Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
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.
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 by acquiringseveral other versions. Simply comparing what you are familiar with in the RcV to other versions can be a start.
|
When the Recovery Version New Testament was first published as a single volume, it was called "The Gold Bar". That would have been in 1991. It was called "The Gold Bar" because it contained not only the Bible text but also large sections from the ministry of Witness Lee.
With every training there used to be a single-book translation. The first training I attended in Anaheim was the training on Galatians, Winter 1979. For that training we all received a Galatians Recovery Version, bound in bright yellow. The translators were Witness Lee, John Ingalls, Al Knoch (who died several years ago and whose grandfather/father produced the Concordant Literal Translation) and Bill Duane who had already left when turmoils came thick and fast.
For every training there was a new translated book and that is how the Recovery Version grew to be one complete Bible. All New Testament books were translated afresh but with the Old Testament they used the American Standard Version (1901) and probably the Revised Standard Version (1952) as the basis for the Recovery Version Old Testament.
I believe they avoid giving credit to Ingalls, Knoch and Duane by including them with the present editorial team, of which Kerry Robichaux is the big gun.
Finally, my feeling about study Bibles have been influenced by the most popular earlier ones, such as the Dake Annotated Bible, the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, the Scofield Reference Bible, etc. Today you find the John MacArthur Reference Bible and others. Just remember, every "study" Bible represents a theology, a teaching. There is no such thing as a "neutral" study Bible. It has nothing primarily to do with the particular translation.