Is there a recent translation of the Bible that has been translated from the original Hebrew? What translation do modern scholars use?
>>39708976The most accurate English translation of the Bible is The King James Version (KJV). Its old English and can be a challenging read, which is why they made the English Standard Version (ESV) in 2001, which translated the old English of the KJV to modern English.
>>39708976Doesn't matter because without the Holy Spirit you won't understand or get anything of real value. So basically, just have your pick at any trusted translation. IE avoid mormons/JWs/and those weird sects version of the Bible.
>>39708976The original texts were also in Greek and Aramaic.
>>39709004https://www.bartehrman.com/most-accurate-bible-translation/>The ESV has a great emphasis on doctrinal purity which means that in the cases of variant readings, theological accuracy is the “measuring stick.” Needless to say, this kind of “theological favoritism” reveals an important devotional bias that can reduce the quality of the translation.Hmm....At a glance a common opinion seems to be that the NASB is best for literal word-for-word translation, and the NIV is good for readability. The KJV sometimes has the nicest phrasings, but I think most modern Christians would benefit from substituting it with something they can definitely 100% understand with ease instead.Also, for the New Testament, I think I like DB Hart's recent translation, though I haven't read all of it. It's intended to be quite literal, avoids stereotyped vocabulary, tries to keep to the original style of each book instead of homogenizing them, and has lots of footnotes explaining his thought process for how he translates (or sometimes chooses not to translate) certain words.
>>39709290The link I shared actually describes the NRSV as "the gold standard of English Bible translations for Bible Scholars" I haven't read much of it at all though myself.
Lamsa translated his version directly from Aramaic so it has the advantage of being only once removed from the source material. Scholars don’t like it which tells me it must be good, they’re probably upset they couldn’t get their grubby claws all over it.It reads well too.http://superbook.org/LAMSA/http://superbook.org/LAMSA/ot
i tried reading the bible but couldn't make sense of any of it. so i gave it to my junkie lady friend to use as rolling papers
>>39709337your lady friend will be sorely disappointed when she realizes the pages are filled with printed ink.
>>39709320>it has the advantage of being only once removed from the source materialIt's Lamsa's opinion that his Aramaic texts are the source material, but that's what most scholars disagree with. Most scholars believe the books were originally written in Greek.The example given on Wikipedia where Lamsa's text disagrees with the Greek texts makes me lean toward his texts not being the original as well, since, in Mattthew, it has Jesus on the cross saying: Eli, Eli lemana shabakthan!My God, my God, for this I was spared! Instead of Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?that is to say,My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?(Quoting Psalm 22)And the Aramaic seems like exactly the sort of subtle but awkward adjustment someone might make to the text later because the idea of Jesus crying out about being forsaken was theologically uncomfortable for them.
>>39709290The upside of a translation that errs on the side of preserving weird but potentially intended meanings is that you'll probably notice "Hey, that doesn't seem like what they teach in Sunday school." And then you can google the passage to find a ton of discussion and debate over it. But if you choose a translation that errs on the side of preserving doctrinal consistency and coherence, you probably won't notice the unusual passages.
>>39708976interesting quetion. Remember that some bibles are more complete than others.Jews dont recognize Jesus so they lack the new testament. On the other hand the Ethiopian Bible even has the book of enoch.
>>39708976Berean
>>39708976NIV is easy to read is a fine translation. I'd say go with that and if you're interested in a particular passage, you can easily look it up and see all the translations side by side, and even see the original Greek version with english definition of each greek word.
>>39709004Funny how it was translated by a literal gay Freemason.
>>39709290note: latter versions of ESV have fallen to DEI
>>39710030I don't think that's evidence for what you're claiming. A Greek slave in ancient Rome that's bought by an aristocrat to tutor his children in the Greek language and Greek philosophy isn't the same as a whipped and shackled cotton picking field slave.
>>39710118Exactly. Slaves back then weren't equivalent to slaves in 1900's america. Not to say all of them were treated humanely, but there were Laws established in the OT on treating a slave fairly. Not only that, but slaves back then were kind of similar to modern today in todays world.You either owned a farm (business), learned a trade, or you worked for one/someone.
>>39708976basically we have on one hand the preserved hebrew tanakh, which is very important as this is how you see the poetic prose and understand the subtle meaning of things.then you have the septuagint which is older than the oldest currently known hebrew, but its a translation.then you have the dead sea scrolls that were found and match the septuagint more than the hebrewSo your best bet is going to be something that uses these all as source, defaults to the hebrew as best it can and notes where the septuagint/dead sea scrolls differLearning how the discipline of textual analysis works is also going to be very helpful to anyone interested in old texts. Its a methodology to try and figure out what is the most authentic version of a text when you have many slightly different versions floating around.There are good jewish english translations of the old testament that i think are best in terms of capturing the essence of the style and meaning in modern english, but they are going to be using the hebrew only and so you might want to do your research on dead sea scrolls/LXX differences
>>39708976I recommend the ESV, NKJV or RSV, roughly in that order.My personal favorite is the NKJV. It's a slightly easier read than the KJV but manages to preserve the same flowery, poetic tone.
>>39708976geneva bible, i guess
>>39710137There's nuances to slavery. Most modern "free" people are no more than serfs with the delusion of freedom. Those Greek slaves lived better and more dignified lives than wagies do. That had nothing to do with the OT though, as it was in pre-christian Rome. The slavers of the 19th century in the west, and all Islamic slavers are far more heavily influenced by OT laws on treating slaves.
JST
>>39710334You could call those Greek tutors educational slaves-not to different from the Egyptian scribes and modern public school teachers (replace the state with the slave master and its not too different). Babylonian mine slaves, who mostly died during the process of getting metal for their merchant masters were probaly on par with herd slavery-if not worse. You also had military slavery (Janissaries), but that was more like being drafted for life with bonuses that weren't too bad.
