What is the /pol/ Bible translation?

New Living Translation

>>508154581 (OP)
Not that one

>>508154888
While the NLT is not explicitly pro-Israel, it is published by an evangelical Christian organization, Tyndale House Publishers. This means the translation is informed by an evangelical perspective, which may influence how certain passages are interpreted and translated. For example, the NLT uses the term "Israel" instead of "Ephraim" in some instances, which some might see as a more pro-Israel approach.

>>508154581 (OP)
Authorized King James

I like NET full notes edition because they defend their translations and point out where there are possible alternative interpretations.

Douay Rheims edition. It's the oldest known English translation, and nothing about supporting Israel is in it.

https://www.wrmea.org/2015-october/the-scofield-bible-the-book-that-made-zionists-of-americas-evangelical-christians.html talks about how the modern Bible is infected with Jewism.

I forever denounce the Talmund.

Christ is King.

>>508154581 (OP)
Anything other than the KJV has taken advise from rabbis on the Hebrew translation.

Hebrew is a reconstructed language which didn't exist at the time.

>>508154581 (OP)
https://odysee.com/@Das_Syndikat:3/Aryan-man-defends-Europe-from-shitskin-invasion-5000-BC:5

you can't translate your way out of it being a foreign brown ideology that is centered around a degenerate pedo rabbi
sorry bro

>>508154888
Don’t you think that the use of that image contradicts the spirit of the Bible?

For the Old Testament I like the translation done by Robert Alter

For the New Testament I like just the normal interlinear or the reverse interlinear done by Bill Mounce, I also like the Literal Standard Version (that one has a good Old Testament too but I like Robert Alter’s Old Testament the most, by a LOT)

RSVCE

>>508156959
>oldest known English translation
Are you retarded? There had been English translations long before the DR.

This is a nice edition, good paper and binding and helpful reference info and replaces some unintelligible terms, and geared to advice for men, great for men's study groups, I have bought a bunch of them

>>508157907
I see no problem with it and I’m an extremely devout Christian ¯\_(°ᴥ°)_/¯

>>508158061
2ce is the answer from anyone in the know

>>508154581 (OP)
niin.

>>508154581 (OP)

>>508158061
Best Catholic translation, probably, best translation or the official /pol/ translation, definitely not, the most authoritative denomination having the official translation of one of the most wild, anarchistic, libertarian, places on the internet is crazy XD

>>508154581 (OP)
the living tombstone

>>508158061
>>508159427
RSVCE has the traditional Vulgate placement of the Maccabees after Malachi instead of after Esther. It also uses thou, thee, thy, and thine when addressing God, which is a tradition in some Protestant denominations but the use of Early Modern English as a liturgical language is common to Catholics and Protestants e.g. the Our Father, Hail Mary. Furthermore, it translates Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” instead of “virgin”, which - although closer to the Masoretic Text which is used as the source of its Old Testament - is not in accord with Christian tradition.
The RSV2CE changes the aforementioned features except maybe the placement of the Maccabees, but I’d need a volunteer to prove that as I can’t find translations online. It’s also used in the Ordinariate Mass

>>508154581 (OP)
the kjv is the bible all modern english translations that came out subsequent are obviously censorship attempts just find you favorite anti kike scripture from the kjv and compare to any other you like honestly do not take my word for it just try it yourself

>>508158061
This, my fav

>>508154581 (OP)
Biglino's

>>508161581
Well the translation of the word “virgin” comes from the Septuagint which was translated by Jews before the time of Christ, so it didn’t originate with Christianity, Jews before Christianity also read it as virgin

>>508154581 (OP)
KJV if you feel fancy. NKJV if you actually want to read your Bible.

>>508154581 (OP)
I still think the NIV is best.

NRSV typically, NIV if I’m feeling lazy

>>508162968
NKJV is garbage. Just learn to read. What's wrong with pic rel?

>>508162807
There’s an interesting tradition in the Eastern Churches about Simeon (the man who says the Magnificat). Have a look.

>>508154581 (OP)
I bought an NIV which reads well, but isn't too accurate. Revised Standard has been recommended.

>>508156424
>King James
The STUPID version!
Translated 400 years ago to Middle English (NOT Modern English)
Translated from poor sources, like the Textus Receptus version of the Greek compiled by Erasmus; for the Old Testament, the Masoretic text of the Hebrew was used.

The NIV uses the oldest & the most prolific & common manuscripts, including the Dead-Sea Scrolls, compared by some of the best scholars.

James was pretty good for it's time, but was rejected by early Americans until nearly 100 years ago.

Most Bibles written in the last 40+ years are far better than KJV!

>>508163715
NIV literally adds the word "jews" to verses where jews aren't even mentioned lmao
NIV is shit

>>508163715

The cancer Bible is Darby-Scofield.

