Local Church Discussions - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

11-02-2016 09:05 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

My biggest problem with the RcV is that the LC mandates it. To mandate any teachings, no matter whose they are is going too far. I have various study Bibles. I take all of the commentary with a grain of salt. And there's really nothing wrong with commentary as long as it's used as an aid and not a lens by which everything is interpreted.

11-02-2016 07:21 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church" .

Actually, many bible translations promote the peculiar teachings of something or someone.

http://www.1611-king-james-bible.com/history.html

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

How about addressing all the peculiar teachings of the LC?

11-02-2016 06:04 PM

Evangelical

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

"Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church" .

Actually, many bible translations promote the peculiar teachings of something or someone.

http://www.1611-king-james-bible.com/history.html

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

11-02-2016 06:03 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I came across this Review of the Recovery Version written some years ago. (Actually two reviews by the same writer, spaced a few years apart.) It closely matches my own views. The writer obviously invested much time into his reviews, and thus are quite valuable.

I'll post only the two brief conclusions now:

Quote:

The Recovery Version is a conservative translation, for the most part similar in its style and translation to versions such as the NASB and the ESV. There are a few places in the Old Testament where the desire to be literal and perhaps following an older style of English has produced renderings that are misleading or difficult to understand. Such places are more common in the New Testament. There are also unusual translations in a few places. But on the whole, the Recovery Version is a reliable translation.

However, I cannot recommend the edition of the New Testament which has extensive footnotes, because invariably those using it will read the footnotes. This edition has been distributed freely to all who have requested a copy by a body linked to The Local Church, and it appears that many copies have been distributed. While I was working with Bible Society I received several enquiries from people who had obtained one of these New Testaments – usually wanting to know what some of the footnotes meant! In view of what is in some of the footnotes, anyone using this edition should be cautious and test them against what the Bible actually says (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Quote:

The Recovery Version is a fairly literal translation. In places, the translators’ attempts to be literal have led to renderings which would probably baffle some readers, some phrases being meaningless or not readily understandable. The translators have tried to consistently render certain Greek words by the same English words, wherever they occur – but this can be fallacious, since some words can take on different meanings depending on the context. However, the translation itself appears reasonably reliable, and there is little in it which appears to be a distortion aimed at promoting peculiar doctrines or theories.

However, the edition of the Recovery New Testament that I used, which has extensive headings and footnotes, cannot be recommended, because invariably those using it will read the footnotes. This edition has been distributed freely to all who have requested a copy by a body linked to The Local Church, and it appears that many copies have been distributed. I have had several enquiries from people who have obtained a copy – usually wanting to know what some of the footnotes mean! Some copies are now turning up in second-hand book shops.

The footnotes are extensive and are almost a commentary on the Bible text. Some footnotes deal with textual and translational matters, but most are comments on what is in the Bible text – interpreting and explaining what is there, and applying it to personal and church life. Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church. These include what seems to be a modalistic understanding of the Triune God, “calling on the name of the Lord”, the mingling of the divine with human in believers, and an eschatology which, while pre-millennial, includes several unusual particulars.

10-21-2016 06:17 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I was reading my last post when I noticed 2 mistakes (mine).
The footnote I quoted is evidently wrong, and the citation is not accurate. I apologize for my inaccuracies. I repost my last post with some modifications highlighted in bold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Pray that ye enter not into temptation

Act 1:14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (ASV)

Commenting on this verse, in the RcV, W. Lee says (footnote 1:14.1) that, "Before the Lord's death the disciples had no interest in praying for spiritual things”. The verses he provides for demonstrating his point are Luke 22:40, 45-46.

Luk 22:40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
Luk 22:45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow,
Luk 22:46 and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. (ASV)

Now, how many times Christians (including W. Lee), throughout the entire Church age, were so tired that they didn't pray, so tired that they didn't read the Bible? Could we conclude that they had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”? As long as we live in this mortal body there will be moments (I wish they were only moments!) of weakness. Verse 45 says that they were sleeping for sorrow.

One of the first questions the disciples asked the Lord was to teach them how to pray.
Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.
The last sentence, And bring us not into temptation, echoes the Lord's charge in Luke 22:40, 46.

There were certainly things they didn't understand until Christ was resurrected, but it is unimaginable that the disciples, after spending more than three years with a living example of what a praying Man should be, had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”.

Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of finding faults in others based on a word or an incident. Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of becoming unfair judges of our fellow brothers and sisters.

08-16-2016 07:40 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Pray that ye enter not into temptation

Act 1:14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (ASV)

Commenting on this verse, in the RcV, W. Lee says (footnote 14.1) that the 12 had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”. The verses he provides for demonstrating his point are Luke 22:40, 45-46.

Luk 22:40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
Luk 22:45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow,
Luk 22:46 and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. (ASV)

Now, how many times Christians (including W. Lee), throughout the entire Church age, were so tired that they didn't pray, so tired that they didn't read the Bible? Could we conclude that they had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”? As long as we live in this mortal body there will be moments (I wish they were only moments!) of weakness. Verse 45 says that they were sleeping for sorrow.

One of the first questions the disciples asked the Lord was to teach them how to pray.
Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.
The last sentence, And bring us not into temptation, echoes the Lord's charge in Luke 22:40, 46.

There were certainly things they didn't understand until Christ was resurrected, but it is unimaginable that the disciples, after spending more than three years with a living example of what a praying Man should be, had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”.

Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of finding faults in others based on a word or an incident. Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of becoming unfair judges of our fellow brothers and sisters.

06-26-2016 12:40 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

You know, we all have concepts; you have them, so do I. But our concepts are relatively innocuous, compared to those of Witness Lee, because chief among his concepts was the idea that only he didn't have any!

Aron I certainly agree that we all have concepts, opinions, feelings, and so on. What can we do to limit their bearing in our Christian life, in our understanding of the Bible, or other spiritual matters? What you did when you read Clement is most commendable and an example to me.

06-23-2016 07:38 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

If you think I'm being hard on Darby, Lee held him as a 'pre-Nee' visionary of recovered truth, i.e. God's (sole) 'man of the hour', and history hasn't been so kind on Darby's inspirations, and the effect he had on his fellows.

Brethrenism "took shape under a delusion", as did the Lord's Recovery which followed it. The Bible became a vehicle for the concepts of men, and for their interpretations to be imposed upon others, smothering them and extinguishing the freedom of the Spirit.

Having read some of Anthony Groves' (the earliest of the Brethren) views, Brethrenism was nothing like what the exclusives under Darby had fashioned it into. Many, many gifted men of God flocked together around these noble and scriptural ideals. Though Darby had many redeeming virtues, he did hijack the movement, established new exclusive principles of practice, and then "slaughtered" any and all perceived "rivals."

His extreme views have permanently shaped both Nee and Lee. All three eventually followed the same course of action. Initially they all left the existing systems, returning to the plain verses of the Bible, loving one another in assemblies, operating as "a" minister among many. Eventually they each created their own systems, where they were MOTA, the "acting god," and the deputy authority, ready to crush any and all who protested.

W. Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901) is an excellent read for those having trouble understanding "what happened to the glorious churchlife," as I did years ago. (It was available free on line.) It is unfortunate, however, that my current "pay grade" prevented me from really understanding all he wrote. I would read some sections repeatedly with resource materials on hand, and I was just not bright enough to apprehend the complete import of his writing.

06-23-2016 07:14 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Even the authors of the Bible, and the compilers who decided on the canon, had "fallen" and "natural human concepts" of "right and wrong". Only the chosen few, the apostle Paul, John Nelson Darby, Margaret Barber and then Nee and Lee, cared solely for life. Everyone else, apparently, wasn't so clear, beshrouded by their concepts as they were. Yet there was an invisible 'lineage of life' running through the aeons, coursing through the space/time ether, and Nee and Lee had somehow tapped into it. . .

Quote:

Darby and his supporters clearly believed the 'secret rapture' would occur in their own life time and certainly before the end of the 19th Century. Looking back, Blair Neatby, writing his history of the Brethren in 1901 reflects,

"If anyone had told the first Brethren that three quarters of a century might elapse and the Church be on earth, the answer would probably have been a smile, partly of pity, partly of disapproval, wholly of incredulity. Yet so it has proved. It is impossible not to respect hopes so congenial to an ardent devotion; yet it is clear now that Brethrenism took shape under the influence of a delusion, and that delusion was a decisive element in all of its distinctive features."97

But the rapture did not occur. Whereas the leaders of Irving's Catholic Apostolic church refused to appoint successors, convinced that the Lord would return to Albury before the last one died, so that today the church there remains empty, Darby's dispensationalist ideas permeated beyond his narrow Brethrenism to a new generation of evangelicals in the 20th Century.

Professor Francis W. Newman was a contemporary of Darby and offers this assessment of his impact on those who came under his influence.

"For the first time I perceived that so vehement a champion of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, so staunch an opposer of creed and churches, was wedded to an extra-scriptural creed of his own, by which he tested the spiritual state of his brethren."98

"...this gentleman has every where (sic) displayed a wonderful power of bending other minds to his own, and even stamping upon them the tones of his voice and all sorts of slavish imitation. Over the general results of his action I have long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and sacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and setting those at variance who ought to love, yet oh! how specious it was in the beginning! he only wanted men 'to submit their understanding to God,' that is to the Bible, that is to his interpretation."99

97 W. Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), p. 3.

98 Francis W. Newman, Phases of Faith, or, Passages from the History of my Creed (London, John Chapman, 1850), p. 29.

99 Newman, Phases., p. 33.

Brethrenism "took shape under a delusion", as did the Lord's Recovery which followed it. The Bible became a vehicle for the concepts of men, and for their interpretations to be imposed upon others, smothering them and extinguishing the freedom of the Spirit.

http://www.christchurch-virginiawate...es/darby1.html

06-23-2016 06:15 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

“They therefore, being come together, asked him saying, Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” (Darby) The word therefore (in Darby, Asv, and other translations) has the meaning of because of that or for that reason. Because the Lord spoke to them for 40 days about the kingdom of God therefore the apostles asked Him about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It was a simple logical question prompted by the things they heard during those 40 days.

The other thing to consider is this: look at the Lord's response to the question. They were asking about time. "At this time?", they asked. The Lord replied, "It's not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has fixed by His authority". (v.7)

He didn't say, "What are you talking about, the kingdom restored to Israel? Are you nuts?! I'm here for the church! Drop your concepts and read Ephesians 3!"

No, He was, and is, the King of Israel, and the mysterious "Divine purpose and wisdom revealed through the church" in Ephesians 3:9,10 didn't erase it, but rather (so I believe) declared it as gospel. "Where is He who is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star at its rising, and have come to worship Him." (Matt 2:2) Concepts? No, truth: Jesus was indeed the King of the Jews, and came to restore the kingdom [of God] to Israel. But the provenance of times and seasons was not for the disciples to know.

You know, we all have concepts; you have them, so do I. But our concepts are relatively innocuous, compared to those of Witness Lee, because chief among his concepts was the idea that only he didn't have any! Peter, James and John had concepts; all the Christian teachers and preachers had concepts, but Nee and Lee had none! What a gift to the Body of Christ, to have such ministers of the word, raised up in these last days! "Houston, the Oracle has landed. . ." Cheers, loud hurrahs, hats tossed in the air. . . as RG put it, "We got the fresh bread!" Manna from heaven, and all for sale, for just a dollar or three.

Even the authors of the Bible, and the compilers who decided on the canon, had "fallen" and "natural human concepts" of "right and wrong". Only the chosen few, the apostle Paul, John Nelson Darby, Margaret Barber and then Nee and Lee, cared solely for life. Everyone else, apparently, wasn't so clear, beshrouded by their concepts as they were. Yet there was an invisible 'lineage of life' running through the aeons, coursing through the space/time ether, and Nee and Lee had somehow tapped into it, and if we the poor, pathetic mooing cows wanted to participate in the blessing then we'd let them tell us what the Bible said, even if the words in front of us were plainly indicating otherwise.

It was the old, "Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes" trick. Witness Lee convinced us that only he had the sight. We were blind, as had been the disciples, the authors of the NT, and almost all of Christianity through the ages. What a con. . . what an embarrassing ride to have been taken on. Oh well; "Fool me once..."

06-22-2016 07:29 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

THE DISCIPLES’ QUESTION
CONCERNING THE RESTORATION
OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

Verse 6 says, “So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, Lord, are You at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” The kingdom of Israel, for which the apostles and other devout Jews were looking, was a material kingdom. This kingdom differs from God’s kingdom of life, which Christ is building up through the preaching of His gospel.1

In reading W. Lee's interpretation of many passages of Scriptures I am sure I am not the only one to have failed to notice how he defended his points by sometimes attacking not just others interpretations but even their persons, by considering two different terms as synonyms, and in certain cases even by attacking men of the Bible (think about Job, David, or James) and some part of the Bible itself.
In reading the LS of Acts, or the footnotes on Acts in the RcV, there are many instances when W. Lee is not afraid to blame the apostles for basically disagreeing with his interpretation. The verse in question is the first of this series.

The Lord spent 40 days with His disciples speaking about the kingdom of God. Probably He gave them a review of what He taught them in the Gospels (as W. Lee says). If this is the case, then it is not difficult to know what He said. I believe I have provided some hints in my previous posts about what the kingdom of God is in the Gospel of Luke. I know I did not do a thorough examination of the subject but as I said I only provided some points to be considered (so I beg anyone who is reading these posts to go through the entire book of Luke and see for himself).

After 40 days something happened. “They therefore, being come together, asked him saying, Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” (Darby) The word therefore (in Darby, Asv, and other translations) has the meaning of because of that or for that reason. Because the Lord spoke to them for 40 days about the kingdom of God therefore the apostles asked Him about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It was a simple logical question prompted by the things they heard during those 40 days.

"In asking the question recorded in verse 6, the disciples apparently were forgetting the divine life that was within them. Their concept was related to the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. This traditional concept was in the minds of all Jews. Peter, John, James, and the other disciples had the concept that the kingdom of Israel would be restored. Day by day they were hoping for the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. However, in 1:3 we are told that the Lord spoke to them not about the kingdom of Israel but about the kingdom of God."1

Unfortunately, W. Lee blames the apostles for being occupied with their traditional Jewish concept. This is exactly what the Lord didn't do! If the question was really off topic, I guess the Lord could have just dismissed them as really bad students (after 40 days any teacher would have question his students I.Q.) Or He could have answered in the same way He answered Philip when he asked Him to show them the Father. Joh 14:9 Jesus says to him, Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how sayest thou, Shew us the Father?
So, if the Lord didn't rebuke them why man (not just W. Lee) is not afraid, yes afraid, of finding faults in people who had been at Jesus Christ feet for 3 years, + 40 days of intense “training”, who received the Holy Spirit, whose mind had been opened....and so on.

Isn't there in the entire Bible a longing of God's people to finally see God's coming and the establishment of a righteous kingdom and the avenging of the blood of His martyrs? (Psa 74:9 We see not our signs; there is no more any prophet, neither is there among us any that knoweth how long. Psa 74:10 How long, O God, shall the adversary reproach? Shall the enemy contemn thy name for ever? Rev 6:10 and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O sovereign Ruler, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth? Rev 6:11 And there was given to them, to each one a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while, until both their fellow-bondmen and their brethren, who were about to be killed as they, should be fulfilled.) And yet, God says wait, this thing is not for you to know.

"Seven things are hid from the children of men, and these are they; the day of death, and the day of consolation, and the depth of judgment, and a man knows not what is in the heart of his neighbour, nor with what he shall be rewarded, and "when the kingdom of the house of David shall return", and when the kingdom of Persia shall fall. T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 2. Vid. Bere**** Rabba, sect. 65. fol. 57. 4. (l) Apud R. Sol. Jarchi in Gen. ii. 2. (John Jill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, e-Sword)

Another problem with W. Lee's interpretation is that he makes a little change in the preposition used by the apostles. They asked about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel but in the LS of Acts and in the RcV it is the kingdom of Israel. And this was not a slip of the pen (or tongue) because he said kingdom of Israel 5 times over just two pages. I guess this little change suited well Lee's interpretation. Now maybe someone would say I am too nit-picking. I will admit that if the claims of the RcV were not so high, I would have approached it with more “grace”, and if the author of it had treated God's people in the Bible with more grace, I would promptly have done the same. But, in any case, even among the unbelievers reporting exactly other people's words is crucial in a court of law or even in a simple conversation. How much more to repeat verbatim the words in the Scriptures.

The last point is that according to W. Lee Christ is building the Kingdom of God. There is not a verse in the New Testament that says that Christ is building the kingdom of God. How then can W. Lee make this claim? By considering the church and the kingdom of the heavens in Mat. 16:18-19 as synonyms. I believe the two terms are not synonyms as I have already tried to explains in my posts on the Gospel of Matthew.

That's all for now.
__________________________________________________ ___________
Notes
1. Witness Lee, Life-Study of Acts page 30, Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim California, first edition May 1986

04-17-2016 08:18 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

THE KINGDOM OF GOD (PART 2)

In part 1 we saw that the kingdom of God in the Gospel of Luke refers mainly to the Messianic kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, the son of David. The words of the angel Gabriel with those of the pious people of God are very clear. Someone asked about the significance of Luke 17:20-21.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So what do you make of Luke 17:20-21?

'And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh "not with observation" neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, Lo, there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'

The verses are from the KJV. “The A.V., "within," to which Revv. adhere in text, represents the view taken by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, Godet, Field, Candlish, Sanday, and Wellhausen. It is the rendering which has generally been favoured by mystics. Thus Fénélon recommends his reader who may perceive "natural impetuosity gliding in" to "retire quietly within, where is the kingdom of God."”1

Personally, I do not favor this rendering (not because I don't like mystics) for reasons I point out later. “Luke 17:21. — "In the midst of," ἐντός. So Syrsin, Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, Alford, Trench, Weizsäcker, B. Weiss (referring to Song of Solomon 3:10),. H. Holtzmann, Schanz, Farrar, Spence, Lütgert, Plummer, Wernle, and Loisy. Cf. Luke 11:20. Wernle: "It is quite certain that the right translation is among" (loc. cit.). Warman "The Pharisees asked when, not where" ("New Testament Theology," p. 22 f.). Boehmer: "The Lord does not say 'already.' "” 2

Having mentioned what the expert have to say about the rendering of ἐντός, I'll state why I favor the second rendering.
1. Throughout all the Gospels, starting from John the Baptist, then continued by the Lord and then by His disciples, the great message is, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has drawn nigh; repent and believe in the glad tidings.” Mar.1:15
2. The Lord Jesus never mentioned to His disciples that the kingdom of God is in them, or within them.
3. It is unlikely that He would speak such a word to His enemies.
4. The Pharisees were not surprised by His answer. If they understood that the kingdom of God was within them that would have shocked them in the same way as some were shocked when the Lord said that they should eat His flesh and drink His blood.
5. If it is true that the kingdom of God was within them, why did they oppose the King?
6. If the kingdom of God is within man, why, after this event, this great truth was never preached by the apostles?
7. Two chapters later the Lord told a parable because “they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.”Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
8. Luk_21:31 So also *ye*, when ye see these things take place, know that the kingdom of God is near.
9. Luk_22:16 For I say unto you, that I will not eat any more at all of it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
10. Luk_22:18 For I say unto you, that I will not drink at all of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God come.
11. Luk_23:51 (this man had not assented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who also waited, himself also, for the kingdom of God.
Why nobody told Joseph of Arimathaea that there was no need to wait for the kingdom of God, if indeed the kingdom of God was within him?

Let's consider the verses in their context.
Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luk 17:22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. Luk 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. Luk 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.Luk 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.(KJV)
At that time the King was present, and in a certain sense the kingdom of God was among them, or as another verse says upon them. And yet, the kingdom of God was not established. The Lord connects the kingdom and the Person of the King (the Son of Man) (vv,. 21 and 23). The Pharisees asked the Lord when the Kingdom of God should come, and the Lord in chapter 17 and 19 showed the Pharisees and His disciples that the kingdom of God will come after the rejection, death, and resurrection of the King. He will go to a far country to receive a kingdom and then return. At His second coming He will rule as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Until then we should pray, Father, Thy kingdom come.

For further study see Appendixes
112 The Synonymous Expressions for "Kingdom"
113. The "Kingdom" and the "Church"
114. The "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of God"
in the Companion Bible by Dr. E.W. Bullinger

https://levendwater.org/companion/index_companion.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:

1&2 http://stempublishing.com/authors/ke...e_app.html#a17

04-17-2016 05:01 AM

Unregistered

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

04-04-2016 01:35 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

ACTS 1:3 THE KINGDOM OF GOD (PART 1)

Act 1:3 To whom also He 1presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, 2appearing to them through a period of 3forty days and speaking the things concerning the 4kingdom of God. (RcV)

The second part of fotnote 4 regarding the kingdom says, “It is not a material kingdom visible to human sight but a kingdom of the divine life. It is the spreading of Christ as life to His believers to form a realm in which God rules in His life. See notes 151*in Mark 1, 261*in Mark 4, and 432*in Luke 4.”

(The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, published by Living Stream Ministry, Aneheim, California)

What we will try to find out in this post is if really the kingdom spoken of in verse 3 is an invisible kingdom, if it is the church, the spreading of Christ, etc.. We will put ourselves in Theophilus' shoes, so to speak, and see if these things (the things said in the footnote) are so. Theophilus already had got the first book, the Gospel according to Luke, in which certainly he learned about the kingdom of God. Now, in the second book, Acts, he reads that the risen lord spoke to the disciples for forty days about the kingdom of God. Did the Lord Jesus say something that he didn't mention in the Gospels? Was He mainly reviewing and clarifying what He already taught in the Gospels? Probably. Of this opinion is W. Lee, too. “If we want to know, at least by way of inference, what the Lord taught the disciples concerning the kingdom in those forty days, we need to read again all He said about the kingdom in the Gospels. It is likely that the teaching during those forty days was the same as that recorded in the Gospels.”(Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 4, Section 1) http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Let's assume than (we cannot be 100% sure), that the Lord gave the disciples a review of what the kingdom of God is. As I said we will consider this point from Theophilus perspective. So let's open the gospel of Luke.

Luk 1:30 And the angel [Gabriel] said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God;
Luk 1:31 and behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:32 *He* shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father;
Luk 1:33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.

