Douay-Rheims is the old og catholic translation, from before the kjv, by a few years* (the modern one most buy is an update of this of course)
It has the dueterocannonical books like Tobit (Tobias), which some prots call the ‘apocrypha’ (calling it that helps them to justify to themselves their taking out books of the bible I guess). Doesn’t include Jubilees, that one is truely apocryphal. It also has some old naming and follows the organisation of the original Septuagint (the og Greek translation), so that some of the psalms (after psalm 10 IIRC) are numbered 1 lower, until nearly the end.
I think the Douay Rheims is very important but it’s clunky in the same way the kjv is. If you’re wanting the easiest of reads, this isn’t it. But its old, predates the modern nonsense, includes all the books the faithful had been using since the beginning*. There’s a lot to be said for having it be one of your main bibles.
There’s a nice side-by-side version of it with the Latin vulgate from baronius press.
Aren't you essentially asking "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?!" question commonly posed by Sunday school children and atheists? If you just want to engage in philosophical theology banter, a dedicated Christian forum or even Christianity Stack Exchange would work better.
He allowed the temple to fall, and the ark to fall into enemy hands and become lost. Usually when the people fell to sin and rebellion right?
Your argument also falls down when you realise people arguing about it when they were first removed could have made the exact same argument, but against their removal. And we still can when looking at time. He’d allow it to be wrong throughout most of church history?
No, I’m satisfied that your argument was countered and your questions answered. I’m not going to play those games, you were clearly making an argument through that line of questioning.
If one is to take your question at face value and instead of the evasive, leading argument used most by Lawyers seeking to give themselves a avenue of innocent questioning -- it's Free Will. It's always been about Free Will, God's greatest gift to humankind.
The freedom to choose is the freedom to make the wrong choice. If God had to forcibly interdict post the death of Jesus Christ, the second Adam - then he becomes no better than Lucifer who is allowed to cheat instead of holding to his absolute principles as the absolute, creator Lord of existence. His creation, Humanity, must and is allowed to act freely on the material plane as designed by God and thus are swayed by the easy sins and mistakes.
You make the age old Jewish argument of "if God is so powerful, why does he allow-", full stop right there. Because its Free Will, humanity makes the mistakes of mistranslations and alterations of texts from a position of the Sin of Pride.
The NKJV was already mentioned with specific reasons why, so I simply second that vote. It's also my translation of choice when posting quotes.
If you want a translation with the apocrypha/deuterocanon, that is modern and not pozzed, and you don't mind it being mostly confined to online (although you have several options for downloading an offline copy), I cast my vote for the World English Bible (WEB). It has it's pros (excellent footnotes) and cons (chief among them overuse of contractions, a lower literary register given its somewhat word-for-word translation philosophy), but as a bonus it is in the public domain.
In another post in this thread, I gave a partial background for why the NIV is the way it is (TL;DR unless you want to buy a used copy printed between 1984-2010, steer clear). As a 3rd vote, I present the Berean Standard Bible (BSB). This is a translation that was headed up by Bible Hub. It combines the traditional readings with an even easier flowing syntax, and does so without being pozzed ("men" remain "men", "brothers" remain "brothers", etc). The footnotes for this translation are quite good. Like before, there are several options for offline download, although if you don't mind waiting however long, there will be physical copies of their newer editions put out that you can buy (with previous printings available for purchase in the meantime, though pickings are slim at this juncture). This translation is also in the public domain.
My church uses ESV, it is a very literal translation but is pretty easy to read. Start with the new testament, the old law books near the beginning (Leviticus, Numbers) are easy to get bogged down in and don't really add much for a first time reader.
Start with the new testament, the old law books near the beginning (Leviticus, Numbers) are easy to get bogged down in and don't really add much for a first time reader.
But how else will I know what insects I am and am not allowed to eat? 🤔
Spoilers: it's grasshoppers you are allowed to eat.
Leviticus 11: 20-23
20 “All winged insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 But you may eat these kinds of all the winged insects that walk on all fours: those that have jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground.
22 You may eat these: any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, and grasshopper.
23 All other winged insects that have four feet are to be detestable to you.
Edit: not that I would. Hemimetabolic insects are a terrible choice for consumption.
the old law books near the beginning (Leviticus, Numbers) are easy to get bogged down in and don't really add much for a first time reader.
Great point. Reading it from genesis to revelations is not the best way to start and those law books and the genealogies and the cubit measurements all near the start puts many people off. Those can wait, if it means reading more of it, read other books first.
Start with Mathew or Luke imo, they have more of Jesus’s teachings compared to Mark. John gives a more literary and mystical take compared to the other 3, the synoptic gospels, go for that next.
