>le talking donkeys

>>24772145
Concession accepted.

I like the KJV but the prose isn't that amazing

>>24772144
KJV may be good at prose but ultimately a lot of it is pretty vapid and lacks meaning due to protties being retards who hate tradition and take their Bibles literally
Also the KJV is based on the Tyndale Bible which in turn was an English translation of the Luther Bible. The Luther Bible is notorious for being based on the Masoretic Text (shitty jewish edit of the Bible which removes a ton of prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament as well as parts of the New Testament to denigrate Christ's divinity) instead of the Septuagint which was the actual text Jesus, his Apostles and the Church Fathers used to preach and the later Vulgate which was adapted from the Septuagint. It also removed seven books from scripture which were frequently referenced by Church Fathers because they didn't appear in the MT (or more correctly, because half of them contradicted Luther's bullshit about muh sola fide) and he even wanted to remove extremely integral epistles from the Bible before his pals convinced him that it was way too obvious. For instance, he wanted to "throw Jimmy in the stove", as in remove the Epistle of James because it has as a central theme the idea of works being a necessary part to maintain grace and cooperation with the will of God, maintaining grace being essential for salvation. Oh and finally the "divine" KJV was written by a group of Anglicans who were completely in favor of infant baptism and other concepts that most KJV onlyists HEAVILY disagree with

>>24772285
The KJV, and especially the Lutherbibel, are masterpieces of their respective languages and you are a retard babbling about something you know nothing about. It's not just about prose 'quality', or even just 'influence', although incomparable in both. Their significance is so much larger. The KJV has a kind of poetic (as distinct from ordinary prose) quality and rhetorical grandeur that is utterly impossible for modern writers. The Lutherbibel has this, but in addition an originality to the point of genius (as expected from such an inimitable individual as Luther), a cultural intelligence and sensibility for what is so unique to the German language, that it simply can never be properly translated and its significance will only ever be open to German speakers. Textual 'inaccuracies' are totally unimportant next to this monumentality. You are also unaware of Tyndale's departures, including theological, from Luther in how he translates the Bible, made especially obvious by Luther's approach to translation being audaciously un-literal, which of course is nothing like the literalism of the KJV that you mention.

>>24772285
You quite obviously have little to no idea about what you are posting about.

>>24772375
Nothing that Anon wrote is wrong, even though it is a little polemical in delivery. The choice to exclude the DC books was largely theological/political. Luther did consider taking a hatchet to the NT too. The MT is a much later compilation. Actually, we have good evidence that the reason the Jews stopped using the Septuagint in explicitly because it was associated with Christianity.

Guys like Robert Alter (fantastic translation) regularly use the Septuagint and Dead Sea versions, or occasional older partial finds, to correct the MT where it has clear transcription errors or has less plausible phrasing. It is in no ways an obviously superior text and was chosen largely to exclude theologically problematic texts on plausible grounds. Also, it is highly likely that the Jews didn't figure their Canon out until the Christians already had theirs (even if not formalized yet). An explicit denial of the resurrection (embraced by earlier Jews) might well have motivated the selection too.

>>24772373
The KJV has great style... in some places. Let's be real though, if we randomly threw up KJV and DRB versus, 99% of "KJV is the best prose" people would have no idea which is which, since both are in the older English.

>>24772373
A lot of inane magniloquence. Firstly, there are other books I could point to that do poetical, prosaic and rhetorical writing of higher quality than the KJV and Luther's Bible. Luther was certainly not an "inimitable individual", he in fact was quite average for the time barring his occasional bouts of insanity like when he promoted the idea of executing the entirety of Rome and half of Europe for daring to be Catholic.
But this is all irrelevant. If you read the Bible seeking some self-flagelation of the German language, then you are using the Bible wrong. The Bible's purpose is not that.
>Textual 'inaccuracies' are totally unimportant next to this monumentality
Ridiculous. Textual inaccuracies to THE central text of the Christian faith, particularly when Protestantism rejects tradition and Church teaching and states sola scriptura, is grounds for the entire faith to be changed from what the actual text says it to be. Notable by how protties came up with sola fide which is completely antithetical to what the Bible routinely teaches.
>You are also unaware of Tyndale's departures
Irrelevant. Tyndale is known to have copied, sometimes word by word, from Luther's Bible, particularly in the New Testament. And both certainly inspired the KJV
>Luther's approach to translation being audaciously un-literal
Incredibly incorrect. Luther's approach to the Bible was EXTREMELY literal. Protestantism, including Lutheranism, takes the Bible extremely literally and does not consider metaphorical views of any part of it.

