1. Is It A Safe, Sound, Reliable Source For Helping Me Learn What Was God's Original Message?
-
Is it a translation, or a paraphrase or condensed version? A translation is the most reliable.
b. If a translation, is it literal, idiomatic or a free rendering? Idiomatic [using expressions that are natural to the native speaker - pdc] is best, major problems can occur with the others. A literal translation sounds the best, until one considers the problems that could occur if a translator used the same word in another language to translate "kicked" in each of the following: "Joe kicked he ball," "Joe kicked the habit." and "Joe kicked the bucket." The translator must understand the meaning in the original language; then, "carry it across" into the other language, wording it in such a way that the original meaning—not just the word—remains the same.
c. Is the version by more than one translator? Generally, a single translator has a higher potential for error than does a group; "in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Prov. 11:19). However, one competent, unbiased scholar is probably far better than a host .of incompetent or biased persons.
d. Are the translators competent scholars? To carry meaning across, the literal meaning of "translate", the translator must have mastery of both the original language/culture and the language/culture of the language translating into.
e. Is the translation from the original language, not a trans1aion of a translation? In the case of the Bible: Hebrew, Aramaic an Greek.
f. Are manuscripts of the text in the original language the most reliable? A major controversy arises on this point. Which one?it should be used: the Received Text, the Westcott and Hort, the Nestle's or the United Bible Societies' Greek text or another? This is no simple issue.
g. Did the translators take into account the latest and most reliable archaeological, historical, cultural and linguistic information currently available? It is important to keep in mind that he KJV scholars did not have available the vast amount of information such as the Dead Sea Scrolls obtained during the last 379 y4rs._-but this is no fault of theirs. They needed the translation then; they felt they must not wait. But now we do have much more information.
h. Does the translation have good reviews among people whose judgment you value?
i. Do the reviewers avoid bias, to the extent humanly possible? Evidence, of possible bias is the use of "name calling," "emotional appeal," "card stacking," "bandwagon," etcetera. Hav6 they examined both the strengths and weakness, or is it a one sided review? The use of such propaganda techniques, does not mean that the points are not valid nor worth considering, but they often do sBiblel bias, indicating that there may be more that should be considered, which hadn't been noted.
j. Do the reviewers provide good documentation and sound, reasoning to support their ideas? Or, do they make bold unsupported or weakly supported assertions? Or worse yet ask or imply that the readers should trust them, providing no documentation.
k. What are the reviewers' credentials? Is good scholarship indicated? Are they really knowledgeable about what they write o say?
l. Does the version have a good preface which provides the reader with information needed to make an informed decision about the translation/version? For example, from which language and text was it translated; how did they deal with meanings ti at are not always clear in the originals; who sponsored the work; ho did the translation?
2. Is It Readable, "Easy To Be Understood"? 1 Cor 14:92
-
a. Will common people be able to read it, thus really has access to God's Word? Keep in mind that an estimated 25 million functionally illiterate adults in the United States alone would have considerable difficulty even with the most easily read version. For many trying to read the KJV is a formidable, if not impossible task. As the translators argued in the preface to the original KJV ible, "But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? … Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deep without a bucket, or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion. Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed."3
b. Will common people be able to safely reconstruct God 's original message? The need for frequent or lengthy explainations by a preacher may signal problems in this area. This depends on the preacher and is what led to the rise of the papacy and ultimately to the Dark Ages. Tyndale gave his life to help break this strangle hold on common people's access to the Word. His life's goal was to translate the Word of God into language that even the plough boy could know as well as or better than the cleric. Ultimately, he, as history records, was martyred for his commitment to this principle. Nonetheless, he succeeded in making the first English translation of the NT from the original language before his death. We must ever be on guard that, if at all possible, history does not repeat itself in this area.
c. Does it have few instances of words in common use today whose meanings have changed since it was translated?; hence the reader may think he/she understands, but hasn't correctly reconstructed God message? For example, in the KJV: peculiar, mean, nephews, man (mankind) have different meanings now than 379 years ago.
d. Will all readers find it sufficiently readable that they will spend time in the word? Even among good readers, if the task is overly challenging, it will become frustrating or at least so tiring that they will not spend as much time; or if they do spend the time, they will not be able to accomplish as much as they otherwise would.
e. Will the version, when read by the preacher from the pulpit, be readily understood by the congregation? Can more of the sermon time be devoted to the sermon content/message rather than having to define or redefine words, and explain awkward sentences structures?
3. Can People Of Different Language Variations Use It?
-
a. Does the translation take into account the major language variations among English speaking people? The meanings of words, figures of speech, syntax, and usage varies greatly from one region in United States to another, e.g. Boston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Brooklyn, New Orleans, Palo Alto or Mud Lick, KY; it varies ethnical1y; e.g., German, Black, Hispanic, British or Native American heritage.
b. Does it take into account language variation by age? Often the younger generation "speaks another language" than the “older generation's"? In short, English is a melting pot of language varieties which variation must be considered in selecting a versior for general use.
4. Does The Style And Tone Inspire The Reader And Reverence God?
a. One of the hallmarks of the KJV is the majesty of its language. As Kubo and Specht have said, "Although it is desirable that a version have a simple, direct form of English, the language must be dignified and reverent. Slang, colloquialisms, and momentarily popular expressions should be avoided. It should be a worthy vehicle for the expression of the profound truths of the Word of God. A the same time, the version must have a literary appeal. It must be readable, euphonious, and interesting. It must be clothed in Ian-guage that will grip the heart. Only then can i speak with full force the words of truth the world needs to hear."
5. Do the marginal notes inspire confidence?
a. Notes, such as, "The best manuscripts omit.. ." have potential of shaking a weak person's confidence in the accuracy of the version, and worse yet in God's Word.
6. Does the particular version fit the particular purpose(s)?
-
a. Is it to be used for sustained reading for inspiration or to grasp the
structural overview of a book, or for careful reading, or depth study of a particular topic? verse?
b. Is it to be used for public reading in worship? Or for private rading and study?
c. Is the selection being made for ones own private use or to recommend for use by others? What might work well for one person as far are language is concerned may not be appropriate for others. For example, many people in the church are fluent intwo dialects, KJV and modern. However, many people with limted or no religious background likely will have far more difficulty than people who have basically learned 1611 English as a scond language variety from the KJV; hence what may be easy for one person may be very difficult for another.
7. Other?
a. Do we need to be limited to one translation? It appears safer to consult more than one. It is strongly recommended that ihe Preface to the 1611 KJV "The Translators to the Reader" be carefully read on this point. Unfortunately, the original preface is deleted in most KJV Bibles today. b. For many people, as Lewis has said, the major problem is not that they read a different translation, but that they read no translation!
2. "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy be under-stood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye sh speak into the air" (1 Cor. 14:9).
3. Preface to the original KJY Bible, "The Translators to the reader,” reprinted in Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators, Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 1982. p. 148.
4. Kubo, Sakae and Walter Specht. So Many Versions? Twentieth English Versions of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan tion, 1975, p. 207.
No comments:
Post a Comment