Who else reading the Bible here? I'm currently getting through the Old Testament...

>KJV

>I'm just finishing up a collection of texts by Jung

He said right there, he's a retard

Lmao Nietzche kept praising the characters of the Old Testament, he blamed the new and said Christianity promoted weakness and slave morality. You can't go wrong with the Old Testament, great literature merits too.

kjv is widely regarded as the most beautiful, poetic rendering of the text. what are your legitimate complaints of the kjv?

Its not though, its actually really clunky and bad

But user, lots of apocrypha have some of the most novelistic prose and historical content of anything in the Bible.

Tfw there are actually people so soulless that they cannot see how sublime the KJV bible is. It's genuinely sad to see people like you spout opinions like this.

NRSV is right up there with it (and the Oxford one has wonderful formatting)

t. raised on KJV

Defend how mistranslating love for "charity" is sublime

not him but imo, the worth of a translation lies not in its poetry but rather its effectiveness to convey the meaning of scripture, both in terms of precision and ease of reading. when these conditions are fulfilled, I find all other details to be trivial and insignificant.

that said, I don't read scripture for fun or curiosity. my interest lies in using it as a means to put the divine principle above all material concerns, permanently.

I would argue poetry IS precision. A literal translation that misses the gravity and beauty of the original while being propositionally valid is an incomplete translation.

The KJV however is often far from truly poetic

>poetic sublimity isn't how to reach god

If you're not gonna take King David seriously at least listen to Leonard Cohen or something.

>I would argue poetry IS precision. A literal translation that misses the gravity and beauty of the original while being propositionally valid is an incomplete translation.

I disagree on that point, mainly because I do not require poetic word arrangements to evoke notions of beauty or import, as a comprehensive aid. To me, the essence every teaching in the Bible can be phrased in a straightforward manner without the need to be dressed up in poetic expression.

However I am aware that my particular circumstance does not apply to all, therefore I find usefulness in alternate translations, as others no doubt have different needs.

>not understanding the context of the word in the original language

varsityfaith.com/2010/07/whats-difference-between-love-charity.html

>not him but imo, the worth of a translation lies not in its poetry but rather its effectiveness to convey the meaning of scripture,
Well then learn Hebrew then if you care so much faggot.

>I disagree on that point, mainly because I do not require poetic word arrangements to evoke notions of beauty or import, as a comprehensive aid.

You're mixed up on two fronts, one that when I speak of poetry I refer literally to conventional poetry and not the far broader notion of nuanced expressions which while having identical propositional content have specific expressions which evoke an intuitive spirit.
Secondly that its not merely that notions of beauty and importance are evoked, its that the word itself is beautiful and important and thereby the more beautiful and important it is rendered the closer it is to the word of God. Who is the word.

The writer of that article is full of shit and sounds like a kike. What you're speaking of is sacrificing the most powerful concept in English or any other language for a mundane one all for the sake of implying a tangential aspect of the term.
Absolutely disgusting

OP here, I take it back, chapter 22 is comedy gold

22:11a
>Weep for the dead, for he has left the light behind;
>and weep for the fool, for he has left intelligence behind.

22:12
>Mourning for the dead lasts seven days,
>but for the foolish or the ungodly it lasts all the days of their lives.

22:14
>What is heavier than lead?
>And what is its name except ‘Fool’?

And the author goes full MGTOW in chapter 25

>16 I would rather live with a lion and a dragon
>than live with an evil woman.

>18 Her husband sits among the neighbours,
>and he cannot help sighing bitterly.

>19 Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity;
>may a sinner’s lot befall her!

>22 There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace
>when a wife supports her husband.

>26 If she does not go as you direct,
>separate her from yourself.

>and the Oxford one has wonderful formatting
I have the Oxford edition and this is so true! The HarperCollins one has unhelpful subtitles for every other paragraph. Oxford version is stripped back with subtitles at the top of the page, allowing for larger font and well-spaced lines. Every Bible should be formatted like that.

I've found NRSV the easiest to read as well, even more than dynamic translations, the styles of the different authors seem to shine through unlike in the KJV.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. That is a comprehensive aid no different than the ease of direct language.

First and foremost, I find whatever lends to actually following the teachings of Christ in day-to-day life is paramount. However that takes shape is fine by me as long as it happens. I find argument over appearance is trivial so long as the substance is understood and held-to when it matters most.

In my experience, when worldly difficulties come thick and fast, my response is more in line with straightforward remembrance of the teachings within the prose, as opposed to the actual prose itself. Again, different circumstances require different solutions, so I'm not going to advocate my preference as suitable for all.

I have the New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd Edition. Its rather excellent all around. Build quality, presentation, resource aids, etc.

Also, I hear the 4th Ed is a step backwards as they removed some of the best articles and the annotations are worse as well.

Regardless, iirc it is the standard study bible for seminary schools, generally speaking. Not many have a bone to pick with it, at least not compared to all other translations floating around. It very middle-of-the-road.

no, it's just using the concept implied in the context rather than another concept the word is also used to express.

I'd argue the Greek was simply an inferior language in this regard, that the concept of a single all emcompassing Love is intrinsic to understanding God and agape was pragmatically the closest reference.

Read most of the Old Testament in Hebrew back then and started reading The New Testament not long ago, the gospels were very comfy though repetitive at times, but Yeshua is a bro. Acts and Romans were boring as hell, "repent heathens jesus is the man :DD" Are the rest of the books also dry missionary crap?

Already finished thew Bible.

Read Tolstoy and C.S. Lewis. Now read Chesterton. Might read Aquinas, but it could be too tough for me.

Just finished II Kings tonight, looking forward to starting the major and minor prophets. Best books so far besides Genesis were I and II Samuel and I Kings. Some good stuff in Numbers and Judges, too.

Source?

Anyone read the oxford bible companion or oxford bible commentary?
I've got the oxford NRSV and cheap KJV so I'm wondering how useful these books will actually be.

>In the Jewish “Old Testament,” the book of divine justice, there are men, things, and speeches of such impressive style that the world of Greek and Indian literature has nothing to place beside them. If we stand with fear and reverence before these tremendous remnants of what human beings once were, we will in the process suffer melancholy thoughts about old Asia and its protruding peninsula of Europe, which, in contrast to Asia, wants to represent the “progress of man.”
>Naturally, whoever is, in himself, only a weak, tame domestic animal and who knows only the needs of domestic animals (like our educated people nowadays, including the Christians of “educated” Christianity), among these ruins such a man finds nothing astonishing or even anything to be sad about—-a taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone with respect to “great” and “small”—- perhaps he finds the New Testament, that book of grace, still preferable to his heart (in it there is a good deal of the really tender stifling smell of over-pious and small-souled people).

To have glued together this New Testament, a sort of rococo of taste in all respects, with the Old Testament into one book, the book, the Bible – that is perhaps the greatest act of audacity and “sin against the spirit” which literary Europe has on its conscience.

Beyond Good and Evil, section 52.

eurocucks BTFO