Psalm 2, differences in translation

Wanye Leman on the collective blog Better Bibles, posted an entry titled Which son is in psalm 2? about the controversial "Son (or son)" in the psalm. He points out that ""Son," uppercase "S," presumably...indicate[s] divinity, probably of a future Messianic Son." (Wayne Leman). He is by no means on the side that supports that interpretation, but brings it to the table so that he can discuss it; later concluding that translation should not capitalize based on theological interpretation and should instead allow more leniency.
I mentioned this not only because he provides an interesting and convincing point, but also our version for this class and the translation from early America are different in their choice of how to handle the word. The Book of Psalms chose to abstain from capitalization, whereas the earlier translation did indeed capitalize it. It is certainly a difference to ponder. Perhaps the earlier publication went with their choice because in that day it was the more common understanding that the "Son" did indeed stand for something higher (like a messiah) rather than just a regular son such as a king. Though I am not sure whether this has changed at all in the more present years. Christians (as many who look to books for divine revelations) are constantly searching for connections between the earlier books of the Bible and the newer ones depicting Jesus' life; and, while in today's world there are more new-agey denominations who are open to other interpretations, I think that the need to find connection is still quite prevalent and I think many Bibles still choose to keep the S capitalized. However, a more academic book like the one we are using is all about different ways to interpret. It does not necessarily need to relate the psalms to any other reference in the Bible, and instead brings up many ideas: including the more historical context, the idea of a king, historical views, and others.

On a different note, I noticed that the earlier version rhymes! The first time I read it I did not notice, but I did come away from it thinking it sounded more eloquent and poetic than our version. I thought, and still think this was simply because of the older English, but even so, it is a significant difference. Why did they make the psalm rhyme? It does make it more poetic I think, it seems to flow better than the translation we are using, but is this grounds for changing the psalm? For in order to make it rhyme, some of the translations must be shifted. Perhaps the strongest point for keeping it from rhyming is -- as we learned in class --that the original Hebrew does not rhyme. However, the rhyming idea makes the psalm more poetic and perhaps therefore more appealing to the general reader. The Bible is often a complex and difficult to read book, but by making the psalms rhyme they are perhaps easier to read and understand? And they also resemble Christian religious songs (like hymns) better.

The matter of translation and interpretation is much like that of religion. Many people see one thing (like a psalm) and can take it to mean different things. How they translate it effects how it is perceived. Many people will think that their interpretation is the 'right one.' As for me, I think translation should occur as literally as possible while remaining somewhat grammatically correct so that the psalm can be read. From that close translation, then can meaning be gleaned, whatever that meaning might be.