The first striking feature, that we see in this verses spoken by the angel Gabriel, is that the kingdom here is the one promised to David. The Lord Jesus will sit on the throne of David his father and rule over Israel.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord,
Luk 1:47 and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48 For he has looked upon the low estate of his bondmaid; for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49 For the Mighty One has done to me great things, and holy is his name;
Luk 1:50 and his mercy is to generations and generations to them that fear him.
Luk 1:51 He has wrought strength with his arm; he has scattered haughty ones in the thought of their heart.
Luk 1:52 He has put down rulers from thrones, and exalted the lowly.
Luk 1:53 He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent away the rich empty.
Luk 1:54 He has helped Israel his servant, in order to remember mercy,
Luk 1:55 (as he spoke to our fathers,) to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Luk 1:67 And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying,
Luk 1:68 Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel, because he has visited and wrought redemption for his people,
Luk 1:69 and raised up a horn of deliverance for us in the house of David his servant;
Luk 1:70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been since the world began;
Luk 1:71 deliverance from our enemies and out of the hand of all who hate us;
Luk 1:72 to fulfil mercy with our fathers and remember his holy covenant,
Luk 1:73 the oath which he swore to Abraham our father,
Luk 1:74 to give us, that, saved out of the hand of our enemies, we should serve him without fear
Luk 1:75 in piety and righteousness before him all our days.
Luk 1:76 And *thou*, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways;
Luk 1:77 to give knowledge of deliverance to his people by the remission of their sins
Luk 1:78 on account of the bowels of mercy of our God; wherein the dayspring from on high has visited us,
Luk 1:79 to shine upon them who were sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Both Mary and Zacharias mentioned God's mercy toward Israel. Zacharias even mentioned the covenant that God made with Abraham.
Gen 15:18 On the same day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates;
Gen 15:19 the Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaim,
Gen 15:21 and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girga****es, and the Jebusites.

So far, the kingdom spoken of in Luke is quite physical. In fact is the Messianic kingdom, the only kingdom Jews had known and were expecting. No wonder than, that John the Baptist when he started preaching repentance for the kingdom of God had drawn near, he didn't have to explain what he meant.

Luk 2:25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was just and pious, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it was divinely communicated to him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death before he should see the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and as the parents brought in the child Jesus that they might do for him according to the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 *he* received him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Luk 2:29 Lord, now thou lettest thy bondman go, according to thy word, in peace;
Luk 2:30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luk 2:31 which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples;
Luk 2:32 a light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel.

Even here, in the words of the old Simeon (who was expecting the consolation of Israel) there is nothing that would have caused the excellent Theophilus to imagine that Christ had come to establish an invisible kingdom. We might actually presume (at least this is my opinion), that the picture that was forming in his mind was not different from the one that the Jews had and that even some pious and righteous men and women had expressed so far in chapter 1 and 2 of Luke. Of course W. Lee will dismiss their testimony by saying that they still bore an “Old Testament color in the Old Testament style and flavor” (see the last part of footnote 1 on verse 68 in Luke 1).

If W. Lee had problem with the words of these people, we can only say that they were the inspired word of God through the Holy Spirit. In addition we will refer back to the words spoken of by the angel Gabriel, words that bear the same color, style, and flavor of the Old Testament. Was he also to be “blamed” (W. Lee does not use this word) for uttering those words, which for sure were the words of God.

It seems to me that W. Lee was willing to defend some of his teachings even if that meant that he had to put the blame on the people of God (men, women, disciples, and even apostles. More on this in future posts).

To keep this post short I'll stop here. If anyone is interested he/she can search the rest of the Gospel of Luke on his/her own. We say goodbye to our friend (brother) Theophilus, and until the next post, God bless you all.

__________________________________________________ ______________________________
P.S.
The kingdom of God is a big topic. I am not at this moment considering what is written in all the other N.T. books. But putting myself in Theophilus's shoes and with only the Gospel of Luke in my hand I trying to see what he might have seen. What did he see from the two books written to him by Luke?

03-29-2016 07:37 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

MANY IRREFUTABLE PROOFS

Act 1:3 To whom also He 1presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, 2appearing to them through a period of 3forty days and speaking the things concerning the 4kingdom of God. (RcV)

Commenting on the word presented, footnote 1 on verse 3, says, "This was to train the disciples to practice and enjoy the Lord's invisible presence. See note 26(3) in John 20." (The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, published by Living Stream Ministry, Aneheim, California)

To make this verse more clear I'll quote few more translations:

(BBE) And to whom he gave clear and certain signs that he was living, after his death; for he was seen by them for forty days, and gave them teaching about the kingdom of God:

(CEV) For forty days after Jesus had suffered and died, he proved in many ways that he had been raised from death. He appeared to his apostles and spoke to them about God's kingdom.

(ERV) This was after his death, but he showed them that he was alive, proving it to them in many ways. The apostles saw Jesus many times during the 40 days after he was raised from death. He spoke to them about God's kingdom.

(GNB) For forty days after his death he appeared to them many times in ways that proved beyond doubt that he was alive. They saw him, and he talked with them about the Kingdom of God.

(GW) After his death Jesus showed the apostles a lot of convincing evidence that he was alive. For 40 days he appeared to them and talked with them about the kingdom of God.

In my opinion, the translation that makes very clear this verse is the GNB, so I'll quote from it just the first part, For forty days after his death he appeared to them many times in ways that proved beyond doubt that he was alive.

It is quite clear that the purpose of Christ appearing was to prove beyond doubt that He had been resurrected from the dead. To this agree 1 Cor. 15, a chapter on the resurrection of the dead.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day, according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain until now, but some also have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;
1Co 15:8 and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to *me* also. (Darby)

In this chapter Paul was proving that Christ had been raised from the dead, according to the scriptures and the proof was the many witnesses that saw Him.

To me, it seems a little too much to say that the disciples needed a training “to practice and enjoy the Lord's invisible presence”. For centuries, the Jews had been trained to live and communicate with an invisible God who gave an explicit commandment not to set up a visible image. The disciples only needed irrefutable proofs of Christ resurrection. That issue settled they were ready to be witnesses of His resurrection.

1 Pe 1:8 whom, having not seen, ye love; on whom though not now looking, but believing, ye exult with joy unspeakable and filled with the glory (Darby)

03-21-2016 09:31 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

MONSTROUS INTERPRETATION

Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour;
Mat 27:46 but about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Darby)

1. Footnote 2 of verse 46 says, “God forsook Christ on the cross because He took the place of sinners (1 Pet. 3:18) — He bore our sins (1 Pet. 2:24; Isa. 53:6) and was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).” (The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, published by Living Stream Ministry, Aneheim, California)

I believe many are familiar with the teaching that the Lord Jesus became our substitute on the cross and, even as a footnote on verse 45 affirms, that was in the last three hours that He bore our sins. It seems that there isn't anything wrong with this teaching, and actually I agree with it. The problem starts when we look at the references, especially 2 Cor. 5:21 and its relative footnote:

Footnote 2 on verse 21 says, “Sin came from Satan, who rebelled against God (Isa. 14:12-14). This sin, which came out of the evil one, entered into man (Rom. 5:12) and made man not only a sinner but sin itself under God's judgment. Hence, when Christ became a man in the flesh (John 1:14), He was made sin (not sinful) on our behalf to be judged by God (Rom. 8:3) that we might become God's righteousness in Him.” (The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, published by Living Stream Ministry, Aneheim, California)

There are many things here that deserve a detailed study. For example, sin can be translated sin offering. This will be more appropriate, but I don't want to pursue this argument. What I am interested in, at the moment is to compare what W. Lee says about when Christ was made sin. In Mat. He says that He was made sin on the cross, and he points to 2 Cor. 5:21. Then commenting on 2 Cor. 5:21, he says that He was made sin when He became a man, that is in His incarnation. W. Lee is assuming that flesh and sin are synonyms.

“In verse 21 Paul says that Christ was made sin on our behalf so that we might become God's righteousness in Him. Sin here is actually synonymous with the flesh. John 1:14 says that Christ as the Word became flesh. Second Corinthians 5:21 says that He was made sin. According to Romans 8:3, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Thus, sin and the flesh are synonyms.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 37, Section 3) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=2801FFE2C8

“When we put John 1:14 together with 2 Corinthians 5:21, we see that when Christ became flesh, He was made sin. In the sight of God we, as fallen flesh, are actually sin. We are not only sinful and are not only sinners—we are sin itself. Because Christ became flesh, in this sense He was made sin on our behalf.”
(W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 14, Section 4) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=2802F6EECA

Synonyms? I think it takes a lot more to prove that two terms are synonyms. But let's consider them (for an instant) as synonyms. The first aberrant corollary, from this explanations, if we compare the two footnotes in question is, Christ was made flesh (sin) on the cross, according to the footnote in Mat. 27:46, but according to the footnote in 2 Cor. 5:21 he was made flesh (sin) in incarnation. Why do we have to put John 1:14 with 2 Cor. 5:21? What do they have in common?
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;

2Co 5:21 Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him.

Even if we consider became and made as loose synonyms, in John it is clear that the subject is incarnation. What then is the subject of 2 Cor. 5:21? Is it incarnation, too? Let's see. Here is the context:

2Co 5:14 For the love of the Christ constrains us, having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died;
2Co 5:15 and he died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who died for them and has been raised.

2Co 5:16 So that *we* henceforth know no one according to flesh; but if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer.
2Co 5:17 So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new:
2Co 5:18 and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and given to us the ministry of that reconciliation:
2Co 5:19 how that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences; and putting in us the word of that reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him.

Paul specifically mention Christ's death in verses 14 and 15. In verse 18 he says that God has reconciled all things by Jesus Christ. Certainly this couldn't happen at the incarnation but at the crucifixion. It is than quite odd to conclude that verse 21 speaks of Christ's incarnation. I conclude, with the words of J.N. Darby,

Note here the monstrous interpretation which I had heretofore supposed it impossible for any to hold, that "him who knew no sin" means Jesus in His divinity; and "made sin" the incarnation, "that holy thing," not the cross and atonement then.

STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Union in Incarnation, the root error of modern theology. http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/29006E.html
(This article is a must-read, IMHO)

03-14-2016 09:24 PM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Yes, these two other commentators bring a better understanding, that is more consistent with truth and our Lord Jesus' and God's heart. Witness Lee did use the word "apparently", but as you pointed out, he went on to agree with the one talented members' errant accusations of the Lord.

03-13-2016 04:27 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

NO, OUR LORD IS NOT HARD! AND HE DOES NOT DEMAND THAT WE WORK FOR HIM WITH NOTHING!

Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
Mat 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Mat 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
Mat 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
Mat 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
Mat 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
Mat 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Mat 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
Mat 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Mat 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
Mat 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
Mat 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Mat 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (KJV)

There are three footnotes on this passage that are quite disturbing (in my opinion).

24.3 Apparently, the Lord is hard in His strictness. He demands that we use His gift to the fullest extent for His work, which requires our absoluteness.

24.4Apparently, the Lord's work always begins from zero. Reaping where He did not sow and gathering where He did not winnow, He seemingly demands that we work for Him with nothing. This should not be an excuse for the one-talented one to neglect the use of his gift; rather, this should force him to exercise his faith so that he can use his gift to the uttermost.

26.1The Lord admits that He is strict in what He demands of His slaves for His work. (The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991)

W. Lee considers the words that the “wicked and slothful servant” speaks about his master as a true description of our Lord Jesus, because in verse 26 the Lord admits it. I have no words to describe my repulsion to this interpretation.
If we read the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke 19:12-27 we discover a very important thing.

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

The master judge the wicked servants according to his own words. (W. Lee maintains his point of view in that in Luke 19 for verses 20-26 he remands to his footnotes in Matt. 25:24-29)

Let me quote from two different commentators:

“Luk_19:22. Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.—“A wonderfully happy argument ex concessis” (Lange). Comp. Mat_12:37. His own word is retorted upon the slothful one, and thereon a question is grounded, beginning with καὶ διὰ τί, which brings him into contradiction with himself. The lord does not concede to him that he is actually a hard man, but only refutes the shameless one on the position he had most arbitrarily taken.”(Langes Commentary on the OT/NT)

Luke 19:21
For I feared thee,.... Not with a right fear, with a fear of his goodness, who had bestowed such an excellent gift on him; for this would have taught him to have departed from evil, and have put him on doing his master's will, and making use of his gift to his glory: his fear was not of the right kind, and was ill grounded, as appears by what follows:

because thou art an austere man; cruel and uncompassionate to his servants, and hard to be pleased; than which nothing is more false, since it is evident, that Christ is compassionate both to the bodies and souls of men; is a merciful high priest, and is one that has compassion on the ignorant, and them that are out of the way, and cannot but be touched with the feeling of his people's infirmities; and is mild and gentle in his whole deportment, and in all his administrations:

thou takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow; suggesting, that he was covetous of that which did not belong to him, and withheld what was due to his servants, and rigorously exacted service that could not be performed; a most iniquitous charge, since none so liberal as he, giving gifts, grace and glory, freely; imposing no grievous commands on men; his yoke being easy, and his burden light; never sending a man to a warfare at his own charge; but always giving grace and strength proportionable to the service he calls to, and rewarding his servants in a most bountiful manner, infinitely beyond their deserts.
Luke 19:22
And he saith unto him,.... By way of reply to his vile slander, and unrighteous charge;

out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant; as he might be justly called: he was not only a wicked man, as all men are, even enemies by wicked works, and lie in wickedness; and a wicked professor of religion, as there be some; but a wicked minister, and that not on account of his bad principles, and sinful life and conversation, but for his sloth and negligence, and the wrong thoughts he entertained of, and the false charges he brought against Christ; and Christ turns his own argument upon him, and by his own words condemns him:

thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow; not allowing this, but supposing it was as he said; then Christ argues as follows, for his conviction. (John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible)

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (KJV)

03-07-2016 07:03 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

HIDE AND SEEK? ANYONE? (NO, NOT ME)

It is good after a little while, and quite a few posts, to review what was that prompt me to start this thread, Putting to test the Recovery Version (I should have said the footnotes of the Recovery Version). So I went back to reread my first post. It was to test the claims of the Recovery Version (starting from Matthew) stated in the “A BRIEF EXPLANATION". There we find these bold claims ,"The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes. Hence, this translation and the accompanying footnotes could be called the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years." A BRIEF EXPLANATION, The New testament, Recovery Version, revised edition 1991.

These are the claims. Does W. Lee provides the sources of his understanding? Does he quote extensively from the revelation of the saints they have attained in the past two thousand years? The quotes are so rare that it seems that he is more concealing than reveling his sources. Now, if he didn't want to acknowledge his reference study, why should I? It is sufficient for me to analyze what he wrote in the footnotes. I am not going to play hide and seek with W. Lee.

P.S.
There are those who like the game, and they are quite good at it. So I will quote just a little from their work on plagiarism in the Recovery Version.

“Despite being “all-inclusive” and based on “the best Christian writings,” explicit references to Bible expositors and Christian scholars are rare in the Recovery Version. Only fifty footnotes—one-half of one percent—refer to Bible scholars or authors of “the best Christian writings.” Everything else is presented as Witness Lee’s own composition.”
LSM’s PLAGIARISM—An Initial Inquiry, Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA
December, 2008.

03-07-2016 08:13 AM

NewManLiving

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

You are quite the artist with your palette of verses. But I see faith here as a response to Peter's surprise. He was impressed that the tree had withered - probably unbelief, a common problem we all have. You recall that it was the next day, at least in one account. To me it does not really explain what the tree represents nor do any of your faith references have any direct relationship to the reason why the tree was cursed.

In my thinking I find it hard to believe that the Lord would curse a fig tree to teach Peter or anyone else a lesson in faith. Not that I'm totally convinced the tree means Israel. But I'm not convinced that it was expressly a lesson in faith. Also when you speak about something WL has said its best to explain that others see it that way as well. Then present your reasons why you feel differently. Otherwise it appears that you are biased against WL, even though many others who are unrelated to LSM hold the same views. It does not present a fair analysis.

03-07-2016 04:26 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

WL is not the only one. Others interpret the fig tree the same way. Don't forget that WL got much of his Biblical understanding from others, esp Brethren. So let's be careful about relegating everything to WL and then jumping to conclusions or erroneous epithets. The fig tree representing Israel is a common interpretation

Of course W. Lee is not the only one, as he is not the only one to interpret the boat in Mat. 13 as the church, and so on. Getting help from others means you share in the responsibility of holding a possible wrong interpretation, too. So, although I respect many great teachers of the Bible (I am not worthy to sit at their feet), I cannot help but disagree with them on this point. Regarding the epithets, W. L. in his comments on the Gospel of Matthew had no sympathy for the Jews (I am sure he never cursed them, and he said something good about them in other books). Anyway, I am considering W. Lee's teaching in his footnotes in the Recovery Version, not the Brethren nor any other teachers, although I might quote from time to time from some of them. I am convinced that if we take the common interpretation that the fig tree represent Israel than we can do the same as what the Lord did: curse Israel! Ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree...
Because this is absurd, I must conclude that the Lord was not cursing the nation of Israel (even though the fig tree is a symbol of Israel, it doesn't mean that everytime a fig tree is mentioned in the Bible it represent Israel. Think about when the Lord Jesus saw Nathanael under the fig tree. Did He see Nathanael under the nation of Israel?)

From similar passages to me is it clear that the Lord is teaching the disciples about FAITH (and prayer?).

Mat 17:14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
Mat 17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
Mat 17:16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
Mat 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
Mat 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
Mat 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Mat 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mat 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
Mat 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Mar 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
Mar 11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
Mar 11:14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
Mar 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Mar 11:19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.
Mar 11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
Mar 11:21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Mar 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Mar 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

03-06-2016 07:59 PM

NewManLiving

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

03-06-2016 06:13 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

DID YOU CURSE ISRAEL TODAY?

Mat 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
Mat 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. (KJV)

W. Lee on verse 19 says that “the fig tree is a symbol of the nation of Israel”
(Jer. 24:2, 5, 8). 1
Then commenting on the words, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever”, he writes, “This signifies the curse on the nation of Israel.”2

That W. Lee didn't appreciate the Jews very much, it was clear from the various footnotes we have taken into consideration so far. So it is not a surprise that he considers the words of the Lord as the curse on the nation of Israel. If Lee's interpretation is correct, than Israel is cursed forever! (or for an age). But not many days later (maybe a little more than 50), at Pentecost, 3000 Jews repented. If the Lord was cursing the nation of Israel than He says that we should do the same. “Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree...” That this is an absurdity (unless you are a Nazi or an Anti-Semite) is quite clear. And if the fig tree represent Israel what is the meaning of the mountain? Maybe the Roman Empire? Babylon? Russia? U.S.A.?...

Now, that this passage has nothing to do with cursing but with praying is clear from verse 22, “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” So let's learn from the Lord to pray without doubt, and we will receive.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Notes
Lee Witness, footnote 1 and 2 on Matthew 21:19, The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry

03-01-2016 03:21 PM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

One thing that I harp on so much is trying to make a lot out of the few words in a single verse. I refer to it as "fortune-cookie" reading of the Bible.

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." 2 Cor 12:1 (KJV)

You know, every one of us (I hope) has some "face time" with the Lord in the Bible. The light shines, the word seems to glow in front of us, pregnant with meaning. Suddenly it makes sense, not only the verse, but the verse makes everything clear! Now we can hurry through the Bible with this interpretive vision as a guide, explaining various extranea as part and parcel of our own personal version of "God's economy" or whatever. So awesome! Praise the Lord! Little ol' me got a vision! God is speaking!

Fine. But your vision needs to be pruned, even overturned. Your vision is not for you to overturn the church, but for the church to overturn you. Because like the prophet Amos, they may not be ready for your "revelation". And guess what - you aren't Amos. So live with it. If your fortune cookie crumbles, or gets somewhat misshapen in the process, that's just the potter working the clay (I love mixed metaphors).

A while back, I was dogmatically holding forth on this forum, for the 4th or 5th time, a vision or revelation from the Lord which 'explained everything', or so I thought. As usual, the fellow posters here were not terribly impressed. We got bumped by the Forum Admin and took it to PM. Eventually a note came through from my chief 'adversary', which actually gave a whole new perspective to my so-called vision of the age. Because of the brightness of the vision, I forgot the surrounding text! But my PM correspondent noted a few things about the gospel book in question, and I was, like, Oh yeah; I never thought about context.

02-29-2016 06:25 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

HAVE YOU SEEN PETER, RECENTLY?

Mat 20:1 For the kingdom of the heavens is like a householder who went out with the early morn to hire workmen for his vineyard.
Mat 20:2 And having agreed with the workmen for a denarius the day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Mat 20:3 And having gone out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market-place idle;
Mat 20:4 and to them he said, Go also ye into the vineyard, and whatsoever may be just I will give you. And they went their way.
Mat 20:5 Again, having gone out about the sixth and ninth hour, he did likewise.
Mat 20:6 But about the eleventh hour , having gone out, he found others standing, and says to them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
Mat 20:7 They say to him, Because no man has hired us. He says to them, Go also ye into the vineyard and whatsoever may be just ye shall receive .
Mat 20:8 But when the evening was come, the lord of the vineyard says to his steward, Call the workmen and pay them their wages, beginning from the last even to the first.
Mat 20:9 And when they who came to work about the eleventh hour came, they received each a denarius.
Mat 20:10 And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more, and they received also themselves each a denarius.
Mat 20:11 And on receiving it they murmured against the master of the house,
Mat 20:12 saying, These last have worked one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat.
Mat 20:13 But he answering said to one of them, My friend, I do not wrong thee. Didst thou not agree with me for a denarius?
Mat 20:14 Take what is thine and go. But it is my will to give to this last even as to thee:
Mat 20:15 is it not lawful for me to do what I will in my own affairs? Is thine eye evil because *I* am good?
Mat 20:16 Thus shall the last be first, and the first last; for many are called ones, but few chosen ones. (KJV)

What W. Lee says in his footnotes on verse 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, could be put in this way:

6:00 am The earliest part of the church age
9:00 am The second part of the church age
12:00 am The middle part of the church age
3:00 pm The fourth part of the church age
5:00 pm The fifth part of the church age
6:00 pm The end of the church age

Basically he is saying that this parable indicates the entire church age, and the workmen are the Lord's disciples. “These first workmen included Peter, who made a deal with the Lord in 19:27-29.” (See footnote 10.1 in Matthew 20 in the Recovery Version of the Bible)
W. Lee assumes that in verses 11-15 the 12 disciples, but in particular Peter had a “natural and commercial mind” (See footnote 12.2 and 14.1 in Matthew 20 in the Recovery Version of the Bible), and so the rebuke in verse 15 is an answer to Peter (See footnote 15.1 in Matthew 20 in the Recovery Version of the Bible).

