Bible translations

You feel it turned out magnificently because you care more about the tone of language used than understanding the message or its historical significance.

The King James Bible is an important piece of western literature, but if you actually care about studying the Bible, there are better ones to work with.

>This translation uses flowery language so it is the best.
8/10 you've got me rather incensed.

>and extremely accurate in almost all parts.

It quite literally gets the first sentence of both the Old and New Testaments wrong.

>A translation done by an English king trying to bend it
Citation needed

>There's a reason the King James Version isn't considered the academic standard for English versions anymore
Damn, son, are you brainwashed? I'm showing you the truth for your own eyes, and you're going to plug your ears, shut your eyes and deny it and saying "muh academics"? If you catch a sexologist banging your wife, are you going to listen when he and his friends tell you, "You're clearly mistaken, as experts in sex, we agree." You can see with your own eyes on that the the NRSV is mendacious when it comes to literal rendering: do you care to find any shred of viable excuse for that? Saying, "Academics support it," is not an excuse, academics need an excuse.

In Genesis 1:2, "wabahu" is Hebrew a nonce word coined solely to rhyme with "tohu", the translation for it is completely arbitrary.

Matthew 1:1 is translated more literally by the KJV than the the NRSV

>In Genesis 1:2, "wabahu" is Hebrew a nonce word coined solely to rhyme with "tohu", the translation for it is completely arbitrary.

Try Genesis 1:1, you know, the FIRST sentence.

And the NT starts with Mark, not Matthew. But of course, the KJV couldn't bother to explain to the ignorant peasants why it says Ἠσαΐᾳ and then goes on to quote Malachai, so they just changed it to "the prophets" so nobody would ask awkward questions.

Genesis 1:1 is translated the same in the King James and the NRSV

The NT begins with Matthew, bruh

discussion of fiction goes in

>the KJV couldn't bother to explain to the ignorant peasants why it says Ἠσαΐᾳ
Protip: it doesn't in the Textus Receptus

Religion is explicitly a topic approved for this board.

ok

christians are brainwashed cucks

euphoric

...

enjoy your mental illness

Your salt clearly hasn't lost its saltiness, brother.

...

Anyrhing but NIV

What about "The Message"?

>Damn, son, are you brainwashed? I'm showing you the truth for your own eyes, and you're going to plug your ears, shut your eyes and deny it and saying "muh academics"? If you catch a sexologist banging your wife, are you going to listen when he and his friends tell you, "You're clearly mistaken, as experts in sex, we agree." You can see with your own eyes on that the the NRSV is mendacious when it comes to literal rendering: do you care to find any shred of viable excuse for that? Saying, "Academics support it," is not an excuse, academics need an excuse.

You haven't provided anything beyond "I like how the KJV looks better." All of the NRSV language brought up is both clearer, and more true to the original meaning.

I've provided that the King James is more literal.

> All of the NRSV language brought up is both clearer
If you're four years old, maybe

>and more true to the original meaning.
What are you basing this on? How is truncating "mine eye, mine eye" to just "my eyes," truer to the original meaning when the original meaning was meant to convey being overcome with emotion? How is replacing "mine eye, mine runneth down with water," with "my eyes flow forth with tears," closer to the original meaning, when this is a verse from a poem? Being banal and insipid is truer to the original meaning of a literary poem expressing profound anguish? You do realize Hebrew has a word for "tears" that the authority in Hebrew could have used, but chose not to for a particular reason? Maybe, for instance, his expression evokes the imagery of running water and streams, to express how immense his weeping is? It's really a beautiful phrase, "mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water," because he doesn't invoke an overt simile, but yet conjures up the connotation of one on a level you can feel--you feel the imagery, but you are not called to actively imagine it, since that might cause you feel calm, instead of the emotion of the author. "Mine eye, mine eye,"--you can almost hear his voice trembling and and feel his hands shaking--"runneth down with water."

I've provided that the King James is more literal.

> All of the NRSV language brought up is both clearer
If you're four years old, maybe

>and more true to the original meaning.
What are you basing this on? How is truncating "mine eye, mine eye" to just "my eyes," truer to the original meaning when the original meaning was meant to convey being overcome with emotion? How is replacing "mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water," with "my eyes flow with tears," closer to the original meaning, when this is a verse from a poem? Being banal and insipid is truer to the original meaning of a literary poem expressing profound anguish? You do realize Hebrew has a word for "tears" that the author in Hebrew could have used, but chose not to, opting for "water" instead, for a particular reason? Maybe, for instance, his expression evokes the imagery of running water and streams, to express how immense his weeping is? It's really a beautiful phrase, "mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water," because he doesn't invoke an overt simile, but yet conjures up the connotation of one on a level you can feel--you feel the imagery, but you are not called to actively imagine it, since that might cause you feel calm, instead of the emotion of the author. "Mine eye, mine eye,"--you can almost hear his voice trembling and and feel his hands shaking--"runneth down with water."

>I've provided that the King James is more literal.

No you haven't. You've suggested it keeps some meaningless speach idioms that it hurts your feelings to have absent, but are ultimately pointless in actually understanding the doctrines of the bible.

>What are you basing this on? How is truncating "mine eye, mine eye" to just "my eyes," truer to the original meaning when the original meaning was meant to convey being overcome with emotion?

The fact that kind of shit is utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the text. Your complain is an aesthetic one, but for people that actually want to study the bible, meaningless.

I'll refer you to

The KJV is pretty, but anyone using it as their only biblical source is an idiot

If you can't read toddler-level Greek then you're a total pleb anyway, so all translations are retarded.

The Hawaiian Pidgin Bible will always be the best bible.

>James Stuart
>English
REEEEEEEE

>literalism means it's more 'accurate'

lmao ok kid

i don't know enough about the bible, king james' or nrsv but that is some real dumb translation ideas you have

Modern Greek or ancient Greek?

>KJR is more accurate I swear

He was both king of England and king of Scotland, I didn't remember he was only king of Scotland at first... what's your deal?

>Citation needed.

As far as I know, each denomination of Protestant and Anglican Christianity had their own translation of the Bible. King James wanted to change it.

>No you haven't.
Yeah, I have. Translating "meaningless idioms" as you put it, literally, is more literal.

>but are ultimately pointless in actually understanding the doctrines of the bible.
This is a Protestant perspective (ironic, since we're talking about a Protestant translation of the Bible). Among the Orthodox, the aesthetics themselves express something doctrinal, that's why our icons have such specific style. To us, doctrine is not just a list of rules, it's a mindset and way of looking at the world, and it is learned over time. For instance, to lift up your heart, is not simply "exalting yourself," it means to detach your heart from something, perhaps in forgetfulness, and there is a right way to do it, and wrong way to do. In the verse in the OP, it means people being elated in a worldly way so that they become detached and forgetful of God, whereas in prayer it means putting aside and forgetting the ways of the world in favor of God (as it is used in Lamentations 3). Your heart is about *where* your heart is, is it with God, or the world?

The only non-Anglican Protestant English translation was in Middle English. All the Early Modern English translations at the time were put out by the Church of England. King James had a team of experts revise the current translation (which was not done by a committee) to be as accurate as possible. The translators would labor over a part, then after they signed off on it, they'd make it publicly available and ask for any input other scholars might have, and after all objections or corrections were reviewed, it would get a green light.

lol

Also, could you explain how the aesthetics of the Bible are meaningless to study of it? If you're not religious, the Bible is important as a cultural expression, which aesthetics are a major part of, and if you are religious, then you believe the Bible is inspired by God, and that would include the aesthetics.

Literalism is more accurate except where it's unintelligible or negatively impacts the author's aesthetic.

Go away Constantine. Christianity is a set of ideas; ideas transcend aesthetics, and aesthetics are worthless for understanding ideas. You don't read Hegel for his prose (at least I fucking hope you don't) so why would I do it with any other philosophical idea or belief system?

Also, could you explain how the aesthetics of the Bible are meaningless to study of it?

Because they have nothing to do with the ideas or information present within. The meaning of something transcends basic superficialities such as ideas.

>the Bible is important as a cultural expression

It is. I don't think anyone has contested the worth of the KJV as a piece of western literature (the opposite has occurred actually). Just that the NRSV is better for understanding the history, ideas, and doctrines within, which "omg, he was so emotional, he repeated a word" is not relevant to.

No it isn't. The meaning of a statement often transcends just the words contained within it. This is the kind of sophistry that leads to people debating pointless semantics rather than actually discussing ideas.

>The meaning of something transcends basic superficialities such as ideas.

I mean to say "such as aesthetics."