King James Bible

Why are there so many people saying the King James Bible is bad? It's a lot more accurate than translations like "the Message" or the NIV. Sure, there are more accurate translations (but not a ton, I haven't found any translations besides Young's Literal and the KJV that actually translate Mark's common use of present tense as such), but most popular translations are not more accurate. Where the King James Bible has errors, they are errors out of accident, whereas many modern Bibles intentionally distort the translation and corrupt Hebrew idiom to sound like contemporary idiom. What good is all the latest Biblical scholarship we have if we try to scrap Hebraic idiom and figures of speech, and stylistic elements like the Hebraic constant use of "and" during narration? There is a reason Robert Alter said the King James Bible is the only mainstream translation that actually captures the Bible's literary qualities.

Here is an example of Hebraic rhetoric
>Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months. Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein. Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning. Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day: Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes.

cont

Here's an example of narrative Hebrew prose
>And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

Who was it that said that the King James Bible is the only good book written by a committee?

>It's a lot more accurate than translations like "the Message" or the NIV.
those translations are literal shit, atleast "the Message" is
there are reported obvious mistakes in KJV, some related to the state of scholarship at the time (earlier text sources not yet discovered to infer meaning more properly), others due to political manipulation
read the NRSV

The NRSV is extremely political though. For instance, it often uses gender-neutral terms in place of gendered ones for no reason. Why the hell would you recommend it? Even the Oxford Annotated version of it talks shit about it in the appendix. RSV I can see, it's pretty decent, but the NRSV? ffs

>others due to political manipulation
The Bible commands total fealty to monarchs in the both the Old and New Testaments, and says they are appointed by God himself. Why exactly would a monarch need to politically doctor that?

>The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neuter word. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]

The reason is to avoid confusion caused by using 'he' to mean 'anyone' or 'man' to mean 'humankind'

No it isn't. If it were simply for the sake of people that stupid, they would translate "brother" as "person" to stop people from thinking verses saying "brother" are only talking about your biological brother.

>the c++ standard isn't a masterpiece that demonstrates the nature of the absurdity of postmodernity far better than any mere narrative could

>the c++ standard
>object-oriented programming
Oh dear god. Didn't you hear? Functional programming is the future. Go learn your lambada calculus, you weakling, while it's not too late.

My post wasn't pro c++ but good attempt. Keep trying. I believe in you.

>pro c++
>pro
Is that the Russian "about" or the English abbreviation for "professional"? Either way, I'm DTF. Pick me up at 7 pm sharp.

Already getting better.

>corrupt Hebrew idiom to sound like contemporary idiom
What did be mean by this?

Alter uber alles.

>When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day.

>And it was evening and it was morning, first day.
Light works-check

Luther is the only non-Latin bible to read.

You forgot the whole Protestant/Catholic shitshow going on.

The King James Bible doesn't alter any verse about Peter

The whole reason it exists is to be as autistically literal as possible. Do you really think it's going to allow for more common usage for the sake of convenience, or convention?

Does anyone have any NRSV excerpts to compare with then?

Also, is the KJV worth reading based on literary influence alone?

NRSV isn't as autistically literal as possible. You really fell hard for the meme marketing.

Yeah, but it's also just more literal than the NRSV. If you want a literal translation in non-early modern English, go for the RSV. NRSV is awful.

Here is this passage in NRSV translation which, as you can easily see, omits most of the Hebrew use of "and")

>And he said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. I am standing here by the spring of water, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. Let the girl to whom I shall say, ‘Please offer your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels’—let her be the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac. By this I shall know that you have shown steadfast love to my master.” Before he had finished speaking, there was Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, coming out with her water jar on her shoulder. The girl was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up. Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please let me sip a little water from your jar.” “Drink, my lord,” she said, and quickly lowered her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels.The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.

For instance,King James version uses the literal Hebrew word here, "seed"

>And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

NIV "translation"
>But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.

NRSV
>But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

Even the RSV does this
>But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.

Also, here is another example. "To know" in Hebrew is an idiom often used to mean sex

King James
>And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV
>But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NRSV
>but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

RSV here remains as true as the KIng James
>but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

>Why are there so many people saying the King James Bible is bad?
Because they're missing the point. As a piece of literature, it's by far the most influential version. Who gives a shit if the translation is accurate to previous forms of the mythology? That's like saying Homer is useless because he messed up the gods. Unless you're Christian or a biblical scholar, KJV is the standard and best one to read.

Okay, so what edition of the KJV is the best in your most Holy opinion?

More importantly, which edition that you can pirate.

Here is the translation of these verses in the Message (extremely popular among Protestants these days)

>But Onan knew that the child wouldn’t be his, so whenever he slept with his brother’s widow he spilled his semen on the ground so he wouldn’t produce a child for his brother

>But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus.

Popular in the same way Commie Manifesto is popular among socialists, sure. Or YA among the general population.

The KJV is only copyrighted in those under the Crown (since the Crown has the rights). Only differences is that some printings have the Apocrypha (which was originally included). Also, the original printing had margins on the side which showed alternative translations for various words and phrases, as well as pointed out where one part of the Bible was referencing another by listing the verses, although these very nice features are only in the facsimile version as far as I've found

One really nice feature of the King James, that I wish more translations would do, is that where the translators had to add words not there in Hebrew, in order for the verse to make sense in English, they bolded those words (modern printing of the King James use italics for this feature). This is very nice for scholarship, because it lets you know what is a translation, and what is added.