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
Also Matthew 13:13 pertains to the same:
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And 1st epistle of John chapter 2:
[20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
[21] I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
You need to receive the Holy Spirit aka become baptized by fire aka become born again. Once you have it, you shouldn't really worry about anyone trying to edit/manipulate the Gospels - they have the eyes but they don't see, so they have no idea what to actually edit out and what to add.
And getting the Holy Spirit is the narrow path and nobody can really help you here. Mind you, it's nothing about ritual or following some complex laws and tradition. It's more about "ask and you shall receive", only it's not kia2 that you should be asking, seriously.
You probably shouldn't. No seriously. One thing to note about Christianity is that it is a historical religion, that is to say, we claim that events of the Gospels actually happened and that these events are essential to our religion. Christians don't think Jesus was a prophet or teacher; we think he was the incarnate Godhead, and what he did 2000 years ago was pretty important. With this in mind, Christianity predates "the Bible." No Seriously. Even a bland reading of the New Testament reveals that the Church predates the writing of the New Testament. None of the he Gospels or The Acts were extemporaneous recordings, and the Epistles were written to people already practicing Christianity.
Unlike the Mohammedans or the Jews, Christians don't hold to the idea that our sacred texts can't be translated. So how then do or do not we understand "the scriptures"? The answer is (unlike the Jews) that one's personal exegesis is NOT a good way to go about understanding our scriptures. Even protestants didn't really buy into the idea of personal exegesis until it became popular amongst Americans in the late 19th century. Arius was quoting scripture out the wazoo at the Council of Nicaea; he was still heretic that claimed Christ was not God.
Are there fuckin shit translations these days? Yes, and I think you know that. The answer to your question is: pick a church you trust, and ask them what the Bible means, ideally Orthodox or Catholic.
the Gnostic texts, that way you are only getting the lies from 1-10 translations rather 100s of translations
ultimately the catholic church controlled what is in the bible today, they had the power to destroy heretical texts for over 1000 years, they pretty much destroyed all knowledge that they didnt like and now think about how the catholic church acts today
if it where not for one monk burying some of the ancient texts after the pope at time time declared them destroyed the corpus hemeticum would still be thought of as a forgery from around the 1700s
The 2011 update to the NIV is what is pozzed. The original version released in 1984 (the version I grew up with) didn't contain these problems, even if in hindsight it had a set of flaws of its own.
This is made worse by the publisher's subsequent efforts to memoryhole the original version, going as far as to take down all digitally uploaded copies of the original. If I were to make the skinwalker comparison to bible translations, the NIV is it.
I'd be willing to post comparisons to both versions if you are interested.
I'm doing my first Bible read through right now. I started with the Douay-Rheims, but switched over to the ESV (English standard version), because it's very close to the older translations, easier to read, and has notes discussing the original Greek, and other variants of the passages.
If you want to be hyper accurate, just read the original Greek. There are tons of translation resources online, and even more for the Bible.
I've been using the website Bible Gateway, which allows you to read chapters in many different translations, and compare specific verses with all different translations at once, which is nice for people like me who like to deep dive and research while reading.
I'd only advise to stay away from dispensationalist Bibles like the Scofield Bible. I don't like the NIV, either, as it leaves a lot to be desired in its translation.
There is one simple answer, the (KJV) King James Version [classical old English] or (NKJV) New King James Version [for more accessible 1900s style English]. There is no other choices for a few reasons:
Oldest, direct English translation of the Greek Orthodox texts via a pre-compromised Anglican Priest dedicated to the purest English 1:1 translation with Greek/English Orthodox Priest alongside to give proper connotation useage. Why does this matter? See next.
Any English Bible translation after the NKJV is compromised by (((Modern Publishers))) who directly started to "simplify" and "alter" for the good of the people and tampered with crucial passages naming the Pharisees and the Jewish attackers of early Christians.
Because of the oldest English translation, the chosen English passage translation alongside the earlier Greek/Anglo Orthodox Priests allowed for the more mystical/spiritual elements to be kept rather then the disgustingly simple, sanitized texts such as the NIV, Scofield, etc.
I hope this helps and I can't reiterate how critical it is to at minimum work with the NKJV Bible. It is a more spiritual read, the English will also challenge you to grow as a reader if it confuses or troubles you at times, and you can rest assured knowing that it is from a time when the enemies of the Christian Faith were identified and kept from touching crucial documents via third party organizations.
I am particularly fond of the Holman Christian Standard Version. Happy reading!!! Edit: oh, why, because I understand the translation well, though I also like to check other translations time to time, usually for word study stuff.
Douay-Rheims. Ancient non pozzed translation with the extra books you cannot find in King James.
Like Tobit and Jubilees? Never heard of that one
Douay-Rheims is the old og catholic translation, from before the kjv, by a few years* (the modern one most buy is an update of this of course)
It has the dueterocannonical books like Tobit (Tobias), which some prots call the ‘apocrypha’ (calling it that helps them to justify to themselves their taking out books of the bible I guess). Doesn’t include Jubilees, that one is truely apocryphal. It also has some old naming and follows the organisation of the original Septuagint (the og Greek translation), so that some of the psalms (after psalm 10 IIRC) are numbered 1 lower, until nearly the end.
I think the Douay Rheims is very important but it’s clunky in the same way the kjv is. If you’re wanting the easiest of reads, this isn’t it. But its old, predates the modern nonsense, includes all the books the faithful had been using since the beginning*. There’s a lot to be said for having it be one of your main bibles.
There’s a nice side-by-side version of it with the Latin vulgate from baronius press.
Aren't you essentially asking "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?!" question commonly posed by Sunday school children and atheists? If you just want to engage in philosophical theology banter, a dedicated Christian forum or even Christianity Stack Exchange would work better.
He allowed the temple to fall, and the ark to fall into enemy hands and become lost. Usually when the people fell to sin and rebellion right?
Your argument also falls down when you realise people arguing about it when they were first removed could have made the exact same argument, but against their removal. And we still can when looking at time. He’d allow it to be wrong throughout most of church history?
No, I’m satisfied that your argument was countered and your questions answered. I’m not going to play those games, you were clearly making an argument through that line of questioning.
If one is to take your question at face value and instead of the evasive, leading argument used most by Lawyers seeking to give themselves a avenue of innocent questioning -- it's Free Will. It's always been about Free Will, God's greatest gift to humankind.
The freedom to choose is the freedom to make the wrong choice. If God had to forcibly interdict post the death of Jesus Christ, the second Adam - then he becomes no better than Lucifer who is allowed to cheat instead of holding to his absolute principles as the absolute, creator Lord of existence. His creation, Humanity, must and is allowed to act freely on the material plane as designed by God and thus are swayed by the easy sins and mistakes.
You make the age old Jewish argument of "if God is so powerful, why does he allow-", full stop right there. Because its Free Will, humanity makes the mistakes of mistranslations and alterations of texts from a position of the Sin of Pride.
NKJV. Preserves the poetic grandeur of the KJV, formed for readability, and not tampered with.
The NKJV was already mentioned with specific reasons why, so I simply second that vote. It's also my translation of choice when posting quotes.
If you want a translation with the apocrypha/deuterocanon, that is modern and not pozzed, and you don't mind it being mostly confined to online (although you have several options for downloading an offline copy), I cast my vote for the World English Bible (WEB). It has it's pros (excellent footnotes) and cons (chief among them overuse of contractions, a lower literary register given its somewhat word-for-word translation philosophy), but as a bonus it is in the public domain.
In another post in this thread, I gave a partial background for why the NIV is the way it is (TL;DR unless you want to buy a used copy printed between 1984-2010, steer clear). As a 3rd vote, I present the Berean Standard Bible (BSB). This is a translation that was headed up by Bible Hub. It combines the traditional readings with an even easier flowing syntax, and does so without being pozzed ("men" remain "men", "brothers" remain "brothers", etc). The footnotes for this translation are quite good. Like before, there are several options for offline download, although if you don't mind waiting however long, there will be physical copies of their newer editions put out that you can buy (with previous printings available for purchase in the meantime, though pickings are slim at this juncture). This translation is also in the public domain.
My church uses ESV, it is a very literal translation but is pretty easy to read. Start with the new testament, the old law books near the beginning (Leviticus, Numbers) are easy to get bogged down in and don't really add much for a first time reader.
But how else will I know what insects I am and am not allowed to eat? 🤔
Spoilers: it's grasshoppers you are allowed to eat.
Leviticus 11: 20-23
Edit: not that I would. Hemimetabolic insects are a terrible choice for consumption.
Great point. Reading it from genesis to revelations is not the best way to start and those law books and the genealogies and the cubit measurements all near the start puts many people off. Those can wait, if it means reading more of it, read other books first.
Start with Mathew or Luke imo, they have more of Jesus’s teachings compared to Mark. John gives a more literary and mystical take compared to the other 3, the synoptic gospels, go for that next.
It doesn't really matter.
Luke 24:45:
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
Also Matthew 13:13 pertains to the same:
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And 1st epistle of John chapter 2:
[20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. [21] I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
You need to receive the Holy Spirit aka become baptized by fire aka become born again. Once you have it, you shouldn't really worry about anyone trying to edit/manipulate the Gospels - they have the eyes but they don't see, so they have no idea what to actually edit out and what to add.
And getting the Holy Spirit is the narrow path and nobody can really help you here. Mind you, it's nothing about ritual or following some complex laws and tradition. It's more about "ask and you shall receive", only it's not kia2 that you should be asking, seriously.