>>508162968
>>508162987
>>508163210
>>508163704
>>508163715
The NIV and the NKJV have never been published with the Apocrypha, therefore they lack the full Biblical experience.

>>508164059
I like some of the apocrypha but some of it sucks and is obviously not divine inspired. especially Maccabees

>>508154581 (OP)
vulgate.org

>>508164171
The same man who wrote the oratorio Messiah, Handel, also wrote one about the Maccabees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq1gtPpxsts

>>508163364
Ooh :o yeah that’s interesting

>>508154581 (OP)
I somehow ended up with an odd translation, CTS, it's basically a Jerusalem Bible with the "Jehovah"s reverted to LORD

>>508154581 (OP)

King James.

>>508164059
It's pretty crazy someone decided to take it out of modern KJVs. Apocryphal isn't a synonym for fake. They could've put tons of books there if it were.

>>508154581 (OP)
KJV.

>>508154581 (OP)

>>508158236
Thanks anon. I bought a copy

>>508162968
No
There are a dozen English translations better & much better than KJV & NKJV
It was translated from imperfect Greek translation - at least the OT.

If you are going to buy a Bible,
Buy one you can actually READ in modern English!

- unless you read Old English...

>>508154581 (OP)
>>508154888
Douay–Rheims 1899
Basically it's a translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible (Most accurate translation of the original scripture into Latin) Into English. A bit of old-timey English at that, but it's raw.

>>508163802
>adds the word "jews"
- Because the text is talking about, or to Jews ( Israelites).

>>508163906
Piss off, Fagott

>>508164351
>vulgate.org
Is flawed.
With miss-translation.
That's why the Popes have been wrong the whole time

>>508164521
Those passages were originally notes, added by Monks who were just supposed to Copy the Bible.

The notes then got written in to the main text by subsequent Monks.

They were NOT from the original authors!

They don't belong. Not in the main text, maybe in the notes like the NIV has them (at the bottom of the page ).

>>508164655
The only affordable KJVs with Apoceypha are the Oxford World Classics edition which has heretical modernists notes after the New Testament and is paperback, and the 1611 edition by Hendrickson which has an insert before the Apocrypha ‘explaining’ it. The former has more modern spelling than the latter and they both have The Epistle Dedicatory and The Translators to the Reader. Cambridge makes KJVs with Apocrypha, but they’re extremely expensive. However, they also make KJV standalone Apocrypha very cheap.
However, if you want a traditional KJV with Apocrypha, do not get the Thomas Nelson edition. It has 3 Maccabees when such was never included by translators. Here’s a thread concerning my investigation thereof:
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24439925
And a video review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM5JoPbFNj0
>>508165287
It’s a shame that they don’t publish Catholic Bibles with the traditional Clementine Appendix anymore (III and IV Esdras, and The Prayer of Mannaseh). The only exception is the Baronius Press parallel Clementine-Sixtine Vulgate and Doauay-Rheims but it is quite costly.

>>508165287
>(Most accurate translation of the original scripture into Latin) Into English.
Lol
It might be the best Latin, butNOT the best English, because the Latin translation is Flawed.
- AND -
Because it is ALWAYS better to translate directly from the ORIGINAL Language - Greek - to the current language - English!

Get a Modern bible, written in modern English
...or an interlinear.

>>508165959
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate*

>>508154581 (OP)
Robert crumbs Genesis.

>>508154581 (OP)

>>508165959
That is strange. I have a deep distrust of these publishers anyway. They either have no convictions or they compromise on them for money. Why would you even publish an NIV and a KJV from the same press?

>>508154581 (OP)
NKJV is a safe bet I think. Lots of translations have bias within. Avoid anything Roman Catholic that's for sure.

Knox

>>508166784
I don’t know as much as I’d like about printing or publishing, so I don’t know if that is improper of not, but I know that you can get both.

>>508154581 (OP)
Douay-Rheims if English is considered

>>508166979
The NKJV doesn’t have the Apocrypha which Martin Luther retained in his Bible as “good and useful to read”.

>>508166979
Lol
That is Asinine

You can buy a book from the same publisher as a bunch of other books.
They just print & distribute
Publishers aren't Churches - (unless it's a pretty big Cult like the Mormons & jahovah's witness).
Buy a modern Bible

>>508167291
The one in your picture is published by Zondervan

>>508167668
Yes, but tell me about Thomas Nelson using the same press for KJVs and NIVs; what’s wrong with that? There may be something wrong, but I don’t know what.

>>508167596
>These are books that do not resemble the holy scriptures
But sure it's fine.

>>508167656
I meant anything translated by Roman Catholics. Bible translations is one big conflict of interest at least from the reformation onwards. Not only pointing fingers at RCC, they are just the worst, Calvinists like certain word play too.

