Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
The translation work of the KJV was a monument to "King James" and not King Jesus. Have you ever read the "Epistle Dedicatory" to "Your Majesty, the Most Dread Sovereign" the head of the church of England at the first page of the KJV? Look it up sometime. Talk about male ego bias with a side of alpha dog. That Dedicatory is simply pathetic.
The KJV became known as the "authorized" version. Authorized by who? God? Of course not! Authorized by the hot-headed King of England! For nearly 3 centuries the British monarchy prevented better and more accurate translations, and not tied to the Textus Receptus.
Did you know that the translators added a word to I Cor 13.5 "love is not easily provoked," with King James in mind. Who knows how many more verses were influenced by ole King James!?!
|
You are preaching to the converted in regards to the KJV. Look, I don't think anyone doubts that bias can affect translations, I certainly don't. There was bias added to favor the Church of England hierarchy and ensure none of the Lutheran or Calvinist heresies were added. I know that much.
In the KJV's defense, the translators had a wide variety of views:
All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.
Regarding the additions in the KJV, part and parcel of translation is to add words to make it more intelligible but without changing the meaning. I think most of these additions are benign.
I can't see the real change in meaning between "love is not provoked" and "love is not easily provoked". Many modern versions choose to use the "not easily provoked" version.
The big difference is there is lots of evidence for what you are saying here, and all that happened with the King of England. Many of these biases have been removed in other, more modern versions.
But there is not so much evidence for Bushnell's views and the modern versions don't seem to do anything much with Genesis 3:16. Further, Bushnell's views involve a complete change in meaning of the text.
Either that means there is really no problem to begin with, the translation is accurate as best is humanly possible, or the translators know there is a problem but don't think it is worth fixing (complacency). I just don't think that something of such magnitude as Bushnell claims, 46 verses, begin mistranslated, would be able to escape the attention of all the male and female scholars over the years. If she is asking them to have another look at it and they won't, there is a reason why they won't do that, and I don't think it's because they are men.
And if they do find something, and change all the bibles to favor Bushnell's view, then I don't think much will change. Because "innate male bias" is in all men if it is truly innate.