4 ms·

I wouldn't recommend the King James Version of the Bible for its religious content, not being a Christian and all, but it's essential for understanding half the

I wouldn't recommend the King James Version of the Bible for its religious content, not being a Christian and all, but it's essential for understanding half the allusions of English literature. If you haven't, try it. The 1769 Authorized Version (what you'll surely get if you just buy a KJV Bible) is very readable, the language is beautiful (and, in my opinion, enjoyable) and you'll appreciate your books much more.

cma 14y ago
If you are going to read it take note of the various mistranslations it makes. 'Hell' isn't actually a concept in the old testament, but the KJV engages in Whig History and uses it throughout. Even the first words of the Bible "In the beginning" are a mistranslation (though that mistranslation occurred thousands of years before the KJV and was a result of written Hebrew omitting vowels or something).
- gyardley 14y ago
  Sure, the first verse of my translated study Torah is 'When God was about to create heaven and earth...' This corrected interpretation's not particularly new, either - it's based on a commentary from an 11th century rabbi. However, like it or not, all of the KJV's mistranslations are much more influential than the original - and most influential of all is its phrasing and choice of vocabulary. I suppose what you focus on depends on what you want to get from it. If you're interested in understanding how the Bible's influenced our language and literature, I'd go KJV all the way. If you want to grapple with spiritual and theological issues, that's a different story.
  - cma 14y ago
    I agree; I just think it is important when considering why e.g. Jewish people aren't leaping to accept Jesus--the hellfire that say, Baptists, claim he is going to save them from, isn't part of their beliefs. Many Christians are confused on this.
derrida 14y ago
Sure, I will give it a go! I had the Good News bible around when I was a child and haven't revisited it for a few years.

cma 14y ago

If you are going to read it take note of the various mistranslations it makes. 'Hell' isn't actually a concept in the old testament, but the KJV engages in Whig History and uses it throughout. Even the first words of the Bible "In the beginning" are a mistranslation (though that mistranslation occurred thousands of years before the KJV and was a result of written Hebrew omitting vowels or something).

gyardley 14y ago
Sure, the first verse of my translated study Torah is 'When God was about to create heaven and earth...' This corrected interpretation's not particularly new, either - it's based on a commentary from an 11th century rabbi. However, like it or not, all of the KJV's mistranslations are much more influential than the original - and most influential of all is its phrasing and choice of vocabulary. I suppose what you focus on depends on what you want to get from it. If you're interested in understanding how the Bible's influenced our language and literature, I'd go KJV all the way. If you want to grapple with spiritual and theological issues, that's a different story.
- cma 14y ago
  I agree; I just think it is important when considering why e.g. Jewish people aren't leaping to accept Jesus--the hellfire that say, Baptists, claim he is going to save them from, isn't part of their beliefs. Many Christians are confused on this.

derrida 14y ago

Sure, I will give it a go! I had the Good News bible around when I was a child and haven't revisited it for a few years.