>>39708976>from the original Hebrew?>original hebrewbro...
>>39709004>>39709938
>>39709337i bet she will get superpowers out of it
>>39710334>There's nuances to slavery. Most modern "free" people are no more than serfs with the delusion of freedom.Said it better than me and that's basically what I was getting at. I mentioned the OT simply because of the image you responded to, the text stated>Thus in Old Testament times
>>39710334It has always been the same system, because the same people are doing it. The gays. Slavery is part of gay culture. So every religion is pro slavery and pro gay. Otherwise purging or expelling the homos would be on the first page of every religious book. To end slavery.
>>39708976Catholic bible Douay Rhemis.Has Latin vulgate side by side.
>>39708976>Most accurate Bible Translation. The answer for the most accurate is the original source texts as >>39709264 stated.But in order from newest to oldestEnglish:Latin: VulgateGreek: c / Uncial Codex'sHebrew: Dead Sea Scrolls / Aleppo Codex and Leningrad CodexThe oldest known texts are fragmented scans.The best way to interpret the word is to do it yourself to be quite honest. The deeper I've dug into it the more I've found rather then just reading at face value.>>39709430It's a mix of two languages across thousands of years of history. The New Testament? Yes, it's likely the original was Greek. The Old? It's all Hebrew ala The Hinnom Scrolls.>>39709649>then you can google the passage to find a ton of discussion and debate over it. That's most of doctrinal study for you right there. All of it is pastors at war over who's truly interpreting it right or wrong. The most definitive truth is the one you discover for yourself.
Fuck christcucks.
>>39708976the bible is a fairytale christfag
>>39708976Very hard to find as so much of the original uses phrases and terminology, basically slang, metaphors, etc that are lost on us. Itd be twice as long with the needed annotations for context. Like some of the earliest writing about Hell references the community garbage pit outside Jerusalem, which changes the concept of sin from damnation to hellfire to more of a 'you're trash/low class' meaning.
>>39708976The most accurate is the Complete Jewish Bible as it contains some Jewish terms that describe a thing more accurately than the common translations, such as Shekhinah.
>>39710407jannies do it for free
>>39711583>That's most of doctrinal study for you right there. All of it is pastors at war over who's truly interpreting it right or wrong. The most definitive truth is the one you discover for yourself.It's amazing to me that Christians act like their religion is "obvious" from reading the Bible when they can't even agree on the smallest details of biblical scholarship. I vote all Christians stop proselytizing until they decide on one true message, one true biblical translation, and one true denomination.
>>39713777Double that for every other religion on the planet.Even the latest ones that have just been made still have debates. It's healthy for a church to have questions about the word and to explore what it means to them personally rather then just mindlessly consuming flowery messages affirming their own success. >>39713241>The Bible is a fairy taleHave you seen any of the archeological proof affirming figures and places within scripture?https://www.icr.org/article/archaeological-evidence-for-prophet-isaiah/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oldest-deep-sea-shipwreck-discovered-off-israel/https://scitechdaily.com/ancient-echoes-of-faith-psalms-86-inscription-discovered-in-hyrcanias-ruins/It has to be at least "historical fiction" since we can scientifically verify locations and persons reported within the word. Also, have you considered the testimonies of 3rd party observers of Biblical events? Like Stromata, or Philolaus. It's weird that a fairy tale has actual physical evidence.
Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible, JPS Tanakh( Jewish Study Bible/ JPS Torah commentary series) NRSVue( SBL Study Bible/ Westminster Study Bible) NET Bible with notes, David Bentley Hart's New Testament, Sarah Ruden's The Gospels & The New Oxford Annotated Bible 6th edition that will be released sometime next year or the year after.Introduction to the Hebrew Bible(3rd edition) by John CollinsIntroduction to the Old Testament by David CarrIntroduction to the New Testament by Bart EhrmanHistory of the Bible by John Barton
>>39715687Is the NRSVue truly such a leap forward? I might go for the Westminster if so; otherwise I'll get the Oxford. (I'm also going to get the Jewish Study Bible and the Oxford edition of the KJV)
>>39716101NRSVue is better than original NRSV. More accurate.
>>39708976Basically all of themWhat other language would they be translated from?
None, All of them are corrupt, and are getting more so by the day via the Mandela Effect, aka simulation edits.
https://christogenea.org/CNT/contentsThe guy running this is a schizo but this is unironically the only good English translation of the NT. It's this or the original Greek, no other option.For the OT I recommend any reputable Septuagint translation.
>>39713613This one,i read it and they actually use classic Jewish terminology like "goyim" instead of "nations,they also use Terms like Elohim
>>39708976In an English speaking Church the Textus Receptus, the TR, which is the KJV NT (despite the known doctrinal errors), is read, along with translations out of the LXX and the Vulgate. Because the Hebrew text is only ever used for study along, since the Masoretic came out 1000 years after the LXX, and was never part of Church tradition. The original is the Greek.
>>39708976For the Old Testament, I recommend Robert Alter's translation. It runs to about 3,400 pages in three volumes. Even if someone wants to quibble with his choices, it is exhaustively philologically annotated, so will have his justification and context for virtually every verse, and often even be able to grasp some possible alternative interpretations.No idea for a "best" New Testament, there are way too many of those that have been done.
>>39708976
>>39711651Right back at you demonnig.
>>39709235My JW mom says it matches the KJV. It does not, the KJV is very corrupted now.
Both the New Testament and the Koran were probaly written in Aramaic originally and that language is dying out. Sad to see.https://youtu.be/e50qiS-IjJM?si=fXyneu8loj01z1Vd
Might be better to ask this question on /his/
