Which has more literary value? The old testament or the new testament?

>>2587307
Definitely the Old Testament. It's about 4 times as long, for starters, so there's just more of a chance by volume to have good stuff in there, but there's also actual poetry in it, which the NT doesn't bother with.

>>2587307

Neither has any real literary value, tho the OT has significantly more historical value (as an artifact, NOT as a source)

>>2587307
I guess it depends on how you define value.

In terms of sheer content, the old testament beats the new by a long shot.

If you're looking for moral guidance, the new testament offers more insight and moral teachings, more so than the old testament in that secular scholars can see value in Christ's teachings.

If it's philosophy you're after, the new testament wins our again, if only for the gospel of John.

If you're after poetry, the old testament, in Hebrew or Greek brings a lot to the table.

If you're religious (christian), Christ is the culmination of the Jewish faith. I would think that the new testament is more valuable than the old, simply because of the new covenant. Although, the old testament is quite important for contextual purposes.

only the books of Psalms and the Songs of Songs were written for literary purposes, the rest are chronicles.

>>2587339
Isaiah and Ezekiel definitely have poetic segments, even if their overall purpose is history/prohpecy.

File: 80850980980844.jpg (79KB, 531x461px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 531x461px

>>2587307
The New New Testament (quran)

>>2587307
>>2587368
>all these thetan plebs posting ITT
I guess you aren't interested in being the best possible version of your self

Both are filled with errors and contradictions, see bibviz.com for a big ammount.
The spirit of evil makes you stupid, so the bible derps a lot.

File: thetruefaithpill.jpg (28KB, 231x346px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 231x346px

>>2587383
Xenu suppressed my picrelated, nice try SPs

>>2587327

I'm a fedora but this first clause is clearly wrong by sheer historical importance + repetition alone. When you've memed an ancient meme time and again, and countless other texts have incorporated that meme in some other way shape manner or form (theology, fiction, horror stories playing on Christian themes, etc), then the ancient meme clearly has literary merit.

There isn't even a reasonable objection that can be made to this. "The prose is stilted", you might say, or "too many begats" (these are often true). This misses the point. You're putting a modern-only sensibility on what does or does not make a good or important text, when the meme-history of the world clearly shows that a lot of people thought it (the Christian bible, all of its component parts which subsume the main Jewish bible) was a very important text. If that doesn't describe "literary merit" then your definition of the phrase is stretched to absurdity, and only to fit your own purposes.

>>2587327
Read the Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes in the KJV. Then come back and tell me if there's "no real literary value", pleb.

>>2590005
The KJV is pretty shit. Read them in the original Hebrew.

>>2590005
King James a shit.

>>2587307
OT. I really don't give a shit about the sayings of Jesus or the theological ramblings of Paul. Job's conclusion is awful, but overall it's a magnificent work. The adventures of David in Samuel and Elijah in Kings make Paul's journey in Acts look like trash.

>>2590005
>Not including Song of Solomon
I shiggy diggy

>>2587307
The Old Testament. Too much of the New Testament is someone trying to convince you.

>>2587339
What about Job, Jonah, and Lamentations?

File: Scripture.jpg (297KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 800x600px

The KJV is the preserved, inspired Word of God in the English language.

It is perfect, it is beautiful, it is the greatest literary piece in the world. It took 7 years to complete, done diligently by God-fearing scholars who were affluent in Hebrew and Greek. 7 is the number of perfection in the Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHcf3E8qOqA

>>2590844
>muh magic numbers

>>2590850
It rained for 40 days and 40 nights.
Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years.
Christ wandered in the wilderness for 40 days.

The Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years.
The end of the OT and beginning of NT is 400 years.

>>2590844
You'd think it would actually manage to accurately translate the Greek and Hebrew, but I suppose that was a bit much to hope for.

>>2590857
It did, retard.

Find a flaw.

>>2590850
>be monk
>king james tells me to make a bible just for him
>work 6 long years
>it's done
>tell king james it's almost done
>party for a year
>give bible to king james

>>2587320
>It's about 4 times as long, for starters, so there's just more of a chance by volume to have good stuff in there

That's stupid...

>>2590844
Satan tried to prevent the completion of the Authorized Version with the gunpowder plot.

Catholic Jesuits are nothing but a bunch of assassins and murderers.

Now Satan is trying to muddy the waters by creating so many 'new age' modern bible versions. The KJV is tried and true. Not like the satanic non-inspired NIV that took away 60,000 words and makes Jesus to be Lucifer.

>>2587307
Why do you put a satanic hexagram star of Remphan up there?

The icon of ancient Israel was the menorah.
There is no such thing as a "Star of David", that's a lie.

>>2590860
not him, but the King James has had to be corrected several times since the first edition. it was hardly a perfect translation.

>>2590884
No it didn't.

The only improvements were typographical.

>not watching the visual bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hUs4TXRuVk

>>2590860

Exodus, 20:13, KJV gives us

>Thou shalt not kill.

Which amazingly manages to pack 2 translation errors into 4 words, as the Hebrew's לֹא תִרְצָח is not limited to the singular, as is "thou" and of course is far more limited to murder and not a general killing, which is of course an idiotic mistake to make when you consider that the OT would indeed prescribe capital punishment for breaking most of those ten commandments.

Or we could skip on over to the New Testament, with Mark 1:2

>As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

I'd be really interested in how they managed to turn the Greek Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ into "the prophets".

In Matthew, 23:24, we have

>Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

But of course, διϋλίζοντες means straining out, not straining at.

You can argue that it's inspiring or makes you happy or whatever, but it honestly makes a lot of errors.

>>2590860
Isaiah 4:5 - "canopy" is translated as "defence"

1 Kings 10:28 - the Egyptian town of Kue is translated as "linen yarn"

Mark 9:18 - "becomes rigid" is translated as "pineth away"

>>2590902
simply not true.
>From the early nineteenth century the Authorized Version has remained almost completely unchanged – and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible – both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[106]

>Responding to these concerns, the Convocation of Canterbury resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as the Revised Version in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.[107]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Editorial_criticism

everyone is dumb so just die n burn in hell forever haha

you are either religious or you are not just pick one and shutup quit forcng stuff on people

>open old testament
>100 pages about different rules for beating your slaves