Waltham wrote: And God has been successfully using the KJV for that precise purpose for four hundred years, since translation of Scripture into english.
The Scriptures were translated into English long before the KJV.
Thank you, a classic example of double speak, sophistry and inconsistency.
Your Mr Waite has redefined "quite literal" to meet his nonsensical whim. "God forbid" was always a 17th century colloquial equivalent, and never a literal word for word formally equivalent translation. He documents the fact that the word "God" is not there, and then excuses himself from his own standards! Truly breathtaking audacity.
Simple honesty and integrity would require him (and you!) to apply the same "used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence" to the AV as well as to the modern versions. Instead we see a double standard, now he speaks in terms of "only fourteen times".
But I've seen this sketch before. The next line goes:
"Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. "
Rather than parrotting a mantra ("No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!") why not instead interact with the textus receptus and show why the major AV passages documented as dynamic equivalents (you can find these with a simple internet search) are in fact formally equivalent word for word translations of the greek?
TS wrote: The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal equivalence.
That's not research. Do you know what research is?
Pureintone wrote: "nine scholars who worked on both the NKJV and the New International Version. Since these translations had two differing methods of translation principles and used different texts, this surely provided an interesting dilemma for these men. They apparently did not have problems working in a formal as opposed to a dynamic equivalence setting, nor must they have had difficulty using the Tex tus Receptus versus the Critical Text...In other words, the translators who worked on both projects apparently had no problem with supporting opposing principles in translation work to day.."
Your quotation is not pure in tone, nor is there any dilemma for a competent scholar.
In many many places the AV employs dynamic equivalence. Equally, it would be a sign of competence that a modern scholar and translator be able to ably navigate throughout the spectrum of translation philosophies, just as Tyndale did and the later revisers of 1611.
Similarly, the existence of different manuscripts is an empirical fact, and again one would expect a competent scholar to handle both.
Regardless of whether someone prefers one of the underlying Byzantine texts or an eclectic Alexandrian text, he ought to desire skilled and competent translation work!
11/1/11 12:39 AM
