/lit/ - Literature

yes. the king james bible has literary value. i've been told it also has some lovely hebrew poetry.

yes. but only the king james.

>>3374576
Explain, why only the king james one and not, say, a modern catholic version?
And where can I get a copy of the king james bible?

Absolutely. If you look at it as the work of fiction it is, it's actually a really good dystopian novel.

>>3374585
Go to the Library.

Also, read a passage from the new international version, lol to self, then pick up the king james

I've only got experience of KJV and NRSV, but both have top class literary merit.

>>3374585
modern translations try to go for accuracy or clarity over pleasing language. you might want to buy an annotated one, it will help if it has a map too.

everywhere?

>>3374601
What's the main difference between the two versions?

And do movies like the one I listed accurately describe it?

>>3374549
>for its literary merit alone, is the Bible worth reading?
No work of folk art has any artistic merit whatsoever.

As a rule of thumb, myth, religious text and folk art has the artistic merit of a saturday morning cartoon.

>>3374592
>too edgy faggot who reads for plot can't contain his autism and has to reassert his disbelief in a thread already specified to be about literary merit

>>>/reddit/

>>3374607
bitch go die in a fire

>>3374606
>And do movies like the one I listed accurately describe it?

in the same way "woody allen and diane keaton break up" describes annie hall yes

>>3374618
How is Iliad folk art? Are you fucking dumb? It has the author on it's goddamn fucking cover right there in the picture you posted.

>>3374605
Do the two versions have basically the same content, but with more pleasing diction?

>>3374606

KJV is old school. "Though shalt" and "Lo" and "Spake unto" and the rest. It's great poetry.

NRSV is a closely literal version in modern English.

>>3374623
wow

just

fucking wow

>>3374607

Bible isn't folk art.

>>3374632
but are all the same stories in each??

>>3374621
so no not at all

>>3374607
first of all,fuck you!
secondly please define artistic...

>>3374635
I see, is Der Ring des Nibelungen a folk poem/opera, too? You stupid fucking cunt.

>>3374648
>secondly please define artistic...
Please define "define". Like you, I'm too stupid to use a dictionary.

>>3374607

explain your reasoning or you are trolling.

>>3374629
no, that's a vast oversimplification of what translation entails.

they have the same general "gist" (god this, jesus that, etc), but you should consider them as entirely separate works, not two different lenses through which you will see one fundamental work.

or you could. up to you.

>>3374650
>i know nothing of the illiad!

keep going plz

>>3374653
My reasoning is that folk art by design caters to the lowest common denominator. It also lacks an auteur.

>>3374645
>but are all the same stories in each??

>>3374651
Ok, so I'm seeing the King James one as better now, from what I can tell for its poetry. Thanks.

>>3374592
>dystopian
>set chiefly (for Christians) during the golden age of Rome
I'm not concerned you don't read the Bible, anon, I'm concerned you don't read.

The Gospels and the Pentateuch should get you pretty far in terms of understanding usual Biblical references. Maybe Ecclesiastes or Job if you're looking more something more "literary."

>>3374657

>>3374664
>from what I can tell for its poetry
It really isn't. It's just a collection of dull, dull fables.

>>3374670
Sucking cocks gave you cancer, not my post.

>>3374670
that's Chicharito, and he don't have cancurr

The Book of Job is one of the greatest narrative poems of all time.

That section when God speaks to Job is just awe inspiring every time.

>>3374669
Thanks. So to clarify, reading the King James version of the gospels will get me pretty far in terms of references and understanding the influences of it on other literature, along with its poetry.

>>3374676
he'd get it if he read that post

>>3374681
Unless you've been living udner a rock, you already understand all the references and see all the influences.

>>3374672

>dat homophobia

>>3374677
But it's the same in the King James version right?
I plan to read that.

>>3374652
art is subjective you fucking pleb. Get the fuck out of here.

>>3374686

Try out the translations here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

>>3374689
Art is one of the few things that are 100% objective.

>>3374689
If art is subjective, why are certain works in every medium widely regarded as classics?

>>3374696
Because his teacher told him so. Same teacher also said art is subjective, and that guy isn't into critical thinking anyway.