>>24772388
>>24772375
To be fair, some Protestant texts, even today, like the ESV study Bible don't just resort to polemic or cherry picking here, but outright falsehoods to try to defend this decision.

IIRC, the Bible wasn't published without the DC books in English until the 19th century and at that point it was only excluded to save on printing costs. Their total absence in modern American Bibles is a sort of weird accident of history absolutized into total rejection of texts cited even in the Mishnah and Talmud.

>>24772388
>the reason the Jews stopped using the Septuagint in explicitly because it was associated with Christianity
Because the Septuagint is based on actual old Hebrew texts (same ones used by Jerome alongisde the Septuagint during the creation of the Vulgate, sometimes called "proto-Masoretic" though that is complete bullshit since they are entirely unrelated besides being Hebrew), which had many references to prophecies which Christ indeed fulfilled. Jews hated this of course since they reject Christ so the MT heavily, HEAVILY reedited the entire OT to remove as many of these as possible and edit the rest to apply to their supposed future "messiah"
>It is in no ways an obviously superior text and was chosen largely to exclude theologically problematic texts on plausible grounds
Indeed. It allowed Luther to remove works which contradicted his interpreted modifications. When people would ask why he used the MT instead of the LXX, he'd say "well it's written in Hebrew, it's clearly the older translation!" even though it was written at the very least three hundred years after the Vulgate, and who knows what that "Hebrew" is like considering how modern Hebrew is extremely separate from the actual old language and is more Germanic in nature.
>Also, it is highly likely that the Jews didn't figure their Canon out until the Christians already had theirs
It's almost certain. The modern Babilonian Talmud wasn't even first compiled until the middle of the sixth century and it kept getting edited way after that.
>An explicit denial of the resurrection (embraced by earlier Jews) might well have motivated the selection too
More like a denial of everything Jesus Christ ever did, which is embraced by EVERY jew (since it's a central tenet of the jewish sect), and of course would integrally influence the MT. In fact it's most likely it's the main reason the Masoretic Text exists

>>24772392
Yeah but Luther's Bible still placed the DC books alongside the NT books Luther happened to disagree with on the very back of the book with various warnings that they were "useful to read but ultimately not truly Christian" and whatnot.

As for modern Americans completely rejecting them, that's just evangelical idiotry. Remember that a bunch of modern KJV Onlyists genuinely believe that the Septuagint, a manuscript which we not only possess the text of but is referenced many times in antique works and is very clearly the very text used by the Apostles and the Fathers, doesn't exist. Because if it did, it'd make the KJV look kinda silly

>>24772389
>I could point to that do poetical, prosaic and rhetorical writing of higher quality than the KJV and Luther's Bible
You really don't understand what poetic here means because you obviously know nothing about verse and rhythm. Your comments on Luther are typically mindless partisan seethe, thinking that cherrypicked points are arguments for 'their side' to win a debate. His genius is really not something that can be denied unless you know nothing about the German language or German culture. Low iq Tradcaths conflate rashness with stupidity, revealing their own narrow minded understanding of humanity. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with reading the Bible for its literary value unless you're a philistine who thinks the religious importance he ascribes to a text bars it from ever being appreciated in another form. And besides, Luther's method of translation directly allowed the Bible, the Christian message, to be intelligible to the common populace like no other translation has ever achieved, so it is indeed a very great achievement for Christianity as well as literary culture. No one cares about your sectarian opinions and this isn't what the conversation is about.

>Textual inaccuracies to THE central text of the Christian faith
Half the time, and this is very much true of Luther, 'textual inaccuracies' are just academics failing to understand the intelligence behind Luther's translation. There is a great awareness of etymology on Luther's part and to a significant degree he constructed the German language in his finding the right words for translation. Its importance in Germany is far greater than what the KJV is in England, and the fact that you don't know this, and/or think a 'quite average individual' could have achieved this is proof enough of your resentful stupidity.

>Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant because it refutes your erroneous statement that Tyndale's Bible was just a translation of Luther's translation. You read about Luther's influence on him and misunderstood it because you're a Tradcath philistine out of your depth.

>Luther's approach to the Bible was EXTREMELY literal.
No anon, you're moronic and know nothing about the topic. Tell me how 'undeutsch' is literal for 'barbaros', or 'hohenlied' for 'song of songs' (see the literal King James which reproduced Hebrew phrases in English with entirely beautiful and novel effect). Moron.

