Quote:
"No language is capable of preserving this authority."
For some Hebrew/Greek words there are no suitably perfect English equivalent translation. So it's not the translation that's the difficult medium; it's the language. The rest of the excerpt above flows well with this.
Edit: and it's why some English words in the KJV are Italicized.
|
Actually, language is no problem. God invented English, and has superintended over it through history. God got words into the language which would be used for the exact presentation of the Scripture, e.g. in His providence, got words like "Son", "Holy Ghost", etc. from Old English to have a special meaning, used words coming in via Latin such as "baptism", allowed for Tyndale to invent words where needful like "scapegoat", so in the end, the English language was ready for the perfect translation in 1611.
Italic words are either where there is a minority attestation to a reading in the original evidence, or when it takes more English words to convey the same sense of the original. (We have an English translation which does not add to, take from or in any way alter the sense of the true original.) Thus, italics have both a textual and a translational use. And they are right, and rightfully considered the "inspired word" in both uses.
This is just the opposite to the marginal "variant readings and translations" which are not the inspired word, and are never to be alternates or considered to be equal to Scripture. This is because the translators did choose to make the italic words stand as Scripture, and chose what would be marginal and what would be Scripture.
Every rendering is correct in the King James Bible.