|
Respectfully, the reason you don't generally see much counter to these sorts of threads is because most people who dogmatically support the KJV over against the other translations argue 'a priori' in favor of the KJV; that is, dialog over individual readings with people are meaningless if they hold the position that essentially says that "if it is in the KJV, it is correct".
Having said that, I'd like to ask Armourbearer, just to find out where you are in the spectrum...could you point out 1 example in the KJV where the translation is wrong?
In answer to a few of the texts you selected…
In Ephesians 1:5, the ESV's rendering "according to the purpose of his will", is much stronger wording for the doctrine of election (which is the context) then the KJV's "according to the good pleasure of his will". Either translation is arguably correct in this context (eudokia).
In Hebrews 2:16 the ASV reads "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The ESV reads, " For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham." Which is correct? Is the text specifically dealing with the nature which Christ took on in his incarnation or with who he came to help?
The Greek word in question here is "epilambanomai". This word literally means to 'lay hold of with vigor' for a specific purpose (to help, to injure, to attain, etc.). The Youngs Literal Translation renders this verse, "or, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold".
What we see here is that both the ESV and the KJV are interpreting the text (a dynamic equivalent in this case) for the reader. Personally, I would rather see both translations render this text more literally as the interpretation could arguably go in either direction. While both interpretations fit the context, I favor the interpretation as presented in the ESV, that here Christ is taking hold of the seed of Abraham in the 'help' sense. However, if it were up to me (thankfully it isn’t), I would rather see passages like this more literally translated. In either of the translations (KJV & ESV--along with just about all others), the reader has no idea that there is a difficulty in this verse that needs some thinking.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide from himself the wisdom in employing comparisons of these two renderings to establish a superior translation of the English Bible.
Moving on to Acts 13:48…a quibble was presented with the translation of 'tasso' as 'appointed' instead of 'ordained'. I would argue that 'appointed' is the superior translation in this place. While the word 'appoint' conveys the simpler meaning of being chosen or selected for something, the word 'ordain' can convey additional meaning (ordination to the specific office of elder for instance). I understand that either word can be used either way, but as Armourbearer previously stated, the English word 'ordain' typically conveys something more. For this reason, 'appointed' is, in my opinion, a better word choice for Acts 13:48. Conversely, in Titus 1:5, I think the KJV is better in this instance to use the word 'ordain' over the ESV's 'appoint' because here we are dealing with the ordination of elders.
Out of time…gotta go.
|