>>24772144
Faulkner. Btw, muslims say the same shit about the quran. "The prose is so perfect it can never be replicated. God issued a challenge to any non-believer to attempt to create a prose equally beautiful!". You get gaslit into believing something subjective is objectively measurable, and you start to justify your delusional worldview.

>>24772507
Quite a long stretch of misused "elegant" verbosity for what amounts to a bunch of ad hominems, incorrect assumptions, lies and general lack of arguments.
>there is absolutely nothing wrong with reading the Bible for its literary value
There is if it occludes the theology of the text. For all its flowery language and figures of speech, the KJV directly misinteprets various parts of scripture, and seeking the Bible purely because you like how it sounds pretty rather than what it conveys IS the ignorant position which would be mocked by any of the great theologians throughout the ages
>Luther's method of translation directly allowed the Bible, the Christian message, to be intelligible to the common populace like no other translation has ever achieved
I'm sure no other Bible before existed for the public. No siree. Talk about a laughable conception of what the KJV did.
> 'textual inaccuracies' are just academics failing to understand the intelligence behind Luther's translation
No, textual inaccuracies are him putting "alone" next to "faith" when that wasn't anywhere in the original text just to push his moronic agenda. Textual inaccuracies are removing whole parts of scripture because you don't like them, or putting them on the back of the book because "they aren't Christian imo". Things that cannot be argued with in any proper theological conversation
>it refutes your erroneous statement that Tyndale's Bible was just a translation of Luther's translation
No it doesn't. It's a literal fact that Tyndale copied word by word whole parts of Luther's Bible. And KJV copied from both Luther and Tyndale. So it is irrelevant
>Tell me how 'undeutsch' is literal for 'barbaros', or 'hohenlied' for 'song of songs'
Yawn. I didn't come here to hear you faff around worshiping German like it's the ultimate language and everything else is inferior. I came here to discuss how the KJV isn't divinely inspired because it's a very questionable translation.

File: Razi_Quran.jpg (2.51 MB, 4000x2932)

2.51 MB JPG

>>24772525
>muslims say the same shit about the quran
This, abrahamoids all use the same retarded sophistry. look at how this thread immediately devolved into christian shit flinging lol. I hate these faggots so much it's unreal.

>>24772558
Literally no Catholic or Orthodox says the Bible is inerrant because they believe in tradition, catechisms, other books from the Church Fathers, etc. Quran worship is directly equivalent to sola scriptura which is an exclusively Protestant position
Also there isn't shit-flinging, there's a side rightfully pointing out the many issues the KJV has and another going "nuh-uh, it sounds pretty so it's great". You'd have to be an idiot to call people rightfully pointing out the questionability of the protestant Bibles as merely shit-flinging rather than making an argument for why it is a flawed translation

>>24772144
Wait until you read William Shakespeare and Blake; they will seem like gods to you

>>24772541
>the KJV directly misinteprets various parts of scripture
According to you, and no one gives a shit about your opinion.

>seeking the Bible purely because you like how it sounds pretty
This perfectly demonstrates the vapidity of your literary taste. You think great prose, or poetic prose, amounts to 'prettiness', ignorant of all greater beauties, and all greater intellectual virtues which stem from literary beauty. You are a true philistine. Mind you, appreciation of the Bible for style only would be mocked by great theologians, but it would not be mocked by great writers, whose importance you conspicuously neglect on the /lit/erature board.

>I'm sure no other Bible before existed for the public.
Of course the Protestants made the Bible intelligible to the masses for the first time, and at the same time significantly kickstarted the literary achievements of those languages it appeared in. This is not deniable. Also, I was specifically talking about the Litherbibel here, not the KJV, because of specific linguistic properties which cannot be reproduced outside of the German language.

>textual inaccuracies are him putting "alone" next to "faith"
Aside from your theological disagreements with him, you're only displaying your lack of knowledge of his translation, and the German language necessary for reading it, with this stupid statement. Because his so-called 'inaccuracies' go beyond theological differences. But even here, you're backpedaling because before you said Luther was extremely literal in his translation. Very sad that you're just arguing to win instead of being honest about your lack of knowledge and wanting to find the truth. You must be very low iq if you insist on denying the great achievements of a man just because he was Protestant.

