Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It is interesting to note that LSMers ignorantly condemn other English translations simply for endeavoring to duplicate the vernacular of the common people, just as the writers of the N.T. used Koine Greek in their day.
In a footnote referenced in this paragraph of Comfort's book, he did note that 3 books of the N.T. were written in a style closer to classical Greek than Koine Greek. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts in polished Greek; and the writer of Hebrews wrote in prosaic Greek.
|
Quote:
Translation Methodology
The Recovery Version conforms to a particular philosophy of Bible translation which is admittedly not in vogue today. Every translation of the Bible embodies a philosophy about what the Bible is, about the relation of its writers to God, and even about God Himself. The trend today is away from a more literal rendering of the ancient text toward a more literary one; newer translations seek to make the Bible easy to read and understand. But while we do not aim for obscurity, we contend that the deep things of God are not simple for human language, that the mind of Christ is not shallow or easily explained, and that the content of the Bible comes not merely through our renderings but by the Spirit through spiritual words. Our view about Bible translation reflects Paul’s words to the Corinthians concerning the ministry in general: "Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things with spiritual words" (1 Cor. 2:13). Our words, our translation, must be with spiritual words, else the Spirit, we maintain, has no way nor any responsibility to bear the spiritual things of the Bible to our readers. We admit that translation of this sort is sometimes not the easiest to read or comprehend, but we are compelled to sacrifice easy reading for deeper truth. Though we are for the casual reading of the Bible, we maintain that the Bible is to be studied carefully, and we so translate it, attempting to leave in our work the fine points expressed in the original.
http://www.recoveryversion.org/translation.html
|
LSM makes no effort to hide the fact that they favor a literal translation. I really have nothing against a literal translation per se, in fact, I think it has value just as do translations that are more readable have their value.
The problem that I see, however, is trying to fit the Bible in a certain 'box', in LSM's case, it's the box of literal translation. It simply doesn't work.
LSM seems to believe that readability always involves compromising accuracy. Does it? I don't think so. Those who authored the NT certainly didn't think so.