Now, all this interpretation has a big flaw. It considers the workmen of the first hour working only in the first period, which W. Lee calls the earliest church age. That the workmen of the first hour worked the entire day is clearly stated in verse 12 were the workmen said, “These last have worked one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat.”
That Peter and the other disciples are not here working until the end of the church age, is something that every sane person would agree with. Or is there someone who has seen Peter around?

02-29-2016 05:51 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. The Lord Jesus charged the disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

2. In chapter 13 Jesus went out of the house, “ Mat 13:1 On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.” Let me quote again the footnote on this verse,

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

Here W. Lee is saying that The King left the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. So we cannot claim Mat. 10:5-6 to disprove the allegorical interpretation of 13:1.

Now, let's suppose for a moment, an instant, a fraction of a second, that this interpretation is sound, we find 2 chapters later this words spoken by the Lord, confirming what He said in chapter 10, “Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The footnote on this verse is interesting.

24.1*“The Lord was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, at this time He came to a Gentile region, thus affording the Gentiles an opportunity to participate in His grace. This bears dispensational significance, showing that Christ came to the Jews first and that because of their unbelief, His salvation turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 11:11).”

Finally, we have some verses! But what has Acts 13:46 to do with the Lord turning to the Gentile, in the Gospel of Matthew? (By the way I have proved that Paul, after he spoke those word, few verses later went (again!) into the synagogue of the Jews . Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed.”)

I have come to the conclusion that W. Lee's footnotes on this subject contradict each other.
Is it so?

If the Lord Jesus made a break with the house of Israel, then the disciples were surely clueless, as both after the ascension and the day of Pentecost they were "continually" and "daily" in the temple. (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46)

And if Paul likewise turned away from the house of Israel, he continued to speak in the synagogues, as testallthings noted, both to his "brothers" of Israel, and to all the "God-fearers" who gathered there.

Again and again I'm amazed at people like Witness Lee, so quick and sharp to pick up and point out the fallen and useless human culture of other God-seekers, but so blind to their own. What a lesson for us all! May the Lord have mercy!

02-25-2016 03:29 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

CHURCH AND KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE, KINGDOM OF HEAVENS AND KINGDOM OF GOD ARE NOT (REALLY?)

Only if Matthew v Mark/Luke are not really quoting Jesus on the same accounts. Otherwise (and clearly so) there is no real difference. Only a difference in terminology.

02-24-2016 07:45 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

CHURCH AND KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE,
KINGDOM OF HEAVENS AND KINGDOM OF GOD ARE NOT
(REALLY?)

Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ASV)

"Kingdom of the heavens is used here interchangeably for church,which is used in the previous verse. This is a strong proof that the genuine church is the kingdom of the heavens in this age..."

Note 2 on Matthew 16:19 in the Recovery Version
http://online.recoveryversion.org/Fo...asp?FNtsID=643

Mat 19:23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (ASV)

"Verse 23 uses kingdom of the heavens, but here kingdom of God is used. At this point the kingdom of the heavens had not come, but the kingdom of God was there. Hence, the Lord used the term kingdom of God."

Note 2 on Matthew 19:24 in the recovery Version
http://online.recoveryversion.org/Fo...asp?FNtsID=735

What do you think? It is only my opinion that W. Lee is playing fast and loose with these verses? Which term would be more interchangeable with another? Shouldn't be kingdom of the heavens and kingdom of God? instead of church and kingdom of the heavens?

02-21-2016 01:23 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

WHAT A TURN!

Mar 7:24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
Mar 7:25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
Mar 7:29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
Mar 7:30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed. (KJV, emphasis added)

Same story, different details. What is really interesting from this passage, compared to that in Matthew, is that the Lord Jesus was hiding in a house! (I guess here the house has lost the meaning that W. Lee associated with it in the Gospel of Matthew!) That's a little bit strange if He really had forsaken the house of Israel and was turning to the Gentiles. He was turning to the Gentiles by hiding in a house! And He wanted that no one knew it! What a turn!

02-20-2016 03:06 PM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

THE BREAD BECAME CRUMBS

I don't know of any kind of bread that would become crumbs if it falls from the table. Actually there is one, a very, very old and stale bread!
If children throw bread on the floor, a loving mother would pick it up, clean it, and give it back to the child. She would not allow the dogs to eat it!

What about unleavened bread?

02-19-2016 07:09 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I HAVE A REALIZATION. DON'T YOU?
Matthew 15:27
27 And she said, Yes, Lord, for even the little dogs eat of the (1)crumbs which fall from their masters' table. (RcV)

27(1)*The Canaanite woman, not offended by the Lord's word but admitting that she was a heathen dog, considered that at that time Christ, after being rejected by the children, the Jews, became crumbs under the table as a portion to the Gentiles. The holy land of Israel was the table on which Christ, the heavenly bread, had come as a portion to the children of Israel. But they threw Him off the table to the ground, the Gentile land, so that He became broken crumbs as a portion to the Gentiles. What a realization this Gentile woman had at that time! No wonder the heavenly King admired her faith (v. 28). (footnote on Mat. 15:27 (1), RcV)

So let's see what this big turn from the house of Israel to the Gentiles is all about.

THE LORD JESUS GIVING SOME CRUMBS TO THE GENTILES (1 WOMAN!!)

Mat 15:21 And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. Mat 15:22 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from those borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. (ASV)

What!? He is turning to the Gentiles and He doesn't say a word to her? Even the disciples, who had no idea that He had turned to the Gentiles, told him to send her away!

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.(ASV)

Finally the Lord answers. The answer confirms too clearly that His ministry is not for the Gentiles (yet), but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which, evidently, he had not rejected yet.

Mat 15:25 But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 And he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs. (ASV)

The woman was not deterred. So the Lord added another word to confirm that what she was asking for was not meet. Are this the words of the One who had left the house of Israel? The children are those who should eat the bread, not the dogs!

Mat 15:27 But she said, Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.(ASV)

She agrees with what the lord says. The children are those who eat the bread! But for me, a little dog, a little crumb is sufficient. She had a realization that her position was different from an Israelite, who could call Him Son of David, that she could only hope to get some crumbs after the children had eaten the bread.

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from that hour.

That was her realization. She had no realization of what is written in the footnote. “The Canaanite woman...considered that at that time Christ, after being rejected by the children, the Jews...”
She knew Christ had been rejected! Who told her? From the Lord's words I think she had the right realization!

THE LORD JESUS FEEDING BREAD TO THE CHILDREN (THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL)

Mat 15:29 And Jesus departed thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and he went up into the mountain, and sat there.
Mat 15:30 And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at his feet; and he healed them:
Mat 15:31 insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing: and they glorified the God of Israel. (ASV)

This great multitudes glorified the God of Israel.

WHAT IS THIS BREAD?

What was the Canaanitish woman asking the Lord for? A miracle. That was all she was asking for. She was not asking to receive the Person of the Lord. She wanted her daughter to be healed.
Healing was a big part of the Lord Jesus ministry (and of the apostles, too).
Did the Lord preach the gospel of the kingdom to her? She wanted a miracle, and she got it. That was her little crumb.

Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people.
Mat 4:24 And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give.

Mat 11:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them.

THE BREAD BECAME CRUMBS

I don't know of any kind of bread that would become crumbs if it falls from the table. Actually there is one, a very, very old and stale bread!
If children throw bread on the floor, a loving mother would pick it up, clean it, and give it back to the child. She would not allow the dogs to eat it!

I have the realization that the Canaanitish woman's realization was only W.L.'s realization. Don't you?

THE WOMAN OF TEKOA
2Sa 14:18 Then the king answered and said unto the woman, Hide not from me, I pray thee, aught that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now speak.
2Sa 14:19 And the king said, Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this? And the woman answered and said, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from aught that my lord the king hath spoken; for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thy handmaid;
2Sa 14:20 to change the face of the matter hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.

02-16-2016 06:58 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Quote from TAT.

"I have come to the conclusion that W. Lee's footnotes on this subject contradict each other. Is it so?"

Back in my days of deception here is how I resolved the contradictory teachings of WL. One involved Christians going to the cinema to watch movies. In one booklet WL gave a young man a ride to the cinema and money and then returned when it was over to pick him up. Several time in the so-called Life Studies he mentions that attending movies is not good. So which is it? Ah, to the rescue comes the concept of logos versus rhema word. The reason WL could speak contradictory things is that he spoke by the rhema or inspired word. At one time it was the inspiration to condemn movies, and at another time it was inspiration to facilitate a teenager to go to movies. Kind of like when RK says we are all brothers and the calls a certain one minister of death. Silly me, when the MOTA is speaking in rhema there can be no contradictions. Kind of like the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

Years ago, at my first conference, I heard similar contradictions about Lee's teachings from Max Rapoport concerning owning cars. One day in the meeting Lee said we should not buy new cars. That was worldly. Then, when a brother missed a meeting while working on his broken car, Lee said we should not own used cars.

So Max explained to us that Lee was not contradicting himself, rather that Lee alone was a "spiritual" man. We were all "natural" men, so we could not understand him, and we should just receive the Spirit from his speaking. Uh huh!

02-16-2016 06:52 PM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Silly me, when the MOTA is speaking in rhema there can be no contradictions. Kind of like the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

The present truth of the LC is that whatever MOTA speaks today is rhema. Doesn't matter if it contradicts what was spoken before, or contradicts the Bible, or common sense (if it doesn't make sense, that proves you're a stupid mooing cow and Witness Lee is playing Bach on piano).

02-16-2016 05:14 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

02-16-2016 04:15 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

This is SOP Lee. Everything is a metaphor (hey! what's a meta for anyway?) and he is free to make up anything that suits his whimsy.

As testallthings mentions, Lee is busy sending disciples to the house of Israel yet has already rejected them. One thing that I harp on so much is trying to make a lot out of the few words in a single verse. I refer to it as "fortune-cookie" reading of the Bible. And no one seems to do it more consistently than . . . well . . . a Chinaman. Or at least a certain Chinaman.

02-16-2016 02:34 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

APOLOGIZE OR NOT APOLOGIZE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Also note that Jesus left the house in Matthew 13:1 and went by the sea, to speak in parables. After speaking to them, 13:36 says He left the crowds and went back into the house. No footnote. I guess the house subsequently lost typological significance. In defense of the Recovery footnotes, the charge to go to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles is in chapter 10. The "leaving the house" is in chapter 13. I suppose there's a sort of chronological narrative, here.

After aron pointed out my mistake I promptly apologized. Now I would like to consider what happened in chapter 15. But before we do that let's recap.

1. The Lord Jesus charged the disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
2. In chapter 13 Jesus went out of the house, “ Mat 13:1 On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.” Let me quote again the footnote on this verse,

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."
Here W. Lee is saying that The King left the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. So we cannot claim Mat. 10:5-6 to disprove the allegorical interpretation of 13:1.
Now, let's suppose for a moment, an instant, a fraction of a second, that this interpretation is sound, we find 2 chapters later this words spoken by the Lord, confirming what He said in chapter 10, “Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The footnote on this verse is interesting.

24.1*“The Lord was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, at this time He came to a Gentile region, thus affording the Gentiles an opportunity to participate in His grace. This bears dispensational significance, showing that Christ came to the Jews first and that because of their unbelief, His salvation turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 11:11).”

Finally, we have some verses! But what has Acts 13:46 to do with the Lord turning to the Gentile, in the Gospel of Matthew? (By the way I have proved that Paul, after he spoke those word, few verses later went (again!) into the synagogue of the Jews . Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed.”)

I have come to the conclusion that W. Lee's footnotes on this subject contradict each other.
Is it so?

_______________________
Notes:
the verses are from the KJV

02-10-2016 05:07 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

GOING BACK HOME?

THE LORD JESUS REJECTED BY THE JEWS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE GENTILE

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. (KJV)

The footnote on Mat. 12:18.3, RcV, says, “ This indicates clearly that because of the Jews' rejection, the heavenly King with His heavenly kingdom would turn to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles would receive Him and trust in Him (v. 21).”

THE LORD JESUS REJECTED BY ALL

Mat 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
Mat 14:2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
Mat 14:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
Mat 14:4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
Mat 14:5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.
Mat 14:6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
Mat 14:7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask.
Mat 14:8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
Mat 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
Mat 14:10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
Mat 14:11 And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.
Mat 14:12 And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus.
Mat 14:13 When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the cities. (KJV)

Footnote 14:10.1, RcV, says, "In 12:24 the Jewish religious leaders, representing the entire nation of the Jews, rejected the heavenly King to the uttermost. This forced Him to forsake His natural relationship with them (12:46-50). Then in 13:53-58 He was rejected by the Galileans also. Now in ch. 14, Matthew, in his arranging of events according to doctrine, unveils to us how Gentile politics treated the King's forerunner. It was evil and full of corruption and darkness. To this point Matthew has given a full picture of the Jews', the Galileans', and the Gentiles' rejection of the ministry of the kingdom of the heavens."

I am sure the readers of this post have noticed the incongruence of these two footnotes. In chapter 12 the Lord Jesus “would turn to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles would receive Him and trust in Him.” In chapter 13 we are told that Jews, the Galileans, and the Gentiles rejected His ministry.
So did the Gentiles receive Him or not? If, according to Lee, Jesus was rejected by the Jews so He turned to the Gentile, after even the Gentiles rejected His ministry where will Jesus turn? He could just go back to the Father and admit His complete “defeat”. No, wait. He could hide in a boat (the church according to footnote on Mat. 14:13.1).

Imagine that! The Lord of the Universe afraid of rejection! How did he enter Jerusalem? No, not on a donkey, but in a boat!

02-10-2016 08:08 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

I hope you will not be offended br. Ohio, but when I read about the split between Darby and Newton I didn't try to project their history in my church situation, neither I tried to understand what was happening to us (you) in the Recovery. I didn't see Darby as W. Lee or the BB, ascribing to Darby all the negative things the saints in GLA might have found in them.

No, not offended at all.

The Brethren were the forerunners to Nee and Lee's LC movement. It is not just I who have stated this, but Nee, Lee, and even outside historians have made this same conclusion. My own study of the first Brethren split confirmed this. I have stated my views on a number of occasions, and may do so again in the future. I have literally seen hundreds of Brethren views or characteristics, both Open and Exclusive, played out in the LC's, especially in the two recent "storms" centered on the evictions of John Ingalls and Titus Chu.

I have also long ago concluded that, while these forums can convey useful dialog, they do little to change one's deep-seated views. Therefore, I see little value at furthering the attempts to persuade you to the contrary, especially when the discussions are so open-ended. The Newton/Muller excommunications have forever defined the Brethren, and dozens of books have been written on the subject. Besides, this is your thread about "Putting To Test The Recovery Version."

02-10-2016 04:13 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

A WORD OF CLARIFICATION

First I am limiting my concern to what happened between Darby and Newton, and why.

Second, what happened between Darby and Muller, and why.

That's all. So please send your links, regarding writing written by the parties involved at that time or closed to that time.
Thanks.

02-09-2016 11:36 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

To "TestAllThings" is to do exactly that. Referencing a particular viewpoint is lopsided. It is exactly what LSM does. To test something you must examine the evidence from various perspectives as Ohio has mentioned. Not just something you happen to agree with. I suggest expanding your study to include open brethren and others. Of course I am assuming that your study is strictly "closed", based upon your list of reference material

I agree with you. What I have done is only partial. The goal as you said is to to examine the evidence from various perspective, possibly from eyewitnesses of the things that happened at the time of the split (W. Kelly, too). I already confessed that my "history", as you noticed comes from the Exclusive Brethren. So to really test all things I would be grateful if someone could provide links to any materials written by Newton, Muller or others who were involved at that time. I will suspend any definite judgement until I get the other side from eyewitnesses.

"Back in 2003-06 I read everything I could find on the Brethren in an attempt to understand what was happening to us in the Recovery. By then it became apparent that the Blendeds were going to quarantine the GLA." (Ohio)

I hope you will not be offended br. Ohio, but when I read about the split between Darby and Newton I didn't try to project their history in my church situation, neither I tried to understand what was happening to us (you) in the Recovery. I didn't see Darby as W. Lee or the BB, ascribing to Darby all the negative things the saints in GLA might have found in them.

02-09-2016 07:44 PM

NewManLiving

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

02-09-2016 07:21 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

TestAllThings I was a supporter of Lee and Darby for 3 decades. I am not a biased and ignorant bystander on this subject. I studied both sides of the story when it comes to the Brethren and the Recovery. Many of the linked articles which you have posted I have already read 10 years ago when I researched the first Brethren split in depth. On my shelf I still have marked up copies of these articles with comments in the margins. If you only read the Exclusive side of events, then you will never know what really happened. That is why I mentioned in brief what occurred among some of the senior exclusives in 1866.

And, by the way, I don't think you should link anything by Wm. Kelly. Have you never read that the Darby exclusives dumped Kelly just before Darby died? Anyways, Stem is an exclusive publisher no different from LSM, DCP, and afaithfulword.org. You will never find an accurate account of history from any of them. For those contemporary readers who have waded through some of the dissembling vitriol which has filled the archives at afaithfulword.org during the quarantine of TC and the GLA, you will find these articles to be in the same vein.

Let's be honest here. It is a fact that most of the Brethren scholars ended up in the exclusive camp. But just because they were prolific, knowledgeable writers, does not mean they were more mature or spiritual than their "open" counterparts. For years I tried unsuccessfully to find some writings by Henry Craik, Muller's partner in Bethesda. He was a true scholar, but the open brethren just did not archive their writings as the exclusives did.

02-09-2016 05:11 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. I never did get to how Darby treated Muller.

Also, I am not completely "negative" on Darby, or Lee, to be honest and fair. For years I admired them as "Ministers of the Age." The Brethren historian F. Roy Coad (A History of the Brethren Movement) summarized for me the best description of J. Darby, and W. Lee too for that matter, "with John Darby there is so much good to say, and so much more wrong."

It was not until I understood Darby fairly, that I could really understand Lee. If I sound too harsh on these two ministers, then I apologize to all. It is only because I excessively eulogized them for decades, and perhaps I now am only attempting to rectify past errors. Both of them did much work for the Lord, yet like Diotrephes, they had to be first among the brethren.

I was not offended by your remarks. Actually it is I who don't want to offend you by my future post. I am sure you see things in another way because you read mainly books by writer closed to the Open Brethren and I read those written by the Close Brethren. I am taking my time, going through things I read in the past and things I didn't read in the past, and considering of including a little study on W. Lee most aberrant teaching concerning the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. On this point I am really sad and outraged. On other points I could really be more lenient, considering them just different views, but if anyone mars the blessed Person of Christ he would be treated accordingly.

Would you please consider to read some of this articles before I give my "history"?

1. STEM Publishing: Hamilton Smith: Open Brethren,

http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../OPENBRET.html

2. STEM Publishing: William Kelly: The Doctrine of Christ, and Bethesdaism.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../dochrist.html

3. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: The Bethesda Circular
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15009E.html

4. STEM Publishing: W. Trotter: The Origin of (so-called) Open-Brethrenism.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../Openbret.html

5. STEM Publishing : Magazines : The Bible Treasury : Volume 13 : "Open" "Exclusivism"
http://www.stempublishing.com/magazi...clusivism.html

6. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Indifference to Christ: or Bethesdaism - extracted from a private letter
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...IA/20013E.html

7. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: A Plain Statement of the Doctrine on the Sufferings of our blessed Lord propounded in some recent tracts, in extracts taken from the Author's writings.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15004E.html

8. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: The refusal of Mr. Newton to meet the brethren.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...IA/20003E.html

9. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Notice of the Statement and Acknowledgment of Error circulated by Mr. Newton.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15005E.html

10 STEM Publishing: C. H. Mackintosh: Fifteenth Letter to a Friend. http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../CHM_15TH.html

11. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Notice of the Statement and Acknowledgment of Error circulated by Mr. Newton.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15005E.html

02-09-2016 03:49 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

While I agree with you about the "strong Jewish character of the Gospel of Matthew," how do you accommodate the "almost-gentile" character of Luke's Gospel? (See Luke 4.24-30) Also, Paul turned to the Gentiles as early as Acts 13.44-47 during Paul's first missionary journey.

Please refer to my post number 120.

02-09-2016 12:00 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

TestAllThings: Let me rephrase the last sentence. These verses clearly point to the strong Jewish character of the Gospel of Matthew and the ministry of the Lord Jesus for His people, the lost sheep of the house of Israel. What the footnotes throughout the Gospel of Matthew try to prove is just the opposite, the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentiles. This, I think I have clearly proved, didn't happen until Acts 28.

02-09-2016 08:17 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

To aron

You are right, of course. Recently I have been to much concerned about how to answer Ohio, that I have lost track of the footnotes already covevered. Thanks for pointing that out. I went back to chapter 10! Of course what I have written in my last post cannot be applied to chapter 13! But it still holds true to what I wrote about chapter 5 where the footnote says that the Lord spoke to Christians and not to Jews. If He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel His message in chapter 5 was meant evidently to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Originally Posted by testallthings View Post
Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.

Let me rephrase the last sentence. These verses clearly point to the strong Jewish character of the Gospel of Matthew and the ministry of the Lord Jesus for His people, the lost sheep of the house of Israel. What the footnotes throughout the Gospel of Matthew try to prove is just the opposite, the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentiles. This, I think I have clearly proved, didn't happen until Acts 28.

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks again to aron for the prompt finding. If W. Lee was alive I even would have apologized to him.

02-09-2016 07:35 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Thanks Ohio for the quick reply. I'll try to share my point of view ASAP.

02-09-2016 07:19 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat:13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea.

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15).

The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

His disciples were Jews. See e.g. Peter arguing with a voice from heaven: “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:14). After Jesus had left, Peter was still holding to Jewish dietary practices. And they were going to the temple, synagogues, etc. The big difference between Peter and the "Jews" was that Peter believed Jesus was the foretold (Jewish) Messiah, King of Israel. The others of course didn't.

Also note that Jesus left the house in Matthew 13:1 and went by the sea, to speak in parables. After speaking to them, 13:36 says He left the crowds and went back into the house. No footnote. I guess the house subsequently lost typological significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.

In defense of the Recovery footnotes, the charge to go to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles is in chapter 10. The "leaving the house" is in chapter 13. I suppose there's a sort of chronological narrative, here.

02-09-2016 05:48 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

12 APOSTLE
(DOES THIS MATTER OR NOT?)

It will take more than I expected to answer Ohio. So let's consider another footnote.

Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

The footnote on Mat. 10:1.1 says, “11*See note 122*in Rev. 21. So also in v. 2.”

Our first reaction is, Why? Why go to the end of the Bible and not to the beginning. 12 sons of Jacob (Israel), 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles of the Lord Jesus. But, let's read the footnote on Rev. 12:2.2

“The gates are for communication, for coming in and going out. Twelve is the number of absolute perfection and eternal completion in God's administration. Hence, twelve gates indicates that the communication in the New Jerusalem is absolutely perfect and eternally complete for God's administration.”

The verse talks about gates. So let's consider only the part related to the significance of the number 12. “Twelve is the number of absolute perfection and eternal completion in God's administration.” I have not much so say here.

Mat. 12:5-6 says, “These twelve Jesus asent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the 1cSamaritans. But go rather to the lost asheep of the house of bIsrael.”

Footnote 12:5.1 says, “The Samaritans were a mixture of Gentile and Jewish blood (2 Kings 17:24; Ezra 4:10; John 4:9). The twelve apostles were sent to the house of Israel (v. 6) and were charged not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans.”

Basically, the footnote says nothing about these two verses. We were expecting much more from a Bible that in its Preface contains these bombastic words, "The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes. Hence, this translation and the accompanying footnotes could be called the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years."

We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.

02-05-2016 10:40 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Thanks Ohio for the quick reply. I'll try to share my point of view ASAP.

02-05-2016 07:43 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

To me that's the best way. Purge all of the Lee and LSM leaven and lies.

02-05-2016 07:39 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Br. Ohio, I would like to know why do you think Darby assaulted Newton and later Muller.

I have written much about the Brethren on these forums over the last decade. I'm not sure where you received your history, but if it came from WL, then it is suspect. After much study, in fact, I have purged myself from every bit of history I ever heard from Lee. Every historical lesson he ever gave to us was totally self-serving.

I read the story of the Brethren first division by numerous authors -- Neatby, Coad, Ironsides, Groves, Embley, and others including Darby, Wigram, and Kelly. I studied the reasonings, the arguments, the complaints, the charges, etc. made by Darby against initially Newton, and later against Muller. Back in 2003-06 I read everything I could find on the Brethren in an attempt to understand what was happening to us in the Recovery. By then it became apparent that the Blendeds were going to quarantine the GLA.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Darby's treatment of Newton and Muller was a baseless attack on the integrity of these men of God. Both Newton and Muller acted honorably, uprightly, honestly, godly, and scripturally, but the sheer weight of Darby's character, especially in public venues, caused more noble men to back down from the endless wrangling of strife. This, by the way, was exactly what A. N. Groves had predicted in his prophetic letter to Darby in 1836.

Here's what removed any final shadows of doubt from my mind concerning Darby's motives. There were a number of gifted scholars in Plymouth, far and away the largest Brethren assembly, who lived through the hell Darby subjected on that fair church in the mid to late 1840's. Initially they stood by Newton, rejecting all of Darby's endless doctrinal charges from eschatology to sectarianism to clericalism to whatever. Eventually as the recently widowed Newton began to succumb to Darby's accusations, the subject of the sufferings of the Christ under the federal headship of Adam caused questionings in their minds. In the absence of Newton, they eventually swung to Darby's side.

Then in 1866 some of these brothers, i.e. Thomas Newberry, W.H. Dorman, Joseph Stancomb, Capt. Percy Hall, et. al. began to compare Darby's teachings on the subject with Newton's some 20 years earlier. To their dismay, they discovered that Darby held the exact same beliefs about the sufferings and person of Jesus as Newton did, and for which Newton was excommunicated and his reputation was forever smeared among Brethren circles. The brothers documented their work, and attempted to fellowship with the ruling London Park Ave. assembly, but they refused to hear any of it. It never was about mere teachings in the first place! Once the brothers learned this, they departed the movement for good.

To be clear, let me add a footnote about what teachings were at the heart of the Brethren split. In a nutshell, Newton taught that Jesus suffered as a normal man under God's arrangement, i.e. He spent 9 months in a womb, He got sick, He had to work, He got tired, etc. Darby would mock Newton saying that, "Newton's savior need a Savior." Being a former Brethren, WL knew this dispute well, therefore he would conclude that "all the sufferings of Christ were with a view to the cross."

Study Darby, and you can understand Lee.

02-05-2016 04:55 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the beginning, the exclusive Brethren held to their strict principles. Once Darby began his public assaults on Newton and later Muller, (~1845 AD) he and his cronies (particularly Wigram) developed all sorts of extra-biblical interpretations of O.T. stories to justify their actions. That begun a downward spiral which has never changed.

Today's true Darby exclusives are among the weirdest of the weird. Their aberrant interpretive principles for fellowship are so codified in extra-biblical legalism that no one could possibly join them. Even C.H. Macintosh in his day lamented the slow decay of evangelism among them due to excessive focus on "truth and light."

Br. Ohio, I would like to know why do you think Darby assaulted Newton and later Muller.

02-05-2016 01:57 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Aron commented on a segment of Lee posted by testallthings, but Quote is suddently not working again, so here goes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

V. NOT SACRIFICING ANY PORTION OF THE WORD
In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God's further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error. (W.L., On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 3)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose you had a Bible study, and someone in that study came under the influence of an evil spirit. That spirit would still (at least initially) acknowledge Jesus, and study the Bible to find God's Christ, but soon would begin to promote "truths" which supposedly the whole Bible looked toward. These "truths" would loom increasingly large in the conversation as time passed.

Eventually the study would not be about the Bible or Jesus, but about the "truths", or doctrines or teaching, of this special teacher and Bible expositor.

Neither is entirely right nor entirely wrong as I see it. And that is one of the problems I have with Lee so often. Because something is true in one place, it is assumed that it must be true in the same way in all places no matter how different things are.

Lee makes reference to not allowing one or two verses to mean something that does not harmonize with the whole Bible. That is a noble and even correct-sounding idea. But it is not entirely true. And the way he went about dealing with errant verses (contrary to his own statements) by forcing some over-arching theme that he claims is in the Bible is both consistent with, but also contradictory with this little passage.

I know. Really? Both consistent and contradictory?

It is consistent in that he insists that the major Biblical themes must prevail no matter what the verse seems to say. He doesn't say the meaning of the verse should be ignored, instead he claims that we just don't understand what it means. It really means something different than what it says.

But it is contradictory because in the little snippet testallthings provided, Lee claims that you can't ignore what the verses actually say and just sweep them aside. Yet that is often exactly what he does. He comes in and claims that "God's economy" means that it can't be that way. There was a thread many years ago in which someone started trying to state certain teachings by Lee that he still believed to be true. When asked how certain parts squared with what was actually in the verses, it was discovered that Lee declared in the Life Study messages for that passage that because of "God's economy" it really meant something else. And it meant that James was a book of death that was only left in to stand as a warning against being legalistic. Or as aron so often tells us concerning the major portions of the Psalms that Lee virtually wrote out of the Bible.

What aron wrote (and I quoted above) is often exactly what Lee did.

But at the same time, a serious flaw in Lee's holistic view of the Bible is that he controlled how it was holistic. He declared that the use of any word essentially had one meaning. Like leaven could only be bad (despite the Kingdom of God being likened to leaven). And everything about "doing" was dismissed as being according to the law which was abolished (really?).

And while not entirely incorrect, Lee's version of God's economy was generally so different from what the evidence shows should be included that when he used it as the means to dispute the otherwise clear meaning of scripture, he did exactly what he claimed you should not do — write off scripture because it does not fit you preconceived notion. "God's economy" (the real one, not Lee's version) was just such a preconceived notion.

02-05-2016 12:46 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

This inversion of things "ministry above the word" astounds me, because I recall Witness Lee asking the saints not to do this at the 1981 Winter Training on Corinthians. "Don't say Witness Lee says this", say "the Bible says this". I always understood that the ministry was an aid to help us get into the Word, and if the Lord Spirit and the clear Word didn't support what was in the ministry to drop that part.

At a Northern California blending conference in 2014 a dear elderly brother capped the sharing of leading ones at the end of the conference by saying "The Christian life is an open book test". When I testified that indeed it was, and the book is the Bible (even pointing to my recovery version), leading ones later testified that the open book is "the ministry". That was one of the final things that convinced me to leave.

It's good that the bleating one said that because the Lord in you caused you to perceive the lie. I think they believe that WL has digested the whole Bible down to the lowest common denominator. . . "THE MINISTRY"

02-05-2016 01:44 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

GIVE ME A BREAK, WOULD YOU? (or, A FOOTNOTE A DAY KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY)

Mat:13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the bhouse and sat beside the sea.

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

I am not going to repeat how an allegorical method vs. a literal produces all sort of fancy interpretations. Let's analyze the main point of this footnote.

Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. REALLY? Why? Where, when, how? Oh, because the house signifies the house of Israel and the sea signifies the Gentiles. Wonderful. It is so clear. Now, I imagine that from that time on the Lord Jesus slept in a boat and never went in a house! How ridiculous!
If only people would read their Bibles, especially Rom. 9-11 and Acts (the entire book) they will discover that it was not until the end of Acts chapter 28 that God set aside the house of Israel.
The leaders of Israel rejected their Messiah, they even killed Him, but on the cross He forgave them. Then he sent His disciples not starting from Galilee but from the holy city and the holy temple to preach repentance, again!

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (KJV)

If Christ forsook the house of Israel why then send Peter to the house of Israel to preach repentance? Someone must be wrong! Guess who?

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. And by doing so 3000 souls of the house of Israel were saved! This kind of Math is really from heaven.
-Jews + Gentiles= 3000 saved Jews

Act 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. Act 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

Again we see the divine pattern, not the one purported in the footnotes. Some preached only to the Jews, other started to preach to Gentiles (Grecian), too. Why did they preached only to the Jews if the Lord Jesus forsook the house of Israel in the Gospel Matthew?

And what about Saul after his conversion? Where did he go, to the house or to the sea? Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

He straightway went to the Gentiles. Hmm. No. Not yet. He preached Christ in the synagogues, that means to the Jews. And so he did troughout the book of Acts. His message was first to the Jews then to the Gentiles. Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

When he was rejected in one synagogue he said he will turn to the Gentiles. Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Act 13:51 But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.
Act 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

Well, maybe this was the famous turning point of forsaking the house of Israel and going to the Gentiles. Not yet, my friends. Not yet. The next verse says, “
Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.”

Paul, Paul, why don't you make W.L. happy, please. Leave the Jews alone! You said you will turn to the Gentiles! (to be fair, the words might also mean that he turned to the Gentiles in the same city) And here, again! You went into the synagogue of the Jews. Didn't you know that the Lord Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. Surely you did not know this teaching!

Finally we reach the end of Acts. Paul is in Rome and he calls the “chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
Act 28:19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
Act 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
Act 28:21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
Act 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Act 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”

We have finally reach the end. The Lord Jesus was rejected by the Jews in the land of Israel and in the dispersion. God's patience with His people was over. That's the end of Acts. The Book shows that God did everything possible to convert the Jews but they (the majority) refused. And few years later their house, the temple, was destroyed.

02-04-2016 08:25 PM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

In my words, the Bible is meant to supplement "the ministry". Just like picking fresh fruit off the tree, LSM wants to pick from the Bible that which supplements Living Stream Ministry.

02-04-2016 07:08 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems like what WL spoke here is a fair warning against anyone superimposing their own interpretation over the Bible. Maybe this is what caught everyone off guard. WL warned against doing this, so surely he wouldn't do this right in front of everyone's eyes? Wrong! This is exactly what he ended up doing, and no one saw it coming.

This is exactly what Lee did about untold numbers of items in his ministry. He condemned endless things in Christianity, setting the Recovery apart as "new and improved," and then repeated their same sins.

Philip Lee operating as "Office Manager" at LSM as its de facto president and CEO violated every single spiritual principle Lee preached on. By condemning and disparaging all outside ministries in the greater body of Christ, and then hiring his own profligate and prodigal son to run LSM, Witness Lee discredited his own ministry and forfeited every principle he apparently once stood for.

02-04-2016 06:56 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

On this point I am sure we read a different story.

Glad to discuss it on another thread, perhaps one already started.

It's just like everything else, it all depends on where you get your news.

02-04-2016 06:49 PM

TLFisher

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

How else can you explain blended brothers, elders, and serving ones more absolute for "the ministry" rather than Christ, or even the Bible. For them the Bible is not to be respected unless it agrees with "the ministry".

In my words, the Bible is meant to supplement "the ministry". Just like picking fresh fruit off the tree, LSM wants to pick from the Bible that which supplements Living Stream Ministry.

02-04-2016 06:18 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

No brother, it's the truth and needs to be repeated. The evil spirit behind LSM attempts to replace Christ with "the ministry".

02-04-2016 06:05 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I find this to be quite damning of WL.

Suppose you had a Bible study, and someone in that study came under the influence of an evil spirit. That spirit would still (at least initially) acknowledge Jesus, and study the Bible to find God's Christ, but soon would begin to promote "truths" which supposedly the whole Bible looked toward. These "truths" would loom increasingly large in the conversation as time passed.

Eventually the study would not be about the Bible or Jesus, but about the "truths", or doctrines or teaching, of this special teacher and Bible expositor.

Going further, eventually the new teachings, so-called truths, and doctrines would run against some of the Bible, and then this teacher might tell you that the Bible was wrong, and that the writers of the Bible were writing according to "fallen human concepts" or some such. Then the Bible could be safely and profitably ignored to focus instead on the recovered truths, so-called, being promoted.

I've gone into this at some detail in the "Psalms" thread, but it isn't limited to WL's treatment of the Psalms. Just pretty obvious, there. There wasn't much hiding WL's contempt for scripture, there. But I won't belabor the point; if I've tired myself of writing it, so much more the readers!

No brother, it's the truth and needs to be repeated. The evil spirit behind LSM attempts to replace Christ with "the ministry".

02-04-2016 05:53 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I find this to be quite damning of WL.

It seems like what WL spoke here is a fair warning against anyone superimposing their own interpretation over the Bible. Maybe this is what caught everyone off guard. WL warned against doing this, so surely he wouldn't do this right in front of everyone's eyes? Wrong! This is exactly what he ended up doing, and no one saw it coming.

02-04-2016 04:43 PM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

02-04-2016 11:58 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Given the amount of material that LCers typically cover in meetings or trainings, there isn't time for them to verify everything even if someone had the desire to do so, there is just too much thrown at people. There is usually an implicit trust in the assertions being made simply because an outline lists numerous references.

When I attended some of the LSM trainings, we had our group study sessions, and a few times we actually tried to go through some of the verses listed in the outline. The goal was to try and to make sense of the points using the verses referenced. What always seemed to happen is that we would get stuck on a point and never finish the outline.

I always assumed that it was because the study group was just not good at getting through things. Obviously, there was too much material to get through in the first place, but it also seems like the real reason that we got 'stuck' is because none of the support we were looking for actually existing in the first place. It was a wild goose chase trying to make sense of what the outlines were actually saying.

That is why you are really not supposed to try to figure it out yourself, but to read the ministry first and assume it is right as you read the scripture. Otherwise you might not agree with the ministry.

02-04-2016 01:44 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once Darby began his public assaults on Newton and later Muller, (~1845 AD) ...."

On this point I am sure we read a different story.

02-03-2016 09:08 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

What would be your guess as to the reason that WL turned to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible? My best guess is that it gave him the opportunity to claim that he saw something ‘new’. Other than that, I have no clue.

When I read the LS of Genesis, I hadn’t read much else of WL’s ministry. I was taken aback by his constant defense of his use of allegory. Up until then I had never thought about this style of interpretation since it was the norm in the LC, but I quickly took the hint that it wasn’t widely accepted outside the LC.

Read Lee's allegorical interpretation of Lot and his daughters. I think it is message #54. It is the most pathetic interpretation, extreme even by Lee's standards. He tears into free groups. What hypocrisy! A decade later he instructs all the LC 's to meet in homes, just like the free groups did.

02-03-2016 07:24 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

SIMPLE QUESTION, NOT VERY SIMPLE ANSWER

"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Mat. 9:14-17, KJV)

*“The unfulled cloth signifies Christ from His incarnation to His crucifixion, as a piece of new cloth, untreated, unfinished; whereas the new garment in Luke 5:36 signifies Christ as a new robe after He was "treated" in His crucifixion. (The Greek word for new*in Luke 5:36 is the same as for fresh*in Matt. 9:17.) Christ first was the unfulled cloth for making a new garment, and then through His death and resurrection was made a new garment to cover us as our righteousness before God that we might be justified by God and be acceptable to Him (Luke 15:22; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:30).” RcV, footnote 9:16.1)

This is another aberrant example of following an allegorical method! What was the simple question the disciples of John asked? “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?” What was the Lord's answer? It was not appropriate for His disciples to fast at that time, as it is was not appropriate to put a piece of new cloth on an old garment or to put new wine in old bottles. But when the Lord Jesus will leave them, then it would be a right thing to fast. Simple question, simple answer. Not for W.L. He was able to discover a hidden meaning. It really requires God's inspiration or a vivid imagination to be able to come up with such interpretation.

I spare you the other footnotes that deal with this passage.

02-03-2016 06:44 PM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

02-03-2016 06:32 PM

HERn

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had much good discussion on this forum about Lee's excessive use of allegorization and interpretation of O.T. types. The exclusive Brethren teachers became masters at this, and to this day can utilize bible stories to say anything they want. It appears to be the most effective means at waging "war" with other Christian ministries and congregations.

For example, Lee stole the Brethren interpretation of the O.T. ordinance forbidding honey (No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an offering by fire to the LORD. -- Leviticus 2.11) to be a divine command forbidding natural affection between the saints -- in other words, no friendships. Lee and Company would pull this little "gem" out of his bag of tricks after every "storm" that passed thru the Recovery.

The ultimate fruit of this aberrant teaching was that in was not safe to love or trust anyone but the ministry of Lee. Not family, not friends, not James Dobson or Joyce Meyers, and not even one's spouse could be trusted or loved when the ministry decided it was time to "choose sides." Compare this pathetic interpretation with the Apostle Paul's plain words about the end times, "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection ..." -- I Timothy 3.1-3. Note also that Paul was most likely speaking of the church of God.

While I am not totally against Biblical allegorization, I prefer to limit its use to those places authorized by scripture. Those of us who spent long periods under Witness Lee often lost sight of the plain meaning of the Bible, while constantly digging through the footnotes or Life Studies for the "deeper" meaning. Often the plain meaning of the Bible was equated with the "low Gospel" and with "degraded" Christianity.

I still seem to be surrounded by those who have different views than mine on this. It is truly amazing what new found "discoveries" are made by some "ministers" who appear to be almost OCD with eschatological allegories and interpretations. They can make the Bible say anything they like, and only they have got it right!

This is so true. I remember spending much time reading the ministry to try and understand what the bible was saying. What I am doing now is reading the bible and throwing the ministry on the trash heap. I'm also reading widely. I'm sorry, but I think WL was a deceiver. Satan's aim was to point lovers of Jesus away from the Savior to the ministry of a man.

02-03-2016 06:32 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

What happened since then, we all know. W.L. turned from the literal to the allegorical method, producing sometimes very aberrant interpretations.

02-03-2016 06:23 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you said about W.L. is true. What you said about the exclusive Brethren is not. The Brethren were and are dispensationalists, and it is well known that dispensationalist hold to a Literal Grammatical Historical Method.

Watchman Nee held the same principles of interpretation. “All the words in the Bible should be interpreted literally unless the literal interpretation is nearly absurd. Parables, visions, and signs should not be interpreted literally. Everything else should be interpreted literally.”
(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 15: Study on Matthew, Chapter 6, Section 5)

Witness Lee followed the same teaching, at the least up to the 1950s.
“No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.” (On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1)

What happened since then, we all know. W.L. turned from the literal to the allegorical method, producing sometimes very aberrant interpretations.

02-03-2016 03:21 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Therefore, I think that the quoting of irrelevant verses is often part of a ploy to establish credibility at the moment. Sort of a magician's trick to get you looking at what he wants you to look at so that you will not notice the error that was slipped in and instead just accept the new teaching.

And so many times the points weren't even worthy of making. But I think that is one of the tricks. Make strange point after strange point stick and eventually they won't even balk when it should be blatantly obvious that you have lied to them.

02-03-2016 12:32 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

This example of the footnote concerning Peter's mother-in-law is representative a lot of Lee's use of scripture. There is a focal verse which is being effectively ignored or reinterpreted. It is surrounded by a bunch of verses that are correctly commented on but have nothing to do with the issue in the focal verse. And I might add that often the verses which are used properly are designed to either get everyone on a "Amen! Hallelujah!" roll, or at least noting how many verses Lee references properly, after which he can say almost anything and most will simply accept it as yet one more correct statement without a thought, or be fully caught up in the Hallelujahs and not even think about it.

Therefore, I think that the quoting of irrelevant verses is often part of a ploy to establish credibility at the moment. Sort of a magician's trick to get you looking at what he wants you to look at so that you will not notice the error that was slipped in and instead just accept the new teaching.

And so many times the points weren't even worthy of making. But I think that is one of the tricks. Make strange point after strange point stick and eventually they won't even balk when it should be blatantly obvious that you have lied to them.

02-03-2016 07:58 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Honestly speaking, with this kind of system of interpretation, that is the allegorical (instead of a literal one), the preacher can just say anything he likes. This passage is not a parable or a type, but W.L. treats it in an allegorical way. He quotes verses to support his interpretation, as every good student of the Bible should do. But, we ask a simple question, What does the text say? Is it too insignificant just to look at what the text says without injecting in it, or trying to discover under its surface a secret message?

02-03-2016 06:32 AM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Honestly speaking, with this kind of system of interpretation, that is the allegorical (instead of a literal one), the preacher can just say anything he likes. This passage is not a parable or a type, but W.L. treats it in an allegorical way. He quotes verses to support his interpretation, as every good student of the Bible should do. But, we ask a simple question, What does the text say? Is it too insignificant just to look at what the text says without injecting in it, or trying to discover under its surface a secret message?
The Lord Jesus was healing people and casting out demons. That's the simple fact. What's the explanation of this simple fact? He did those things to fulfill the Scripture, “He Himself took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Isn't this explanation provided by the Holy Spirit Himself sufficient to understand this passage?

None of the verses that WL quotes have anything to do with supporting his allegory. I suppose that this style of interpretation gave him a opportunity to claim that he saw something 'new', as the plain text already speaks for itself.

