Why can nobody with an IQ under 110 accept this is the definitive English Bible? The KJV was produced by a corrupt institution formed so Henry the 8th could coom. It has countless fake verses added to it. KJV goobers can only gaslight and strawman their way around these facts.
its the word of god and you chose a corrupted version? read the orginal texts, untranslated.
Not religious but as a piece of literature, the KJV has the best prose
>>25036876No, he said he didn't pick the KJV
>>25036894good goy
>>25036863I am fond of the ESV for its use of the word 'beloved'. The NIV is my favorite for accuracy and NRSV is good as well.
>>25036902All reasonable picks.
>faggot, jew and papist translators>so shitty they had to update it less than 33 years after it was first published
>>25036863As an ESL atheist, who is only culturally and historically interested in Christianity, I consider to try these versions:The Hebrew Bible translated by Robert AlterKJV for English language's sakeNRSVUE for actual story
>>25036863>why>definitiveBecause its producers have a capricious political agenda.
>>25037002>In one sense every translation is a commentary: every translation involves the process of decision making with respect to words and ideas. Thus a perfect translation will not be found. Even those translations produced by a check-and-balance system utilizing a team of scholars will inevitably reflect the individual or corporate bias of the translators. Such bias is frequently kept at a minimum and should not be cause of alarm. But the reader should be aware of this human frailty of translation.>By and large, the New Jerusalem Bible is a superb translation, but on close examination it is not difficult to discern that it was produced by Roman Catholics. The Revised Standard Version deserved the widespread use it enjoyed, but again, elements of liberal theology could be discerned within it.. The New American Standard translation reveals its conservative bent. These are not reasons for wholesale rejection of such translations, but are words of caution that such tendencies not be overlooked.I stick to the KJV, the NASB and thr ESV. I also make use of interlinear bibles that display the Greek and Hebrew along side the English translation, Bible dictionaries and word studies. No translation is perfect. I recommend R. C. Sproul's "Knowing Scripture", from which the above was quoted. It's a short ~150 page read intended as a crash course in Biblical study and exegesis and the various tools and methods a student of the Bible would find useful.
Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible for the Old Testament. His commentary explains his translation choices in detail, when he used the Septuagint or Aramaic or Syriac instead of the Masoretic due to probable errors, etc. He also explains parallelisms and puns, explaining how word play often structures a narrative and is set up to make points hit home. He tries to mimic the fact that much of the poetry in the earlier books is from much older Hebrew by affecting an older form of English diction. He keeps all than "ands" ("wa") that are naturally in Hebrew and Arabic, etc., and the "Look/behold" present tense narration.And then the notes also point out how the language is used to reinforce the literary structure. Plus, the translation is quite readable. He keeps the grammatical structure as close to the original as possible since this often serves a literary function.As he points out in the introduction, many Bibles go so far into interpretation they are essentially paraphrase and instruction.
>>25037250For the NT Hart isn't actually bad. He goes very literal and tries to keep a feel for how the Greek varies by author and isn't particularly polished for some (indeed, it can be awkward and run on). He leaves ambiguity instead of try to interpret it more often.
>>25036863Ah yes the pro-immigrant boyfucking institution is the noncorrupt one.
>>25037256Protestants get caught touching kids way more they just can't be universally attacked since they belong to 40k denominations.
>>25036863>fake verses addedhaha cite them thats what verse numbering is for
>>25036971>KJV for English language's sakekjv is definitive. every pre kjv is incomplete and every post kjv is a commentary on kjv
>>25036960>33 yearsThere’s that number again
>>25036902>NIV>Accurate Pick one
>>25038191They're called new world order translations for a reason.
Nasb95 for me thanks.
>>25036863Douay-Rheims or nothing (for English).
>>25036960>learned more things>updated the translation to reflect new thingsYes.
>>25037775There's a KJV-onlyist that will post his dumb chart soon enough.
>>25037775Baptist retards need the KJV because it contains a fake verse claiming the Trinity. Of course, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc aren't affected by this because we have the Nicene Creed.
>>25039109Can't wait for the schizo theory that the Codex Vaticanus had it removed despite that not making any sense.
Niv for readingKjv for quotes and proseEsv for accuracy
>>25039164>Esv for accuracy>μονογενής = only
>>25036863KJV > NIV > everything else.
