Quote:
Originally Posted by immuno_oncology
1. Should I throw out the recovery version (with footnotes) of the OT and NT? What version of the bible did you use before the recovery version was introduced? What do you use now?
|
I wanted to take a minute to address your question about the Recovery Version. Since I'm still in the LC, I can't give you much in the way of any solid advice, but I hope that some of this can be helpful to you, as this same issue has always been confusing and troubling to me.
First of all, I grew up in the LC. When I was younger, it was never a requirement to use solely the RcV, this is a requirement that came along later. The NT RcV has been around since the mid 80's, when the first edition was published. I believe that they even had individual NT books that were sold before that. Anyways, it wasn't until the late 90's that they published a text-only edition of both the OT and NT, then in the mid 2000's they published the entire OT and NT with footnotes. So when I was growing up, there was no such thing as an OT RcV, so we all had different versions. Essentially, once they published the text-only RcV Bible, it became frowned upon and then unacceptable to use other versions.
While growing up, I had a NIV, which I believe was somewhat unique in the LC. This version in particular, seems to be looked down upon by the LC. I know that I got this impression on numerous occasions, though no one said it directly. I think most other saints had ASV, NASB or KJV Bibles. I know the Darby version was also popular as a study Bible. Anyways, at a certain point in time, I think the LC had subconsciously convinced me NIV was inferior, and I caved in to solely using the RcV once the whole RcV Bible came out.
In regards to the RcV itself, I do have had mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the translation itself is not by any means a bad translation. I find it to be fairly readable on a verse by verse basis, however when trying to look at or understand the overall context of an entire chapter/book, the text doesn't flow too well. Also, I find that there are many instances of unusual translations where it wouldn't make sense to anyone but someone who understands Lee's theology. For the footnotes, I find some to be helpful, however, there are just as many that are simply promoting Lee's views. Lee's teaching on "God's Economy" was mentioned earlier in this thread. I know it has been mentioned already, but the footnotes are full of teachings like this, and even go as far to discredit books of the Bible such as James.
So one thing that I have had to take into consideration now when I use the RcV, is that I cannot completely trust it. Sure there are helpful translations in certain places, helpful footnotes here and there, but on the other hand there is plenty that needs to be disregarded. As someone who grew up in the LC, I'm not confident that I have a broad enough view to make that kind of determination, so as a result I have limited my use of the RcV to just LC meetings. On my own, I no longer use it, because I feel that I need a "clean slate" by which I can come to the Word. I think there is a lot of "relearning" that I need to do.
When they released the OT and NT RcV with footnotes, I remember they called it the "Gold Bar". This was in the mid 2000's. It didn't strike me as odd when I first heard this, but it certainly does now. How come they don't call any other Bible a "Gold Bar"? How come they only call their version with their footnotes a "Gold Bar"? These are just some things to think about. I don't think that they called their text-only RcV a "Gold Bar". That to me is very troubling. In all fairness, the LC is not the only group that emphasizes a certain version of the Bible. A bookstore at a well-known church near me indicates that the NKJV makes the best study Bible (and I think also they push a specific NKJV study Bible). So this type of problem might be more common that just the LC.
As to what version I am using right now, I have been trying to use several version, mainly NKJV, NIV and NASB. I have been the NKJV Bible, mainly because that is what I am comfortable with, and I also know a few outside the LC who use it. I should mention that my NKJV is a study Bible (I won't say which, because I am not here to promote anything). I am very careful not to use it in the way that the LC uses the RcV, and by that I mean, letting footnotes be a final authority on Biblical interpretation. One thing in general that can be said of most non RcV study Bibles is that they have plenty of cross references, footnotes, even essays, however they are compiled from a variety of commentators and writers, not a single person (WL). Take most any version of the Bible besides the RcV and you can find a list of translators and editors. Open the RcV and you find that it was translated by WL and the "editorial section". It's the same deal with the RcV footnotes, written and compiled by WL. Anyways, all that being said,I don't think that anyone has the right to tell anyone what is the "best" version to use. There are all kinds of people who like to tell others what the "best" version is. I have heard of "KJV only" people who will accuse people who use any other version as being "heretical". It can definitely be a sensitive issue with some people. My best advice is just to start byacquiringseveral other versions. Simply comparing what you are familiar with in the RcV to other versions can be a start.