Best translation? And no, this is not a religious debate thread. Wear your fedoras in a different thread. Just wanna discuss translations

>>24506438 (OP)
I generally hear the NSRV recommended for an "academic" translation.

>>24506438 (OP)
I'm partial towards the LSB because it uses God's name Yahweh and the NKJV because it has good footnotes on manuscript variants

No translation is perfect but the best one is the one you'll read. You're going to want to compare parallel translations too anyway

Best easy to read translation, ie the opposite of the kjv

>>24506558
The CSB and GW translation are both ok for that. Written at middle school levels or so. ESV is slightly more accurate but also slightly harder to read. Written at 10th grade level.

>>24506438 (OP)
>thinks you can evaluate a translation without reference to debated issues

>>24506438 (OP)
Hawaiian Pidgin since by taking away the awe inspiring elevated language it shows you how low iq and retarded christianity is. That’s basically how the NT sounded to contemporary Greek speakers

>>24506570
I heard that when St Augustine first read the Christian texts he was surprised at how unsophisticated they were compared to classical writings.

>>24506570
This is apparently especially true of Revelation, the ancient GSL (Greek Second Language) schizopost. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm

"Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse — that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression — as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings."

>>24506570
Must be morning in tel aviv for the baby raping kikes to be kvetching God already

>>24506680
The majority of the text of the Christian Bible is the Jewish Tanakh.

>>24506691
Nope. Not a single mention of judaism in it or Jesus Christ Himself admitting He was jewish in any of the gospels either. What haven't you "people" stolen throughout history?

>>24506697
The Last Supper was literally a Passover meal, are you an idiot?

Geneva if you want nice language, NSRV if you want to read academically

>>24506701
An isrealite custom and following customs of the time does not equate being jewish.

>>24506438 (OP)
Obviously KJV, then it's easier to read the Early Modern English

>>24506719
...what do you think "Jewish" means?

>>24506722
Coming from the people living in Judah. Which came long after Jacob and his descendants were called Israel. Try again

>>24506438 (OP)
NIV for independent reading, NRSVUE for academic study

>>24506619
Gospels (apart from John) are by illiterate fisherman, what did they expect

>>24506915
matthew was a literate tax collector, mark was a scribe, luke was a physician who arrived later and subscribed to historian duties of Theophilus.

KJV for aesthetics, Douay-Rheims for tradition and obedience to the Church, and whatever they use for the Holy Mass in your country for understanding the text in contemporary language.

>>24506438 (OP)
For English translations the KJV is the most accurate to the source texts. Many other translations are using totally different sources which differ significantly from the actual historical Scripture that God inspired. In a very real sense, translations like the NIV aren't even proper translations of the Bible since they are using different source texts to do it.

The NKJV or New King James version is also distinctly less accurate than the KJV because of a variety of inaccurate translations as well – as one example, the NKJV changed the word "seed" (singular) into the word "descendants" (plural) in Genesis 22:17, even though the apostle Paul made a point in Galatians 3:16 that the prophecy is singular to one seed (namely Christ). The NKJV was edited by people with zionist biases so they wanted to make it plural in Genesis 22:17 anyway.

Another blunder in the NKJV is where the phrase, "went up against" was changed to the opposite, "went to the aid," in 2 Kings 23:29. This makes the NKJV version of this verse contradict 2 Chronicles 35:20. Another example is where the KJV says "he made his grave" but the NKJV changes it to "they made his grave" in Isaiah 53:9. The NKJV translation is not only less accurate to the original language, it also seems to imply less agency for Christ in this messianic prophecy.

In the New Testament the KJV is also far more accurate. I have plenty of more examples where those came from.

>>24506438 (OP)
The major translation I used for reading is KJV. NIV seems nice enough, and my go-to bibble is NRSV, but I'll probably by NKJV later.
However, I'm more biased towards NKRV since I grew up with it.

>>24509875
NKRV?

>>24506554
Any version that attempts to translate the tetragrammaton is fundamentally flawed.

>>24506607
he has a very cope part of confessions where he argues that the simplicity of the new testament allows it to be both complex to the intelligent, esoteric reader and understandable to the average man. felt like he was in awe of christian theology, but resented the text it utilized for its basis.

nietzsche also makes a quip regarding the simplicity, and specifically the grammar, of the new testament. i dont remember where it was, but its basically like "if only God was better at writing in Greek."

>>24510418
This. The LSB is just a turbo-Calvinist edit of the NASB.
>>24506438 (OP)
I use a bunch of translations (NRSV, RSV-CE, NKJV (NT only), KJV, DR, more) plus more specialized stuff for deeper OT reading (Alter, NETS, LES, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible). One popular translation that I've never gotten a copy of, and don't ever plan to, is the ESV. As much as Crossway has tried to push it as "the standard English translation" of the modern day, I actually think it is much duller reading than the RSV-CE and much less rigorous than the NRSV in terms of scholarship. Most of the critiques of the NRSV (many of which are valid) can be easily rectified by consulting the RSV-CE, NKJV, or any of the specialized OT translations I mentioned, or by just looking at the Greek and Hebrew and a lexicon.