>>508167932
Several years ago, the Life.Church app changed the word "Palestine" to "Philistine" in the KJV. The app was telling people that they are reading the KJV, but they were changing entire words. I feel it's the same when the NIV prints a Bible and says it's the "from the best sources". It tells you that they are the best sources, but don't present the other side. Some of the verses they take out are quoted by early Saints.

>>508168693
Yes, that is very bad, but would you do me the kindness of answering the question I asked?

>>508168149
Well, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let the Pharisees determine what books are in the Old Testament. See the Council of Jamnia.

>>508168916
"Why is it bad"? Didn't I just explain why it's bad? Thomas Nelson is under Harper Collins which is under Zondervan, the Kike company that publishes the Satanic Bible by the Kike Anton LaVey.

>>508154581 (OP)
Brenton Lancelot's Septuagint
i've read dozens of translations and several Septuagint's and still there is no one better, with Liturgical English ("thou, thee, thy" for singular 2nd person etc) and faithful adherence to Codex Vaticanus (stolen from Constantinople in the 4th Crusade) without interpolation from rabbinic masoretic texts
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp
Douay-Rheims is still better than KJV for the NT though

>>508169194
You mentioned that the pic I posted was owned by Zondervan, but I thought you were commenting on that alone not the context of printing two translations on the same press. I didn’t know that Zondervan owns Harper Collins and then Thomas Nelson; I thought Zondervan was a small time publisher like Crossway, not that they own one of the largest publishers in the world. I appreciate your patience.

>>508154581 (OP)

You can simplify it by stating 'utter jew bollocks mixed with psyopping and a little history tossed in for good measure, Jesus was an insurrctionist and priests had him killed'

https://ia800605.us.archive.org/5/items/MarcusEliRavage-CommissaryToTheGentiles/antiMarcusEliRavage-CommissaryToTheGentiles.pdf

Kill all niggers

>>508169594
It may have thous and thees and hast, but does it have hadst, hath, hither, thither, wither, hence, thence, whence, yon, yonder, wherefore, heretofore, vouchsafe and other words no longer used even rarely in English?
Also, I wonder how the Slavonic Eastern Orthodox Bibles contain 2 Esdras (KJV, 4 Esdras: Vulgate, 3 Edras: Slavonic) considering no copy of it exists in Greek, only Latin and Syriac.
> Douay-Rheims is still better than KJV for the NT though
Elaborate on this, please.

>>508169822
Zondervan is definitely is not a small time. Every single NIV in North America is a Zondervan.

>>508154581 (OP)
Testamentum - Marcionite bible; only form of Christianity that is anti-judaic as it's the original bible before Council of Nicaea slapped talmud to front of Bible (New Testament but w/o mike lies about Jesus Christ).

Really surprised /pol doesn't talk about this more considering it's Christianity if it remembered who killed Christ before jews jewed up the "bible."
marcionitechurchofchrist dot org

King James King Jesus
Simple as.

>>508154581 (OP)
The Fourth Watch, Spiritual Warfare edition. Coming soon. Should be standard reading for all believers on /pol/. I'm honored to have been a part of putting it together. Stephen Prouse and the men of Fourth Watch are building the most redpilled, militant ministry I've ever seen.

>>508170274
the traditional Orthodox OT is 50 books, which were translated into an older form of Slavonic by Cyril and Methodius, and other Old Church Slavonic versions with a blessing from the Metropolitan of Moscow starting around the 1500s to 1800s. normally it's just a difference in naming convention as Ezra is usually numbered 1 Esdras, but if it also has Ezra and 2 Esdras it was incorporated in later
+27 NT books comes to a total 77-book Orthodox Bible

>>508154581 (OP)
I heard good things about the Peshitta translation.

Christcuck thread, the mentally broken are dwindling day by day, and its great to see.

>>508171080
So it has the base Catholic Canon at 73 books, separates Baruch, chapter 6 into the Epistle of Jeremiah, joins The Prayer of Mannaseh to 2 Chronicles (where exactly, I don’t know), and adds Psalm 151. 74 books so far. Then you have 1 Esdras (KJV nomenclature) and 3 Maccabees, but then you have 2 Esdras (which when translating Slavonic Eastern Orthodox Bibles online, is found to be in the appendix contrary to the claims of the NRSV) and 4 Maccabees which is found in the appendix of Greek Bibles (although I also found a Serbian Bible online that has it [but curiously not 2 Esdras], but it puts all the Maccabees at the end, so it’s hard to tell if it’s in the appendix as Eastern Orthodox Bibles [to my knowledge] don’t formally announce the appendix, it’s the the book(s) at the end.).
So, the question is: what is the 77th book in the traditional Eastern Orthodox Bible? 2 Esdras of 4 Maccabees?

>>508170356
Well, it’s small compared to its parent company Harper Collins.

>>508172408
>2 Esdras or 4 Maccabees?
4 Maccabees is used, as both in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus

>>508172757
In that case, what do you think of 2 Esdras?

>>508172757
Oh, and do you think 4 Maccabees is any less canonical considering it’s in the appendix?

>>508154581 (OP)
This one.

>>508154581 (OP)
Geneva bible 1560 is the best. https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560

>And deuils alfo came out of manie, cry ing,and faying, » Thou art the Chrift the Sonne of God : but he rebuked them, & Hiftred them not to fay that thei knewe him tobe the Chrift.

>>508172920
i would say 2 Esdras is probably on par with josephus, that is, worth it at least for historical context, but recall that it was in Ezra's time when the babylonian influence came to jerusalem, so there may be traces found i haven't given much attention to
>>508173000
4 Maccabees is only different in that it is the only OT book not referenced anywhere in the NT. i don't think 2 Esdras is quoted anywhere either. but 4 Macc. is mostly reduntant, it doesn't really do anything except offer another historical account of what's told in 1-3 Macc.

The OAHSPE

>>508173429
Funnily enough, Wikipedia says that Josephus’ Jewish War VI is canonical for the Church of the East.
Isn’t Esther not mentioned in the New Testament which is why some of the Church Fathers rejected it. Also, the Song of Songs.

Brenton's Septuagint Translation is also good.
>And he shall come, and it shall be with regard to every place of mount Sion, yea, all the region round about it shall a cloud overshadow by day, and there shall be as it were the smoke and light of fire burning by night: and upon all the glory shall be a defence. And it shall be for a shadow from the heat, and as a shelter and a hiding place from inclemency of weather and from rain.

My god speaks my language. Somehow.

>>508171498
Does it have the complete New Testament or just 22 books?

>>508154581 (OP)
Lutherbibel > KJV > rest

>>508174472
Which one? 1545? 1919? 2017? You’ll have to be more specific.

>>508174192
It has the New Testament.

https://archive.org/details/150276553AramaicBible1/page/2/mode/2up

https://www.originalbibles.com/english-version-of-the-syriac-peshitta-1915-pdf/

>>508173636
>Song of Songs
>Esther
Songs of Songs (6:9) is referenced in Revelation 12:1 with shared symbology, Esther idk, maybe onl;y in the genealogies in the Gospels

>>508154581 (OP)
Tanakh but I only have the JPS version right now. Art Scroll Stone Edition Chumash is good from what I hear and I saw they had those at Chabad the one time I visited there. I'm learning Hebrew and eventually converting. I look at Christians the way they look at Mormons.

>>508176140
>My dove, my perfect one is one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and the queens will pronounce her blessed, yea, and the concubines, and they will praise her. - Song of Songs 6:9, Brenton’s Septuagint
> And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: - Apocalypse/ Revelation 12:1, Douay-Rheims
I fail to see how they reference each other. Could you point me in the right direction?

>>508176549
>> And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: - Apocalypse/ Revelation 12:1, Douay-Rheims
>I fail to see how they reference each other. Could you point me in the right direction?
may bad, this verse is numbered as 6:9 in my hardcover:
>10 Who is this that looks forth as the morning, fair as the moon, choice as the sun, terrible as [armies] set in array?

>>508170274
>> Douay-Rheims is still better than KJV for the NT though
>Elaborate on this, please.
forgot to answer this:
KJV has notable major errors in translation in:
>Rev 22:19 mistranslates "Tree of Life" as "Book of Life"
>Acts 9:5-6 vs Acts 26:14-15 which may be more correct than most greek mss
>Rev 8:7 and 20:2 omits "and a third of the land was burnt up"
>Mat 6:22 and Luke 11:34 mistranslate "simple" as "single" (which may just be the fault of shifted meanings from old english)
>Acts 2:46 misstranslates "at home" as "house by house" and poorly translates "partook of sustenaince" as "eat their meat"
tl;dr mostly problems with Revelation translation

>>508177788
> >Acts 9:5-6 vs Acts 26:14-15 which may be more correct than most greek mss
Does you mean that the KJV is better in this case?

>>508178222
Do*

>>508178222
>Does you mean that the KJV is better in this case?
not necessarily. both verses refer to the same story, and it is impossible, i think, to determine if it was accidentally left out of Acts 9 by ancient copyists of the 4th and 5th centuries and put back by Erasmus (which is the basis of KJV NT translation) or if Erasmus simply interpolated from Paul's use of a colloquial phrase in his later testimony in Acts 26 in a revision designed for artificial consistency...

>>508154581 (OP)
translation?

Not a single (you) for the kikes larping as nazis ITT, I'm proud of you guys.
If only you did the same for their threads.