immuno_oncology

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

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"?

Couple comments Freedom.

NIV lost some credibility when the owner Collins (secular) bought the rights from Zondervan (Christians) and attempted a "gender neutral" version, thus de-masculating God. James Dobson and a host of other Christian leaders launched a public campaign to stop it. Lots of Christians still use it, however, and it was composed to sacrifice "literalness" for readability. I have the NIV Study Bible. I like the OT notes for historical background and the like, but the NT notes are seriously wanting in spiritual content. I won't read them.

The original RecVer was translated by a team which included John Ingalls. It was published in 1985 as a collection of individual books used during all the Life Study trainings, starting in 1974. I like it much better than the re-translation by Robichaux and others, which was a clumsily worded revision of the ASV. Ingalls was axed by Phillip Lee in 1989 for exposing corruption at LSM, so, of course, they had to can his work to save face, and scrub all their publications of his blackened name.

The revised RecVer came out in 1991, published by Cambridge Press, with gold edging. The binding itself is of top quality. From that point on LSM began to refer to it as the "gold bar" based on its "gold" profile.