jeremiah wrote:actually there isn't really anything wrong with rendering "psychikos" as soulish. it may not be the perfect choice universally, but there is nothing misleading about it.
I should've explained a little more to make the example make more sense. To Witness Lee, "soulish" means something very different than what we would call the natural or unspiritual man. It starts with Lee's version of what happened when man fell: "...Satan in the form of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil got into man." If you want to explore it further, I'd suggest reading at least the first chapter of Lee's book, The Flesh and the Spirit, from which that quote comes, and then look up any of the places where he uses "soulish" a lot. (All his books can be read online for free; I hope no one actually gives them any money for a hard copy because of my recommendation to read them.)
So, if you or I read "soulish" in the Recovery Version and understand it the same as if it said "natural" or "unspiritual," as do almost all other versions, then as you say, it's not misleading. But if someone reads it who knows Lee's teachings on soulish vs. spiritual and a few other things, or who simply reads Lee's footnotes (which take up more space than the Bible text) and doesn't know any better, it reinforces the idea that Witness Lee is the only teacher who understands the Bible, because no one else explains it like he does. It's now become misleading.
But I don't want to detract from the main point by getting sidetracked into discussions of Lee's teachings. (Besides, as I said in the other thread, I really don't have time for that now.)
It's not uncommon for Bible translators to occasionally become interpreters instead of simply translators, and unwittingly insert their own theological views into the text here & there. That's not good, but it's part of the cost of reading a translation instead of the original, and it underscores the need to have a variety of sources for any serious study. But if I learned that some Bible version had been deliberately changed to better support some doctrine, even if I agree with the doctrine, I'd be alarmed that any Christian would do such a thing, and I'd want nothing further to do with that version.
So, here we have the Recovery Version, published by a group that's a cult both sociologically and doctrinally. The leader of the cult, who commissioned and oversaw the translation, and had no language expertise himself, openly stated, multiple times, in writing, that he made changes in both the original language texts and the translated text, for the purpose of better supporting his unique teachings. To this day, others in the group openly state essentially the same things, if somewhat less explicitly. I'd like to think that's as big a problem for every Christian as it is for me.