Best edition, if your interest is purely literary, is the Norton Critical Edition

Also, if you want another translation that strives for both accuracy and literacy, try Robert Alter's translation of the Tanakh, which has a lot of commentary. He also explains, in his introduction, why the King James is better than most mainstream translations, and why the integrity of Hebrew idiom is so important to understanding the Bible, not just from a religious perspective, but also from a literary perspective.

both accuracy and *literary quality

One thing I learned from Alter is that a seriously accurate translation of the Bible can't help but be literary. It's not like translating other works, where you have to compromise. If you just adopt a simple, straightforward translation which is *faithful*, you will have simple but beautiful prose. It's amazing most translations won't do this. One important thing is using as few translations for a word as possible in order to keep a term consistent, since repetition is hugely important in the Bible, even when words are used in very different ways.

Well, I'm under the Crown.

>the rest
Holy Hell that's way more advanced than I expected.

>Best edition, if your interest is purely literary, is the Norton Critical Edition
Why's that, out of interest?

Norton Critical has ton of critical commentary going through explaining various Hebrew cultural motifs and in-jokes, as well as showing where various parts of the Bible (especially the KJV) influenced literature.

Here is from the facsimile. Asterisks reference cognate verses, daggers show more literal translations that might be confusing.

>and god faid
wtf

The matrices notation (double bar) show an alternative translation which is not any more literal, but would be just as valid. For instance, the Hebrew word for "man" is Adam, so it shows that here

That's facsimile, meaning a reproduction of the first print. Lowercase s looked life "f" back then, it didn't have a curl on the bottom; but you can tell the difference because there is no vertical line through it. Also, "u" back then looked like "v" and "v" back then looked like "u" (don't worry, in modern printings they don't use the old type for letters, it just looks like

>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Also, "v", as you can see here, wasn't standardized, neither was "u". Each varied in how it was depicted, you could tell by context. Modern printings standardize this too of course

>And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

were you not here for the whole 'paradise loft' meme

Oh, and the first printing didn't use the bold for showing inserted words, my bad. It uses the bold, ornate for regular words, and the conventional font for inserted words ("is it" in this case). But as I said, modern printings of the King James just denote inserted words by italicizing them.

I dunno, I've been many few years, but I don't always post every day, and often go much longer without posting, especially during Lent or the Nativity fast. And I don't post on Wednesdays or Fridays since those are always fasts days except during a couple of special weeks, like Pascha (I'm Orthodox--Pascha means "Passover" in Greek, it's what we call Easter).

Damn, Norton's not online anywhere.

Any second best?

Any edition will do. It's unfortunately that most modern printings don't have the margin notes of the original, though. They're all the same. Except for the Oxford, which unnecessarily updates words (for instance, it changes "mine" in a lot of places to "my", when the King James, using the conventions of its time, uses "mine" for "my" before all words starting with vowels or "h"--since "h" back then just mean with aspirant, not "h" as we us it today--that is, it just mean the syllable is said with a strong outward breath).

By the way, because I love the margin notes, I prefer the facsimile printing. The drawback, of course, is that you won't be able to read it subvocally, since you has to go slow as speech to parse it in the font they use. Back then, reading words was like reading music, they didn't have subvocal reading. Even if you read something in your head, you internally heard the sounds. On the bright side, this makes it so you enjoy the full beauty of the prose this way.

That couldn't work on a kindle anyway.

Ended up getting a barebones Gutenberg, because the only real alternative had a deliberate conservative bent. I think I might actually buy the book, which sucks, because it'll be fucking heavy.

For facsimile, which includes the Apocrypha (in this case, books not accepted by Protestants, but accepted by Catholics--Anglicans were always on the fence, but read them in church anyone except during the Puritan reign in the wake of the English Civil War, but they restored after the Restoration) and the margin notes. But if you don't mind going without the Apocrypha or the margin notes, you can probably get a physical copy for free from any evangelist association which is pro-KJB

Top prose, especially when read aloud

>Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Lucifer is, by the way, cognate with Yam

>Yam shares many characteristics with Greco-Roman Ophion, the serpentine Titan of the sea whom Cronus cast out of the heavenly Mt. Olympus.

Yam, the most beloved and powerful of El's creations, rebels against El and tries to establish himself as the ruler of the gods, heaven and earth

El says
>From your throne of kingship you shall be driven,
>from the seat of your dominion cast out!

"Viols", by the way, in Early Modern English, means any stringed instrument, not just exclusively violins as we would assume today.

>Lucifer is, by the way, cognate with Yam
I knew those things weren't made to be eaten.

Kek.

Also, sometimes he is called "Yaw," which lead some to speculate the YHWH was originally a Babylonian god, although that wouldn't make sense, since YHWH is identified as El (which means "God", "Theos"), the one rebelled against.

The pastors of my Anabaptist congregation frequently use the Message to provide the passage they're preaching on, and I really dislike it. Not as much as OP dislikes it, but I find the Message very faddish and pandering (it will not age well), plus Peterson seems to ignore or reject a lot of important literary and rhetorical devices for the sake of being hip or folksy, depending on his mood. Laconic but densely meaningful sayings from Jesus becoming rambling nonsense most of the time. The verses in the quoted post are uncharacteristically straightforward for the Message.

I have to laugh--there are televangelists here in the US who seem to think the italics in their KJ Bibles are indeed there for emphasis. One in particular comes to mind--I can't remember his name, and he may be retired by now, he was black, mustachioed, and would interject "Watch me now!" when he was making a point--he read those italicized words so passionately, never wondering why "did" or "was" deserved special emphasis.

I was wondering what the Italics meant, since I don't believe I had read the KJV since I was a young child and have done almost all of my study on the NJB.