Translation & More

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

I went through the fist 10 verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, and Revelation (it is not much) and it seems to me that the RcV follows very closely the ASV rather than the KJV.

Correct.

The American Standard Version (1901) and the Revised English Version (1887) both followed the traditional Elizabethan English of the King James Version (1611.)

The Recovery Version (1985/1990) follows closely to the ASV, as you have said.

In his book The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Dr. Philip Comfort (formerly my elder in the church in Columbus) said the following:

The New Testament scholars began to discover that most of the N.T. was written in Koine Greek -- the language of the people. As a result, there was a strong prompting to translate the N.T. into the language of the people. Various translators chose to divorce themselves from the traditional Elizabethan English as found in the King James Version (and even in the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version) and produce fresh renderings in the common idiom. (page 62)

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.

[Freedom]

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.

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.

[OBW]

From Translation Methodology:

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.

The first thing said in this part is that they are not aiming for obscurity. Yet retaining terse and difficult construction just because some Hebrew or Greek idiom translates to very convoluted words is of no value to anyone except those who want to keep the Bible as a mystery that only they (claim to) understand.

If it requires the Spirit to really understand what is being said, that would be true whether the underlying words were difficult or easier to understand. Making initial understanding more difficult does not help us rely on the Spirit. It makes us more likely to throw up our hands in despair. Besides, if the original Hebrew or Greek was something written in common language rather than in the nit-picking style of the formal language, then the goal at writing was "clearly" to be clear and not obscure.

How duplicitous to then insist on not only refusing the common language, but making it so difficult that even those well-adept at the formal language would have trouble. It surely is not a "spiritual" thing. Instead it is evidence of a desire for superiority over those to whom the results will be provided.

Besides what benefit is there to be gained from translating a colloquialism or idiom into a string of English words that are ridiculous and indecipherable relative to the actual meaning when the intent of the idiom was to be understood. Just say that in English. That is proper translation.

They need to stop hiding behind a false veil of superiority. It makes them look stupid. (And in some sense, they are.)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

How duplicitous to then insist on not only refusing the common language, but making it so difficult that even those well-adept at the formal language would have trouble. It surely is not a "spiritual" thing. Instead it is evidence of a desire for superiority over those to whom the results will be provided.

LSM presumes that difficult language is equal with greater spiritual content. If I read a KJV, there are plenty of passages where I might struggle with difficult language. That doesn't mean that the KJV is more 'spiritual' or accurate, it means that it contains language and phrasing that is reminiscent of 400 years ago. But this is exactly the kind of trap that many people fall into, not just in the LC, but outside too. Ideas like esoteric=spiritual, difficult=superior, etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

LSM presumes that difficult language is equal with greater spiritual content.

Yes I have heard this stated in different terms in the past 10 years. My nephew asserted that saying better made it better. While that is a paraphrase, it is so close to exactly what he said that it would be nit-picking to argue otherwise.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Strict literalism can lead to worse inaccuracies. How do language idioms sound when translated literally? Ever try to read Robert Young's literal translation (YLT, 1862) of the N.T.?

Philip Comfort classifies translations in this way, with some examples:

• Strictly Literal (NASB)
• Literal (NKJV, RSV, NAB)
• Literal with idiomatic freedom (NIV, NJB, REB)
• Dynamic Equivalent, modern speech (TEV)
• Paraphrastic (TLB)

Let's face it, Lee and LSM always know what is best!

Personally, I attempted to read the KJV several times in my early life, and quite unsuccessfully. Then a friend from work, along with others, bought cases of Paraphrased Bibles, called The Greatest is Love (TLB) and passed them out. I was wonderfully saved, and filled with His Spirit, just by reading this version of the N.T. After I entered the LC, I was persuaded that my beloved paraphrase too "watered down," childish, and error-prone, so I discarded it. Just recently I found a used book at Amazon and replaced it! Better than a thousand Life Studies! So much for LSM's official version.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Strict literalism can lead to worse inaccuracies. How do language idioms sound when translated literally? Ever try to read Robert Young's literal translation (YLT, 1862) of the N.T.?

Philip Comfort classifies translations in this way, with some examples:

• Strictly Literal (NASB)
• Literal (NKJV, RSV, NAB)
• Literal with idiomatic freedom (NIV, NJB, REB)
• Dynamic Equivalent, modern speech (TEV)
• Paraphrastic (TLB)

Let's face it, Lee and LSM always know what is best!

Personally, I attempted to read the KJV several times in my early life, and quite unsuccessfully. Then a friend from work, along with others, bought cases of Paraphrased Bibles, called The Greatest is Love (TLB) and passed them out. I was wonderfully saved, and filled with His Spirit, just by reading this version of the N.T. After I entered the LC, I was persuaded that my beloved paraphrase too "watered down," childish, and error-prone, so I discarded it. Just recently I found a used book at Amazon and replaced it! Better than a thousand Life Studies! So much for LSM's official version.

