Does anyone use KJV non-ironically in this day and age?
>>8119159
Hicks and contrarian /pol/Christians.
Yeah, lots of people
>>8119168
Is this due to ignorance about good translations?
>>8119172
It's due to the KJV's unrivaled beauty hth
i think the idea is that it has literary worth
>>8119175
The KJV is only impressive if you've had it hammered into your head that it's impressive. Many, many authors and poets have surpassed it.
It's one thing to say that the KJV has associations of power and majesty for you because you've heard it read in majestic settings, but claiming that it's some unrivaled work of literature just makes you sound ignorant or tasteless.
>>8119159
KJV for best literary value
>>8119182
>I can't recognize beauty
>I assume everybody who appreciates beauty is just pretending
Genuinely feel bad for you
>>8119195
I didn't say it was bad. I said it wasn't the GOAT.
>>8119182
>Many, many authors and poets have surpassed it.
which authors? which works? what criteria are you using to assess aesthetic worth?
>>8119215
Aesthetics largely boil down to taste. I'll just say that the more of an art form one consumes, the less significant each piece of that form seems. If you're still in the "Bible is the best thing ever," phase, you probably are not well read. Same goes for someone who thinks IJ or GR are some untouchable achievement.
>>8119182
>>8119166
>>8119228
I think its retarded to even have this cocept of ranking, just accept things as they are
>>8119299
That's literally what the post you're replying to says. Once you read enough, everything kind of has qualities but not Quality.
>>8119182
>Many, many authors and poets have surpassed it.
Pfffff
It was written by Shakespeare who a certain Mr. Dr. Harold Bloom, Professor Emeritus at Yale says is literally the best ever.
The 46th word from the beginning of Psalm 46 is "shake" and the 46th word from the end (omitting the liturgical mark "Selah") is "spear". Shakespeare was in King James' service during the preparation of the King James Bible, and was generally considered to be 46 years old in 1611 when the translation was completed.
> tfw you realize Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic
>>8119310
>I'm easily impressed by anything that sounds Latinate
Yeah my Vacation Bible School teacher told me a committee of 17th century English churchmen produced the greatest work of literature ever too.
>>8119159
>that image
There is a completely legitimate reason for the KJV to translate אֱלֹהֵ֤י (elohei) in the singular there. The form is in fact plural, but it's a form (combining form, namely) of אֱלֹהִ֑ים (elohim), used throughout the OT specifically in reference to Yahweh/God the Father. (יהוה [YHWH] is of course used often as well, a fact that leads to discussion of higher criticism, sources used in writing the OT, and so on.) As early as Gen 1:1, the use of אֱלֹהִ֑ים is accompanied by a verb in the singular to specify a single subject. It is maybe best understood as a 'plural of majesty' (cf. the Queen saying 'We are not amused').
Context is important here in deciding which understanding is to be preferred. The verse comes in the midst of a section that would seem to be understood as relating to the people of Israel and their king specifically, which would point to an understanding of the word as referring specifically to the God of Israel. In other words, one could argue the KJV gets this choice right and the others do not. (That's not to say that the KJV is to be preferred in general; the NT, for example, is based on a Greek text that lacks the last 500 years of manuscript discovery and scholarship.)
>>8119428
Just checked the Septuagint as well, which goes with the plural. Not that it's authoritative--it's a very wooden translation that stays extremely close to the letter (vs. the spirit) of the original--but it would seem to be the understanding of those particular scholars.
>>8119195
You sound exactly like those idiots that claim the Qur'an is irreproducibly and inhumanly beautiful and poetic. Recognize your own biases.
There is truth and beauty and beauty in truth. KJV is objectively the most beautiful translation; ergo, we're done here.
The people who autistically shill for "muh accuracy" are invariably Evangelical/Bible Belt Yanks, whose versions suck out the Biblical soul - and which tend to get things wrong in the pursuit of clarity, anyway.
>>8119473
>>8119473
>The people who autistically shill for "muh accuracy" are invariably Evangelical/Bible Belt Yanks
Yup, just a bunch of hicks here :^)
King James version is more Christian. The others are more like 'Bible for Dummies'
>>8119487
For my own information, what is the closest English approximation of the Septuagint?
>>8119159
I use it for muh prose because I am Writer. You are against it because You Are Believer.
We're both faggots
>>8119159
Yes
I'd like to see a fixed version of the KJV that keeps the language while adjusting some heretical mistakes in the translation. there's a lot that's good about it
>>8119878
That's kind of difficult to answer, since the English versions are translations of the original Hebrew for the OT. The KJV is fairly close to the letter of the original, like the LXX is. Another one along those lines is the NASB.
>>8119159
I read Lutheran German
I don't know about accuracy, but feel like the repetition of the word "god" gives the KJV passage better rhythm.
