Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
I have read the majority of the NT RcV footnotes. I have not read many of the OT footnotes. I would say that the footnotes always lead me to an understanding of what WL wanted us to believe about any given topic. In a 'normal' study Bible, the footnotes might be there to provide a discussion of a difficult passage, not so much to define particular teachings, especially as it would relate to a certain ministry.
I don't know what version the RcV compares best to. My guess would be maybe the ESV or NIV, but I have not engaged in a side by side comparison.
The translation itself probably isn't a bad translation per se, you just can't be guaranteed that there was no agenda behind the translation (and most of us believe that there was indeed an agenda).
|
I should explain more about I didn’t read Rcv and Lee’s notes. When I planned to read Bible (study Bible myself at home), I found Rcv was thicker than Chinese Union Version (Cuv) because the former including Lee’s notes. So I chose Cuv. After reading Cuv and other (e.g. NKJV), I found I could not enjoy church life with other LCers anymore. So I left without reading Rcv.