Translator Question

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.

 

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.

 

Then that would make all the MV's after the KJV INFERIOR right?? if *your* assertion is true.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Here's an interesting article.

Link

It does make you wonder.

 

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).

 

Yes they could. And they could even hold an electric light bulb too, something scholars from 400 years ago would not even understand.

 

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! [/edit]

[ December 11, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.