Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I happen to agree with the "Gap Theory" also. The fact that no other English version which supports it is reason enough to support the existence of the Recovery Version! A 6,012 year old earth violates the scripture and pure common sense!
What is so wrong with every Christian publisher in America translating the Bible? The Lord himself and the Apostles supported the Septuagint translation into the Greek language. None of them have placed limits on the number of translations. It was the church of Rome which prevented vernacular translations, and I would think that the opposite of their prohibition is closer to God's desire.
Concerning the translation of Genesis 1.2, the real endeavor here is to ascertain what are all the possible interpretations, not the fact that "no other English translations that offer this interpretation." I applaud LSM for doing what no other translator was willing to do. Should not the readers be presented with new possibilities within the limits of proper translation?
|
This is why I don't think publishing your own translation with footnotes in and of itself can be considered a red flag. You have to have the same measure for all groups and all publishers.
The issue with the JW's Bible is that they have distorted the Bible to teach something that most of us agree is condemned by the Bible.
The issue with the Mormon's is they have added something to the Bible.
The issue with the RcV in my understanding is the way that it is used.
Why was it made?
1. They want everyone in the congregation reading from the same translation. Primarily because this will fully support the LSM financially. If you condemn them for that you condemn all publishers.
But
2. The RcV is used to promote the LRC theology. Again, not much different from other groups unless you feel their theology is sinister. But if you do, it isn't the RcV that is sinister per se but the teaching itself.
3. The RcV is used to promote WL in the eyes of everyone in the congregation. That is cultic. Cassidy has mentioned a number of Bibles with footnotes and cross references, but what other group pray reads these as a standard practice which they teach is a spiritual exercise? The way in which the RcV is used is clearly cultic.
I believe, from my viewpoint in Houston at the time, that this was by design. I remember when we were about one or two trainings away from completing the NT that RG began really building up the need for the RcV. Coincidentally this was about the same time he knew his position in the LSM would be much more significant. Every time we read a verse in the meeting he would make a big deal of how much easier it would be when we all had the same translation. I remember thinking the buildup was absurd since it was obvious that we would all get the RcV when it came out, but then I was shocked that the price was going to be $45 which I felt was about $15 above a fair market value at the time. It was also at this time that EM began using footnotes for testimonies, always to the applause of RG. What makes the RcV essential for everyone to own is the footnotes since those are exclusive.
To me the real red flag that we should be looking at is "Making merchandise of the Saints". This is what Peter warned us about. This is a clear indication of a false prophet. Why was the RcV made? It was to make merchandise of the saints.
2Peter
2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privately shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingers not, and their damnation slumbers not.
The footnotes could very easily have included quotes from many reputable Bible teachers, especially WN and the brethren teachers, Scofield, etc. If they had done that it would have been a very persuasive argument that the LRC theology is in line with conservative Christians. But instead WL went to great lengths to present the impression it was higher, deeper, "standing on the shoulders" of these men. Everyone who meets with the church will get a Bible, if it is the LRC it will be the RcV. This version is used as a continual sales pitch to buy other WL books.