Over the course of the week we read articles that talked about the originality of text and it defiantly brought up some interesting thoughts. Is there any original thoughts? What qualifies as original these day and who checking to make sure if anyone is even paying that close of a concern. So the "work" I choose to talk about today is the work of the constitution. Due to it being text so I thought it had more to offer then a painting or other art form but also because I do believe in it's originality. Perhaps not word for word but as a whole concept. I think in it's time the whole things was constructed to be a new concept for the new people to start a new age. I think that it's intent was not to copy any other document up it's kind or that of another working country or government but to crate something interiorly new. I think at the time of it's creation that it did succeed to do so. That being say I do think that as original text are crated the generation adjustment have to be made in order to stay current to the people in witch it serves if it is that kind of legal document vs just a historic document. The same thing to be true with the Bible. It was as generations evolved, it was then translated into a new way for us to understand. Form King James version to New King James and so many more. I believe the first one was original but all the others are simply translations in new wordings.
Interesting concepts of using the Constitution and the Bible as original forms. This is a great point that the original text is meant to being taken and translated from. So that future generations can study and understand in their own thoughts and words that may reflect their era. Do you think some translation loses any of what was originally meant in the Constitution or Bible? Great choice of reference.
ReplyDelete