I have referenced The Message from time to time, and I do think that there is some amount of value in paraphrased text. And I'm sure the concern also exists outside the LC that such things 'dilute' God's Word. I don't see the problem, other than the way scripture is paraphrased is based upon the author's own understanding of scripture.

As you say, literal translations cannot always carry context and idioms. That is what often makes them difficult. Of course, they have their value when it comes to accuracy. Actually, it's ironic that accuracy was a goal with the RcV, because things were deliberately mistranslated to fit Lee's teachings.

[testallthings]

A swallow does not make a spring.


Mat. 8:2 a And behold, a 1b leper, coming near, 2c worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if You are willing, You can cleanse me.

Note 2.2 The leper worshipped the new King and called Him "Lord," recognizing that He is the Lord God. In reality the new King is Jehovah the Savior — Jesus. (See note 211*in ch. 1.)

(W. Lee, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)





There are two problems with this interpretation, and both of them are the result of forgetting that words may have more than one meaning, and that the context can help us to translate and interpret in a way that is both faithful and consistent with the general use of the terms at the time the New Testament was written.

The two words are προσκυνέω (proskuneō) and κύριος (kurios).
The first has the meaning of to worship, to bow down, to show reverence and submission. The second means Lord, lord, master, sir.


“And worshipped him in a civil and respectful way, showing great reverence to him as a man; which he did by falling down on his knees, and on his face; prostrating himself before him, in a very humble and submissive manner, as the other evangelists relate: for that he worshipped him as God, is not so manifest; though it is certain he had an high opinion of him, and great faith in him; which he very modestly expresses.” (John Gill's exposition of the entire Bible, e-Sword)

Worshipped him - Bowed down before him, to show him respect. See the notes at Mat_2:2.
To worship him - This does not mean that they had come to pay him religious homage, or to adore him They regarded him as the King of the Jews, but there is no evidence that they supposed that he was divine. They came to honor him as a Prince, or a king, not as God. The original word implies no more than this. It means to prostrate oneself before another; to fall down and pay homage to another. This was the mode in which homage was paid to earthly kings, and this they wished to pay to the new-born King of the Jews. See the same meaning of the word in Mat_20:20; Mat_18:26; Act_10:25; Luk_14:10. The English word “worship” also meant formerly “to respect, to honor, to treat with civil reverence’” (Webster).(Abert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, e-Sword)


We could quote more from other commentators, but this will only make this post too long. Leaving the “opinion” of men, let's look at what the Scripture says. I'll quote very few examples.
Mat 27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.
Joh_4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water?
Joh_12:21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Rev 7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (ASV)

In all these verses the word translated Sir or lord in Greek is κύριος (kurios).
The Samaritan woman addressed Jesus in the same way as the leper, but here the KJV and the RcV translate Sir. When the Greeks called Philip Sir (kurios) did they imply that he was God? When John called the elder my lord (my kurios) was he falling into idolatry?
In pointing out this different, and probably more correct, interpretation, we do not intend to minimize or to question Jesus divinity. We believe with Paul, Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (KJV)

What we question is that if this verse (Mat. 8:2) shows clearly Jesus divinity it could be used to win a debate with an Unitarian, but I guess this has never been the case. Outwardly the Lord Jesus was found in a fashion as a man (the Word became flesh). It was not easy to see that He was God. Demons of course recognized Him as the Son of God and the Holy One, and were told close their mouth so not to spread this “revelation”. When He asked the disciple what the people thought about Him the answer was that some believed He was one of the prophets, but for Peter, who got the revelation from the Father, He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus told them not to tell others about this revelation.

If the Lord Jesus was so careful about keeping His real identity hidden, why (if W. Lee's interpretation is correct) He never said a word to the leper, or to the centurion? And why no one from the crowd that was following Him (maybe a scribe or a Pharises, it seems they were everywhere) didn't say
like in Luk 19:39 Teacher, rebuke thy disciples? (And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples.)

Although W. Lee's incorrect interpretation this time has the merit of giving honor to the Lord Jesus, nonetheless it is incorrect. As the proverb goes, A swallow does not make a spring.

[aron]

I remember reading a note in the preface to the RecV where they said that they won't "shrink back from the divine name" Jehovah. I suppose this is in distinction to the Tetragrammaton, JHWH. And the English equivalent "The LORD".

Question: why didn't Jesus use the word Jehovah? "The LORD said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... " why didn't Jesus say, "Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... "?

Why wasn't Jehovah used by the NT writers and speakers? Shrinking back? Secretive? If so, what changed in the late 20th century, that we no longer shrink back from so doing?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading a note in the preface to the RecV where they said that they won't "shrink back from the divine name" Jehovah. I suppose this is in distinction to the Tetragrammaton, JHWH. And the English equivalent "The LORD".

Question: why didn't Jesus use the word Jehovah? "The LORD said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... " why didn't Jesus say, "Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... "?

Why wasn't Jehovah used by the NT writers and speakers? Shrinking back? Secretive? If so, what changed in the late 20th century, that we no longer shrink back from so doing?

I did not know that Jesus or the NT writers did not use Jehovah. Why would LSM make a big deal out of this?