Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Besides the questions that this poster makes, I would add the following more pointed questions:
1. Does the collaboration of many translators reduce the risk of bias?
2. Would inclusion of translators from more than one doctrinal background further reduce any such bias.
3. Conversely, does a concentration of translators from the ranks of only one doctrinal background create a bias, or an appearance of bias even if none exists?
4. Has the authority of scripture in the LC been usurped by Witness Lee who not only used pet translations, but often supplied his own nuances in translation even though he was admittedly not a Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek scholar in any sense of the word and was not even trained in theology?
5. Are the BBs perpetuating Lee’s errors by failing to take upon themselves the task of ongoing review, contemplation and/or analysis?
These are not designed to be the limiting questions of this thread, but show my questions in light of the history of the LC of which I am aware.
|
Hi Mike,
1) yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes
5)and yes...
The doctrine of inspiration and biblical authority can be a massive general topic to tackle, but regarding the recovery version and WL's pet doctrines and unorthodox hermeneutics, I would say that the problem is not limited to the translation alone. The recovery version in itself is not far off when it comes to translation. Rather it's the interpretation and footnotes and life-studies that become a huge problem!
For example, "God's economy" in itself could be considered an acceptable translation. Even though some others translate it God's work, way, administration, ect...they really all mean the same thing. The recovery version is not in error for having "economy" instead of something else. But the problem is in the footnotes, life-studies, and other works that try to revolve everything (and I mean everything) around this one word.
I think the problem with LSM is that they MAJOR in MINOR doctrines and passages to try and be different from everyone else. I mean, if every denomination tried to put together a pet transaltion of the bible just for them with footnotes that use their lingo and teach their own doctrines everyone would agree that would be rediculous...but that is exactly what WL did. He wanted a bible that said "soul-life" and "God's economy" so he created one. Don't get me wrong, every denomination does have books and teachings which reflect the unique measure of grace given to them, but they would never canonize it by re-translating the bible and declaring their "life-studies" (commentaries) as the only "key" to opening the Word and every other book is "poison."
-reece