Thread 33508260

Hiii /adv/, so i'm going to post something other than the usual doom and gloom of this board and ask this: what bible translation do I read? There's so many of them! I ask this as a godless heathen btw, I'm the farthest thing from a christian there is, but I'm still curious because for all I've heard about the bible I never actually sat down to read it myself. For reference, i'm a total noob when it comes to religious texts, so a modern translation would be nice :P

>>33508260 (OP)
I like the NASB. It's pretty readable, and is considered by most scholars (both Christian and secular) as being among the most accurate English translations. I started with the gospel of John. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=NASB

>>33508260 (OP)
Suggestion. Once you get past Moses, skip the next few books. They're mainly a lot of begatting and name-dropping

>>33508303
Oh this looks promising, idk if im going to skip the old testament but thanks for the rec :))
>>33508314
Uhh i dont know if i should skip books but I'll just keep this in mind lol, thanks anyway.

>>33508260 (OP)
There's only one answer.

>>33508359
May I ask why I should read this over the NASB? I'm reading that atm, since this anon >>33508303 recommended it.

>>33508260 (OP)
There's more than one copy of the Bible??

>>33508260 (OP)
NIV or ESV are what I use, the KJV is more beautiful but the language is so out of date it will cause too much confusion to you, it’s basically Shakespearean English.

It’s best to read the New Testament first, and then the Old Testament, and then the New Testament again. It’s okay if you skip Numbers, and Psalms and Proberbs are best taken as short breather sections from other peices; for instance if you’ve been reading Romans for a week and just want a palate cleanser read a psalm or five, or if you’ve only got a few minutes read a couple of proverbs instead of slogging through a whole chapter of Mark/Ezekiel. The easiest way to do so is with the Bible App on your phone, because it has the hyperlinks and references built in so you don’t have to go flipping through everytime if you’re looking for the context point and references that are usually in printed bibles.

Good luck, God bless, and I hope you find your heart moved by Him, and your soul redeemed. It’s meant a lot to me, over the years, and Bible reading has helped me immensely through difficult times in my life.

>>33508260 (OP)
Any Bible works, but there are definitely some translations that are better than others. From my understanding, New American Standard (NASB) King James and New King James Version (KJV and NKJV) and English Standard Version (ESV) are among the best English translations. I might also recommend using John Macarthur's Study Bible (various translations) if you are willing to pay the money for it, as the added commentary can help a new reader. Although there is also plenty of good commentary available for free online.

Hope this advice helps, and wish you the best in reading.

P.S. if you want to start with the Gospel message like I did, I started with Luke, so I would recommend that.

>>33508430
>>33508469
Thank you anons. I decided on the NASB and I will be taking your advice to heart (starting with the new testament, and like this anon >>33508469 suggests, with Luke). Since I got what I wanted out of the thread I'll be leaving now, but I won't delete it. Tata and farewell, you've all been incredibly kind and helpful c:

>>33508542
Cya, and best of luck! Pray your journey goes well.

>>33508260 (OP)
The so-called King James Bible is very beautifully written - almost poetic - and there are a lot of quotations from it that have become proverbs or common metaphors in English; but the language is too antiquated for a new reader.

NIV and ESV are both good choices. NIV is a little more "preserving the sense" and ESV a little more "preserving the wording" but either would do you.

>>33508411
It's the best translation we have.

Do remember that the Bible was assembled rather arbitrarily. To take a random example, if you look at Genesis c12 v10-20, Genesis c20 v1-18, and Genesis c26 v1-32, you will realise you are looking at three different versions of the same story. The first time it's about Abraham and Pharaoh, the second about Abraham and Abimelech, and the third time about Isaac and Abimelech. But they're all basically the same plot - a wife is presented as a sister and the local king wants to marry her, and Bad Stuff happens.

The reason for this is that there was originally a single myth; over time, different versions of it appeared, with slightly different characters; and when Genesis was compiled, three different versions of that story from three different writers were *all* included. So the choice of what was kept in and what was left out can seem oddly random sometimes.

See if you can find a version that includes all the books that are now classed as apocryphal; at one time or another they were all considered to have equal status with what's currently the canon; and some books that are now considered canon once were not; Revelations, for example, was not considered canon for centuries.

Also, remember that nothing in the bible is actual history, even the bits that look relatively professional. Again, to take a single example: Luke's gospel states that Jesus was born "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until AD 6. But in Matthew's gospel king Herod (Herod the Great, that is) features very prominently in the story. Herod the Great died 10-12 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria, so clearly one of those versions has to be wrong. Similarly, we have records of all the Roman censuses carried out at that time, and none of them involved people going back to where they were born, as Luke insists happened. (The idea is obviously insane: imagine the US government saying "we need to know how many people live in New York, so we'd like every person in New York to go back to the cities where they were born, and we'll count everybody there.") Luke had to tell the story that way, because there was a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Jesus wasn't actually from Bethlehem; so they had to invent a reason why his parents were in Bethlehem at the time of his birth, and that's the story they came up with.

None of this necessarily affects the importance of the Bible's *message*, but you should never view it as history, more as fan fiction.

My only suggestion is avoid the King James version as the translation there is shit.