/lit/ - Literature

>>22620057
There is legitimately no reason to read KJV unless you're studying 1800s and earlier literature. No actual theologian uses it and as a translation it's lacking.

>>22620063
>No actual theologian uses it and as a translation it's lacking.
Neither one of these are true
King James Version is still used (though in smaller churches primarily from what I've seen)
And as a translation it is still probably the most beautiful and is for the most part an excellent translation of the textus receptus. And since it's based off it, it has a little different new testament text from most of the newer translations.

As such there are verses that are not in others in it (ultimately the inclusion or exclusion of these do not change the overall message of the new testament, but some are verses that get discussed from time to time).

Primary issues with it are lacking proper terms for wildlife and if you view its sources as inferior to those of newer Bibles. Regardless it is still a good translation. If it weren't it wouldn't still be around

>>22620057
The best modern literal translations into English are the ESV and the NASB.

>>22620063
No one cares about theology.

>>22620057
There are books on how to read it. Although just read an easier one if you're just trying to get through the bible.

>>22620882
>read a book to tell you how to read a book
is this what God wanted?

>>22621021
Generally, yes.
Proverbs 4:7
>Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
>All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

A lady at my church told me Timothy is a forgery, although I think i've decided that she's just angry at the part where it says women shouldn't teach.

Also, how can you not read KJV? Surely you became accustomed to this language when you was reading the complete works of Shakespeare... because you've read the Bard? right anon???

If you're struggling then get NKJV, I also read NIV and it's really easy, written for thickos and lazy ppl.

What is the difference between the KJV and the Geneva bible?

>>22620057
Absolutely, unquestionably F I L T E R E D

>>22620057
Is your native language English? If yes, stick with it until you get the hang of it. No other book matters.

>>22621559
I just copied your question into a search engine, kneel before me - the knower of that which you seek; yet I shall keep it a secret for such disparity favours our shared conception of power (me fucking you in the arse with knowledge because I can be bothered to use search engines).

>>22621559
Geneva Bible has commentary and notes from protestants in Geneva
KJV has no such commentary as King James said no to having anything like that.

Different translation and translators as well of course

>>22621559
It's actually simple, especially the prose. There are limited nouns and verbs compared to many modern translations. There's a starkness in it's lack of vocabulary, yet it works beautifully.

Genesis 7:17-19:
>And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up upon the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

>New American Bible:
>The flood continued for forty days on the earth; the water increased and lifted up the ark so that it rose above the earth. The water surged and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. Then the water surged even higher on the earth, and all the high mountains under the whole sky were covered.
"Continued", "surge", "float", "surface"... these elaborations are colorful and informative but don't do it any favors, imo.

>>22621777
Sorry, that's the CSB on the bottom. Not NAB.

>>22621552
Have read KJV quite a bit, haven't cracked mr shakesman, how do I into?
I know the first folio is the best order of plays
Should I start with the Tragedies or Comedies or Histories

>>22620057
You know which version you should buy, anon.

>>22620057
Now I don't read the Bible in English so I'm not entirely sure which version is the best, but I heard from others that NIV is dumbing it down too much and therefore meaning is lost, while the King James version is too archaic and has a few verses that weren't translated from the original but from Latin translations, which means there may be inaccuracies. Overall I was recommended to read the English standard version if I wanted to read in English. As a German native I'm instead reading Schlachter, Elberfelder and Luther, switching between them whenever I feel like a verse could have different translations.

>>22620063

>>22621933
For him, I'd rather see it performed to be honest. Not sure if saying that is bad on a board like this.

>>22620057
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D

>>22621021
God isn't real

imagine getting filtered by KJV holy fucking SHIT

>>22620858
Cringe

The New International Version helps to cover up the fact that Jesus is fictional.

>English Standard Version
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

>King James Bible
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

>New International Version
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

go to the part where abraham tricks the other tribe into cutting their foreskins and then kills them all while they suffer in recovery because they fucked his daughter who was a prostitute. Biblical

>>22620063
Go be Episcopalian somewhere else.

>>22622284
all of those passages are included in the footnotes, they are not part of the main text because they're not present in all manuscripts
only schizo retards post this picture

>>22623388
>his daughter who was a prostitute
nice reading comprehension

>>22620057
This is what you get for listening to Pr*testants, many such cases

>>22621552
>NIV and it's really easy, written for thickos and lazy ppl.
It's easy to read because it is translated into modern English, and the clarity also comes from more accurate translation of the original sources (and more and older sources than KJV). Biblical interpretation can get as hairy as you like but the point of the Bible is to communicate a message accurately and effectively to humanity for their salvation, not to give nerds some way of showing how allegedly clever they are.

But any translation is fine, unless there's one where Jesus beats up Pilate and the Sanhedrin and opens a whorehouse in Corinth the message will get through. Children understand what the Bible is saying, the issue is when adults get sophisticated enough to come up with arguments about how it's ok for them to sin, acktchually, which is 99% of us. Living it is the tricky part, always has been.

I don't think it's impossible to read but whenever the subject has come up I have always recommended the NRSV translation and specifically the oxford study bible

>>22620057
XNITY PRIMER
read moar learn moar discern moar
some good bible studies in that stack

>>22622729
You have to be 18 to post.

>>22623438
It's not perfect, but it's more Catholic friendly than many newer translations. The translators of back then were still former Renaissance era Catholic priests and scholars and immersed in the Vulgate. The KJV translators were 90% high Church Anglicans as well and specifically warded off too much Puritan influence like what was in the Geneva bible. The Catholic Ordinariate authorized by Pope Benedict blessed it's use and even adapted the Book of Common Prayer to be more in line with Catholic teaching.
Strangely, there are a lot of Orthodox diaspora who are KJV Onlyists. And all their service books read like it, unless it needs a Septuagint specific quote.
All in all, I'd say it's one of more neutral translations. You can read from a KJV and hearers from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox will recognize it's wordings. And even the odd Rasta and Black Israelite and Mormon and even Edgar Cayce read from it. lol

>>22620057
It's not that hard m8, but if you're struggling, get a more recent one like the ESV.

>>22624987
The KJV committee was specifically a mix of high church and puritans to make it a unifying translation.

>>22625079
>The KJV committee was specifically a mix of high church and puritans to make it a unifying translation.
They practically silenced the Puritan wing. Read David Norton's background on the work. There's a dominance of the high church wing. Or just the evidence of the work itself speaks of this: it went back to words like "bishop" and "church" (instead of congregation) breaking with more Puritan friendly wording.
The king and the church heiarchy frankly treated Puritans like second class citizens in general. They could have been more friendly. I think it's a big reason why the KJV still wasn't adopted by them, and even beyond that, they eventually caused a civil war and killed the king Charles. Not love for king James if they want to go as far as execute his son. While Cromwell's New Model Army was issued little mini bibles with the Geneva version.

>>22623542
Came here to say this. Also, it's available for download on archive.org .

If KJV is so bad, then why does it have KING in it?

>>22626196
this is probably 3000 pages lol

>>22626325
Yes, there's a lot of explanatory material, several books of apocrypha, and related scholarly analysis. Well worth the free download. And my copy is only 2,440 pages. That's 3x the length of picrel...which I've also read. Now get cracking!

>>22626218
rodney king was born like 2,000 years later you fucking simpleton

>>22620057
Knox > KJV

>>22620063
Priests don't fucking read it in original Aramaic and Hebrew? Why do they even learn it during their studies then?

>they don't know about the NKJV