[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 144 KB, 1970x1819, xj3w8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14004796 No.14004796 [Reply] [Original]

>be KJV translation team
>54 learned scholars, experts in their fields, split into six groups
>two groups at oxford
>two groups at cambridge
>two groups at westminster
>the King is himself is the patron of this project
>spend 7 years translating the Holy Scriptures
>each verse undergoing several tests before it is accepted as Scripture
>create a masterpiece of Elizabethan prose
>your work has an influence on the English language far beyond what you could ever imagine
>400 years later papists on a Bangladeshi kite testing forum still seethe at the mere mention of your translation

>> No.14004808

>Elizabethan
It’s literally called the King JAMES Bible you fucking retard. It’s from the Jacobean

>> No.14004812

>>14004796
more like /gay/JV
KEK got em

>> No.14004814

WTF is wrong with creating a modern translation of an ancient text?

kjv at the time was just a readable text

now it's antiquated

>> No.14004821

>>14004814
Readable while explicitly aiming for poetry. The Recovery Bible you got from rehab is there to best you over the head with some Osteen drone’s idea of what lessons you should take so you don’t drink yourself to death

>> No.14004826

>>14004808
Imbecile
>>14004814
Who said their is something wrong with modern translations?

>> No.14004828

KJV is the final boss of language.

>> No.14004833

>>14004826
>imbecile
Why don’t you produce a single scholarly source that places the KJV in the Elizabethan

>> No.14004837

>Has dubious verses which were probably never in the original manuscripts

>> No.14004848

>still manage to mistranslate "young woman"

What did they mean by this?

>> No.14004859

>>14004837
>if they weren't in some manuscript found in the Vatican's basement or in a monastery trash bin then they are dubious

>> No.14004891

>>14004859
>there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the earliest mention of a verse being from centuries after the letters were written down

>> No.14004931

>>14004891
>the Byzantine Texts are corrupt but some dusty Vatican trash bin manuscript is pure

>> No.14005982

>>13999999

>> No.14005989

>>14004796
>translation
lmaoooo stfu you pleb

>> No.14006969

>>14004848
>It's The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nineteen and libertines are still looking for some pharisaic loophole that lets them put their pharisee in some coed's loophole

S E E T H I N G

>> No.14006996

>adds numerous lines from literally their fantasy that exist nowhere else and mixing up the word order to create new intentions
>retarded and gay thou thee thy yeeeeeet
>masterpiece

>> No.14007010

>>14006996
>adds numerous lines from literally their fantasy that exist nowhere else
No, you made that up

>mixing up the word order
The syntax in English cannot be fully rendered, but the King James comes closer than any later translation except Young's Literal, which uses syntax that is extremely wrong for English

>> No.14007377

>modern translations are developed through hundreds of people over decades of work with access to more copies of original language manuscripts than what was available 400 years ago
>with their superior understanding of linguistics they render things from Greek and Hebrew texts differently than some random English translation 400 years ago
>KJV autismos immediately deflect to denominational shitflinging as soon as anyone even remotely implies that it's not the best translation out there forever and always

>> No.14007382

>>14004859
Bro we have much more manuscripts now than in those days; the earliest manuscripts don’t conform to the KJV. Learn textual criticism. The King James Only Controversy by James White is a good intro.

>> No.14007420
File: 333 KB, 804x529, 1561164986699.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14007420

>>14007010
Luckily we have the Orthodox Study Bible based on the NKJV then

>> No.14007429

>>14005989
The Vulgate is a translation

>> No.14007439

>>14004828
Lol, imagine being such a pleb you think the KJV is hard to read

>> No.14007460

>>14007377
No one takes the KJV seriously outside of the Anglosphere. It's more of a national literary thing for anglos.
It is clear that none of them had any serious command of old Semitic languages. The Greek portions are better, minus if course the extremely strange selection of texts that completely goes agaist all Bible textual study of the last centuries.
More importantly the KJV is responsible for the long standing retardation of England in terms of ancient languages scholarship.

>> No.14007474
File: 33 KB, 500x483, 33979c402223dd81124f4bd49d263b4a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14007474

>mfw some sub-90 IQ Baptist hillbilly from Bumfuck Nowhere, Alabama, who speaks no ancient languages and probably doesn't even read the KJV himself because early modern English is too hard, insists that the KJV is the only good English Bible because Pastor Billybob told him so

>> No.14007594

>>14004796
>thous shalt commit adultery

>> No.14007605
File: 40 KB, 720x540, 1566058225059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14007605

>>14007594
this lol

>> No.14007643

>>14004796
Thou shall commit adultery.

>> No.14007649

>>14007594
>>14007643
Adulterymind

>> No.14007659

>>14007594
>>14007605
>>14007643
>>14007649
that's right, cathcels

>> No.14007663
File: 1.08 MB, 1188x1736, 1546903770380.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14007663

>>14007605
the fool hath said in his heart there is a God

>> No.14007670

>>14004796
Except it's 90% the Bishop's Bible which it was a revision of. The beautiful language didn't come from the KJV translators.

>> No.14007674

>>14007670
Except the errors of course, those are clearly the translators's.

>> No.14007677

>>14007420
based orthodoxbro

>> No.14007679

>>14004796

I see that some KJV bibles have different release dates according to their editor, which one is the best/closest to the original? Or are they all good?
Just looking for an epub.

>> No.14007682

>>14007594
>>14007643
Based retards don't know what a printing error is.

>> No.14007696

>>14007679
>I see that some KJV bibles have different release dates according to their editor
What is important to understand is they are different editions but not revisions. The only changes were spelling was updated to reflect more modern (1789) spelling and fonts were of course changed. No words themselves were substituted, removed, or added.
Traditionally there have been 3 small differences between the Oxford text and the Cambridge called "Waite's errors" but very few publishers use the Oxford text today.
The differences are these 3 verses.

oxford: 2 chronicles 33:19 says "sin"
cambridge: same text as above- "sins"

oxford: nahum 3:16- "fleeth"
cambridge: "flieth"

oxford: Jeremiah 34:16 "whom he"
cambridge: whom ye

>> No.14007706

>>14007696

Oh, that's it?
What a wholesome response, thank you anon!
In my ignorance I've been reading the New American Standard of the Old Testament up until the book of Daniel, should I re-read some books in the KJV version or am I good to progress?

>> No.14007741

>>14007706
The Psalms for sure. They are beautiful in the KJV. If you are going to memorize Scripture the KJV is easy too since it is quite a monosyllabic text.
For instance there are 184 verses that contain nothing but monosyllable words.
https://forums.swordsearcher.com/threads/one-syllable-verses.1856/

>> No.14007759

>>14007741

I admit I skipped half of the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiates and will go over them again in the KJV seeing how clear and concise they seem.
Thank you again.

>> No.14007765

>>14004796
KJV is inaccurate.