/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22937913]

It’s actually good, both for theology and as a piece of literature. Why read any other translation? I know there are a few problems, but simply keep those in mind when you get to the few passages where it matters

[Anonymous No.22937930]

>>22937913
English isn’t the language of God, and thus KJV is garbage. Get serious about your faith and learn Aramaic or Greek

[Khata No.22937948]

>>22937913
Read a Septuagint Bible you American pseud, it is closer to the truth than the bloody KJV. Learn also Greek and Latin desu.

[Anonymous No.22937955]

>>22937930
Wrong, you can learn about God in any language it's easier than before you have all sources of the world

[Anonymous No.22937973]

>>22937913
>Why read any other translation?
The translation is titled in favor of a Christian interpretation. That said, obviously KJV is the most quotable English translation.

[Anonymous No.22939268]

>>22937948
>people who were not on the ark survived the flood

[Anonymous No.22939286]

>>22939268
not in the septuagint

[Anonymous No.22939413]

I read the KJV mainly, but also study the Bible in the original languages. Referring to the original texts will deepen your understanding if you seek deeper understanding of the holy scripture.

[Anonymous No.22939424]

>>22939286
From the Septuagint:
>Καὶ ἔζησε Μαθουσάλα ἑπτὰ ἔτη καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Λάμεχ. (Gen. 5:25 LXX). Methuselah begat Lamech at 167.
>καὶ ἐγένοντο πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι Μαθουσάλα, ἃς ἔζησεν, ἐννέα καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἐννακόσια ἔτη, καὶ ἀπέθανε. (Gen. 5:27 LXX). He lived a total of 969 years.
>Καὶ ἔζησε Λάμεχ ὀκτὼ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱόν. (Gen. 5:28 LXX). Lamech begat Noah at 188.
>Νῶε δὲ ἦν ἐτῶν ἑξακοσίων, καὶ ὁ κατακλυσμὸς τοῦ ὕδατος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (Gen. 7:6 LXX). The Flood happened when Noah was 600.

600 + 188 + 167 = 955. 955 < 969, so Methuselah survived the Flood by 14 years according to the LXX chronology. This was an error recognized by early Christians:
>From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begot the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. (De Civ. Dei XV. 11)

[Anonymous No.22939771]

>>22937913
sure it's good. it's weighty, and English itself is probably largely based on it, as modern English was formed and crystallized at this time. Same thing with Shakespeare. He is us, we are him. Savvy?

[Anonymous No.22940362]

>>22937973
>The translation is titled in favor of a Christian interpretation.
It's what's one of the most formal/literal translations. It's more questionable in the source texts for NT.
The main people who complain are rabbis and the mainline academics who serves them. But it's not even all Jews. Even Robert Alter thinks it's based. Precisely because it follows the stark flow of the Hebrew, especially in the narrative portions. He's more critical with the poetry.

[Anonymous No.22940386]

>>22939424
These are good things to point out, but it's not an all or nothing scenario. You can't find good editions of the Septuagint. The hardcover of Brenton's LXX is good as a reference book, but not something most would carry around. It's supplements a nice bible well...and there are tons of KJVs that come in nice bindings. It's nice to have a well bound bible that isn't going to fall apart with regularly reading.

[Anonymous No.22940455]

>>22937913
>Why read any other translation?
because much of the language they use in kjv doesn't mean the same thing in common english vernacular as it does in modern parlance. also hebrew uses a lot of figures of speech that we don't use in modern english. most english translations don't translate these passages literally, instead they try to infer the meaning of the passages. kjv does this as well. also there are different sources with different versions of scripture with different claims to legitimacy. which ones you choose to emphasize will change the translation.

[Anonymous No.22940553]

>>22937930
>Aramaic and Greek are the languages of God
lol, lmao

[Anonymous No.22941992]

>>22940386
the cambridge kjv cameo is a beautiful bible in calf skin leather. it's my go to. the rest of my literature is on an ebook.

[Anonymous No.22942013]

>>22940455
>most english translations don't translate these passages literally, instead they try to infer the meaning of the passages. kjv does this as well.
KJV tries to stick with formal translation more often. When it doesn't, it usually following the tradition of the Vulgate and Septuagint. For example, it's use of the word "Lord" from kyrios and dominius. In cases like this, it sticks to what the Church is used to. Otherwise, it leans on retaining a lot of the Hebraism in it's senstence structure and idioms, just like the Sept, Vulgate, Peshitta, and other translations of antiquity did. People recognize it as a sort of "biblish" language now, no matter where it's translated. English, Spanish, whatever. Modern translations, while meaning, think it hinders evangelism and don't want to "sound like the bible" and want to sound lie Joe on the street sounds. It's been a disaster. lol. And also a racket.. corp after corp vying to get a piece of the pie and a lot of money and time being wasted on dozens of translations in just the last 50 years.

And then sometimes they're just outright wrong. A big one is "Belial". Which is another OT name for Satan. Often the "sons of Belial" are also mentioned as a shorthand for the more vile antagonists in the bible. Faggot rapists who behave like the average 4chan anon.
There isn't a single modern translation that uses Belial anymore. Modern scholarship tried to impose a view that it was just a an artificial construction and it's not a proper name but two words meaning "without worth". While sons of Belial is "sons of worthlessness".
It's just flat out wrong. Maybe even a liae. Belial was understood and used in the New Testament, the Apocrypha/Pseudepigraphal books, and even the Dead Sea Scrolls where the main enemies of the Sons of Light are the Sons of Belial. Every one of these witnesses of actual life on the ground and language in Israel called out Belial explicitly in their own writings, but these scholars (both "conservative" and "liberal") want to tell you Belial didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.22942017]

>>22942013
>leans on retaining a lot of the Hebraism in it's senstence structure and idioms, just like the Sept, Vulgate, Peshitta, and other translations of antiquity did. People recognize it as a sort of "biblish" language now, no matter where it's translated. English, Spanish, whatever. Modern translations, while meaning
while well meaning*

[Anonymous No.22942024]

>>22941992

[Anonymous No.22942040]

The KJV, but better. This is the ultimate literary translation of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22942046]

>>22937913
shut up maria.