The main issue I take with WL's style of interpretation is that he never answered the basic question of why a passage like this should be interpreted allegorically. Furthermore, he gives no evidence as to why each person/thing represents what he says that it does.

02-03-2016 02:21 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

PARABLES AND TYPES EVERYWHERE?

“14 And Jesus, coming into Peter's house, saw 1his mother-in-law lying down and in a fever.
15 And He touched her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and served Him.
16 And when evening fell, they brought to Him many who were demon possessed, and He cast out the spirits with a word, and all those who were ill He healed,
17 So that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be afulfilled, saying, "He Himself took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.''”( RcV, MAt. 8:14-17).

14.1 Peter's mother-in-law in vv. 14-15 represents the Jews living at the end of this age, who will be saved by receiving the kingly Savior (Rom. 11:25-26). At that time, during the great tribulation, the Jews in the eyes of God will be "in a fever" (v. 14), "hot" in things other than God. After the fullness of the salvation of the Gentiles, the kingly Savior will come back to this remnant of the Jews that they may be saved (Rom. 11:25-26; Zech. 12:10). Peter's mother-in-law was healed in Peter's house. At the end of this age all the remnant of the Jews will be saved in the house of Israel. Furthermore, they will be saved by the kingly Savior's direct touch (v. 15), as was the Jewish leper (v. 3).

Honestly speaking, with this kind of system of interpretation, that is the allegorical (instead of a literal one), the preacher can just say anything he likes. This passage is not a parable or a type, but W.L. treats it in an allegorical way. He quotes verses to support his interpretation, as every good student of the Bible should do. But, we ask a simple question, What does the text say? Is it too insignificant just to look at what the text says without injecting in it, or trying to discover under its surface a secret message?
The Lord Jesus was healing people and casting out demons. That's the simple fact. What's the explanation of this simple fact? He did those things to fulfill the Scripture, “He Himself took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Isn't this explanation provided by the Holy Spirit Himself sufficient to understand this passage?

02-01-2016 04:17 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

To micah6v8

My point is to show, by comparing footnotes and events that took place after Christ's resurrection, the inconsistency of the proposition put forth in Mat. 5:23.

Let me quote it again, “In decreeing the new law of the kingdom, the King referred here to the gift and altar of the old dispensation because during the period of His ministry on earth, a transitional period, the ritual law of the old dispensation had not yet come to an end” (RcV, footnote 5:23.2).
This is the claim of the footnote (I am not concerned, at this point, if there is really a transitional period or not). Having stated so boldly that John's the Baptist preaching was the initiation of GNTe and that “nothing old was left and that something new was going to be built up” (RcV, footnote 3:1.2) W.L. has to justify Mat. 5:23. The one speaking in this verse is the Lord Jesus, and so far I have never found W.L. blaming the Lord, he introduces the concept of a transitional period that is in place only during the period of His ministry on earth. So far, so good.

When we come to the book of Acts, we find that the apostles, Peter, James, John and even Paul, were still acting as if they were living in a transitional period. For W.L. there is no doubt they were wrong. He does not ask, “Can these people be wrong? After all they spent 40 days with the Lord after His resurrection, they received the Holy Spirit... What if they are right. Is it true that the transitional period came to an end with the resurrection of Christ?” No. Such questions are not even considered. W.L.'s proposition must stand, everything else can fall.

V. NOT SACRIFICING ANY PORTION OF THE WORD
In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God's further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error. (W.L., On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 3)

02-01-2016 12:04 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

This is especially true about the parables.

Like the one about the leaven? "The kingdom of God is like leaven . . . ."

Sounds like the kingdom of God is leaven. Not "the world is the leaven."

Too easy to just look at someone straight in the eye and laugh at the claim that Jesus did not liken the Kingdom to leaven.

02-01-2016 11:53 AM

ABrotherinFaith

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

To a great extent, the Bible is really not so difficult to read and understand. It only seems that way when our teachers try to make everything more complicated than it otherwise should to be.

I agree. This is especially true about the parables.

02-01-2016 11:21 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I don't think that this verse about being at the altar and having a gift is in any way related to whether it is to be understood under the OT, the NT, or somewhere in between.

The thing that Jesus said was consistent with his teaching on how to pray elsewhere. There he said that we are to ask for God's forgiveness as we also forgive others. In this place, Jesus is saying that in different words. If you think you are coming to God to ask for forgiveness and realize that you need to ask forgiveness of another, you need to deal with that first. Using the reference to the altar was simply representative of the way that the people approached God at the time. Since the new covenant was not year established, and he was speaking to people familiar with the old covenant, he used what they understood.

Surely we know what Jesus said here just as the people of that day did. And we know how it applies to us who do not have an altar of sacrifice to take our "gift" to God. There is no real difference in the new or the old covenant here. Merely the manner in which the exact same thing was "acted out." In the OT, you brought you animal, meal, oil, wine . . . whatever was to be offered on the altar . . . as part of your quest for forgiveness. Under the new covenant, there is no longer an altar or a physical offering in the OT sense. But what we do is the same. We come to God to ask for forgiveness and to seek his salvation, etc.

To a great extent, the Bible is really not so difficult to read and understand. It only seems that way when our teachers try to make everything more complicated than it otherwise should to be. That there is some kind of transitional understanding of this particular verse is just such a complication. It is really a very clear passage. And is applicable today just as it was when Jesus spoke it. The fact that he used the terminology of the old system of the altar and sacrifices really changes nothing.

02-01-2016 11:06 AM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I have a few comments to make here. First of all, I think that the footnote on John the Baptist represents how WL wanted to see things. WL's claim regarding the existence of a "transitional period" was his excuse for what didn't match up.

As a dispensationalist, WL seemed intent on squeezing the Bible into certain molds and timelines. Maybe there is value in seeing the correlation between events and what changes occurred over time, but it misses the important reason of why such things occurred in the first place. John the Baptist was not there to "initiate God's new Testament economy", he was there to "prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." Likewise, Jesus did not come to this earth to initiate a some dispensation or to give us reason to talk about "dead religion". Jesus coming to this earth was for atonement. Ironically, in the LC, this basic fact is commonly characterized as the "low gospel". I find this to be significant because it shifts the focus from the gospel itself to other things that might become thematic, such as "Christ versus Religion".

I believe that WL liked Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees, because it gave him the opportunity to compare the LC to 'religion'. The LC and all the associated practices were viewed as being part of this "nothing old" ideology. Within the LC, it's almost as if this idea of the LC being better than 'religion' can be, or is a replacement for the gospel itself. If the NT is read a certain way, sure, someone could walk away with the notion that a definite change took place, and that Jesus was fed up with 'religion'. That however, misses the point entirely.

Regarding the existence of a transitional period, I do agree that Jesus' coming was the beginning of a transition, however, I don't think that the transition was anything like what WL wanted us to think that it was. According to WL's ideology, Jesus should have had nothing to do with 'religion'. Why then did Jesus visit and teach in the temple and synagogues? Why were the apostles to be found in the temple, even after the day of Pentecost took place? The fact is that Christ fulfilled the law, but that doesn't mean that automatically everything else got thrown out. Some of the "leftovers" really weren't of concern at all. I was just reading Galatians recently and it finally occurred to me that when Paul confronted Peter, it really wasn't about a divergence in practices between the Jewish and Gentile believers, it was about Peter's playing the hypocrite, and just as importantly, it was about anything that detracted from being justified by faith in Christ.

02-01-2016 08:24 AM

micah6v8

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I may not understand the point you are making so feel free to correct me where applicable.

A country has an evil incumbent president.

At the elections held on 1 January, the votes are tallied and this evil president is defeated by a candidate of good character.

The new president gets sworn into the office of president on 5 January

People may disagree on what was the historical date in the country's history

Some might say that the evil president's reign ended on 1 January when he lost the elections.

Others might say that the evil president's reign ended only on 5 January.

Let me find an example in the Christian context.

Jesus' death on the Cross is the most crucial event in the bible history.

One could say that it would be too early to celebrate about God's salvation coming to mankind simply at the point when Jesus was just starting His ministry and had not gone to the Cross. One could say that you should only celebrate when Jesus had died on the Cross.

However, with the benefit of reading the bible, we know that once Jesus had incarnated into this world, there was no doubt that salvation was here/would becoming. There was no chance of Jesus failing His mission of salvation.

I think Witness Lee's point is that the transition period started when Jesus started His ministry.The transition period ended when Jesus died on the cross.

01-31-2016 06:38 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you (Mat. 5:23, RcV)

Footnote 23.2 says, “In decreeing the new law of the kingdom, the King referred here to the gift and altar of the old dispensation because during the period of His ministry on earth, a transitional period, the ritual law of the old dispensation had not yet come to an end.
(In the four Gospels, before His death and resurrection, in matters regarding the outward circumstances, the Lord treated His disciples as Jews according to the old law, whereas in matters concerning spirit and life, He considered them believers, constituents of the church, according to the New Testament economy.)”

Now, wait a minute. Weren't we told in footnote 3:1.2 that “John the Baptist's preaching was the initiation of God's New Testament economy...that the old way of worshipping God according to the Old Testament had been repudiated and that a new way was about to be brought in...further that nothing old was left and that something new was going to be built up.”
Now we are told that there was actually a transitional period, and that “the ritual law of the old dispensation had not yet come to an end.” Well, then way condemn the apostles for still going to the temple for worshipping God, why condemn Paul for keeping a Nazirete vow, why condemn James for writing his epistles to the twelve tribes in dispersion, etc. If we admit a transitional period, it seems that it was not ended by the death and resurrection of Christ, but that it continued trough the Acts of the Apostles until the end in chapter 28.

Let me quote from the RcV, footnote 1.3 on James 1. "The tribes of Israel. This indicates that this Epistle was written to the Jewish Christians, who had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory (2:1) and were justified by faith (2:24), regenerated by the word of truth (v. 18), and indwelt by the Spirit of God (4:5), and who were members of the church (5:14), awaiting the Lord's coming back (5:7-8). However, for the writer to call these believers in Christ "the twelve tribes," as God's chosen people were called in His Old Testament economy, might indicate that he lacked a clear view concerning the distinction between Christians and Jews, between God's New Testament economy and the Old Testament dispensation. Perhaps he did not see that in the New Testament God had delivered and separated the Jewish believers in Christ from the Jewish people, who were then considered by God a perverse generation (Acts 2:40). In His New Testament economy, God does not consider the Jewish believers to be Jews set apart for Judaism but Christians set apart for the church. As members of the church of God, they should be as distinct and separate from the Jews as they are from the Gentiles (1 Cor. 10:32). Yet James, a pillar of the church, in his Epistle to the Christian brothers still called them "the twelve tribes."

If we compare the two footnotes, Mat.5:23 and James 1:1, we see how W.L. "excused" the Lord Jesus but was ready to "accuse" James for doing the same things! Talk about double standards! Of course the Lord Jesus can never be wrong, and so His apostles when moved by the same Lord to speak through the Holy Spirit to churches or single believers. James writes around A.D. 50 (according to the RcV), earlier than Paul, Peter and John. Maybe Matthew was the only possible N.T. scripture available at that time. It is unbelievable that someone will go so far to doubt an apostle of Jesus Christ to justify his own peculiar point of view.

Again I say, if there was a transitional period it probably didn't end with the death and resurrection of Christ, but it went on until there was a chance for the nation of Israel to repent.

01-30-2016 12:26 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

01-29-2016 11:25 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I found an interesting discussion at the link below of the the use of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew. The explanation given is that Jewish believers would have avoided using the name of God directly, so certain substitutes were used such as 'Heaven'. It seems to be a reasonable assessment if the two phrases are viewed as interchangeable:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.co...kingdom-of-god

That is in harmony with the Jewish mentality of respecting God's name.

01-29-2016 08:59 AM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

If it is true that the Lord Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Gospel of Matthew was for Jews believers who understood the figure of speech, the Law, and many other things related to the people of Israel, while the audience of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John were Gentiles, and therefore needed some "translations" and even explanations of some words or feasts of the Jews, etc. it is clear that in the cases you mention Matthew used the literal words spoken by the lord Jesus, while the other three translated the figure of speech to make it more clear for their audience.

As always...

01-29-2016 07:25 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

While I'm sure that there is some difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, I think that it is of less consequence than what some make it out to be. In fact, it would seem that there is sufficient interchangeability between them that Matthew would say one in his accounts while Mark & Luke said the other. Not with respect to different sayings, but the same ones. Because of this, it is not even sure which Jesus actually said, or if there was a real difference whether he said one or the other.

01-28-2016 11:00 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I wouldn't go so far as to agree or disagree with what WL taught, because I don't presume to fully understand the difference between the two, but I do note that the two phrases are used interchangeably, in contrast to what WL taught:
Matt 19:23-24 [/COLOR]Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (NKJV)

In Luke, the same statement that Jesus made uses the phrase "kingdom of God" both times:
Luke 18:24-25 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (NKJV)

01-28-2016 08:09 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

The following is how WL differentiated the kingdom of the heavens and the kingdom of God:
The kingdom of the heavens is a specific term used by Matthew, indicating that the kingdom of the heavens differs from the kingdom of God, the term used in the other three Gospels. The kingdom of God refers to God's reign in a general way, from eternity past to eternity future. It comprises eternity without beginning before the foundation of the world, the paradise of Adam, the chosen patriarchs, the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, the church in the New Testament, the coming millennial kingdom with its heavenly rule (the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens), and the new heaven and the new earth with the New Jerusalem without end for eternity. The kingdom of the heavens is a special section within the kingdom of God, composed only of the church today and the heavenly part of the coming millennial kingdom. Hence, the kingdom of the heavens, a section of the kingdom of God, is also called the kingdom of God in the New Testament, especially in the other three Gospels. While the kingdom of God already existed with the nation of Israel in a general way in the Old Testament (21:43), the kingdom of the heavens had still not come in a specific way, but only drew near when John the Baptist came (3:1-2; 11:11-12).

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Msg 13, Pg 168

I wouldn't go so far as to agree or disagree with what WL taught, because I don't presume to fully understand the difference between the two, but I do note that the two phrases are used interchangeably, in contrast to what WL taught:
Matt 19:23-24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (NKJV)

In Luke, the same statement that Jesus made uses the phrase "kingdom of God" both times:
Luke 18:24-25 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (NKJV)

01-28-2016 07:15 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
(IN A NUTSHELL)

It seems that many Bible expositors agree that the Kingdom of God is larger (extending from eternity past to eternity future) than the Kingdom of the heavens. But they disagree on what the kingdom of the heavens is.

I quote from Appendix 114 in the Companion Bible:

“We have seen in Ap. 112 that the word "kingdom", like the Greek basileia, has regard to sovereignty rather than territory, and to the sphere of its exercise rather than to its extent.* Using the word "kingdom" in this sense, and in that which is conveyed in its English termination "dom", which is short for dominion, we note that the former expression, "the Kingdom of heaven", occurs only in Matthew, where we find it thirty-two times (*1).
But in the parallel passages in the other Gospels we find, instead, the expression "the Kingdom of God" (e.g. cp. Matt. 11:11 with Luke 7:28). The explanation of this seeming difference is that the Lord spoke in Aramaic; certainly not in the Greek of the Gospel documents.* See Ap. 94. III.
Now "heaven" is frequently used by the Figure Metonymy (of the Subject), Ap. 6 for God Himself, Whose dwelling is there.* See Ps. 73:9.* Dan. 4:26, 29.* 2Chron. 32:20.* Matt. 21:25.* Luke 15:21 ("I have sinned against heaven" is thus contrasted with the words "and in thy sight").* John 3:27.
Our suggestion is that in all the passages where the respective expressions occur, identical words were spoken by the Lord, "the Kingdom of heaven"; but when it came to putting them into Greek, Matthew was Divinely guided to retain the figure of speech literally ("heaven"), so as to be in keeping with the special character, design, and scope of his Gospel (see Ap. 96); while, in the other Gospels, the figure was translated as being what it also meant, "the Kingdom of God".
Thus, while the same in a general sense, the two expressions are to be distinguished in their meaning and in their interpretation, as follows :--

I. The Kingdom (or Sovereignty) of HEAVEN
1. Has Messiah for its King;
2. It is from heaven; and under the heavens upon the earth;
3. It is limited in its scope;
4. It is political in its sphere;
5. It is Jewish and exclusive in its character;
6. It is national in its aspect;
7. It is the special subject of Old Testament prophecy;
8. * And it is dispensational in its duration.

II. The Kingdom (or Sovereignty) of GOD
1. Has God for its Ruler;
2. It is in heaven, over the earth;
3. It is unlimited in its scope;
4. It is moral and spiritual in its sphere;
5. It is inclusive in its character (embracing the natural and spiritual seeds of Abraham, "the heavenly calling", and the "Church" of the Mystery).* Hence,
6. It is universal in its aspect;
7. It is (in its wider aspect) the subject of New Testament revelation;
8. And will be eternal in its duration.
(*1)* The Kingdom of God occurs only five times in Matt. (6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43).”

THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM (YOU NEED MILLIONS OF NUTSHELLS)

For those interested, and with lots of time (the three books have a total of 2175 pages) they can read an amazing book ( it took the author 30 years to complete it):

The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus: The Christ, As Covenanted in the Old Testament, and Presented in the New Testament
by George Nathaniel Henry Peters

as always...

01-27-2016 04:04 PM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Probably as an example how Jesus/God talks to everyone, but really only to a few (the MOTAs and their followers). The others might as well not have been there because they were just the "Jews."

I find that as a whole, WL took a less-than-desirable approach to the Gospel of Matthew. The Kingdom of Heaven is a particular aspect of our relationship with God (much of which is conveyed in Matthew). While the concept itself is simple, I am afraid that WL was intent on hopelessly complicating it, and assigning his own meaning to it.

In the beginning of the LS of Matthew, WL makes the claim that Christians don't understand what the kingdom is, and he goes so far as to claim that a proper understanding only came after he studied the matter for a number of years. Right off the bat, WL sought to redefine the kingdom. He even introduced his own terminology like "kingdom people" and "kingdom constitution".

In reference to the kingdom, if we heard someone say kingdom people it would probably be assumed that they were referring to Christians. Given WL's claim that Christians don't understand the kingdom, did he really wish to convey the notion of kingdom people being average Christians? I doubt it, in fact, I could almost be certain that he wished to imply that kingdom people are LCers. The same goes for the term kingdom constitution, it takes on a different meaning, since the kingdom principles that Jesus put forth in Matthew are not the governing principles of the LC. Obviously WL had no interest in Jesus's teachings on morality. That was viewed as being 'low'. This shift in meaning is what I find to explain WL's redundant 'kingdom' terminology. The existence of kingdom already implies that there is a citizenship. The existence of a kingdom already implies the existence of a constitution. The heavy usage of such terms seems to convey an esoteric meaning.

Getting back to the sermon on the mount, what I find interesting is that in the LS of Matthew, WL discusses the existence of an inner-circle and outer-circle there. While this interpretation is not necessarily incorrect (and I should note that John Piper also uses this same interpretation), it seems to gravitate towards exclusivity. No doubt, Jesus' followers were not just limited to the group of his disciples. The 'crowd' could have contained all kinds of people, and I'm sure there are numerous debates about who was actually there. What I think is unwise is to claim Jesus' teachings was only for limited audience. Maybe his disciples better understood him than the rest, but there is no evidence to suggest the rest of the audience was unimportant. WL's view definitely leans towards that of a exclusive message being given to a select few.

01-27-2016 11:25 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a valid point about the footnote in question. Jesus was around his disciples all the time, he could tell them anything he wanted to, and he did. The notion that he would address a crowd without intending his message to be for the crowd is laughable. But for some reason, WL felt that this was so. I'm not too sure what his motivation was for pushing this view.

Probably as an example how Jesus/God talks to everyone, but really only to a few (the MOTAs and their followers). The others might as well not have been there because they were just the "Jews."

01-27-2016 09:15 AM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

So let's analyze this footnote. The first things we notice is the really small audience. If you ever watched a movie about Jesus then you got it all wrong. The sermon on the mountain was only for His disciples, maybe 12 or 70? and not for the crowds, too. Is it really so? In the previous verse it is stated that, “And great crowds followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan” (Mat. 4:25, RcV). Great crowds followed Him. So the Lord Jesus without dismissing the crowds sat down on the mountain. The message was intended for His disciples (who sat closer to Him) and the crowds. And so, “28 And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, 29 For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes” ( Mat. 7:28-29, RcV). The crowds were astounded! Were they not part of His audience?

01-27-2016 02:18 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

A TEXT, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, IS A PRETEXT, FOR PROOFTEXT

Mat. 1:1 And when he saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. (RcV)

“When the new King sat down on the mountain, His disciples, not the crowds, came to be His audience. Eventually, not only the believing Jews but also the discipled nations (the Gentiles—28:19) became His disciples. Later the disciples were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Hence, the word the new King spoke on the mountains in chs. 5—7, concerning the constitution of the kingdom of the heavens, was spoken to the believers of the New Testament, not to the Jews of the Old Testament.” (footnote 1.2)

I am jumping to chapter 5 now. I have something to say about Jesus' baptism but it will take me a while before I post it.

So let's analyze this footnote. The first things we notice is the really small audience. If you ever watched a movie about Jesus then you got it all wrong. The sermon on the mountain was only for His disciples, maybe 12 or 70? and not for the crowds, too. Is it really so? In the previous verse it is stated that, “And great crowds followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan” (Mat. 4:25, RcV). Great crowds followed Him. So the Lord Jesus without dismissing the crowds sat down on the mountain. The message was intended for His disciples (who sat closer to Him) and the crowds. And so, “28 And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, 29 For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes” ( Mat. 7:28-29, RcV). The crowds were astounded! Were they not part of His audience?

In Luke we have a clearer picture, “17 And He came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a great crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people from Judea and Jerusalem and of the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases...19And all the crowd sought to touch Him....20 And He lifted up His eyes to His disciples and said, Blessed are the poor....” (Luke 6:17-20). Even if some suggested that Luke's account describes a different occasion (see footnotes on Mattew 5:2 and Luke 6:20 in the Companion Bible), what is stated in Matthew is sufficient to prove our point. In any case at the end of His discourse it is stated, “After He completed all His words in the hearing of the people, He entered in Capernaum” (Luke 7:1, RcV). In the hearing of the people!

READING THE FUTURE INTO THE PAST

I have another point to make about the second part of this unbelievable footnote. It is about the contorted logic which has been used to “demonstrate” that the audience were Christians. If anyone today would dare to say that the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts), a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1776 after the Boston Tea party, against the Thirteen Colonies were meant for todays 50 States of U.S.A. .....I better stop here.

