Thoughts to ponder

[FSSL]

I see that Mitex has been doling out Kinkaid's theology for at least the past 13 years on the internet. I have yet to see a poster agree with them!

 

[bgwilkinson]

The more one ponders Mitex's writings the more his deviation from history is apparent.

When one is wrong on history the discussion becomes limited quickly.

 

[Walt]

The word "meanest" does not mean worst or corrupt. It does not refer to a translation that is corrupt in meaning - it means one that is lowly in literary style.

Actually, it meant inferior, and they were referring to the quality of the translation, not its style. The King's speech remains the King's speech, even if some of the translators of it handled it cack-handedly.

I thought, at that time, "mean" just mean "everyday" or "ordinary" (see Proverbs "he shall not stand before mean men".

However, aren't we saying the same thing? Quality of translation IS the style, is it not?  The King's speech does NOT remain the King's speech if one is missing a few pages of it, or if someone changed the words that the King used. Regardless of the quality of the translators, if the source is corrupt, the result is going to be corrupt.

 

[FSSL]

Are the sources of the LXX and Vulgate "corrupt"?

 

[Ransom]

Quality of translation IS the style, is it not?

Not necessarily. Style is the manner in which a text is written: choice of words, sentence and paragraph structure, vocabulary, and so forth.  One translator may choose to use very formal, literary English; another chooses simple words and sentence structure to make the Bible readable by children and non-native English speakers. Both have distinctly different styles, but nonetheless the quality of the translation may be high in both cases, if by "quality" you mean its degree of excellence.

The King's speech does NOT remain the King's speech if one is missing a few pages of it, or if someone changed the words that the King used. Regardless of the quality of the translators, if the source is corrupt, the result is going to be corrupt.

But that's not what the KJV translators were meaning. When the author of the preface spoke of the King's speech not being translated with "like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere," he meant simply that not every translator was equally skilled. He was not arguing that the translator was removing pages, changing the words, or otherwise deliberately corrupting the speech. To draw the analogy between the KJV and the modern versions, that is of course exactly what the KJVers accuse modern Bible translators of doing, though their accusation is without merit.