I am conflicted between the two versions. I also want to know if it's necessary to read Northrop Frye's the great code (and the associated lectures) before starting the Bible? One anon recommended it and told me it's great scaffolding for when I read the actual Bible but it seems daunting(30 plus lectures)(and the reviews seem more mixed than I thought). But I have too many books to read but too little time and I don't want to overwhelm myself. I have to get started on the Bible very soon (as I promised someone I'll start reading it soon). So I want your thoughts on this.
I've never heard of that lecture series but you can definitely just go straight into the book with one of the Gospels, Genesis, and the book of Romans, to quickly get the essentials of the Christian picture
>>25494061Understood anon. That's a relief to hear.
>>25494055Bump. I would like to know as well.
>>25494055>I have too many books to read but too little time and I don't want to overwhelm myself.Then save yourself time and don't read the bible.
>>25494055I would take an introductory survey course in the Bible and read along with it if I was in the positio, of Norton Fries is inn. But I just read the whole thing from cover to cover which took about 17 years.
>>25494334>positio, of Norton Fries is inn. What?
>>25494055Wtf are you talking about? Simply get the KJV, read genesis and the gospels, then decide what you want. You can just skim genesis if you are so inclined.
>>25495288KJV is full of errors. Stop recommending it. NSRV is fine.
>>25495346So what? They are all full of errors. If it's your first time why not read the most important and widely-known version?
NRSV-UE's version of 2 Peter 2:17-22 is pretty lame compared to KJVNRSV-UE:>17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the deepest darkness has been reserved.>18 For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with debased desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. >19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, for people are slaves to whatever masters them. >20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. >21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was handed on to them. >22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb,>“The dog turns back to its own vomit,”>and,>“The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”KJV:>17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. >18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. >19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. >20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. >21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. >22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.it almost feels like they've tried to ruin some of the better-known phrasing on purpose, particularly 17, which has a wonderful poetry in KJVin 18, "bombastic nonsense" is a very poor substitute for "great swelling words of vanity", and here again they've avoided the very recognizable "lusts of the flesh" for no good reasonsaying 'handed on' instead of 'delivered' in 21 just seems needlessly awkwardI also take issue with saying 'mud' instead of 'mire' in 22that said, through various samplings NRSV-UE generally doesn't seem that bad, but when it seems to deliberately divorce itself from the literary heritage of the Bible it's deeply unpalatable
>>25495437The oxford edition is NSRV not NSRVue.
>>25495400>So what? They are all full of errors.The KJV has more errors than NSRV.
>>25495447Whatever. Any English speaker should simply read the KJV then worry about what errors it might have later if they are interested. Any other course of action is retarded larping.
>>25495444there are only a few differences between them in this passage, although NRSV is slightly superior to UE in that it says 'passed on' in 21 rather than 'handed on'that aside, say it with me now: N-R-S-V
My thoughts, you say? I think you'll find the course more meaningful if you read through at least some of the principal books of the Bible first before taking a course about it.
>>25494271How the fuck is this one paragraph so shocking to you that you keep posting it? First of all, this is tame as fuck compared to half the shit you find in the OT, secondly, have you seriously never read any other texts from around this time period before that this seems so off-putting to you?
>>25495746Oops Just saw my mistake. I downloaded the N-R-S-V Oxford annotated version and I'll start reading it today.
>>25494128I'd highly recommend reading the Gospel of Luke first of all since it's the most comprehensive and imo best written
>>25494055I read the entire NRSV. It’s hard to go wrong with it. Very clear and approachable. Annotations were a little hit or miss, but helpful. I considered skipping the huge apocrypha section, then found it much more interesting on average. I do have some regrets about choosing it over the far more iconic KJV, but this stuff requires multiple reads.
>>25495828Mark is the kinoest.
