The first text I check in any new translation is Matthew 5, where three major questionable renderings are commonly observed: epithumein, elsewhere “covet,” rendered “lust” in 5:28; porneia, formerly “fornication,” altered to “sexual immorality” in 5:32; teleioi, “complete” in Phil. 3:15, but “perfect” in 5:48. LSB retains all three from previous versions such as NIV and ESV, which given their widespread use as “prooftexts” radically alter one’s understanding of sexuality and the Christian life in general. Did any of LSB’s translators employ concordances in their work?
The first text I check in any new translation is Matthew 5, where three major questionable renderings are commonly observed: epithumein, elsewhere “covet,” rendered “lust” in 5:28; porneia, formerly “fornication,” altered to “sexual immorality” in 5:32; teleioi, “complete” in Phil. 3:15, but “perfect” in 5:48. LSB retains all three from previous versions such as NIV and ESV, which given their widespread use as “prooftexts” radically alter one’s understanding of sexuality and the Christian life in general. Did any of LSB’s translators employ concordances in their work?