Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is
|
Translation work is extremely difficult, and when to supply words for the readers' help is just one situation. No translation can ever arrive at "perfection," which is why I prefer a multitude of translations along with footnotes.
John 7.39 is an example of a verse that just defies theology. Various writers in church history (Darby, Lee, et. al.) have attempted to tackle it, but they risk being tagged Modalists, or worse. I feel it is best just to note it without promoting it, otherwise exclusive elitists sects like the LCM and the Peebs are the result.
Btw, the early RecVers (Ingalls et.al.) actually began with a minimum of footnotes, selecting only those words or verses which are more troublesome. Later on, LSM's "translation team" were instructed to go thru all the Life-Studies to cull the "riches," and thus pad the RecVers with Lee's theology. I still use the RecVers (old and new versions), and do use the cross references and explanatory footnotes at times. Much of the Outline I no longer agree along with Lee's controversial stuff in the footnotes.