in the Ignatius catalog.
            >Crossway is keen to allow something like that since the ESV itself was born out of the refusal to make an RSV evangelical edition
            It was explicitly stated in the earliest years that troubles were brewing when Catholics attempting to use the ESV-CE for bulletins were finding themselves having to get approval from Crossway; it was a nightmare then, and it probably hasn't smoothed over still.

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            I didn't know about a catholic standard version, and I didn't know about bulletin issues. Where can I find out about the "csv"?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's the funny thing, the CSV hasn't even been officially announced yet. Sleuths over at Catholic Bible Talk discovered a listing, and then after reaching out to AI, got some vague PR speak. Then, after more digging, they found the text of Matthew in the CSV had already been uploaded to the AI's site.
            >https://online.fliphtml5.com/agyab/mdip/#p=1
            Picrel is all the information we have about the rest of the project.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ESV has the best editions. I got pic related on sale during Black Friday. Truly the greatest reading experience possible.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What is it? Why is the bible in several volumes here?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's printed like a normal book in paragraphs on paper with normal thickness. It's not only to give you a better quality reading experience but to mirror the way the texts were originally written, not divided up into artificial segments, but presented as a singular whole.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's a reader's edition. It's in several volumes because it has thicker paper like regular books, and it has no verse numbers or chapter divisions. That way, you have zero distractions while reading, and the experience lets you remember that chapter and verse divisions were not original to the text.

          To clarify the new editions do have the chapter and verse numbers included (in an unobtrusive way), due to customer demand.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Meh, that's disappointing. I have an edition of the Knox translation Gospels from the 50s without chapter or verse divisions and it's a pleasant read.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          To really replicate an original reading experience what would be done is for it to be released in separate volumes for each book except maybe the Torah and that the NT text be without spacing and in all caps.

          Blackletter typefaces such as that which was banned by the Nazis for being too israeli would also be suitable for imitating the font of traditional Hebrew scrolls although they were most likely originally written in less ornamental forms and scripts like Phoenician.

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            To really really replicate the original reading you should have to go to a relatively rich guy's house and hear the epistles read (you're illiterate)
            Also nobody showers or wears closed toed shoes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's more of a reenactment which pretty common probably.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >go to a relatively rich guy's house and hear the epistles read (you're illiterate)
            wow, Dirk just reinvented liturgy.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's a reader's edition. It's in several volumes because it has thicker paper like regular books, and it has no verse numbers or chapter divisions. That way, you have zero distractions while reading, and the experience lets you remember that chapter and verse divisions were not original to the text.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, just stick with the RSV. It's fine.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Question: Is it just because my eyes are shit or is there a reason red letters are so hard to read? I know I'm not colorblind btw. I have a red-letter edition in front of me and feel I have to squint to read them.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    too many plot holes, even for fiction
    >he is his own son
    what did he mean by this

    • 1 year ago
      Dirk

      The son is not the father

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What's the best-looking online format for a Bible? Asking for a web designer friend who's thinking of hosting a peculiar text of the Bible on a website but doesn't know yet if he wants to rip off Logos Bible Software's layout, eBible.org's layout, or try something new. To help him out, I thought it might be beneficial to ask people used to reading the Bible what kind of formatting would appeal to them the most.

    • 1 year ago
      Dirk

      I like biblewebapp, and the software is free so if this peculiar text is already a sword module he could just host it, no design required

      • 1 year ago
        Dirk

        Correction, the software is called browser bible and the main site running it is bible web app.com

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Correction, the software is called browser bible and the main site running it is bible web app.com

        Thanks. And no, it's not. It's an obscure 19th-century translation that he wants to OCR, clean up and fix for scan errors, and then host.

        • 1 year ago
          Dirk

          Is it on archive.org?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Amazingly, no. He got it from an antique dealer and the only proof it ever existed, other than him physically owning it now, is that it's appeared in those old "English Versions of the Bible" catalog books from those days.

          • 1 year ago
            Dirk

            That's neat. He should upload the pdf to archive. What's it called?

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Since a new translation is out, has there been any talk of a new edition of the NOAB? Its notes are somewhat outdated by now compared to HarperCollins Study Bible

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Eventually. It's all a racket, so we always have to wait a few years, like always, even though the same scholars working on the revision should've been keeping a running textual commentary in the process so the study materials could be released simultaneously, but as you know, nothing is allowed to be easy or streamlined. For reference, the original NRSV came out in 1989, and the original Harper Study Bible NRSV and NOAB NRSV didn't come until 1991

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >I’m the only one saying anything of value in this thread and putting you Christian imbeciles in your place.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, I’ve shown how everything you say is flawed. You have nothing but old Reddit memes. That’s how I know I’ve won.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I use ESV because it is what the elders at my church use.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *