What's /lit/'s opinion about the King James 1611 bible?
>>8287451
>Not knowing Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek to read the Bible as it was meant to be read
idk how do YOU think we feel about it?
>>8287474
I don't care about feelings. I need full opinions. You seem to be of those against it. Is it that perverted?
>>8287481
Sorry we only do feelings here. If you want well-founded opinions you're going to need to upgrade to 4chan+.
/lit/ has truly become reddit...
>>8287451
It's a beautiful translation.
>>8287668
Ugh okay fine
I read the 1611 Genesis. The text isn't that super poetic. Their main focus was on delivering the bible to an audience, not about being poetic. Most of the poetic merit is lost in translation anyway. You may pick up a few new words, but none of them are words you'd want to use today (e.g. 'peradventure'). If you aren't reading it for historical reasons you're better off with the KJV (which is based in part on the 1611 text, and has an "older" feel to it; it's what's generally used by Catholics and especially Mormons) or something that goes down easy like the NIV. Most conversations you'll have with other people about the bible will involve the philosophical or religious implications of the stories, so you may as well focus on comprehension and not unnecessarily burdening yourself with a historically significant but outdated text. Both also come with kickass footnotes that will probably give you a better sense of the poetic nature of the Bible better than the old shit. The same work that went into the 1611 text, if not more, went into all editions following it. Christians are autists about the Bible and it's common to assemble teams of experts to update the big named texts with all the latest information while also making efforts to optimize clarity.
If you decide to proceed with the 1611 text I would make sure your copy of the 1611 at least has some sort of footnotes if you plan on reading it. Some versions don't have it.
>>8287690
Also this post enabled your 4chan+ trial account, fyi. Enjoy.
>>8287690
thanks
It's a copy and paste job of William Tyndale's earlier translation with some slight modifications. It has literary merit, but it is not the most accurate representation of the Hebraic and Greek texts.
>>8287752
What would be more accurate?
Something like Rotherham Emphasized Bible? Or should I swim through the ocean of the Concordant Literal New Testament?
