Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy
what you think of the RcV? I can not read it as it is too Leeish for me.
|
I prefer the translation by Ingalls, Duane, and Knoch. I still have the original compilation cobbled together from the trainings. At the time it was a valuable improvement to the widely used KJV. I also have the newer NT RecV which is so well worn it is part of my heart. I know where verses are at, the text is satisfactory, the format is familiar, and the references are helpful. All the good stuff is highlighted in yellow. Lots of footnotes are still valuable, but many have been marked as no longer being acceptable.
I do find Robichaux's version to be wordy. Brother
ZNP has a few choice words to say about it. It was birthed out of W. & P. Lee's excommunication of Ingalls, and raised on a diet of the ASV 1901. The RecVers really has no need for its existence other than as a marketing product.
That said, I still use it because of inertia and because I'm so cheap. (
My wife, in a spat of frustration, once called me the "cheapskate from Cleveland," which honor I hold dearly.) I also have a complete RecV without footnotes in my car (
actually a minivan since I hate "normal" cars) which I use when I meet with others. (But I don't let on which version it is because then they will think I'm an alcoholic -- you know "Recovery" version.)
In summary, the RecV, in and of itself, is a good translation. The problem is many of the footnotes and the entanglements with LSM.