/lit/ - Literature

Obviously KJV, and it's one of if not the most accurate too so it's clearly the one you're looking for.

>>22720832
Knox sounds better

>>22720816
>>22720835

Checked. The Knox Bible is great.

>>22720832
>KJV
>accurate
1. Translators in 1611 had fewer ancient source documents available, in some cases they were translating mistranslations.
2. Translators in 1611 were translating for a 1611 audience, and English language usage has evolved since then.
3. The translators were not trying for literal accuracy:
>Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere), we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by ‘purpose’, never to call it ‘intent’; if one where ‘journeying’, never ‘travelling’; if one where ‘think’, never ‘suppose’; if one where ‘pain’, never ‘ache’; if one where ‘joy’, never ‘gladness’, etc.; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time showed himself greatly moved that one of newfangleness called κράββατον, σκίμπους, though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning ‘cucurbita’ (to which reading the people had been used) into ‘hedera’. [...] Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to others, as when they put ‘washing’ for ‘baptism’, and ‘Congregation’ in stead of ‘Church’: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their ‘azymes’, ‘tunic’, ‘rational’, ‘holocausts’, ‘praepuce’, ‘pasche’, and a number of such like whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.

Of these, #2 is the biggest issue - the differences due to #1 are not that great, and #3 is inevitable in any translation of any text, and the choices they made are the source of the "poetry". Most pro and anti-KJV arguments are memes, but Shakespearean English is different than modern English, so I think that is a real concern.

>>22720990
2 is a silly point of contention, any educated person should be able to understand Shakespearean English as well as modern.

>>22720990
>English language usage has evolved since then
Yeah, for the worse.

For the Psalms at least, you’re doing yourself a great disservice if you don’t read the Coverdale psalter, and I’m not even Anglican.