An Apology for this Translation
Although the King James version of 1611 is the basis of the
translation
used here it is a much different and improved translation than
that produced
by the 17th century English scholars. The language needs to be
updated
for a modern reader and the archaic spelling eliminated. But
there are
good reasons for retaining the King James Version as a base
instead of
the translations from texts that more modern translators have
used. The
more modern translators are gifted linguists and their forte is
in nuances
of language. The earlier KJV translators and those on whom they
based their
revision (Tyndale and Coverdale) were careful students of the
Word of God.
This is of particular importance since understanding much of
Hebrew syntax
is dependent on contextual ideas that are a part of a continuing
flow of
thought.
This is particularly noticed in giving the
sense
of Hebrew verbs and verbal cognates. The tense-time of Hebrew
verbs continually
escapes the most serious scholar and there is wide variety of
translation
among the most learned as whether a verb ought to be given as
past, present
or future. The King James translators had as much difficulty in
these areas
as do modern linguists, since, in Hebrew, the time, (past or
future) is
more dependent on the context than on the supposed tense of the
verb, wrongly
called Perfect, Imperfect and Future. The explanation given in
grammars,
of syntax which is supposed to govern the time set by a main verb
and the
consecutiveness of the following verbs, falls down. In actually
reading
the text there is no such uniformity and the rules become simply
guidelines.
The modern translators call attention to this paradox as well.
They point
out that after all of the grammar is noted, in the final
analysis, it is
the immediate and broader context that will determine the
tense-time of
a verb and not the grammatical form. In the introductory section
of the
New American Standard Version of the Bible called "Principles of
Translation"
this difficulty is recognized in the following quotation:
"Hebrew Tenses: Consecution of tenses in Hebrew remains a puzzling factor in translation. The translators have been guided by the requirements of a literal translation, the sequence of tenses, and the immediate and broad contexts."Thus they recognize that the final judgment on what tense-time a verb is to take in translation is based in the context and not in the grammar.
However the King James scholars had one more advantage in
translating,
beside their better understanding of the total Biblical context
and the
train of total thought. They discovered, what the revived Israeli
Hebrew
language has adopted, that the present idea of a continuing
action in the
"now" is a part of Hebrew morphology. This concept is carried in
the mechanism
of using a participle as a verb to indicate present time and
continuing
action. Carrying a definite concept of tense -time is contrary to
consecutive
verbs as explained above. However the combination of a pronoun
and participle,
used as a verb, is almost always close to present continuing
action. There
are many such examples. For instance "Ani shokeyn" means "I am
dwelling."
The King James may translate this as "I inhabit." If you would
rather emphasize
the sense of the participle, you would translate it as "I am the
one dwelling"
or "I am the inhabiter" or "I am the one who inhabits" it would
mean the
same thing. All these carry the idea of present continuous
action. This
construction found in Isaiah 57:15 refers to the one who inhabits
eternity
and uses the same word later in a verbal form which repeats that
"he inhabits"
a high holy place. Both NIV and ASV choose "lives" to translate
the participle
"shokeyn" which is a poor choice although they are correct as
seeing it
as a present continuous idea which makes the next, and usually
translated,
future tense verb to also be translated as present tense. Other
modern
translators may take the same construction in a different context
and make
it a past or future depending on their doctrinal point of view.
For instance
check several translations of Zechariah 8:1-3 to see the variety
of choice
of tense there which changes with the doctrinal viewpoint of the
translator.
The point here is that in spite of the KJV being outdated and the
language
hard for a modern reader, basic understanding of the broader
context and
of the meanings and ideas in the scriptures is decidedly weighted
toward
the KJV translators over the modern. The latter make several
mistakes because
they do not know the content thoroughly. Although they are
incredibly well
informed textual students and linguists, they often can not see
the forest
for the trees.