You probably shouldn't. No seriously. One thing to note about Christianity is that it is a historical religion, that is to say, we claim that events of the Gospels actually happened and that these events are essential to our religion. Christians don't think Jesus was a prophet or teacher; we think he was the incarnate Godhead, and what he did 2000 years ago was pretty important. With this in mind, Christianity predates "the Bible." No Seriously. Even a bland reading of the New Testament reveals that the Church predates the writing of the New Testament. None of the he Gospels or The Acts were extemporaneous recordings, and the Epistles were written to people already practicing Christianity.
Unlike the Mohammedans or the Jews, Christians don't hold to the idea that our sacred texts can't be translated. So how then do or do not we understand "the scriptures"? The answer is (unlike the Jews) that one's personal exegesis is NOT a good way to go about understanding our scriptures. Even protestants didn't really buy into the idea of personal exegesis until it became popular amongst Americans in the late 19th century. Arius was quoting scripture out the wazoo at the Council of Nicaea; he was still heretic that claimed Christ was not God.
Are there fuckin shit translations these days? Yes, and I think you know that. The answer to your question is: pick a church you trust, and ask them what the Bible means, ideally Orthodox or Catholic.
the Gnostic texts, that way you are only getting the lies from 1-10 translations rather 100s of translations
ultimately the catholic church controlled what is in the bible today, they had the power to destroy heretical texts for over 1000 years, they pretty much destroyed all knowledge that they didnt like and now think about how the catholic church acts today
if it where not for one monk burying some of the ancient texts after the pope at time time declared them destroyed the corpus hemeticum would still be thought of as a forgery from around the 1700s
I personally read King James (I love olde English) but a lot of people like the NIV
NIV is pozzed. It removes gendered language in places to be gender neutral when it's not supposed to
The 2011 update to the NIV is what is pozzed. The original version released in 1984 (the version I grew up with) didn't contain these problems, even if in hindsight it had a set of flaws of its own.
This is made worse by the publisher's subsequent efforts to memoryhole the original version, going as far as to take down all digitally uploaded copies of the original. If I were to make the skinwalker comparison to bible translations, the NIV is it.
I'd be willing to post comparisons to both versions if you are interested.
It was sanitized so as not to name.
NIV was also translated by a literal lesbian.
Wow. Didn’t know that.
If you love ye olde English, you should give the Wycliffe version a try. It's even older English than KJV.
Cool!
Alot of people are recommending the ESV and I would as well.
I also enjoy the NET Bible.
If you're looking for a good study Bible, I highly recomend the Reformation study Bible or the ESV study Bible.
Stay away from the Scofield. The MacArthur study Bible is okay but it's full of dispensationalism (israel worship).
KJV, ESV are great picks.
I'm doing my first Bible read through right now. I started with the Douay-Rheims, but switched over to the ESV (English standard version), because it's very close to the older translations, easier to read, and has notes discussing the original Greek, and other variants of the passages.
If you want to be hyper accurate, just read the original Greek. There are tons of translation resources online, and even more for the Bible.
I've been using the website Bible Gateway, which allows you to read chapters in many different translations, and compare specific verses with all different translations at once, which is nice for people like me who like to deep dive and research while reading.
I'd only advise to stay away from dispensationalist Bibles like the Scofield Bible. I don't like the NIV, either, as it leaves a lot to be desired in its translation.
Get an ESV study Bible
ESV
There is one simple answer, the (KJV) King James Version [classical old English] or (NKJV) New King James Version [for more accessible 1900s style English]. There is no other choices for a few reasons:
Oldest, direct English translation of the Greek Orthodox texts via a pre-compromised Anglican Priest dedicated to the purest English 1:1 translation with Greek/English Orthodox Priest alongside to give proper connotation useage. Why does this matter? See next.
Any English Bible translation after the NKJV is compromised by (((Modern Publishers))) who directly started to "simplify" and "alter" for the good of the people and tampered with crucial passages naming the Pharisees and the Jewish attackers of early Christians.
Because of the oldest English translation, the chosen English passage translation alongside the earlier Greek/Anglo Orthodox Priests allowed for the more mystical/spiritual elements to be kept rather then the disgustingly simple, sanitized texts such as the NIV, Scofield, etc.
I hope this helps and I can't reiterate how critical it is to at minimum work with the NKJV Bible. It is a more spiritual read, the English will also challenge you to grow as a reader if it confuses or troubles you at times, and you can rest assured knowing that it is from a time when the enemies of the Christian Faith were identified and kept from touching crucial documents via third party organizations.
God Bless.
I'm a HUGE fan of the Harper Study Bible: Revised Standard Version.
Clear language, notes, it's just all-around good.
Take a look at the KJV Bible verses that the other translations removed and decide for yourself.
https://i.imgur.com/6XZ54Uf.jpeg
I am particularly fond of the Holman Christian Standard Version. Happy reading!!! Edit: oh, why, because I understand the translation well, though I also like to check other translations time to time, usually for word study stuff.