Quote:
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.