Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
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?
|
Agreed brother, in the sense that "if" this is the proper translation, then so should it be translated. My point was, however, that this APPEARS to be more of a translation made to dovetail with theology.... and shouldn't that cause us to look more closely at the RcV and see if this is indeed the case with other, less sensational, passages of Scripture? How many times do we see Leeisms creep into the Translation making it unique amongst the versions?
Further, I must again ask: "Why the RcV?" For whom was the RcV written? If the earlier "Local Churches" used different versions, and there was no "unique" translation, then why the $120.00 soft-cover full RcV with footnotes and concordence? Why the give-away of the New Testament, which we (and I was one who did this so I speak from experience too) were to show to other believers and highlight not the Word of God but the footnote that made it "understandable"- if you accept Lee's understanding. Let me summarize my points below:
1) I want an answer to the question: "Why was the RcV written?"
I offer an answer: To give credence to the theology of a man. Whether that theology was 100% right, 100% wrong, or somewhere in between doesn't matter. What matters is the motive behind the writing.
2) I want an answer to the question: "Why is the RcV distributed through a separate arm of the LSM corporation? Why is that fact not thoroughly understood by the people commissioned to distribute these RcV NTs"
I offer an answer: Because LSM is trying to establish credibility for the translation, and further promote it's sale. When we worked on campuses and distributed this Bible, we would tell people who already had a Bible of their own that they "didn't have one like this - it's so rich!" We were then told to ask them for their favorite NT passage and take them there and to it's footnote. "Show them the richness of the footnote" was what we were told, and it's what we did. We did NOT talk about LSM nor about Witness Lee apart from what might have been written on the Bible. We were "Bibles for Canada", NOT "Church in Winnipeg" or the "Church in Longbeach" - and DEFINITELY not from LSM. We didn't want people to be aware of who we were and what "ministry" we were from.... we were, in essence, less honest than either the JW's or the Mormons. What a lack of faith.
3) I would say that indeed, we should check every Scripture against what is really written. Dig deep, and look to the original Hebrew and Greek text and never take the words of a single translation as "unquestionably" correct. Further, we don't have the right to assert that our OWN private interpretations are unquestionable.
Ohio, I am a "Gap theorist" - but I still fellowship with other believers who are YEC (Young Earth Creationists) and OEC (Old Earth Creationists). I don't make this a matter of division. I don't expound my views on the Gap theory, but why shoud I? Is it a foundational matter of our faith? No, it isn't. I have had these discussions with my wife and my children, and anyone who asks the question of me, but I am STILL careful to reveal the other schools of thought on the matter; because I don't think the matter is entirely closed. I am a man, a sinful man; prone to error. I never pretend otherwise - and neither do the other men who's "footnotes" I've read (Charles Stanley, John MacArthur, Warren Wiersbe, Matthew Henry, etc.)... but Lee doesn't take that stance, does he? Lee and those who came after him take a stand that
Lee was inerrant. Because that is what is believed in LSM, that is their purpose in distributing their bible: to propagate a "brand" of Christianity loyal to LSM, and to fill their coffers with standing book orders and their building with bodies eager to serve...
When I was in Anaheim for STTA, the graduating class of that year was told that the Lord's current move, and their burden, was for the "Interpreted Word". That's what they call the RcV with footnotes. I took notes, my friends. Here is what we were told by recorded video of Witness Lee himself speaking:
"You've considered the Lord's Recovery too lightly. You've never read the Recovery Version, yet you consider you know something?! Not a short period of study would qualify you."
We were told you must:
1) first read the "Interpreted Word"
2) then study the footnotes
3) then look up the cross-references.
4) then read the Life Studies.
No question, LSM promotes the footnotes, Lee's RcV, and the life studies as God's Own Truth.
My only question left for all of you is: Is it?
Ray