>It's a literal fact that Tyndale copied word by word whole parts of Luther's Bible.
But it's not a fact that Tyndale is just a translation of Luther's translation, which is what you claimed, and is why you're shifting the goalposts now. Again, very sad. Try to have some honesty in a discussion. Just come out with it anon, be straight about what you believe: is Tyndale's Bible mostly or mostly not a translation of Luther's translation?

>Yawn. I didn't come here to hear you faff around worshiping German
Lol, I just provided two examples of Luther very clearly not being literal, when you claimed it was literal, and now you pretend I was just quoting German for no reason. You are unbelievably dishonest with your arguing and you should be ashamed of yourself. There's not even any reason for you to refuse to admit you were wrong here, it's a very minor point. Truth fears no investigation.

File: d41a65d7320f808591bf08d89(...).jpg (103 KB, 736x344)

103 KB JPG

>>24772567
>ur stoopid
>>24772605
>nuh uh ur stoopid
This is the definition of shit flinging you obnoxious fucking faggots. Quibbling over exegesis of shitty jewish fairytales with zero self-awareness. Christniggers ruined this board.

>>24772625
>>ur stoopid
>>nuh uh ur stoopid
No one said this.

>>24772605
>According to you
No, according to what he says
>all greater intellectual virtues which stem from literary beauty
No they do not.
>Mind you, appreciation of the Bible for style only would be mocked by great theologians, but it would not be mocked by great writers, whose importance you conspicuously neglect on the /lit/erature board
I did not come to argue about literary arts, I came to argue about divine writing. You are the one neglecting the theological importance of proper translation on a talk about the suposed "divinity" of the KJV
>Of course the Protestants made the Bible intelligible to the masses for the first time
Most easily disprovable lie of all time. There were dozens of German translations of the Bible when Luther's one came in. Similarly, there were hundreds worldwide. The prottie translations did not come first. In fact the KJV is preceded by other horrendous translations like the Bishops' Bible, Matthew Bible o Wicked/Sinners' Bible. All of these are the earliest protestant Bibles too, not counting Catholic variants of which hundreds exist prior.
>you said Luther was extremely literal in his translation
And he is. He refused to see that Paul was talking about works of the Old Law and took his words literally thinking no works are necessary for salvation. He took A LOT of things literally and changed the ones which proved he shouldn't have.
>You must be very low iq if you insist on denying the great achievements of a man just because he was Protestant
I don't care about if his Bible is well written or not, I care about its theological validity. Protestantism being theologically nonviable is related
>is Tyndale's Bible mostly or mostly not a translation of Luther's translation?
It mostly IS a translation which is what I quoted. More silly ad hominems and attempts at degrading me and treating me like some inferior "philistine" rather than confront the facts
>I just provided two examples of Luther very clearly not being literal
I have a feeling you don't understand what I mean by "not being literal". Again I do not care about how well he uses German or not, that was never the point.

>>24772761
>I have a feeling you don't understand what I mean by "not being literal".
nta but you were debating when kjv was said to be literal in its reading and he said the lutherbibel is not. its obvious the point was about translation accuracy and not theology. you'r not very smart

>>24772558
OP BTFO

>>24772144
NIV 1984
NIV is still the best selling translation despite the shoddy 2011 update

>>24772144
everytime someone acknowledges greatness in a different walk of life, Christians just say, "but Christ and/or God did that."
It's a cheap trick really, they can't let anything exist alone, except the books they don't like which suddenly become "satanic"

>>24772144
If the KJV is not the best, what is?

>>24773013
Hawaiian Pidgin Bible

>>24773013
Douay Rheims, Septuagint, Vulgate, Orthodox Study Bible, Ignatius Study Bible are all superior to the bunch of superfluous, antichristian guff in the KJV.

>>24773069
okay but for an english speaker

>>24772144
You should read more books, and learn to stop believing in made up fairytales, retard.

>>24773073
Douay Rheims, Othodox Study Bible and Ignatius Study Bible all come in English. If you're going for Douay Rheims pick up the Challoner edition, it's on the Internet Archive.
The KJV is all prose, no instruction. It hides its many theological issues behind a veneer of pish poshness which fools a lot of idiots into thinking they're smart for reading it.

>>24773069
>Orthodox Study Bible,
It's literally an NKJV with a revised OT
>Ignatius Study Bible
It uses the RSV-2CE which is a revised RSV which is a revised ASV which is a revised KJV

>>24772144
>been able to better it in prose?
Blank verse is prose mate. Just because it is being used in drama, doesn't make it any less prose.

You mean in "Epic." So as to save KJV from Shakespeare raping its arse to death in "Dramatic."