>>3374689
If Art is subjective, then why are the art objects on display at galleries and things and not the art subjects?

>>3374692
Thanks but I want to get a physical book, and I'm thinking the King James one is the way to go for now.

>>3374696
humas are sufficiently alike that there exists a shared subjective space, aka what 'objective' means

>>3374704
>Thanks but I want to get a physical book
And now OP shows his true intentions.

As was expected. Nothing else to see here. Abandon thread.

>>3374706
Regardless of your subjective space word-game galimatias, all art is objective.

>>3374714
yeah ok I think I got my answer anyway.

>>3374721
>all art is objective

yes, that was my point.

>>3374704
Can't go wrong with KJ. It is harder to read than more contemporary translations though. If you are planning to read the whole thing through I'd also get something like the Oxford Annotated as a companion (intros to each book, maps, simpler language).

>>3374724
Don't get punched while you're waiting for a girl to notice you in that coffee shop.

>>3374731
No it's not like that...I wouldn't read it in public and I'm not a hipster. I meant what I said in the original post.

>>3374728
Thank you, this is what I'm going to do.

"art is subjective" is always invoked when people don't want to explain their shitty opinions.

Art is subjective, but quality is objective and is apparent in everything.

>>3374739
Your welcome.

If you''re interested I've found this to be a very helpful secondary text:

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Old-Testament-Introduction-Second/dp/0809147807/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358626493&sr=1-3&keywords=reading+the+old+testament

>>3374657
explain how religious or mythological works are "folk art" or you are trolling.

>>3374752
faggot thinks he has transcended the last 2000 years of civilization because he listens to Radiohead.

>>3374731
Do chicks like the bible?

I read on the bus and there's this blonde cutie hipster girl who sits by me occasionally. She didn't seem impressed with the bible and I'm a fairly handsome bastard.

>>3374752
i thought he was trolling, but now i reckon he's an idtiot

>>3374751
Thanks I'll look into it too.

well.


Fuck this thread.

It's a very good collection of stories and may change the way you see things. It's famous for a reason.

>>3374762
If you're a fairly handsome bastard, it doesn't matter what you're reading at all.

All girls need is a pretext to be impressed. You don't have to actually impress women younger than 25 or so. They're hormonally pre-impressed, so to say.

The Old Testament is awesome. The New Testament is boring. I've been meaning to start reading some old works of literature from that period like the Saga of Gilgamesh (from where Genesis is thought to be derived) and such.

I enjoy it in Koine; despite being an atheist.

The Bible is not a single book, but, rather, a collection of many books. Several of the books are worth reading simply for the fact that they are often referenced in other works of literature.

Many of the books are mind-numbingly tedious in parts (genealogies, ritual laws, etc.). There is a section of Exodus describing how the Tabernacle should be built which reads like an instruction manual for putting together a piece of furniture.

Here are the ones I'd recommend:

>Genesis and Exodus (though, as I said, some of the chapters of Exodus are quite boring).
>1 Samuel - the best of the books about the history of Israel and its kings
>Ruth - a pleasant short story.
>Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (a.k.a. The Song of Solomon) - this section of the Bible is known as the "Wisdom literature". Ecclesiastes, is, imo, the best book of the Bible.

New Testament:
>Of the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), I'd go with Mark, as it is the shortest and most compelling (and Matthew and Luke are expansions to Mark). Read John for comparison to Mark.
>Romans
>Revelation - good luck figuring out what the hell it is about, but if you like writings about batshit insane, trippy visions, then this the book for you.

Yes.

The King James Bible is tough to read, as tough as Shakespeare in many parts. (Some historians believe that Shakespeare may have actually been one of its writers).

>>3375173
>Ecclesiastes, is, imo, the best book of the Bible

Correct.

>A feast is made for laughter, wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.

>>3374549
Not at all.

Its only value lies in sociocultural and historical understanding. Having Biblical knowledge is also useful if you're inclined to have religious debates with Christians, though any time you disprove their asinine assertions with chapter and verse, they'll say you're "misinterpreting a metaphor."

>>3375176
> (Some historians believe that Shakespeare may have actually been one of its writers).

Nobody worth a shit. This is like saying "some historians believe the Ancient Alien theories".