Best Bible translation?
>>18544767Robert Alter's translation
The Doauy-Rheims with the Appendix to the Old Testament.
>>18544767In English? The King James Bible.Go ahead and keep a Textus Receptus, LXX, Masoretic Text, and Vulgate by your side to check over it. KJV mogs and is by far the best English translation; it uses all of the aforementioned texts to correct itself.
Anything but Schofield
>>18544894This also. Do not use "study bibles".
>>18544767There is no objective best Bible translation because Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek do not translate 1:1 with English, leaving lot of the original authors intent up to interpretation since it often requires context. Look up "Dynamic and formal equivalence" translation types if you want to know moreIf you want to read the Bible from a purely academic perspective, most scholars and Seminaries recommend the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE) or sometimes the English Standard Version (ESV). If you suffer from brain damage then I recommend the King James Version.
>>18544901>If you suffer from brain damage then I recommend the King James Version.Arrogant mocking aside, if you don't know how to conjugate English, then the Modern English Version is a good runner-up.
>>18544904That's the least of the KJVs problems, in fact I actually like some of the poetic license and old English-isms of the KJV, the problem is that it was literally written before many original texts were re-discovered such as the Dead Sea Scrolls which actually makes newer translations much closer to the original text. If you care about authenticity then stay away from the KJV
>>18544909No original texts have been discovered.The DSS are not original texts. Surely you know this.
>>18544896I use the Bible in OP, which I guess is a study Bible since it has a lot of quotes from Church Fathers and Josemaría Escrivá as well as commentary. I think it's pretty good for a Catholic Bible. It takes up 17 whole volumes physically, but I just read it digitally.
>>18544925Ultimately, commentaries are never good. Almost especially if it's many different commentators. You are NOT getting each commentator's specific hermeneutic for the entire Bible. You are getting cherry picked snippets from each of them.If you want to know how any particular Church Father interpreted passages, you are best off reading their respective commentaries or homilies in full. The problem of Bible commentaries is that you are at the mercy of whoever put the commentary itself together. And if you just ignore it, then it means the commentary was unnecessary in the first place.
>>18544901I've primarily been using the NRSVue over the past year because of its prevalence in academia, but it's annoying how it unnecessarily uses gender-neutral language. There are also a lot of phrases that'll have a footnote that's like "the literal translation of this is [what's in the KJV]". If it's so much better than the KJV, then why does the KJV use the actual translation while the NRSVue just paraphrases it?
>>18544768This
>>18544767Get on my level.
>>18544767Reina Valeria 1960https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kloocmbsc9k
>>18544891>KJV mogsI want off this timeline.
>>18544767King James Vivle
>>18544949>but it's annoying how it unnecessarily uses gender-neutral language.IIRC it's because Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek uses a lot of gendered language to denote context that English doesn't have so they'll use gender-neutral language and then clarify with aforementioned footnotes. It's not elegant but it's meant to be a good compromise and alternatives to translators haphazardly writing around this instead
>>18544767New World Translation
>>18544767Wycliffe, a late version, naturally.
Joseph Smith Translation
Best Catholic Bible in German?
>>18545996Lutherbibel 1545
>>18544767Liberation Theology Bible from the Philippines.
>>18544767someone tell me what the binding on the orthodox study bible looks like
>>18546265Sounds unironically interesting, is it in English?