01-20-2016 08:07 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Mat. 3:4 Now this John had his garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle around his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (RcV)

Footnote 4.1, after saying what John (as a priest) should have eaten, wore, and lived, concludes in this way, “All this indicates that he had wholly abandoned the Old Testament dispensation...His intention was to introduce God's New Testament economy....”

Imagine John the Baptist wearing priestly garment of fine linen preaching repentance! Imagine the same person eating the best food and preaching repentance! How fit was for John to show by practice what he preached.
Was he abandoning the OTD? Was that his mission? Wasn't he called to prepare the way of the Lord?

“In his own person he embodied, so to speak, the Old Testament dispensation in its legal bearing, just as the Virgin Mary embodied and represented the evangelical aspect of the Old Testament as set forth in Abraham and the prophets. John was the personification of Old Testament righteousness according to the law; Mary was the personification of Old Testament faith in the promise, and of deep and earnest waiting for the promised salvation. Hence John appeared in Israel as the preacher of repentance, and the baptist.”

“In one respect, however, the baptism of John resembled the sacrificial services of the priests, as John administered the rite of submersion himself; whereas, in ordinary lustrations, the person to be baptized sprinkled himself with the water of baptism.”

Lange's Commentary on the NT

Without clear statements, from John or from others, it is too much to conclude that he was abandoning the OTD.

“had his raiment of camel's hair; not of camel's hair softened and dressed, which the Talmudists (z) call צמר גמלים "camel's wool"; of which wool of camels and of hares, the Jews say (a) the coats were made, with which God clothed Adam and Eve; and which being spun to a thread, and wove, and made a garment of, they call (b) חמילה, and we "camlet"; for this would have been too fine and soft for John to wear, which is denied of him, Mat_11:8 but either of a camel's skin with the hair on it, such was the "rough garment", or "garment of hair", the prophets used to wear, Zec_13:4 or of camels hair not softened but undressed; and so was very coarse and rough, and which was suitable to the austerity of his life, and the roughness of his ministry. And it is to be observed he appeared in the same dress as Elijah or Elias did, 2Ki_1:8 in whose spirit and power he came, and whose name he bore, Luk_1:17.”
John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible

If the fact that John living in a wilderness and not in Jerusalem, with the holy temple, implies that he was abandoning the OTD, if we apply the same logic, the fact that the Lord Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that they were going back to the OTD.

01-19-2016 06:54 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming' sevenfold to deal with the degraded church makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And the Lord God looked at poor, poor Christianity, and decided that it needed a seven-fold intensified Spirit. Then He took a look at the LSM's Recovery and decided it needed seventy times seven.

01-19-2016 06:07 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of 'becomings'... Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming sevenfold' to deal with the degraded church(es) makes no sense whatsoever to me. The record in scripture shows seven lamps of fire, burning before the mercy seat ever since Moses was commanded to "build all things according to the pattern which you have seen on the holy mountain". (Heb 8:5; Exod 25:40)

So when Lee considered the seven flames burning before the throne in Revelation 4:5, to him this was the one Spirit of Ephesians 4:4, now processed? What a stretch. Do we really think John meant that? No; John knew well the history of the tabernacle, the ark and the temple. John knew of seven lamps shining before the throne, at least since the time of Exodus 25, and arguably would be aware that this represented heavenly, i.e. eternal things; immutable, or nearly so, from our earthly and temporal perspectives.

Yet suddenly, five of the seven Asian churches showed degradation, and God needed to intensify the Spirit to overcome that? The more Lee tried to fit the scripture to his hermeneutic, the worse it looked; and his interpretative template disintegrated here, if it hadn't already, with the 'becoming intensified' idea. There had been seven lamps burning, all along. John knew that, and would expect his readers to know that.

And is God that mutable, needing to react to church degradation by processing and 'intensifying' Himself? I don't think this deserves serious and/or lengthy consideration; their recent A&C position paper, with the thinnest veneer of purported 'scholarship', supporting the intensification idea, is also largely posturing for the faithful. Another pamphlet to sell to the True Believers.

01-19-2016 05:42 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I think the key to that verse is that as far as the experience of the people was concerned, the Spirit was not yet. He was poured out at Pentecost and has been with us ever since. So even the terse rendering that Lee favored so much was correct — just not in the way he taught it.

In terms of the sequence that God had ordained, God — the one who did so much but could not be looked upon — became flesh. Not the whole Godhead, but the Son. Yet because of the shared existence, the fullness of the godhead dwelt in Him. But the sequence required that the man, Jesus, fulfill certain things. He had to die, arise, and be taken away from this world as a physical person. Then the Spirit came to be with all of us, not just the ones in the right place at the right time.

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of "becomings." But the Trinity had decided that the Son would come to the earth as a man. Not to just any random group of people, but to one that was prepared to a sufficient extent to be looking for him and already following his ways (generally, as a people, not specifically in every way). From there he had a way to generate followers without coercion. Their life and testimony (heavily that life) would attract more followers. At that point, the group of followers would expand beyond what could go find the person Jesus within a few days of walking and so it was time to put the next phase in motion. The Spirit came which made the invisible God more closely connected with his people without sending prophets or signs.

Yes there was a process. But it was not really a processing of God as Lee would have it, but a preparation of the people. It was a preparing of the way. And one day the preparation was close to complete so a man came saying "prepare the way." Then he came as man. He changed their thinking from ritual that covered sin to redemption that forgave sin. Then the Spirit was poured out and we all have a better way than even the disciples did during Jesus' time on earth.

Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

01-18-2016 01:32 PM

ABrotherinFaith

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

... he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."
... He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside....
Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

Yeah, this makes it clearer...I remember hearing or reading about how the Father is the Son is the Spirit...or something like that. I never really got too much into the life studies or the HWFMR. I am sure some of you here could correct me. Is that what underpins the recovery version along with God's economy and our somewhat deification? And if so, what are the consequences that in the verse I mentioned, the Spirit was not yet. (John 7:39)

The following is the footnote for the word Spirit in John 7:39:
The Spirit of God was there from the beginning (Gen 1:1-2), but at the time the Lord spoke this word, the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:19), was not yet, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected (Luke 24:26). After Jesus' resurrection, the Spirit of God became the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, who was breathed into the disciples by Christ in the evening of the day on which He was resurrected (John 20:22). The Spirit is now the "another Comforter," the Spirit of Reality promised by Christ before His death (John 14:16-17). When the Spirit was the Spirit of God, He had only the divine element. After He became the Spirit of Jesus Christ through Christ's incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, The Spirit had both the divine element and the human element, with all the essence and realty of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Spirit is now the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus CHrist as the living water for us to receive (John 7:38-39)

Pretty confusing to me.

01-18-2016 11:24 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

I would agree that Lee was not modalistic in the sense that most theologians use the term. But he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."

He would make statements like "there is only one spirit, therefore if the last Adam becomes the life giving spirit, then that must mean the Holy Spirit" (paraphrased). While he would argue against modalism, he would insist that there was no real, meaningful three. He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside.

"There is only one spirit" is a false statement. There is only one with the name "Spirit" but God the Father is spirit. As are Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. But the reference to "spirit" is not about person, but about nature, or essence. When Jesus told the woman at the well that God is spirit, he did not say that God is the Holy Spirit. He said that God is not a singular being with a fixed location. God is of essence that is dispersed. There is no "here" or "there" with respect to God. No need to worship at this place because that is where he is. He is everywhere.

And Lee's oft-quoted question that went something like "is there more than one spirit that gives life?" is a misunderstanding of terms. Jesus gives life and he is spirit. But he is not the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit also gives life because God gives life. But the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, yet he is spirit and gives life. Same analysis for the Son and the Spirit.

Was Lee just that ignorant about what he was talking about? Or was he that deceitful? I am not sure that there are any other options. Either he really didn't understand or he was a manipulator of linguistics to arrive at conclusions that the words couldn't actually get to.

Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

01-17-2016 12:51 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

"Much is said in favour of a literal translation. But in many cases this makes no sense whatever, and would sometimes make nonsense. What is wanted is an idiomatic version: i.e., the exact reproduction, not of the words, but of the thought and meaning of the phrase. It is in this that the difference is seen between the Authorized Version and the Revised. The former is a Version, while the latter is a translation. Hence the A.V. [Note: The Authorized Version, or current Text of our English Bible, 1611.] is English, while the RV; often is not.

This refers to words as well as to phrases. To bring the matter home, imagine an Englishman and an American translating from the French:-Gare, the one would render "Station," and the other "Depôt": Wagon de marchandises would be in English "Goods-Truck"; and in America, "Freight Car": Bureau (de billets) would be "Booking Office" and "Ticket Office" respectively; En Voiture would be, in English, "Take your seats": and in America, "All aboard."" E.W.Bullinger

http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/fos/view.cgi?n=123

Dr. Bullinger Figures of Speech Used in the Bible can be downloaded from this site, which both I highly recommend. It is number 42.

http://www.charleswelch.net/books.htm

01-17-2016 12:38 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

If anyone is interested in the history of English Bible Translation here is a nice site. If you have time try to find in the preface of so many Bible one that come close to the claims of the RcV.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

About Darby and his translation the author of the website writes,

"Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/darby.html

01-17-2016 12:17 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Witness Lee didn't equate the term "the Kingdom of the Heavens" to just to the church (see his chart after Matthew 5:4 in Recovery Version), it includes the church and the Millennium age with the Messianic Kingdom within it.

Sure. I was limiting my comment only on footnotes 2.2 and 2.3 of Mat. 3:2.

01-17-2016 12:05 AM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

To JJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

The analogy to one bolt being bad causing us to throw out the whole Ferrari seems extreme,.

I didn't say that.

01-16-2016 07:59 PM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Nice to know you use Rec. Ver. with discernment.

Yes, I remember those days when each book would come out during the "trainings" with far fewer footnotes, and when LSM added the new notes.

I like the new notes on one level, because they make it easier to know what Witness Lee "shared" on a particular verse or section of scripture (don't have to go searching through another publication).

I missed a lot of the sad drama people discuss on these pages because I was not in one of those regions. My region had its own drama that caused me to be outside for 20 years praying, reading the Bible, fellowshipping with believers outside of the recovery, occaisionally popping into Recovery meetings, then trying to work within it it again for 10 years. I left again when I could no longer endure the wretching in my spiritual stomach, objections of the Lord Spirit in my spirit, and His leading said "get out".

01-16-2016 11:08 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is

Translation work is extremely difficult, and when to supply words for the readers' help is just one situation. No translation can ever arrive at "perfection," which is why I prefer a multitude of translations along with footnotes.

John 7.39 is an example of a verse that just defies theology. Various writers in church history (Darby, Lee, et. al.) have attempted to tackle it, but they risk being tagged Modalists, or worse. I feel it is best just to note it without promoting it, otherwise exclusive elitists sects like the LCM and the Peebs are the result.

Btw, the early RecVers (Ingalls et.al.) actually began with a minimum of footnotes, selecting only those words or verses which are more troublesome. Later on, LSM's "translation team" were instructed to go thru all the Life-Studies to cull the "riches," and thus pad the RecVers with Lee's theology. I still use the RecVers (old and new versions), and do use the cross references and explanatory footnotes at times. Much of the Outline I no longer agree along with Lee's controversial stuff in the footnotes.

01-16-2016 10:11 AM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is not in the Greek text.

"Light" comes to us in the person of Jesus Christ. And, while our brothers and sisters often help us to see "the Light", they and we are not The Light, just luminaries reflecting Him. Unfortunately, our dear brother and his followers (including me) fell into the snare of Lucifer by looking at the glory and beauty given by the Lord to the recovery when it was beholding and reflecting Him, taking the credit, and grasping equality with God.

01-16-2016 09:55 AM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat. 3:2 “And Saying, Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (RcV)

It is very interesting that John the Baptist didn't have to explain what the kingdom of the heavens was. That means that every Jew understood what he meant. The Lord Jesus was the son of David, the King of the Jews (2:2; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 27:37; “...and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:32-33). The Lord Jesus came to establish the Messianic kingdom promised to David, of which every Jew knew very well.

Let's come to footnote 2.2 and 2.3. In the first one the RcV says that the kingdom of the heavens is different from the Messianic kingdom. In the second, that according to Mat. 16:18-19 “the terms church and kingdom of the heavens are used interchangeably.” If these things were true, than we should expect John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, and the apostles to clearly tell the Jews that their were mistaken in expecting a literal kingdom to be established according to what God promised in the O.T.. Concerning the word church it should be noticed that in the O.T. there was a church. Act 7:38 “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (K.J.V.) Why the RcV doesn't use the word church in this verse?

The RcV draws a parallel between church and kingdom of the heavens because the two terms happen to be in the same context. Let's see how the same interprets these two verses. Mat 19:23: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (K.J.V.) It is actually here there the two terms are interchangeable and not in Mat. 16:18-19! Footnote 24.2 makes a distinction between these two terms, but its position is not defensible. Why the double standard in finding synonyms, we might ask?

But, let's assume for a moment that church and kingdom of the heavens mean the same thing and read Mat. 3:2 again: “And Saying, Repent for the church has drawn near.” How does this verse sounds now? The church is coming! Therefore repent! This doesn't sound very scary. After all isn't the church, as the Body of Christ, living in the age of grace? This is absurd. John was telling the Jews that the wrath was coming! The axe was laid at the root of the trees. That Messiah would thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat. 3:7-12). That's why he was urging the people to repent and be baptized.

01-16-2016 09:37 AM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

In the "A BRIEF EXPLANATION" in the NT Rc version, it is written, "The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes. Hence, this translation and the accompanying footnotes could be calle the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years."

If these claims are true, it will be really unwise not to devote lots of our time to delve into these footnotes. If they are false, on the contrary, then

To begin with I personally do not like when people boast, especially if they are Christians. It is better to be praised by others, if that is the Lord's will. In any case, due to the claims that this "product" claims to be or contain, I suggest that we put it to the test beginning with the Gospel of Matthew and see if these things are so. In buying a Ferrari people would expect that every little part of it is outstanding! If there is a failure in any part, even a bolt it will be a shame for the car maker, and the car will be replaced. In the same way, if there is even a small error in this translation and/or footnotes it would demonstrate that the claims are false or at least too "optimistic", and a replacement would not solve the problem!!

So, let's begin this journey!

In Matt. 1:2 it says that, " Abraham begot Isaac..... " The footnotes 1/4 indicates that Isaac was a type of Christ because he was obedient to his father even unto death and then "he took Rebekah, a Gentile woman, as his wife (Gen. 2:61-67)."

I agree on the first point. Regarding the second point, Was Rebekah a Gentile? Wasn't she the daughter of one of Isaac cousins?

In Christ,

testallthings

I agree with the thought to test all things, and put the Recovery Version to the test. The analogy to one bolt being bad causing us to throw out the whole Ferrari seems extreme, Ferrari hasn't always had absolutely perfect cars every time. But, they do work to improve their cars when there is a flaw. That's where we need to challenge Living Stream Ministry. Your example here is a good one. Issac clearly is a type of Christ in many things, including Witness Lee's first point, his receiving all things from his father, and begetting the next generation of God's people. Using Rebecca as "Gentile woman" is not a good "proof text".

01-16-2016 07:58 AM

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

[QUOTE=testallthings;46450]“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569).

Good and interesting points made in this post. Thanks for the reference, which is new to me.

I'm having a hard time throwing out James (and I guess 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and maybe Jude, "epistles to the dispersion") altogether from our bibles, because there are so many things that apply the "the New Man" where there are no Jews or Gentiles (But Christ is all and in all). "Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights" comes to mind. I do like the idea of being careful to not assume it all applies to Gentile believers.

01-16-2016 06:49 AM

NewManLiving

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

01-16-2016 05:39 AM

ABrotherinFaith

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Really interesting thread.

It wasn't until I started read other versions that I started to feel the awkwardness of the Recovery version. I thought the Bible just sounded like that (I am thinking of things like Galatians 3:24 using "child-conductor." What is that?!). I was reading John and came to 7:39 He said this about the Spirit. Those who believed in Jesus were going to receive the Spirit, for the Spirit had not yet been received because Jesus had not yet been glorified (HCSB) or in the NLT When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.

The Recovery version omits any past participle after yet. It reads like this : But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

I think the omission fits the modalist (?) idea of the processed triune God and is wholly intentional, ignoring the sense of the text in order to support an interpretation under the guise of being more accurate.

What do you all think about this?

01-15-2016 11:14 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

01-10-2016 07:59 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569).

“We could hardly have a more suitable and powerful example of the importance of attending to
the one great requirement of "the Word of Truth"; as to rightly dividing its subject matter.
In the matter of letters, or epistles, it is very important in our social life to carefully observe the
address written on the envelope. It makes for peace and harmony, and prevents awkward
mistakes and misunderstandings.
It is a mistake that is sometimes made, and it may be that when we have opened a letter that is
not addressed to us we commence to read it; and as we read on we find things said that are
exceedingly interesting and most instructive; but we come upon other things which we cannot
make out, and we find references to matters which we do not understand, and to circumstances
with which we are unacquainted, because we are not the persons directly written to.
Then, if we are wise, we turn to the address, and there we discover the mistake we have made,
and the cause of all our confusion. It is exactly so with
3. The Epistles to the Dispersion.—No Epistle has been the source of such confusion, and none
has received such treatment as that written by James.
(a) The Epistle of James is addressed:—
To the Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad.
Doubtless they were believers, up to a certain point; but exactly what they believed, or how far
they believed we are not told.
They evidently, as Jews, believed that Christ was the Messiah, and had a certain amount of light:
but the question is, Did they, as sinners, believe in Christ as their Saviour; or know that "Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth"? It is clear from the surface
of the Epistle that they did not have the standing of those who were "called to be saints": or of
members of the spiritual Body of Christ, as set forth in the Epistles addressed to the churches of
Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse.
They were "Christians" as distinguished from Jews and Gentiles, but were they members of "the
Church of God?" Who are the "ye" in chapter 4? Who are the "rich men" in 5:1? The stand-point
of the epistle is wholly Jewish. They were monotheists as appears from 2:19. Their place of
worship was the "Synagogue" (2:2, margin).
In 5:12 the prohibition of swearing is according to the Jewish formula; and, in verse 14 the
anointing with oil is in accordance with Jewish practice at that time.
Spiritual and vital Christianity is nowhere seen. Only twice is "Christ" named at all (1:1; 2:1).
The word "Gospel" is not used, and the "Mystery" is unknown. The fundamental doctrines of
the Gospel are not even alluded to: such as Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, Resurrection,
or Ascension.
The Morality of the Law is there (2:8,13). The coming of the Lord as the Judge is there (5:8,9).
Justification by works is there (2:20-26).
All the errors combated refer to Judaism. Religion (threskeia) is there, but it is shown that the
works of mercy and charity are better than all the outward forms of religious worship. Fatalism,
formalism and hypocrisy, arrogance and oppression, are specially dealt with; but surely these are
not the sins which distinguish and characterize the Church of God.
All the phenomena are Palestinian or Eastern, as we may gather from the references to the early
and latter rain (5:7); to the fig, oil, and wine (3:12); to drought (5:17,18); to salt and bitter
springs (3:11,12); and to the hot wind (1:11).
The Epistle is full of references to the Sermon on the Mount, which (as we shall see later) has
reference to the past Dispensation, not to the present. We may compare
James 1:2, 5:10,11 with Matthew 5:10-12
James 1:4 with Matthew 5:48
James 1:5,17, 5:15 with Matthew 7:7,11
James 1:9, 2:5 with Matthew 5:3
James 1:22-25, 2:10,11 with Matthew 5:19
James 1:20 with Matthew 5:22
James 1:22, 2:14, 5:7-9 with Matthew 7:21-26
James 2:1-3 with Matthew 6:2,5
James 2:8 with Matthew 7:12
James 2:10,11 with Matthew 7:12
James 2:13 with Matthew 6:14,15, 7:2
James 2:14 with Matthew 7:21
James 3:1, 4:11 with Matthew 7:1
James 3:12 with Matthew 7:16
James 3:17,18 with Matthew 5:9
James 4:3 with Matthew 7:8
James 4:4 with Matthew 6:24
James 4:8 with Matthew 5:8
James 4:9 with Matthew 5:4
James 4:10 with Matthew 5:3,4
James 4:11 with Matthew 7:1
James 4:13-16 with Matthew 6:25
James 5:2 with Matthew 6:19
James 5:10 with Matthew 5:12
James 5:12 with Matthew 5:34
From other parts of the Lord's teaching in connection with the Kingdom we may compare
James 1:14 with Matthew 15:19
James 4:12 with Matthew 10:28
James 5:1 with Luke 6:24
These phenomena in the subject-matter, when interpreted of the Church of God, and
appropriated by those who are "in Christ," and "complete in Him," led to such confusion that,
though the Epistle was in the primitive Syriac version from the first (cent. ii.), and was quoted as
Canonical by the great Greek Fathers or cent. iv., yet there were always great doubts about its
canonicity, and delays in receiving it.
These doubts were revived when translations of the Bible began to be made at the Reformation.
Erasmus, Luther, and others questioned the canonicity of the Epistle; and it is well known that
Luther went so far as to call it "a veritable Epistle of straw" ("Eine rechte stroherne Epistel").
The same difficulties and doubts are felt to-day. But they are all caused by interpreting of the
Church of God that which is written to quite a different class of people belonging to "the Twelve
Tribes."
The question is, Do we belong to "the Twelve Tribes"? Do we worship in a Synagogue? Is it our
custom, as a People, to anoint with oil? Is not the "Assembly" of James 5:14* identical with the
"Synagogue of 2:2?**
* Which is translated "church" in AV and RV.
** Which is translated "Assembly" in AV and "Synagogue" in RV.
The answers to these questions will show that the Epistle is not addressed to us, i.e., to those
who are "in Christ," and who are "the Church of God."
The moment we discern this, and rightly divide off, the class of persons addressed, there will be
an end of all the laboured arguments to bring the Epistle of James into harmony with the Epistle
to the Romans; and of all attempts to reconcile its teaching with that of Ephesians or Colossians.
There will be nothing either to harmonize or to reconcile. James will be seen to be true in what
he wrote to those whom he addressed, and Paul will be seen to be true in what he wrote. Both
will be seen to be true in what they said to those to whom they were respectively inspired to
write, if we rightly divide these portions of the Word of truth.” (How to enjoy the Bible, E.W. Bullinger, 1916)

This is just a short excerpt from a book I highly recommend, and it is in the public domain. I am making the “mistake” of only posting this part, so this may raise more questions than answers. I hope those who have time and are willing may read more from the book itself. At the same time I do not want to distract anyone from the main reason of this thread. (But I am guilty of just doing that. Sorry.)

01-10-2016 11:11 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago.

“We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.”

I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation.

I noted this in my study on Psalms. Lee held the psalmist to a different set of standards. When King Agag got hacked to bits by the prophet Samuel, Agag signified the flesh. Samuel's violent zeal, therefore, was approved.

But when the psalmist pursued his enemies and "beat them small" (18:37) he was being uncharitable, and not following the NT economy, so-called, and blessing his enemy. So the first got interpreted spiritually, and was approved for his being absolute, and the second interpreted literally, and condemned.

I don't think Lee would have gotten away with this in a seminary paper. But as the self-styled MOTA his every word was divinely-inspired. Even if his various inspirations were contradictory.

01-09-2016 10:14 AM

TLFisher

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I'll postpone my rant for now, but limiting my post to the James 4:17 footnote, I disagree with the footnotes author. It's not a matter of whether the recipient of James' epistle is helped or not.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2 Timothy 3:16

If we believe all scripture is God breathed, then we believe James epistle is God breathed. Whether one thinks James lines up with God's Economy is irrelevant.
There's a verse from the Old Testament that pairs up with James 4:17.

"Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt. " Leviticus 5:1

01-08-2016 02:25 PM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not say that there is nothing true in this footnote. But its primary thrust creates a false sense of our part in the process of living righteously. Lee has made some necessary component that Christians can miss out of something that they always have. Jesus did not say to believe in Him and keep digging inward to find Him and sin no more. He said to go and sin no more. I think that Peter's "you have everything you need" statement sums it up nicely. We have it. We don't need to figure out how to exercise out spirit, but how to exercise ourselves unto righteousness.

I think Lee mis-aims twice. Neither of the mis-aimings are of themselves wrong, but are not the point of the exercise. Lee says there are "dead letters" and "law-keepers" like the Pharisees. Then he says, there are the (NT) "kingdom people" who live by Christ. But there is a gaping hole in the middle.

You see, there was this guy named Jesus. He lived in the reality of all the pious statements of well-meaning sinners who declared fealty to God's governmental kingdom. This Obedient Son is the shining object of the whole thing. Lee segues neatly from the failed OT law-keepers to the successful NT grace-livers, missing the One in the middle who holds the whole thing together.

Paul and Peter didn't give exegeses on David's inability to fulfill his prophetic word. They noted the inability of David, true (e.g. Acts 2:29) but then said that the word was still true. Jesus filled it. Lee seems determined to miss the obvious, here.

Anyway, that's my own subjective take on his teaching. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing as OBW in the bolded part of the quote. Or similar.

01-08-2016 07:58 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Matt 5:20, Note 1

Quote:

Righteousness here does not refer only to objective righteousness, which is the Christ whom we receive when we believe in Him and are thus justified before God (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 3:26); it refers even more to subjective righteousness, which is the indwelling Christ lived out of us as our righteousness that we may live in the reality of the kingdom today and enter into its manifestation in the future. This subjective righteousness is obtained not by merely the fulfilling of the old law, but by the complementing of the old law through the fulfilling of the new law of the kingdom of the heavens given by the new King here in this section of the Word. This righteousness of the kingdom people, which is according to the new law of the kingdom, surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, which is according to the old law. It is impossible for our natural life to gain this surpassing righteousness; it can be produced only by a higher life, the resurrection life of Christ. This righteousness, which is likened to the wedding garment (22:11-12), qualifies us to participate in the wedding of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-8) and inherit the kingdom of the heavens in its manifestation, that is, to enter into the kingdom of the heavens in the future.

I find it interesting that there is something in scripture that supports the idea of objective righteousness. Lee provides 1 Cor 1:30 and Rom 3:26.

But after that, it is strictly what Lee says. He pontificates for 187 of the 218 words found in this note with not even a hint that there is a basis for what he is saying. I see that he does mention a couple of other verses (Matt 22:11-12 and Rev 19:7-8) but they are not in support of the proposition that there is a subjective righteousness, rather support for other items which he claims comes from the subjective righteousness.

He continues to write:

Quote:

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is the righteousness of letters, which they practiced by their own life according to the old law of letters; the surpassing righteousness of the kingdom people is the righteousness of life, which they live out by taking Christ as their life according to the new law of life. Both in nature and in standard, the righteousness of life far surpasses the lifeless righteousness practiced by the scribes and Pharisees.

It is true that the scribes and the Pharisees practiced the old "law of letters." But there is nothing here or anywhere else that dictates that it was the fact of doing it "by their own life" that was a problem.

I do not say that there is nothing true in this footnote. But its primary thrust creates a false sense of our part in the process of living righteously. Lee has made some necessary component that Christians can miss out of something that they always have. Jesus did not say to believe in Him and keep digging inward to find Him and sin no more. He said to go and sin no more. I think that Peter's "you have everything you need" statement sums it up nicely. We have it. We don't need to figure out how to exercise out spirit, but how to exercise ourselves unto righteousness.

Besides, how else do we live God's life than by believing in Jesus and living according to what is commanded.

While I spent a bit of time on my take on Lee's theology, it is more noteworthy that Lee had a lot to say, but not much support for what he said, And I believe it should be evident that what he said is not consistent with what the scriptures say elsewhere.

In short, an opinion not supported by anything. And he honestly didn't support it. Just said it.

01-08-2016 05:43 AM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, fairly well said. But almost always ignored by the one saying it..

I'd add that one should take heed how the Bible treats scripture. Here I'm thinking specifically of New Testament (NT) reception of OT texts. (But it could also be seen in echoes of the law within wisdom literature in the OT, as well. Etc.)

The NT authors established precedent in reception of the OT. Lee clearly overturned that precedent by rejecting parts of the OT as fallen concepts of pious sinners, versus inspired revelation. Nowhere did the NT even hint that this was proper treatment. Lee even castigated NT authors (e.g. Peter, James, Jude) for being too reverent with scripture.

01-08-2016 05:32 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

“The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.”
. . . .
“The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.”
. . . .

Any comment on this point?

Actually, fairly well said. But almost always ignored by the one saying it.

Lee was so full of "spiritual overlays" that he used to ignore the literal meaning of the words — even negating them and in some cases declaring them virtually out of the Bible. And while I do not recall him saying this directly, certain of his followers sure came around here (or the other forum years ago) using 1 Cor 2:14 to declare that only spiritual discernment could understand what the literal words really meant. You couldn't take the words at face value, but needed spiritual seeing.

Then we come back to this passage concerning John the Baptist. And when you get down to it, Lee said a lot that was not in the Bible. Without digging into the rest of the Bible (as has now been done) it may or may not have been true. But Lee said it, so it was considered as good as original scripture. And then no one had their mind on when they came to the parts where Jesus taught in the Temple. Or where the apostles taught daily in the Temple.

Of course they noted that last one and probably claimed that the destruction of Jerusalem was designed to chase them away from the Temple — yet another baseless claim that needs spiritual seeing but no literal words.

In short, despite some statements of sound theology in the past, Lee was busy rewriting scripture and its meaning with his footnotes, and in a few cases with his translation through peculiar renderings.

01-07-2016 07:18 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I would like to introduce another footnote. This one in on Matthew 3:1
“Now in those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the wilderness of Judea” (RcV)

Footnote 1(2) John the Baptist's preaching was the initiation of God's New Testament economy. He did this preaching not in the holy temple within the holy city, where the religious and cultured people worshipped God according to their scriptural ordinances, but in the wilderness, in a 'wild' way, not keeping any old regulations. This indicates that the old way of worshipping God according to the Old Testament had been repudiated and that a new way was about to be brought in. Wilderness here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture. It indicates further that something new was going to be built up.

Before analyzing this statements, I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago.
“The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.”

Does anyone disagree about these words? I do not.

“The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.”

Any comment on this point? This is a principle that many students of the Bible would agree on. In most cases, shall we say 99%, a literal interpretation should be preferred over a spiritual interpretation.

“We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.”

I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation.

With this in mind, let's come to the footnote. John the Baptist with his preaching initiated GNTe . He did not preach in the holy temple in the holy city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the place of religious and cultured people that worshipped God according to the Bible, as commanded by God Himself. So John, who wanted to start something new, went into the wilderness, “not keeping any old regulation”.

The first question that comes to my mind is which of the prophets in the O.T. preached in the temple. We know that some spoke far away from Israel (Daniel for example). Thus this mean that they started something new? The Lord Jesus taught in temple, or more precisely in the court of the temple, as well some of His apostles. Does this mean that John the Baptist introduced the GNTe and they brought back the GOTe?

The second question is, How could John the Baptist baptize so many people in the temple? By sprinkling them? Joh 3:23 “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” He needed much water so he went were he could find it.

The third question is, Was baptism a new regulation? To me, it seems that baptism is a very old regulation. Does anyone need proofs? And by the way, when John was asked about what they shall do (the people) did he said something about a new way of worshipping God?

The fourth question is, If wilderness “ here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture”, can someone, who is an expert in spiritual interpretations, and knows how to mix literal and spiritual interpretations in the same passage, please tell me at least what Judea means (you don't need to explain what John the Baptist means).

01-07-2016 01:36 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I think this statement is spot-on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would guess that Lee drew from Brethren authors here who loved to draw comparisons such as this, whether accurate or not.

And Lee loved to do the same thing.

01-07-2016 01:34 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Once again, the Quote button is not working on this particular post, those it has on others.

A few posts back, testallthings said:

Quote:

I would like to voice my opinion (just take it as simply as that) on the matter. It seems to me that in most cases when a person or an angel makes a mistake, there is usually a rebuke made by God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), by angels, and/or by man (prophet, man of God, seer, apostle....). Examples abounds in the Old and New Testament as well. So, if there is not explicit condemnation regarding a supposed mistake, I am not prone to strongly affirm that someone were mistaken.

I am happy to take this as just that, his opinion. And I find little wrong with it, except to note that it should include some kind of restriction to its application to those actions, events, etc., that are recorded in scripture, not all mistakes made by man. But I think that is what he meant.

To me the real problem with so many of the footnotes of the nature that have been mentioned here are that they are so often taking a marginal or less favored position (or unique altogether) with little more than the statement that it is so. That is just too "Lee." And why did he do that? We really don't know. But it is notable that the result was that we, his followers, were sure that we had better understanding of scripture because we were sure that Lee's interpretations were spiritually superior to all others. Therefore, since only small segments of Christianity agreed on various such positions as stated in the footnotes, we were sure that we were better than all those other Christian groups.

Did Lee really believe what he wrote? Difficult to see is the mind of a dead man. But either way the result was the same. We had our own little "Lee, to whom shall we go? You have the words of Ministry."

(I feel a song coming on . . .

Lee, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of ministry
And we believe that you are
the Minister of the Age
)
Not sure of the name of the original song, but I'm sure some of you have heard it. Maybe something like "You Only."

01-07-2016 12:12 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true. Read Genesis 6 again, especially verse 4. Or perhaps you don't believe the flood ever happened?

That is not true. Putting the Bible verses together in order to understand God's judgments of old is the proper study of the scriptures. I have only used what is written.

Sounds like perhaps you've never done this before, otherwise you would not attempt to disparage me for doing so.

OK. I read it again. And I was already reading v 4 in the first place. It is interesting that this verse could be read as being entirely about Nephilim, or about 2 different things. But either way, God said nothing directly concerning it. He spoke concerning the wickedness of man and made no specific comment about regretting Nephilim.

And for humans, the issue is the wickedness of our own race. The fallen status of angelic beings (sons of God) and their interaction with man was not commented on — just noted as having happened.

As for disparaging, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You: "OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?"

Me: "You are getting your panties in a wad over my lack of simply taking the knee-jerk reaction that some provide"

As I pointed out above, it is not stated that the reason for the judgment of the flood was Nephilim. It was stated as because of the condition of mankind. Surely everything went in the flood. But there was no specific statement concerning judgment of Nephilim that I can find in the whole chapter, so maybe you should not disparage me by claiming that I have never "proper study of the scriptures."

And when it comes to understanding the problems with the RecV, it is the kind of extra-biblical overlays that are among the most serious issues. Lots of statements of "A means B" without ever establishing it as true. Just saying it.

01-07-2016 08:01 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Genesis 19 gives a pretty clear picture that angels not only can appear as men but apparently can be men. They certainly have a digestive system since they partook of a meal prepared by Lot.

They also enjoyed a meal prepared by Abraham. Obviously when these angels took human form, it was either directed or permitted by God.

Those angels, however, who rebelled against God along with Satan, apparently still possessed this ability to come to earth in human form. Jude 6-7 refers to "angels who did not keep their own position, but abandoned their proper dwelling." According to Genesis 6.2-4 these angel-sons of God desired the women on earth, and took them as wives producing half-breed Nephilim "men of renown," often glamorized in Greek mythology.

These angels are now kept in "eternal bonds awaiting judgment in that great day." It seems that once they left their abode in the heavenlies, they can not return. II Peter 2.4 repeats this judgment, adding more description, and I Peter 3.19-20 confirms that these disobedient spirit-angels were judged by God in the "days of Noah."

01-07-2016 06:36 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

In Matt. 1:2 it says that, " Abraham begot Isaac..... " The footnotes 1/4 indicates that Isaac was a type of Christ because he was obedient to his father even unto death and then "he took Rebekah, a Gentile woman, as his wife (Gen. 2:61-67)."

I agree on the first point. Regarding the second point, Was Rebekah a Gentile? Wasn't she the daughter of one of Isaac cousins?

Getting back to this footnote about Rebekah being a Gentile, it appears that this is just another of Lee's "overlays."

The word "Gentile" comes from the Greek word "ἔθνος," (Strong #1484) or in English "ethnos," where we get the word "ethnic." It refers to a "people, a nation, a multitude of people of the same nature." (Vine) The New Testament variously translates this as nations, heathen, or Gentiles. Interestingly, when the Pharisees accused Jesus before Pilate, they said He "perverted our nation," (Luke 23.2) using this same word to refer to Israel that is derogatorily used by them to describe all "heathen," especially Romans.

My complaint here is two-fold. Neither Jesus nor Isaac married "Gentiles." The Bible never says this. Jesus marries the believers, redeemed by the Lamb, who have made themselves ready. (Rev 19.7-9) They will be "like Him" (I John 3.1-3) in contrast to the "world" which will "not know Him" at all. Concerning Rebekah, we have already noted that she was not a foreigner to Isaac, but a relative of his, even his own cousin. Jacob, his son, likewise, did not take a wife from Caanan, as he also married his 2nd cousins. Esau, on the other hand, took a wife from among the "Gentile" locals.

I would guess that Lee drew from Brethren authors here who loved to draw comparisons such as this, whether accurate or not.

01-06-2016 09:04 PM

NewManLiving

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Genesis 19 gives a pretty clear picture that angels not only can appear as men but apparently can be men. They certainly have a digestive system since they partook of a meal prepared by Lot. It only stands to reason that they also (as taking on matter ) have all the "other parts" including a reproductive system, eliminatory system etc... Of course they could resemble a child's toy doll and have no genitalia at all. But to me that is absurd. From a strictly logical perspective it appears that Angels have a higher understanding and ability to use the little "atom" than we do. We can make a bomb, but they can form a body when it is required of them. Would not surprise me if some found the daughters of men quite stimulating. Interesting thoughts on the subject can be found in Pember's writings, Sauer and others

01-06-2016 08:31 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

I find the topic of the Nephilim, or giant, a very interesting topic indeed. Many students of the Bible, Jews and Christians as well, have written so much on it. On the other hand so little, in comparison, has been written about the RcV and its footnotes. That's why the topic of this thread.

So far I have introduced two footnotes. Regarding the first one, if Rebekah was or wasn't a Gentile woman, there were different points of view. On the second, regarding the supposed mistake that the magi committed in going to Jerusalem, and the alleged mistake of the chief priest and scribes in not going to see the new born King, some have stated that these are only conjectures of the writer of the footnote.

I would like to voice my opinion (just take it as simply as that) on the matter. It seems to me that in most cases when a person or an angel makes a mistake, there is usually a rebuke made by God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), by angels, and/or by man (prophet, man of God, seer, apostle....). Examples abounds in the Old and New Testament as well. So, if there is not explicit condemnation regarding a supposed mistake, I am not prone to strongly affirm that someone were mistaken.

Second, it was the magi that saw the star, not others. Like the shepherds who were told by the angel to go to Bethelem to see the baby Savior, Christ the Lord. So they did. Luk 2:15 "And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us." The vision was for them. After that Luk 2:17 says, " And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. Luk 2:18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds". Did “all they that heard it” go to see the baby. We do not know.

Seeing the little child, and recognize Him as the Savior, was permitted to very few people, Simeon and Anna being among them. I wonder if they went to Bethlehem, too. Rather the opposite is mentioned in the Gospels. The Savior went to them.

The chief priest and scribes did not go, though. But, it is true that starting with the appearing of John the Baptist, and from the baptism of the Lord Jesus, they were very much interested in knowing who the Baptist was (Joh 1:19 " And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? Joh 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. Joh 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Joh 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? Joh 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. Joh 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?") as well who the Lord Jesus was (scribes and Pharisees followed Him everywhere to find out if He was the Messiah. Even in the last hours of His earthly life He was asked, Mat 26:63 "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mat 27:41, "Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, Mat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.") They didn't believe. But to say that they were not interested it is not true. They could ask (and see all the miracles the Lord Jesus did) and decide to believe or not. Even if they went to see the baby Jesus they would not been able to ask Him anything.

.
According to Joh 1:31 (And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.) it was at His baptism that The Lord was to be made manifest to Israel. When He was a little child few people had the privilege to see Him as the Savior. From His baptism on He would be manifest to Israel as a whole. Today the Lord is seen and received by faith by many and maybe few in Israel. But one day (very soon, I hope) He will be seen even by those that pierced Him and so all Israel shall be saved.

01-06-2016 10:04 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

The funny thing is that there is nothing specifically indicating that nephilim is anything other than giants. Yes, it is part of the description of the sad state of affairs in Genesis, but without explanation. There is no further indication of why they were giants, or why they were included without explanation among the problems of the day (in Genesis).

That's not true. Read Genesis 6 again, especially verse 4. Or perhaps you don't believe the flood ever happened?

Quote:

But we have this burning desire to make more out of things than what is actually stated. I will admit that there was a problem and that their existence was somewhat hinted at as being generally part of it. But why do we insist on unstated facts beyond the description provided (giants)? Isn't it enough to note what is written without adding what is not?

That is not true. Putting the Bible verses together in order to understand God's judgments of old is the proper study of the scriptures. I have only used what is written.

Sounds like perhaps you've never done this before, otherwise you would not attempt to disparage me for doing so.

01-06-2016 08:28 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

And as to your question about Goliath, maybe it was because they translated the word rather than just transliterating it. Or another word for giant was used. And even if another word was used, it does not infer special meaning to the other.

Just think of all the analysis of Christian writings in English a few hundred years from now when the language has either significantly changed or is little-used. They will start finding the two words "bible" and "scripture" and despite the fact that we use them as virtual synonyms, they start trying to further differentiate them beyond what we actually mean. And imbue one with special meaning and the other as simply "book."

Or pick another set of nearly synonymous words and think about what someone 2,000 years from now will make of it when we switch them at will but they presume major differences in meaning.

I am not saying that there is absolutely nothing to Nephilim. But there is not much actual evidence of what it is. Anything beyond "giant" is little more than speculation.

01-06-2016 08:20 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying your premise that "giant" people are called nephilim for no other reason other than their size. Both instances of the word in scripture indicates an actual race of giants, which the Lord God saw fit to judge, first by a vast flood, and then by a great army.

If all giant guys were called nephilim, then why is there no mention of Goliath being a nephilim?

The funny thing is that there is nothing specifically indicating that nephilim is anything other than giants. Yes, it is part of the description of the sad state of affairs in Genesis, but without explanation. There is no further indication of why they were giants, or why they were included without explanation among the problems of the day (in Genesis).

But we have this burning desire to make more out of things than what is actually stated. I will admit that there was a problem and that their existence was somewhat hinted at as being generally part of it. But why do we insist on unstated facts beyond the description provided (giants)? Isn't it enough to note what is written without adding what is not?

We could presume a lot. Maybe those that were somehow born extremely large did a form of pre-historic genetic engineering by procreating with others of similar size. That would be something that could be understood as done with a goal to producing a race of people who would be capable of conquering others and ruling over them.

But we throw the word "Nephilim" around as if it is synonymous with "demon spawn" or something like it. The record is too bland to arrive at that kind of analysis — especially as the analysis. And as at least one Bible dictionary asserts, one of the tribes of the Canaanites was called "Nephilim" so referring to them in Numbers is not unexpected. And fear of them is likely to be expected from any who do not respect the power of the one true God.

And that Bible dictionary did not infer anything on the Nephilim other than size.

01-06-2016 07:16 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So then there is the question of what Nephilim actually refers to. Is it truly linked to the pre-flood result of fallen angels marrying the sons of men? Or is that a conjecture itself. And if those were called Nephilim, is the current reference intended to establish a literal link, or just a general connection due to external characteristics?

So look into the word "Nephalim" and you find that it is a transliteration of the word found in both Genesis and Numbers. But the word simply means giant. Oddly, the reference in Genesis to the sons of God bearing children through the daughters of man is not linguistically linked to Nephilim. Just in the same sentence as being something "afterward." The word means giant. There is nothing special here except that they were larger than normal. And it appears that one of the Canaanite tribes was named Nephilim because there were some significantly large men among them.

I find it interesting that among certain ethnic groups there are sometimes larger than normal occurrences of extremely large and tall people. More common among certain Czech communities. I saw someone only slightly smaller than Andre the Giant in a butcher shop in West, Texas (the city, not the western part of Texas). I would be afraid if I had to go into battle where it was heavily hand-to-hand.

So is Nephilim really linked to something so spiritually special, or just a word left in its original language and thereby creating a buzz of mystery when the translated word would have simply indicated giants. Not saying giants are not significant. But is there really any mystery about them other than the fact of little explanation of how "giant" they were or how they came to be?

01-06-2016 06:37 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Yes we have Numbers 13:33, " And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

01-05-2016 07:13 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Not helpful.

First, most of it is unexplained non-English. You can't just post a bunch of Hebrew, Greek, or any other language an leave it at that.

