KJV and Copyrights

TwinCrier said:

Ironic that you would quote Shakespere. Shouldn't someone update THAT archaic language? Shouldn't we modernize the hymns? Certainly they are not as sacred as the bible.

Click to expand...

lambslove said:

If I were using Shakespere as a guide knowing God and living my life, I would want it rewritten into the most understandable language possible. Since it is only entertainment, I don't mind that it is difficult to understand.

However, I have been to several "updated" versions of his plays and find them every bit as good as the originals, because it isn't just flowery wording that makes Shakespeare great, it is character development, dialogue, scene set up and an insight to the human condition that only Shakespeare had. The modern version of Julius Caeser is wonderful, because when you understand the language, you can feel the drama, the intrigue, the emotions of the characters without them having to be overacted like traditional Shakespeare has to be to get the message across. Cassius's fear of Caesar comes out, Brutus's love for him appears and his final betrayal of his best friend is protrayed with all the angst it should have. The actors are free to act and don't have to try to convey emotions through over-grand gestures or exagerated tones of voice that they used to do because the audience wouldn't be able to understand the words.

Dost thou knowest mine heart? (translation: Do you understand what I am saying?) Elizabethe's verbat t'is'n't eft. (it isn't easy to understand Elizabethan language) T'is more than an esperence atwixt we and they. (no one has spoken like that for a long time) T'is near bavin anon. (it's nearly useless now)

Plus, word meaning have changed so much since then that they don't even make sense in context.

"Avoid" meant to empty or to throw away something, not to stay away from somewhere like it does now. "Awful" meant to be in the act of worship. "Abide" meant to complete a journey, not to stay home like it does now. It is easy to take wrong meanings because of the way the definitions have changed. Without an elizabethan dictionary, I don't know how anyone can be sure they understand what the KJV is really saying.

As for the hymns, check your hymnbooks. Any hymn written before 1900 was probably updated by 1950. Rock of Ages has had three language updates, and it is very unlikely that your hymnal has the original version. "How Great Thou Art" has had two updates that I know of. Open your hymnal and check the words against an old hymnal from before 1875 and you will see that although they are similar, they are not the original words.

I dig-you-good-den. (I wish you a good evening, in Shakespearean English)

Click to expand...

Uncle Bud said:

Do you know that the King James Version you read is not the AV 1611 version but an update to that version?

From the actual 1611 Version:
John 3:16 "For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

From the later revision:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Click to expand...

Gold Dragon said:

That is a great question. One thing to keep in mind is that there were multiple different english versions before the KJV as well. What were the motivations of each of those translations?

The primary motivation for those older translations was accuracy and it is still one of the motivations for modern translations. As more manuscripts become available, we can approach the originals with ever increasing accuracy.

Another motivation is the non-static nature of language. There is a saying that once you buy a computer, it is already obsolete due to the advances in the field. Like computers, once a book is published, its language is already obselete because languages are constantly changing. Not quite as dramatically as the technology in computers, but nevertheless it is still changing.

Then there is the cultural/geographical aspect of language. Not all words mean the same thing to different people. Just look at england and how many words are different from the way we use words in North America. There are Canadian-US differences. Even within Canada, the west, central and eastern parts have different usages of the same words.

There are other audience issues. Translators recognize that their readers come from all different backgrounds in culture and geography, but also different levels of reading comprehension and theological familiarity.

There are also interpretation issues. As we can see in CF, there are often many different interpretation to a single piece of scripture. Even the most literal translation needs some level of interpretation because of the differences in grammar and sentence structure between languages.

Finally there are theological issues. Some translators feel that one translation favours theological positions they disagree with where a different (but also valid) translation of those verses may be more neutral or supportive of their theological position.

All these factors are considered to make a specific translations to be effective at communicating the sacred scriptures to a specific audience (some translations more specific than others) to the best of their abilities.

Click to expand...

GD said:

Finally there are theological issues. Some translators feel that one translation favours theological positions they disagree with where a different (but also valid) translation of those verses may be more neutral or supportive of their theological position.

Click to expand...