By the way, you may be interested in a different opinion on the KJV voiced by Bible translator Robert Alter, in his _The Five Books of Moses_ (Norton, 2004):
"One might have expected that this recent flurry of translation activity, informed by the newly focused awareness of the meanings of biblical Hebrew, would have produced at least some English versions that would be both vividly precise and closer to the feel of the original than any of the older translations. Instead, the modern English versions...have placed readers at a grotesque distance from the distinctive literary experience of the Bible in its original language. As a consequence, the King James Version, as Gerald Hammond, an eminent British authority on Bible translations, has convincingly argued, remains the closest approach for English readers to the original -- despite its frequent and at times embarrassing inaccuracies, despite its archaisms, and despite its insistent substitution of Renaissance English tonalities and rhythms for biblical ones." -- Introduction, xvii (My emphasis)
It would seem that Alter does not agree that the KJV represents "bad English." And I would argue that the NWT presents a much 'closer approach in English to the original' than does the KJV.
its frequent and at times embarrassing inaccuracies, despite its archaisms,
and despite its insistent substitution of Renaissance English tonalities and
rhythms for biblical ones.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.