Translator Question

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pastor_Bob, Dec 11, 2002.

  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    IMO, the KJV Translators were more scholarly and learned than those who came along in the 1880's and also what we have today. This is in response to a question by Pastor Larry.

    National Test Scores Fall Again
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if "academics are spiraling downward" (which I don't think is happening), I think it is highly imperative to consider the fact that what is being "tested" changes over time. For example, an "average score" from 400 years ago being 90% and an "average score" today being 80% doesn't mean they were more knowledgeable 300 years ago. I think you are failing to consider Pastor Larry's comments on the additional 400 years of linguistic study available. I'm confident you would agree that 400 years of additional study in *any other* field of study (medicine, technology, mathematics, biology, archeology, etc.) would make scholars today more knowledgable and able than scholars of 400 years ago. Why would the opposite be true here, beside the fact that you want it to be true because it supports your view of the KJV?

    BTW, if your assertion is true, than versions *prior* to the KJV would be *superior* to the KJV. ;)
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    U.S. School Children's Reading, Writing Skills Inadequate Carol Innerst Washington Times January 10, 1990 A5

    Former Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos / Education Department's sixth annual report on public school, May 3, 1989
     
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Brian, the versions prior to the KJV were commonly the products of a single individual or a very small group of men (2 or 3). At no other time has a group of scholars been assembled like the translators of the KJV.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't know we were talking about education in general. I thought we were talking about the level of expertise and education of the translators. I agree that the education level in general has declined but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether the level of knowledge of translators has increased. Consider a similar area, such as technology. While we agree that education level has declined, the knowledge of the technological experts has infinitely increased since 1611, or even since 1960 for that matter. Today you can hold in your hand computing power that was not conceived of in 1960.

    My point is, if we compare apples to apples, it should be abundantly clear that modern translators are at least as able as those in 1611, with the added benefit of 400 years of linguistic understanding that those in 1611 did not have.
     
  6. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then that would make all the MV's after the KJV INFERIOR right?? if *your* assertion is true.
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, you're completely sidestepping my main point. What percentage 17 year olds in 1600 could even *read* period, let alone understand a twentieth-century college-level textbook? Unless you can provide statistics from both time periods, combined with what level of reading was being tested, you're comparing apples to, well, nothing.

    Does your dentist have training from the late 1900s or the early 1600s? Which would you prefer he had?
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then that would make all the MV's after the KJV INFERIOR right?? if *your* assertion is true.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it is not my assertion. I was referring to Pastor Bob's assertion. My assertion would be the opposite: that the textual criticism that goes into a good 20th century Bible is better that the textual criticism that goes in to a good 17th century Bible. [​IMG]
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with PAstorBob, things are winding down not up. There is no way todays scholars could hold a candle to scholars 400 years ago.
     
  10. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    JYD said:

    There is no way todays scholars could hold a candle to scholars 400 years ago.

    So the next time you're sick, you'll be going to your friendly neighbourhood doctor for leeches and bloodletting?
     
  11. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's an interesting article.

    Link

    It does make you wonder. :eek:
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you prepared to offer some evidence of this?? Pastor Bob couldn't muster up anything credible that dealt with the issue. He could only offer a general report about education (which by the way, doesn't address the education fothe 1600s when, as someone pointed out, most people could not even read).
     
  13. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes they could. And they could even hold an electric light bulb too, something scholars from 400 years ago would not even understand.
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Pastor Larry, I still affirm that no greater group of scholars have ever been assembled for the purpose of translating the Word of God from the original languages than the Translators of the KJV. Each man, in his own right, was an expert in the ancient languages. Many later revisors were "probably" taught using the very methods these men used and wrote about. Of course this is merely conjecture but I wouldn't be surprised to find it accurate.
     
  15. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think if we were to take the knowlege of languages, the King James translators would win, hands-down. There was a guy that was fluent in something like 7 languages, and several fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. These guys were no intellectual lightweights. Has there ever been a group (54 originally, 47 at the end) that has been so learned and familiar with the original languages of the Bible? This is important, because we are talking about languages when we talk about translation.

    [edit]Sorry Pastor Bob that this post so closely parallels yours, I was formulating my thoughts when you posted, apparently. Really, I'm not a groupie! :D [/edit]

    [ December 11, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]
     
  16. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think watching test scores in our schools decline has any relationship to the knowledge level of those in 1600. Most didn't go to school and very few could read. Test scores are only declining in relationship to where they used to be (in this century) which at one time was raising from the middle ages.

    But anyway, since everyone is so bent that "knowledge" is winding down, I would like you to name one field beside this subjective one where you think we are less knowledgable today then we were in 1611. I will offer a few examples where (I hope) this asertion is ludicrious.

    Medicine
    Dentistry
    Surgery
    Physics
    Mathematics
    Chemistry
    Biology
    Economics
    Computer Science
    Political Science (I tend to favor democracy as more advanced then a monorchy, you can disagree of course)
    Astronomy
    Thermodynamics
    Mechanics
    Bridge Building
    Material Science
    Aerodynamics
    Hydrodynamics
    History
    Robotics
    Circuit design
    The world is round!!!

    None of this suggests that we are SMARTER then they were. We are just more knowledgable because we are standing on the shoulders of those before us (including them) just as their research and body of knowledge stood on the shoulders of those before them.
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV translators were good at translating. But is no response forth-coming about textual criticism - i.e. increase of knowledge of manuscript issues, new info on ancient languages, etc.?

    No one wants to answer the question about the dentist? :rolleyes:
     
  18. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Statistics about test scores, and comparisons are useless. Test scores give an average. The people who become doctors and who work in universities are the top learners of their generations. You would have to have a way to compare the best of the two generations, which I think is impossible. That is unless you have test scores from the KJV translators so they can be compared to the test scores of today’s translators. Good luck! :cool:
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scriptural proof:

    Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

    ;) :D
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But my point stands that you have offered no, absolutely no, objective evidence for this ... nothing apart from your own opinion. You likely cannot identify the places where these men wrote about the languages that are being used today. I affirm and avow that those translating modern versions are experts in the ancient languages. I think you cannot underestimate the value of 400 years of study. There are many things that the men of 1600, no matter how learned they were, simply could not have known about. There was nothing wrong with their scholarship. But it is, as you say, pure conjecture to say that it was better. Based on the evidence of the advances made in the last 400 years of linguistic study, it is unwise conjecture.
     

Share This Page

Loading...