>>24506438 (OP)
New Oxford Annotated Bible - currently 5th, but the 6th is coming and it's going to use the NRSVue translation
Then get the Oxford Bible Commentary.
Those are the 2 books that'll carry you through understanding the Bible. They're the academic sources that are used at seminaries. So if it's good enough for the person who leads your church, then it's good enough for you as well. It's translated by scholars, without injecting a particular dogma into the translation, so you'll be able to actually read what the source material is about, without someone injecting their own dogma into the translation.

Then just read the chapter in the NOAB and then read the chapter in the OBC. You'll be head and shoulders above everyone else.
>muh KJV
No one cares about your trash translation. We get it, you feel connected to it, because it's a piece of Americana. It doesn't make it a good Bible translation. We've learned so much more about Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek in the last 400 years that it's no contest about what Bible to use.
>you're a heathen
No, I'm suggesting to use the one that's the closest to the original sources. Either learn the original languages, and read those versions, or read the contemporary academic translation.

>>24507068
All the gospels had authors attributed to them on the most nonsense reasoning. You'd never accept it for any other writing. But that's because you didn't actually look into why the gospels are named as they are.
Hint: They're all still anonymous.

>>24510684
What's the earliest manuscript we have of the Gospels that attributes them to Anonymous or even to someone else?

>>24510677
Fuck off nigger

>took 30 posts and over 10 hours for the NOAB shill to arrive
Slow day, huh?

>>24510418
>Any version that attempts to translate the tetragrammaton is fundamentally flawed.
The New Testament writers quoted the tetragrammaton as κύριος (Lord) when translating into Greek.

>>24510677
>No, I'm suggesting to use the one that's the closest to the original sources.
The received text ARE the original sources.

Not something close to them, THE original language sources, completely uncorrupted. As it says in Luke, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
- Luke 16:17

And in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31

If you don't believe that, anon, then why are you even studying the Bible? Why not do something else if you don't believe the words of Jesus?

>>24510677
But are they CATHOLIC seminaries?

>>24510778
The use of Lord is acceptable in the New Testament because it's a faithful translation of the manuscripts. The tetragrammaton in the Old Testament should only be rendered in English as YHWH. I have no opinion on whether it should be spoken aloud as Lord, Jehovah, or Yahweh. I am, however, inclined to consider the prohibition on speaking the name of God Jewish superstition. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should not read the text the way it was originally written.

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 this year next year

Introduction to the Hebrew Bible(3rd edition) by John Collins
Introduction to the Old Testament by David Carr
Introduction to the New Testament by Bart Ehrman
History of the Bible by John Barton

>>24511780
>The use of Lord is acceptable in the New Testament because it's a faithful translation of the manuscripts.
Yeah, so, when the New Testament writers quoted places in the Old Testament where the tetragrammaton was written, they wrote it as "Lord." For those who accept the authority of the New Testament, this explains why they often translate the tetragrammaton as "Lord" or "LORD" when translating from Hebrew into other languages.

>>24511832
I don't see how accepting the authority of the New Testament requires editing the Old Testament to match it. Do you think God got it wrong the first time and then had to inspire new writers to correct the record? Or do you believe that both the Old and New Testaments are separate works and are independently true even when they seem to diverge?

>>24511906
>I don't see how accepting the authority of the New Testament requires editing the Old Testament to match it.
Neither do I, as translating an original into another language is not the same thing as editing the original. Those are two different things. I think most people get this.
>Do you think God got it wrong the first time and then had to inspire new writers to correct the record?
No, I'm surprised you would think that.
>Or do you believe that both the Old and New Testaments are separate works and are independently true even when they seem to diverge?
They are inspired by the same God, and reading from one book of the Bible helps us to understand other books. The Bible as a whole is a complete work inspired by one God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."
- Ecclesiastes 12:11

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"
- Ephesians 2:19-20

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
- 2 Peter 1:19-21

>>24511939
So given that the Old Testament is a separate work and the true word of God in its own right, why would you choose to translate it differently to match the New Testament rather than translating the manuscripts directly to the best of your ability and allowing for differences between passages? I see no reason to desire that the New and Old Testament be translated in exactly the same way, regardless of whether it's considered editorializing or not.

>>24512172
>So given that the Old Testament is a separate work and the true word of God in its own right, why would you choose to translate it differently to match the New Testament rather than translating the manuscripts directly to the best of your ability and allowing for differences between passages?
I didn't translate the Bible myself, but I think those who translated the divine name as "Lord" or "LORD" were perfectly justified in doing so when they did. It would be equally accurate to transliterate the name as well, and in the KJV for example this happened in some passages of the Old Testament as well. I do not think either way is inaccurate.
>I see no reason to desire that the New and Old Testament be translated in exactly the same way
I don't think they were.

>>24512185
I obviously didn't translate it either, but I maintain that a faithful translation of a manuscript containing the name of God should itself contain the name of God, which is YHWH.