Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[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

"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, ...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"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." There are more questions and doubts ...
TEST, TEST, TEST, ...

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.

[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...

[Ohio]

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...

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.

[testallthings]

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.

[UntoHim]

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.

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.

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.

[testallthings]

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.

[Ohio]

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.

[OBW]

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.

[Nell]

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.

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

[Ohio]

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?

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.

[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.

[testallthings]

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.

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."

[micah6v8]

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.

[micah6v8]

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.

"

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?

[Ohio]

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.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good question.

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

[testallthings]

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

[Ohio]

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.

[OBW]

I think this statement is spot-on.

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.

[testallthings]

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).

[OBW]

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.

[aron]

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.

[aron]

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.

[testallthings]

“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.)

[JJ]

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".

[testallthings]

To JJ

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.