04 Jul '07 16:24>
Originally posted by josephw
Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translation is not about words, it's about preserving the meaning that we can best guess that
the author had. It is well established that the meaning of words changes over time, so an old translation
well necessarily have to be riddled with footnotes where a new translation would be easier and less
cumbersome. Similarly, our understanding of what the author meant by a certain Greek word changes
over time. In the 16th century, Greek scholarship was not what it was today. So some renderings
by the translators in the KJV are necessarily bad (even though it reflected the best of their
day, and a towering achievement in scholarship) because they didn't have the wealth of Scripture
study that we have today. And tomorrow's translations promise to be better than today. Lastly, the
two most important complete Greek codices (Codex Vaticana and Codex Sinacticus) were not even
available and predate the ones used by Stephanus by almost a millenium (for the Christian Scriptures,
of course).
Second, when a person says 'This is the only true translation,' they are committing an act of idolatry.
Even reading in the Greek is an interpretation, an effort to reach the meaning intended by the
author. I fully agree that the KJV is a beautiful and inspiring translation; whenever I set a text to
music, I use the KJV just because of the sonority of the words. But it's a horrible place to start for
Scripture study because we're not a 16th-century audience. When we read the words, we are imposing
our own 21st-century meanings on them without even trying. If we pretend otherwise, then we are
violating the commandment (first or second, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio
Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translation is not about words, it's about preserving the meaning that we can best guess that
the author had. It is well established that the meaning of words changes over time, so an old translation
well necessarily have to be riddled with footnotes where a new translation would be easier and less
cumbersome. Similarly, our understanding of what the author meant by a certain Greek word changes
over time. In the 16th century, Greek scholarship was not what it was today. So some renderings
by the translators in the KJV are necessarily bad (even though it reflected the best of their
day, and a towering achievement in scholarship) because they didn't have the wealth of Scripture
study that we have today. And tomorrow's translations promise to be better than today. Lastly, the
two most important complete Greek codices (Codex Vaticana and Codex Sinacticus) were not even
available and predate the ones used by Stephanus by almost a millenium (for the Christian Scriptures,
of course).
Second, when a person says 'This is the only true translation,' they are committing an act of idolatry.
Even reading in the Greek is an interpretation, an effort to reach the meaning intended by the
author. I fully agree that the KJV is a beautiful and inspiring translation; whenever I set a text to
music, I use the KJV just because of the sonority of the words. But it's a horrible place to start for
Scripture study because we're not a 16th-century audience. When we read the words, we are imposing
our own 21st-century meanings on them without even trying. If we pretend otherwise, then we are
violating the commandment (first or second, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio