You do not demonstrate that you apply your standard/measure consistently and justly including to the KJV.
That's your opinion, and I recognize that as equal to mine.
The Church of England makers of the KJV in effect admitted that they did not provide an English word for a number of original-language words of Scriptures found in the texts from which they translated. Several examples are given in the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the KJV.
Yes, and I realize that.
But did they attempt to come as closely as possible to word-for-word?
I say that they did.
Now...are
all of today's translators being completely faithful to the process, or are some "fudging it" to try and put out more competing translations to sell, because their backers are paying for it to be done?
If the KJV translators are given the interpretive latitude of not having to give an English word for each and every original language word found in a verse, why are other Bible translators not given the same latitude?
I think that they should be given the
same latitude as the AV translators...
The problem is, many or most of them are NOT doing it the same, exacting way, in my opinion.
Case-in-point:
The
New, Living Translation ( snappy marketing technique, in my opinion...advertise it as "living", thereby implying that others are "dead" ).
With that said, please answer me one question:
How many
more English translations are necessary before it occurs to you that the ball keeps rolling for
no good reason?
To me, it's as if you see no problem with the fact that there are 900+ translations of the Bible ( mainly New Testaments ) in English, and a new one keeps being introduced to the Western market every 5 years, on average.
From my perspective, your entire position only
encourages the ball to
keep rolling.
You never really get to the point of asking yourself, " Why do they keep trying to re-invent the wheel?"
Respectfully, every argument I've seen you bring up against the AV as being
the very word of God, is based on this idea that today's translators should be given the latitude to keep right on translating, and we as believers are supposed to sit back and accept the fact that there are now over two
dozen major English "Bibles" on the market, most of which are based on a very small representative of the entire bulk of existing manuscripts...and we're not supposed to investigate it any further?
What's taking so long, if it's really about delivering a better translation?
When the KJV translators are sometimes allowed to interpret what God meant instead of translating literally and word-for-word what God said, why should other Bible translators not be given the same latitude?
I say let them.
Let them be given the
exact, same latitude...and no further.
But I think that the question remains:
Why isn't the work finished yet?
Because of changes in the English language?
That's a smoke screen, at least to me.
No, I think the whole thing is based on
Bible sales, not a need to get a fully up-to-date translation into the hands of God's children.
That should have happened
long ago, in my estimation.
If the KJV translators are permitted to omit providing a rendering for one original-language word based on their understanding of the literal meaning of the entire sentence instead of the literal meaning of each individual word, will other Bible translators be given the same discretion?
To me, you're missing the point.
The work has already been done many dozens of times now.
IMO, it's as if you're advocating that each competing publishing house keep rolling out Bibles using this argument as justification to keep doing it.
I never said that they didn't have the same
latitude as the KJV translators;
I said, "Are we there yet"?...the same as other threads I've posted to.
I also said, "are they doing it word-for-word" ( incidentally, the answer to that is "No" in many cases ) or as closely to it as possible?"
So, at the end of it all, I not only am convinced that most of today's translators aren't doing it with the same motivation that the AV translators performed their work ( to get a better translation into the hands of the people ), but that they are being hired by competing publishing houses to get their own, copyrighted Bibles into a market that reaps millions of dollars a year in Bible sales.
In the process, they are
deliberately using an apparatus that is
specifically limited to mostly Alexandrian text types, and ignores, for the most part, the Byzantine ones.
You don't see anything wrong with all this?
I do.
With all the above stated, I'm curious:
What do you believe is actually being accomplished with all these recent English translation efforts?
