What version of the Bible do you recommend to read? - Well, we might as well.

[AMHOLIO]

Ver archivo adjunto 8925811

But which version of The Bible is the best to get what the books mean?

 

[gagabobo1997]

KJV and some other modern one so you can compare the translations and have a better understanding of the meaning.

 

[Milkmaid Man]

I recommend the Guyble. I especially recommend the book Duderonomy.

 

[Dan of Steel]

Interlinear Bible that's as direct as you can get translating ancient Hebrew and koine Greek into English for more historiographical research and reading. And KJV for poetry/storytelling aspect of the Bible especially the New Testament.

 

[Absolute-Despair]

Da Jesus Book

 

[Ygolonac]

For its literary merit, and readability I would recommend the 1769 revision of the King James version.

The king James has numerous flaws in terms of accuracy, but it is certainly good enough for a layman. If the style and history appeals to you, it will probably do more work than pure accuracy when it comes to cultivating faith.
The KJV does have a bit of a reputation as being a larper / dumb Protestant Bible, as some worship it as a sort of Guru Granth Sahib, it is the only acceptable bible despite objective translation errors and some Anglican bias.

From an academic point of view, the best Bible is the New Revised Standard Edition Updated edition. It is a scholarly Bible which incorporated the dead sea scrolls and various denominations.
The main critique is that it uses gender neutral language when it can, which is somewhat dumb as "Man" "Mankind" etc in English is already neutral in that it's just the old default. They replace it with "person" typically. It's of course also quite modern and dry.

 

[Mike Matei's Penis]

check the broble

 

[Grub]

If you go to Bible Gateway you can compare 150+ different translations side by side and pick one you like. I like going through and comparing the translations in different versions. Sometimes the meanings of the verses end up being changed or different depending on how they're translated and which source was used. I've always been of the belief that the older the original source and more accurate the translation, the closer it's going to be to the original stories and intended meaning.

 

[Male Idiot]

Don't. Read Mein Kampf instead. Or at least read Dune.

Only read it if the other option is Harry Potter.

 

[Nickel Silver]

Da Jesus Book
Ver archivo adjunto 8925952

This isn't a translation, it's a travesty.

KJV because it's beautiful and public domain everywhere except UK jurisdiction.

The KJV being under perpetual copyright, in addition to @Mound Dweller 's cooking, is just another reason to nuke England.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

KJV only - it is a direct translation of the original Hebrew and Greek into English. I'd also note that I would use the following resources/dictionary aids:

.
.

Brown-Driver-Briggs, Vine's, and Thayer's are all coded to Strong's Concordance. They all use the KJV as well.

 

[Rango Dango]

RSVCE
i really like this one specifically because it provides context and explains a lot of stuff

https://ascensionpress.com/products/holy-bible-the-great-adventure-catholic-bible-second-edition?variant=46629568020672

 

[AMHOLIO]

in addition to @Mound Dweller 's cooking, is just another reason to nuke England.

Remind him he's trying carrots next month

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

the bibble

 

[Nickel Silver]

If you go to Bible Gateway you can compare 150+ different translations side by side and pick one you like. I like going through and comparing the translations in different versions. Sometimes the meanings of the verses end up being changed or different depending on how they're translated and which source was used. I've always been of the belief that the older the original source and more accurate the translation, the closer it's going to be to the original stories and intended meaning.

In my opinion, people shouldn't be making English Bible translations like Linux distributions. I fail to see how 150+ English translations could possibly be the will of God and not rather the desire for profit, especially since the vast majority of them are all-rights-reserved copyrighted.

There are about two billion people in this world with only the New Testament at most because no one has ever translated a whole Bible for their language. Is it the will of God that they should remain ignorant, or is it just not profitable enough?

 

[fresh pair of socks]

If you are looking for the most accurate translation and are Catholic, go for the New American Bible or the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition). Both go for a more literal translation but are still readable.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

But which version of The Bible is the best to get what the books mean?

Hmm, here’s what one person did using highlighter. It’s okay to write in the Bible. The words in it are just ink on paper, The Word can never be destroyed.

I personally like Ecclesiastes the most.

As for “version”, the best one is the one you will read. Some people get these heavy annotated bibles that take up a whole desk space. Get the Bible app. It’s free and has hundreds of versions in dozens of languages all on audio if you prefer to listen. Or if you prefer the traditional way of reading, something small like a pocketbook you can carry around.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

In my opinion, people shouldn't be making English Bible translations like Linux distributions. I fail to see how 150+ English translations could possibly be the will of God and not rather the desire for profit, especially since the vast majority of them are all-rights-reserved copyrighted.

We are always going to need translations because the Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Words and phrases will not translate directly. Slight changes in interpretations can lead to radically different meanings. English being the mutt of languages also compounds the issue of interpretations. Every scholarly group is going to attempt their version of translation, especially as new research into the past gives us a better understanding of how people back then thought.

 

[The Cheese Aisle]

Bibles sit on a spectrum of word-for-word/formal equivalence and thought-for-thought/dynamic/functional equivalence. Formal equivalence prioritizes translation accuracy at the cost of sometimes awkward English and difficult reading, dynamic/functional equivalence prioritizes the author's intent and offer easier readability at the cost of more interpretation. NASB 1995 is an often recommended word-for-word Bible, and NIV is frequently recommended for thought-for-thought.. I see recommendations to start with TFT and move on to WFW to get started because TFT is easier, but do whatever works for you-- for example, a lot of people like the KJV for the prose and the tone it gives the text, but it's not my thing personally. I recommend an app like Logos or a browser bible tool Bible Gateway (thanks @Grub it was on the tomt) so you can quickly switch between different translations on the fly and see how they differ. Ultimately, though, which Bible you read is less important than just reading the Word. They all say the same thing, more or less, except for the few that go way off base, which you'll be able to catch.

E: if you want to be a super nerd you can read the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible which incorporates the books from before the First Council of Nicea, but they're still translating it to English.

 

[Muskie]

If your new to Christianity I would highly recommend The Bible in a Year podcast by Fr. Mike Schmitz ( if you don't want the audiobook experience I think he also has a reading plan). It's tempting to just try to do it all yourself and read Genisis to Revelation but that's a great way to get burnt out and lose out on a lot of meaning you won't pickup on as a newbie. Having some extra context is helpful. There are meny callbacks/symbols that will probably fly over your head as a first-time reader. Other study Bibles and reading plans exist, I like this one.