Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
But my point was that in putting out a new version of the Bible, the LSM as the personal publishing arm of the Bible teacher WL, and WL himself, were exposed as rank amateurs, and in way over their heads. Some of it is decent, some is mediocre, and some is frankly awful. They had absolutely no business in attempting a new English version of the Bible, except to 1) control the discussion in the flock and 2) sell something else to a captive market.
|
This is exactly right. WL and the LSM had absolutely no business producing a new version of the Bible. I think we could rest assured that any major translation had an exponentially larger number of scholarly resources put into the translation. WL and LSM have presumed that their work, done mostly by amateurs, represents the best available.
The RcV footnotes are just as big of an issue as the translation. WL is credited for ALL of the footnotes. Just by comparison, I opened my ESV study Bible and I see that there are six pages listing names of contributors for the study notes. What a difference that is.
What all this leads to is that there was no need for the RcV Bible in the way that it turned out. It comes as no surprise that there was an intention to control members' discussion and understanding of the scripture through the RcV footnotes.