Second, we are not talking about before the flood but at the time of the spies going in among the Canaanites to see if they thought they could take it.

True. From now on I'll try to post only in English (or to provide the translation). Just forget about the previous one.

01-05-2016 06:43 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

If micah6v8 doesn't want to pursue the question of where the Nephilim came from, let's respect his wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And, btw, I actually did provide one plausible explanation. And it is the existence of some people who clearly stand out as remarkably taller than others whose very presence scared the spies.

And to someone who had lived among "normal" people for years and had never seen anyone over 6 feet tall and was suddenly standing in the proximity of someone who was clearly 7 feet tall and the consideration was going to was against them, you don't think there would be some trepidation in them?

Do you have anything that actually makes Nephilim among the Canaanites true? If not . . . .

Yes we have Numbers 13:33, " And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

01-05-2016 08:24 AM

OBW

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

(And the Quote button would not work on this one, though it did on others today).

Quote:

“Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word...The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes.” (A brief explanation, NT RV Revised Edition 1991)

The problem here is "proper understanding." That is presumed by the writers of that statement to be Lee and his minions and no one else.

It is a claim of special understanding that allows them to further claim that their interpretation is correct even where it stands in contrast to the actual text of scripture in its original language.

01-05-2016 08:17 AM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

It is possible.

There are infact three possibilities.
“In respect to the Bne Elohim, we find three principal views: 1. they are filii magnatum puellas plebeias rapientes; 2. they are angels; 3. they are the pious, that is, the Sethites, in contrast with whom the “daughters of men” denote Cainitish women." (Lange, on Gen. 6:1-8). You can install e-sword with the relative modules and read a detailed and very long dissertation on the subject. I personally believe the second one is more plausible.

01-04-2016 11:03 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

From the RV Wiki pages:
The Recovery Version is a recent translation of the Bible from the revised 1990 edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,[2] and the Nestle-Aland Greek text as found in Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edition).[3] The translators believe that Christians’ understanding of the Bible has progressed in the past two thousand years, in part due to "philological and exegetical scholarship that makes more precise the meaning of the biblical words or phrases or practices" [4] and in part due to an accumulation of Christian experience. This understanding forms the basis of this translation, with guidance from the major authoritative English versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version

Nell

Quoting from the same site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version
just from the beginning and before your quote

“The Recovery Version is a study Bible with a modern English translation of the Scriptures from their original languages. It is a result of roughly three decades of translation and revision work by the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, from 1974 to 2003. The New Testament was published in 1985 and revised in 1991, and the Holy Bible was published in 2003."

This seems to confirm what others have written about the first translation. But I leave this discussion to those who wrote about it.

There is another point which the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version
does not mention. I didn't mention it in my first post either, but now that you are coming back to it here it is:
“Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word...The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes.” (A brief explanation, NT RV Revised Edition 1991)

If I understand correctly it means that to translate the Bible it is not sufficient to know Hebrew and Greek, but that you have to understand the Bible. So with this understanding than we can go back and translate the Bible. I would like you to say something about this point.

One example of this kind of application would be Luke 4:19 “ To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of jubilee.” (RV) The words in italics been the “proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” (A brief explanation, NT RV Revised Edition 1991)
Another one is in Acts 13:1 “Now there were in Antioch, in the local church,....(RV)
Here local is part of the text. All major Bible translations say the church that was there.

It would be very interesting to know were the “proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” as a principle to help translate the Bible was applied. I only provided two examples. That's too bad.

I hope after this and other posts, that will surely follow, we could resume studying more footnotes from Matthew. I plan to do so a few days later. If God wills.

01-04-2016 08:19 PM

Nell

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages. I have a copy in my office and the translators are listed as "John C. Ingalls, Bill Duane, Albert Knoch, Witness Lee". It is my understanding that Duane did have an advanced degree in biblical Greek. I believe Knock's grandfather was a biblical translator (could have been an uncle or other relative). I think Ingalls was a self-taught student of biblical Greek (I may be wrong on this). Of course Witness Lee had absolutely zero former training of any sort and had no business being listed as a translator.

01-04-2016 07:41 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

For years I have been bothered by the footnote of James 4:17

"A concluding word to all the charges in the preceding verses. It says that if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing and yet will not do as he wrote, to them it is sin."

The author of the footnotes implies James 4:17 "Therefore to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." is conditional and optional.

What is it that bothers you?

01-04-2016 05:23 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Do the people who say that it is Nephilim say that it is possible, likely, definte? and if more than possible, do they provide any actual reasons other than a chain of suppositions?

01-04-2016 02:41 PM

OBW

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Others, as in the posted link, have expressed similar views.

Others with similar views is not the same as evidence.

Reminds me a little of an infectious disease doctor who does a podcast on supplements, complimentary and alternative medicines (SCAMs . . . his statement, not mine) in which he periodically notes that the plural of anecdote is not "data." Or an alternative way of putting it is that just because something could possibly be the cause does not make it the cause. Real facts need to be considered.

And since I am not going to look at the link right now, can you assert that the links provide more than supposition (even if reasonable supposition) and not just a presumption that it is a plausible explanation?

I'm not "calling you out." I'm just noting that we got where we were in the LCM by taking the fact that someone said something as if true without evidence that it was actually true. All of us. Me included. It sort of puts my guard up when anyone makes those kinds of statements and I have no basis to take it as true. And I note that it still infects those of us who are trying to get rid of that garlic room.

Do the people who say that it is Nephilim say that it is possible, likely, definte? and if more than possible, do they provide any actual reasons other than a chain of suppositions?

At some level, unless we are convinced that both Nee and Lee were simply charlatans fleecing religious people, they were no different. They thought they saw something and decided it had to be true, so it was. Eventually they even declared that their preferred status before God made it so. Lee was more direct in his declarations (eventually) but Nee was really little different other than the obtuse way he went about declaring himself the most spiritual person in any room.

01-04-2016 12:00 PM

TLFisher

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

01-04-2016 11:29 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version

The quote button is not working.

Quote:

So Nephilim is the "obvious" answer? That takes more than genius. It takes information that we do not have.

And that is my point. You are insisting on an answer without evidence of it at all.

I wouldn't say that. I am posting my understanding based on all the information I have. Others, as in the posted link, have expressed similar views.

01-04-2016 11:17 AM

OBW

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?

So Nephilim is the "obvious" answer? That takes more than genius. It takes information that we do not have.

And that is my point. You are insisting on an answer without evidence of it at all.

And, btw, I actually did provide one plausible explanation. And it is the existence of some people who clearly stand out as remarkably taller than others whose very presence scared the spies.

And to someone who had lived among "normal" people for years and had never seen anyone over 6 feet tall and was suddenly standing in the proximity of someone who was clearly 7 feet tall and the consideration was going to was against them, you don't think there would be some trepidation in them?

I don't need to prove any particular version of how it came to be. You need to prove how your singular answer is simply true. I did not say it could not be true — only that there was no actual evidence that it is, therefore only a possible answer.

You are getting your panties in a wad over my lack of simply taking the knee-jerk reaction that some provide — and without evidence. But it looks like you have taken it as simply true because it COULD explain things.

Do you have anything that actually makes Nephilim among the Canaanites true? If not . . . .

01-04-2016 10:59 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Is this a fact, or one of those possibilities that someone states as fact and we buy it as such without actually seeing that it is not simply so?

I mean, does seeing oneself as if a grasshopper really mean that extreme a difference, or were there merely a bunch of NBA-types who were so noticeably taller than ordinary folk? Based on the writings of the day, it would appear that hyperbole was almost a regular part of life then.

And they were clearly taller, as was Goliath some years later. But do we have a clear statement of their size outside of the potentially hyperbolic statements like the one about grasshoppers?

OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?

01-04-2016 10:53 AM

OBW

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What they refuse to take into account is that these "giants" were not real humans, but mutant offspring of fallen angels currently dwelling in the land of Canaan.

01-04-2016 08:37 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I don't think it is correct to say that all the Canaanites that were driven out/killed by the Israelites were Nephilim.

One argument I have heard against Christianity is that "Why is the Old Testament God so bloodthirsty compared to the New Testament God (Jesus) who is so loving and merciful" How would you respond?

That was my response.

I'll go further. God definitely preserved and protected a people for the coming of His Son, and the human lineage He descended from. Perhaps the harshest punishments were reserved for those who would be used to hurt either Jesus or His ancestors.

Consider the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. The day the Lord announced to Sarah that she would have a child was the same day these cities were judged. It was not coincidence, and it was significant. Isaac was the son of the father sacrificed in type on Mt. Moriah.

Another answer would be the Law's righteous demand of blood sacrifice for sins. This always pointed to the coming Messiah, as the perfect Lamb of God. Once the demands of the Law were fulfilled on Calvary, God was free to accept all sinners in Christ. God appeared "bloodthirsty" because His throne is established in righteousness, and those legal standards had to be met.

01-04-2016 07:52 AM

micah6v8

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord (Yahweh/Jehovah) of the Old Testament has been bitterly misrepresented by supposed scholars who condemn the God of Israel for commanding them under Joshua's leadership to slaughter even women and children occupying the land of Canaan.

What they refuse to take into account is that these "giants" were not real humans, but mutant offspring of fallen angels currently dwelling in the land of Canaan. That's why 10 of the spies sent by Moses were so afraid, considering themselves as mere "grasshoppers" in comparison.

In this situation our God is preserving the purity of mankind, by using Israel to destroy the Nephilim completely, yet liberal "scholars" would use this to condemn God for not "saving" Nephilim women and children.

01-04-2016 06:58 AM

micah6v8

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Dr. E.W.Bullinger wrote on this subject in Appendix 25 contained in THE COMPANION BIBLE. I am going to post only a short part of it.

"25. THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS"
Of GEN. 6, &c.

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Pet. 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).

But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13:33 : "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6:4, where we read : "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); and also AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became [the] mighty men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before."

If anyone is interested he can Google it. I quoted from
https://levendwater.org/companion/append25.html

Was there a "second irruption"? If so, I would have thought that the bible would have mentioned it.

In my earlier post, I suggested that perhaps Noah's family tree had Nephilim blood in it. That also has no basis so I do not expect it to be taken seriously. Genesis 10 does talk a little on how the Canaanites came from Noah's son.

I am mindful of 1 Timothy 1:4's warning not to get bogged down by genealogies so I am inclined to not pursue this question of where the Nephilim came from.

My view is that the Bible's teaching point is that the relevant question to ask is "What do we do to the Nephilim?", and not "Where did the Nephilim come from".

As to whether Rebekah was a gentile or not, there are websites that take the view that she is. Here are a couple of them. One can do a google search for more
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/28.cfm
http://www.rivkah.org/050519.htm

I don't think it is important to understand the definition of "gentile". My view is that the relevant question to ask is "Why did Abraham want someone from his kindred?"

I believe that Abraham wanted a daughter-in-law who was from his kindred because his kindred worshipped Jehovah while the Canaanites worshipped pagan gods. As the Old Testament stories would show, it is easy to be led astray from God if your spouse worships pagan gods.

01-04-2016 06:43 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before."

01-03-2016 07:00 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes on these two verses says:"Canaanites. Mixed with the Nephilim. App-23. ... Hence Abraham"s horror of mixing the holy seed with that of the Nephilim.

Verse 4

my kindred. Gentiles thus expressly excluded from this chapter, if regarded as a type. Compare verses: Genesis 24:3, Genesis 24:4, Genesis 24:7, Genesis 3:37, Genesis 3:38. See also Genesis 26:35; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:1, Genesis 28:8."

Sorry for my poor reply. You raised good questions. My main point is that WL in his footnotes in Matthew, (as we will continue to see, if God wills) sees Gentiles everywhere, and of course the Church too. If Rebekah really was a Gentile woman, it would be really more clear if she was from any other family on Earth except that of Abraham. The type would then be perfectly clear.

The footnotes from the Companion Bible I quoted are on Gen. 24:3-4

01-03-2016 05:54 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good question.

01-03-2016 08:56 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Didn't the Nephilim in Genesis 6 get wiped out in the great flood during Noah's time? Then again, perhaps Noah's family tree had some Nephilim blood in them though. Otherwise, how would the Nephilim make their reappearance in Numbers 13:33?

Good question.

01-03-2016 05:09 AM

micah6v8

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes on these two verses says:"Canaanites. Mixed with the Nephilim. App-23. ... Hence Abraham"s horror of mixing the holy seed with that of the Nephilim.

"

01-03-2016 05:04 AM

micah6v8

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Verse 4

my kindred. Gentiles thus expressly excluded from this chapter, if regarded as a type. Compare verses: Genesis 24:3, Genesis 24:4, Genesis 24:7, Genesis 3:37, Genesis 3:38. See also Genesis 26:35; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:1, Genesis 28:8."

I am not sure what is your point here. Anyway, I think you meant Gen 24:37 and Gen 24:38, rather than Gen 3:37 and 3:38.

01-02-2016 11:38 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Rebekah was related to Abraham. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen 24:15).

In seeking a wife for his son, Abraham did not want a Canaannite but wanted someone from his country and his relatives (Gen 24 v 3 to 4).

But is a Canaannite-non Canaanite the same distinction as Jew-Gentile?

Isn't a Jew a descendant of Abraham with Abraham being the first Jew? Isn't Abraham the first Jew because of his faith in God and the circumcision thereafter rather than his ethnicity? Abraham was called out of his family by God.

01-02-2016 05:07 AM

OBW

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a . . .

collection of words that Lee preferred because they fit his theology better.

Sometimes more literal, as Unto indicated. But often not really helpful in true meaning.

Sometimes more obscure (with the declaration that it was "clearly" the better choice). For example, insisting on turning "truth" into "reality" as if that somehow made the meaning more clear. Actually, it incorrectly divided truth into two kinds of truth. Ordinary truth and God's truth. But truth is truth.

Some were intentionally different so that the claim of being a better translation could be made. And that played into the general mantra that a "high" lexicon equaled a high spirituality. Not an exclusively LCM notion. But Lee made it into part of the basis for differentiation and that sense of superiority that hooked the followers.

12-31-2015 05:07 PM

aron

Re: Putting To Test The RCV-THE MAGI COMING TO GERUSALEM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I doubt it had anything to do with their "human concept"... to me, it doesn't even seem like they knew their final destination until after stopping in Jerusalem.

The human concept on display is that of the editor.

12-31-2015 11:15 AM

Ohio

Re: Putting To Test The RCV

Quote:

And btw, The Lord God had inspired men to write His word and had not commissioned anyone to footnote after Him.

Great line!

How in the world did Christians survive two millennia of hardships on earth without Lee's "interpreted" word?

12-31-2015 08:12 AM

Freedom

Re: Putting To Test The RCV-THE MAGI COMING TO GERUSALEM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?

I doubt it had anything to do with their "human concept". My theory is that it could have been as simple as they were passing through Jerusalem on their journey and were hoping that someone could provide them with a specific location.

Verse 9 says this: When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

So to me, it doesn't even seem like they knew their final destination until after stopping in Jerusalem.

12-31-2015 07:53 AM

Let Be Unregistered

Re: Putting To Test The RCV

Quote: 'But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?' :End
(1). The magi said they saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him.
No mention of anything to do with whatsoever or which soever ‘human concept’.
(2). Matthew did not say that 'the Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ', and did not say that 'the magi received a living vision concerning Him'. Whoever said that, the Recovery version compilers should know that it is not the exact God's word. And btw, The Lord God had inspired men to write His word and had not commissioned anyone to footnote after Him.
(3). But after that they were mislead. It is really so? - how dare you question the footnote. In your strong voice repeat the footnote, shake a fist and lift yourself up in a small jump. hooray! you've made yourself a goood material. What?! you are thinking over it and aaaskingg what? let the blending forces propel this one OUT ...

Matthew 1:1-2 (Recovery version) :
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
Saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him.

People who love ‘this translation’ to be the best translation are not taking it as it is? They value the footnote more? The footnote has subtracted from the actual bible verses and has added ... (read it for yourself).

12-31-2015 05:38 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages.

Actually the Recovery Version NT is a fairly good modern translation, although it tends to be unnecessarily literal at times.

I much prefer the "original" RecVers by Ingalls et.al. The subsequent version is excessively wordy at times. The original is more readable.

The subsequent version came about due to Ingalls expulsion from the program after he exposed Philip Lee's profligate ways as LSM's "Office Manager." John Ingalls' name had to be expunged from all the LSM books.

12-30-2015 07:34 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The RCV-THE MAGI COMING TO GERUSALEM

I would like to introduce another topic from Mat.2:1-12.

Were the chief priests and the scribes of the people wrong in not going with the magi to find the Christ?

But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?

12-29-2015 08:57 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a limited number of examples where Witness Lee did have some undue influence. Of course the main problem with the Recovery Version is that nearly 50 percent of the text is the footnotes, which contain many of the questionable teachings of Witness Lee.

I have the same opinion.

12-29-2015 08:21 PM

UntoHim

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The poster here ZNPaaneah has mentioned on several occasions that he personnaly knew the translators of the RecVers, and that from the very beginning the RecVers was little more than a plagiarizing of the ASV 1901, with semantic updates. None of them were qualified for the work, which is why none of them dared to list their names.

Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages. I have a copy in my office and the translators are listed as "John C. Ingalls, Bill Duane, Albert Knoch, Witness Lee". It is my understanding that Duane did have an advanced degree in biblical Greek. I believe Knock's grandfather was a biblical translator (could have been an uncle or other relative). I think Ingalls was a self-taught student of biblical Greek (I may be wrong on this). Of course Witness Lee had absolutely zero former training of any sort and had no business being listed as a translator.

I think the notion of plagiarizing the ASV is to grossly mischaracterize the efforts of the translators of the Recovery Version New Testament, with the exception of Lee having his name included as a translator, which was a joke. I'm no Greek scholar, but I studied under several and most of them have noted that the Recovery Version NT seems to follow the New American Standard Version more than any other modern translation, however this could simply be a matter of the translators having the same inclination to use certain methods of translation as others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Actually the Recovery Version NT is a fairly good modern translation, although it tends to be unnecessarily literal at times. For example John 7:39 is rendered as "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." Almost all modern English translations render it "for as yet the Spirit had not been given" (ESV and many others) To those of us familiar with Witness Lee's teaching of "Jesus becoming the life-giving Spirit", the reasons for this rendering are obvious - Lee wanted as many proof-texts as possible to back up his unorthodox, modalisitc teachings regarding the Trinity. So I'm assuming he talked the translators into making this linguistically awkward translation.

At other times the Recovery Version NT wanders far afield from being faithful to the orthodox understanding of certain key Greek words/terms. One glaring example would be the Recovery Version's rendering of the Greek word ἀλήθεια (alētheia) in John 16, which has been rendered universally as "truth", but is rendered as "reality" in the Recovery Version, where John 16:13 comes out as "But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming". Here again we see the undue influence of Witness Lee, who had absolutely no business being a significant influence among the translators.

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a limited number of examples where Witness Lee did have some undue influence. Of course the main problem with the Recovery Version is that nearly 50 percent of the text is the footnotes, which contain many of the questionable teachings of Witness Lee.

12-29-2015 08:10 PM

testallthings

Re: Putting To Test The RCV

Gen. 24:4 says, "But you go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." (RV)

The footnote 4 (1) says: "In typology, the fact that Isaac's bride was taken from Abraham's relatives indicates that the counterpart of Christ must come from Christ's race, not from the angels or from any other creatures (2:18-23 and notes). Since Christ was incarnated to be a man (Heb. 2:14a), humanity has become His race."

This add more confusion to the note in Matthew. Now here Rebecca represents humanity in general, not just the gentiles (humanity is His race????). Heb. 2:16 says, "For assuredly it is not to angels that He gives help, but He gives help to the seed of Abraham." This verse does not say to the seed of Adam, but of Abraham. Why it is so hard to admit that the Lord Jesus came for His own people as prophesied in the O.T., that He was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that He "became a servant of the circumcision for the sake of God's truthfulness, to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and that the Gentiles should glorifies God for His mercy..." (Rom. 15:8-9). It seems to me that a literal sense has been substituted for a "spiritual", or allegorical one.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

P.S.

I want to remind all the readers that we are considering (o should I say I would like to focus) mainly Matthew prospective. I believe the Lord Jesus is the Savior of all who believe in/into/on Him. But this is another story.

12-29-2015 05:32 PM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

The RcV Bible claims to be the best translation with the best footnotes. What I want to find out, and here I ask the help of the readers and members of this forum, is to test and see if these things are true.

Some of your questions, can be answered only by those who participated in the production of the RcV. If they are listening...

12-29-2015 04:54 PM

testallthings

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

12-29-2015 11:00 AM

UntoHim

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Excellent post Unregistered Guest! You have made quite a number of good posts and have much to contribute to our little forum. Could you please take just a minute and shoot an email to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com requesting membership for the forum? Please be sure to include your desired UserName.

Your brother who is unto Him.

12-29-2015 06:42 AM

micah6v8

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

12-29-2015 05:00 AM

Ohio

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Welcome to the forum!

You are right.

Abraham sent his servant to find Isaac a wife because the "gentile" women in the neighborhood were not acceptable.

12-29-2015 04:35 AM

Unregistered

Re: PUTTING TO TEST THE RCV

"The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes. Hence, this translation and the accompanying footnotes could be calle the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years."
1. one CAN claim the footnotes could be called the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years.', CANNOT claim the bible (this translation) could be called such. Unless 'this translation' does not equate 'the bible'?
2. The bible is God's word. God started speaking long before two thousand years ago. The bible existed as is (old and new testament) since nearly two thousand years ago, not when 'this translation' first published. Please LSM tell us -when did 'this translation' began work and when did it finished work.
3. The bible is holy, the bible is God inspired. 'This translation' could be called the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to ... The bible IS the divine revelation, 'this translation'- 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation?
4. Who are the participants of the 'crystallization'? Who are the authors of 'this translation'?
5. How much time and effort was taken to 'crystallize' the 'understanding' of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years?
6. How many 'saints' from the EVERYWHERE over the TWO THOUSAND YEARS have endorsed and gave rights for their 'understanding' of the divine revelation to be 'crystallized' in 'this translation'.
5. How accurate have the unnamed 'saints''s 'understanding' been understood and properly 'crystallized'?
6. What is this act of 'crystallization'? God inspired? God commanded? God allowed? or what? OR the unnamed 'saints' inspired, or commanded, commissioned, allowed? or what?
There are more questions and doubts ...
TEST, TEST, TEST, ...

12-28-2015 11:02 PM

testallthings

Putting to Test the Recovery Version