Bible translations

Its quite ironic but the NSRV suffers from protestant degeneracy compared to the traditional Catholic sensibility of the KJV. The obsession with literalism and tracking down the "original meaning" while missing the spirit of the work itself.

You do realize the "spirit" of the work was made with the KJV, right?

It took me a while (and lots of reading) to stop getting rused by KJV-Onlyists. The KJV was actually considered a pleb translation (because it tried too hard with its language to be "appealing") when it was released, and it's only in modern times (the past 50 years or so) that it's considered too old-timey.

What that means is that it *always* gave people the wrong impression of the Bible.

If you can't get the spirit of the work by reading and understanding the stories -- but, rather, need to be able to quote random passages and sound cool and "holy" while reading scripture -- then you're fucking up, m8.

Furthermore, numbering the chapters and verses was a mistake, but I can't blame the KJV for that.

You dismiss "sounding holy" as if it just a wallpaper for the work. Aesthetics can not be divided from content, what you dismiss off hand as irrelevant is the texts capacity to stir, to inspire to influence. There is no Religion without this. It is of tantamount importance to the very ethics itself.

The motivation behind the NSRV is one of condescension. It supposes that a watered-down version for retards was necessary. It's indefensible not only morally but also aesthetically.

Just go Douay-Rheims :)

The King James Version wasn't not trying to appeal to contemporary aesthetic conventions at all. It uses a relatively minimalist vocabulary compared to say, Shakespeare, and employs simple construction in a time when baroque prose was in vogue. The reason it sounds beautiful is simple: it's more faithful than most translations, and the Bible is, at heart, a beautiful work.

I think it's cute that girls look different for different occasions

why not esv for the more modern translation

Reading anything other than pic related is a crime against God

Girls are more arrogant when they have makeup on.

I don't think it's so much condescension as these scholars themselves having bad taste. These scholars aren't coming from a literary perspective, or from the perspective of a pastor or preacher that actually has to stand up and read the passages. They are coming from a perspective of decades of learning ancient languages and analysing / debating the origin and meaning of individual words. That's why they produce such bland work that falls flat on the ear.

The left is cuter.

>translations
lol.

So you've clearly never read why the ASV or the RSV or the NRSV were created. Good to know.

Are you suggesting that accuracy to the original text and meaning is bad?

Also:

I guarantee most people criticizing the NRSV for "aesthetics" on one hand and accuracy on the other don't actually understand how translation works, much less from Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, and even less from the perspective of text criticism.

The Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek as the Septuagint for the Alexandrian Jews because they forgot Hebrew. Koine had the particular qualities of being a language for common people, a language more basic than the older Attic Greek. In a nutshell, the Koine Greek of the Septuagint was not overly flowery language, but made to be clearly understood for the people of the time.

As modern literature and many modern Bible translations show, you can have beautiful language that is clear in meaning.

>Are you suggesting that accuracy to the original text and meaning is bad?

No, I'm suggesting that modern scholars don't have much of an ear for language, though they study it analytically.

>Koine had the particular qualities of being a language for common people, a language more basic than the older Attic Greek. In a nutshell, the Koine Greek of the Septuagint was not overly flowery language, but made to be clearly understood for the people of the time.

Yes, but modern translations aren't in the language of common people. They are in the stiff language of scholars.

>As modern literature

Modern literature does not have beautiful language. ESPECIALLY it likes language that is both beautiful and solemn, which is what is required for the scriptures.

>ESPECIALLY it likes language

I suppose I meant "lacks"

Read this senpai

Let's compare an old 19th century translation of the prologue of St. Augustine's Confessions, with a modern one.

19th century:

>Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and Thy wisdom infinite. And Thee would man praise; man, but a particle of Thy creation; man, that bears about him his mortality, the witness of his sin, the witness that Thou resistest the proud: yet would man praise Thee; he, but a particle of Thy creation. Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee.

Contemporary:

>Can any praise be worthy of the Lord's majesty? How magnificent his strength! How inscrutable his wisdom! Man is one of your creatures, Lord, and his instinct is to praise you. He bears about him the mark of death, the sign of his own sin, to remind him that you thwart the proud. But still, since he is part of your creation, he wishes to praise you. The thought of you stirs him so intensely that he cannot unless he praises you, because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.

Another:

>"You are great, Lord, and highly to be praised: great is your power and your wisdom immeasurable." Man, a little piece of your creation, desires to praise you, a human being "bearing his mortality with him", carrying with him the witness of his sin and the witness that you "resist the proud". Nevertheless, to praise you is the desire of man, a little piece of your creation. You stir man to take pleasure in praising you, because you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

See how the solemnity and pathos has been sucked out?

They have no sense of piety, beauty, or solemnity. Only a slavish, utilitarian sense of "accuracy", if they even have that.

if you love the 17th and 18th centuries so much, why don't you marry them?

fucken nerds these days, i swear

Who's the qt on the left

Praise the natty qt of no make up aesthetics!

Women get some fucked up ideas about aesthetics sometimes, fucking make up industry making people go nutty.

If you had any understanding of historical-critical theory or what was happening in the 70s to the now defunct search for the historical jesus and q theory you would understand why these extremely literal translations were made.

Understanding why they were made does not justify its continued use

Lattimore's translation isn't really that great. For instance, unlike the King James, he often changes the use of present tense (especially common in Mark) in the Gospels, to past tense. This is not necessary, and in fact obfuscates the distinct styles of the Gospel writers.

ESV is better than the NRSV, but still fails on several of the examples in the OP

Women are such fucking whores.

You fags need obscurantism and loftly language in order to dress up your fairy tales enough not to see them for the ridiculous shit they are.

>obscurantism

There's that word again

Lifelong Christian here. NKJV and NIV are most common. NKJV is literally God-tier. Don't fall for the KJV meme, you won't "learneth" much due to the language. Also, don't touch the message bible.

totally agree with you man

The NIV is even worse than the NRSV

I don't really have a hard time with the language of the King James Bible. You're supposed to read Shakespeare in High School, if you can't even parse the King James Bible, then you certainly aren't literate enough to parse Shakespeare.

>NKJV is literally God-tier. Don't fall for the KJV meme, you won't "learneth" much due to the language. Also, don't touch the message bible.

What, the NKJV changes very little in the archaice vocabulary, its project was more so just making sure there were no serious translation errors

Fucking this. If you can't understand KJV-English then you're fucking retarded and shouldn't be reading books in the first place.

>being elitist about the fucking Bible

W E W
E
W

Gutenberg was a mistake

right looks like a stinky bimbo whore

You are the worst kind of /lit user. You think you are a fucking genius and better than everybody cause you can understand old english. Fucking anybody can read that shit, but that doesnt mean that they prefer to, or even should. You fucking faggots probably spend 10 minutes a year reading shakespeare/KJV. You aren't better than anybody

I agree.

>girl knows she is cute
>but she is a gril therefore insecure
>takes picture of self being pretty
>then applies makeup
>in a way that conforms to current beauty standards
>but also kind of intentionally artificial looking
>uses less enthusiastic facial expression
>posts on FB
>OMG you're sooo pretty!
>you're so much prettier without makeup

There is a happy medium where she puts on makeup without using a trowel

Screencapping this and using it whenever I come across similar smug asshats

She's a disgusting old hag with and without. Get some standards you dumbfucks.

Take it easy dude

>>uses less enthusiastic facial expression
You autistic bra? Copy the OP image and write "sultry" under the right one, that's the look being done there. I would say on the left she looks chummy but that's not really a facial expression.

A lot of people want a friend in a relationship, not someone where they feel not at ease around all the time. That's what they're getting at a bit.

It's Early Modern English, not Old English, and you don't have to be a "genius" to read it, the King James Bible is hardly a work of baroque prose, it's just baroque-period prose. I know knuckle-dragging, creationist-museum tier Protestants who don't couldn't tell you who's most associated with inventing calculus, and even they can read the King James Bible no problem.

I actually like the first pic better tbqh

>don't couldn't tell you who's most associated with inventing calculus
Not only is that contentious, also don't couldn't

>Not only is that contentious
But that's not contentious at all. Who invented calculus is, not who is most associated with inventing calculus.

left a best

>she's wearing makeup, therefore it's sultry
looks like someone forgot to take their autism pills

>Faceless the sultry and overpowering lion,
>Faceless the stricken slave, faceless the king.

that's how i learned the world "sultry" :3

*word
grr

>not who is most associated with inventing calculus.
No, definitely still is.

Only faggots read the Bible. - Nietzsche

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

Just curious, are autism pills a thing?

Douay-Rheims is far superior to the KJV.

I fucking wish
maybe then I could do something with my life besides identifying store fronts and street signs

kek

How?

Thanks, my dude

Christ cuck detected

From my own experience in a church that uses the KJV, I can tell you that -- while the preachers and Sunday school teachers have a decent understanding of the thing (usually via many other translations and scholars) -- the average person finds the KJV's language as a barrier.

If you take things slow, go a chapter a day or even slower, then of course you'd eventually get through the thing with decent understanding. But the starts and stops caused by the archaic words, archaic idioms, and difficult construction of some clauses/punctuation makes real reading of the King James Bible difficult.

"Real reading", in my mind, is closer to the way that not only the original texts were written but the stories in general were orally told: they didn't have chapter numbers, they didn't have verse numbers. In most revisions of the KJV (because, it should be pointed out, it's been revised more than once), the text is arranged to put the verses by themselves -- not necessarily a terrible thing, until you get the feeling that it's translated to the verse.

Chapter/verse numbers seem like harmless additions, but even when I was a child and wasn't aware that they weren't originally there, I thought they obfuscated the real spirit of the text.

I don't want pretty verses. I don't want extraneous shit that -- due to how bloated the text becomes -- make verse-by-verse reading more preferably than story by story reading.

Modern translations are more accurate, use better sources, and (in general) arrange and translate the text closer to its original purpose: not as a collection of verses/quotable lines, but as a collection of full texts.

kek

This is my new favorite Veeky Forums meme.

The Bible is not meant to be "Fun with Dick and Jane". If it's a faithful translation, it should take you some effort to read it. If you actually put serious effort into studying the Bible, though, picking up on the idioms and peculiar usage by context comes naturally. But people are extremely lazy today and want a Fun With Dick and Jane Bible, as opposed to one intended for intense scholarly study.

There is nothing extraneous about "pretty verses," again the Bible is not Fun With Dick and Jane, it very much has an aesthetic, and the aesthetic is an expression of the Divine. It is the Divine aesthetic, like Orthodox icons, like incense, like ancient hymns.

Verses were actually arranged in a way mean to reflect a sort of punctuation. That's how determination of the beginning and end of a verse was chosen.

Dude you are confusing the Bible with the Quran.

I haven't read the Quran. There is no punctuation (or word spaces or vowels) in the original Bible. Verses were demarcated later by Jewish scholars, as were vowels (and without a definitive choice of vowels, you can read the work in many different ways, imagine a page of shorthand with no spaces).

...

The Bible is an intentional pattern methodically made by humans, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

>expression of the Divine
>made by humans

Were Westcott and Hort heretics?

Yes, like icons.

Have you read the OP? The King James is way more literal than the NSRV

This post reeks of estrogen.

I like the second one better, it's articulated a whole lot better.

that study version is a fucking brick
got it for my confirmation
its too big to use for a nominal fuck like myself

...

>as just that
>literally
Do you understand the original languages and are capable of understanding if the English actually translates 1 to 1? That is an incredible feat considering how vastly different modern English is to Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic.

Left: Cuddle with and have missionary sex

Right: Doggy fuck and give big CUM FACIAL

The King James obviously can't always give one-to-one in terms of words, and some words translate as phrases, but they follow the syntax as closely as possible, and words that were added for it to make sense in English are in italics. Also, the original version provides alternative valid translations of numerous words and verses in the margins. You could certainly improve on the King James in terms of accuracy due to errors, but its methodology is the finest you can get.