This is a special section devoted to remarks about the The King James Version of the Bible.
No one can deny that the KJV helped shape the English language. There are churches and organizations that demand the use of Kings James only.
I have talked to some who believe with their whole heart that Jesus spoke KJV English. The loyalty to this version is that strong.
This will be a brief discussion of the King James Version and its most recent revision, the New King James Version.
When it comes to discussing the difference between the KJV and NKJV, misinformation causes deep entrenchment of positions taken.
The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world. The KJV is the classic expression of the English language. It was the only widely used Bible in some churches for a time. The followers of either the King James Version or the New King James Version are known for vigorous in their affections.
The KJV has changed the English language. Ever heard of or used the phrase "coals of fire"? How about the phrase "the skin of my teeth". Another contribution of the KJV translators is the phrase "tongues of fire".
It must be emphasized that the English language was used more precisely in the 1600′s, the time when the KJV was translated.
In 1611, the only Greek text available was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a hundreds of years of copying. The KJV was written entirely based upon the exclusion of the Alexandrian Manuscripts.
It has been found since 1611, through research and study that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals were written. It also has been found that after careful consideration and a careful comparison of the Alexandrian manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages the conclusion can be drawn that a more accurate and careful job of copying was done by the Alexandrian scribes. A large group of conservative scholars believe that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.
There are mistakes in the KJV, to be sure. There are mistakes in all translations. It cannot be helped. It is the nature of translation. The makes that exist in the KJV make no difference to doctrine. But they do make a difference in the meaning of certain texts.
The portion of the New Testament that has any substantial variation between the various manuscripts is only about one word in a thousand. As said before, these variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine.
The English of today,( 2011) is less ridged than the English standards of 1611. The NKJV often appears to be saying something different when comparing the versions. From this, the reader may get the the impression that one or the other is more accurate.
The English of the KJV is no longer a living language. Some modern readers, who support the KJV, and reject other more recent translations, wanted to see an updated KJV.
In producing a translation for those who wanted an updated product, the Alexandrian Manuscripts where included. This was done in the name of being accurate. But translation from the Alexandrian Manuscripts are usually rejected out of hand by most of the KJV followers.
The translators of the NKJV sought to eliminate the KJV of its "archaic" English expressions. In doing so, they succeeded in doing away with some of the best loved features of the KJV. Some of the best known, most loved and memory laden expressions of the English language.What they did ignore during this process was the newer most up to date available texts. Texts that were not around for the original translation of the KJV.
If you plan in engaging in serious, thoughtful study of the scriptures, almost any modern translation should be used along with the use of the KJV or the NKJV. Your understandsing of the texts will be fuller.
One of the choices facing the translators is how to approach the time difference time difference between the two languages. This involves concepts of words, the grammar involves, the phrases used, the then current history, the culture of the writers and a multitude of choices like these choices listed here.
The problem of historical distance can be readily seen in the challenge of translating weights (i.e. talents vs. pounds, etc.), measure (i.e. cubits vs. meters, etc.), money (shekel vs. dollar, etc. and euphemisms (i.e. toilet vs. water closet, etc.)
If the translator is not choosing literal meaning of the words faced with, then other choices have to be made.
A method known as the literal method attempts to translate the writers grammar, the writers language and style with no attempt to bridge the historical distance between the two languages. Some of the choices presented to the translators are Noteworthy. One outstanding consideration is the fact that words, terms, phrases of one language may lack any complement in another. This type of translation is hard to read and easy to misunderstand.
Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are currently the two accepted approaches to overcoming problems in translation of the Bible.
Dynamic equivalence attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text.
Dynamic equivalence may change the literalness of the original language. Dynamic equivalence also may change the original word order of the text to the word order of the language it is being translated into.
Another feature under consideration is the source text's grammatical voice.
On the other hand, formal equivalence attempts to render the text word-for-word. Formal equivalence is the attempt to keep as close to the "form" of the original language both words and grammar. The goal is to put the “forms” into understandable English. This may in many cases alter the natural expression used in English.
The two approaches represent emphasis on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. Actually there is no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Some translations are in a gray area between the two methods. In the broad view,these two methods represent a spectrum of approaches in translation.
These is one more method used in translation. The Free translation. The Free translation will be discussed shortly.
If the goal of the translator is to stay as close as possible to the original language (idiom) the translation become more literal. This method of performing translations will keep historical distance intact at all points.
Functional equivalence is a translation method in which the translator attempts to reflect the thought of the writer in the source language rather than the words and forms. Functional equivalence attempts in keeping the meaning of the original language by putting the words into what might be the normal way of saying the same thing in English.
It happens something like this. First the one who is translating reads the sentence, or thought he needs to express into English. Then the translator will try to put his understanding of what he just read into English. The form of the original is not important and seldom kept intact.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|