LSM's Attack on Adoption - Tomes

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

From Nigel's essay:

It would seem that Lee is busy taking his conclusion on a shopping trip through the Bible in both English and Greek/Hebrew to find anything that might be stretched, mashed, punched, inflated or deflated to support his positions.

In other words, a classic begging of the question.

In other words The RcV is translated to accommodate LSM doctrines and teachings.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

In other words The RcV is translated to accommodate LSM doctrines and teachings.

Which, I believe, is what the Watchtower Society (JW) did when they translated their bible. Most modern translations use a diversity of scholars so that the translation doesn't take on a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican or other flavor. Let's see the diversity translators for the RcV were...all from the same small group. But that's OK because the group was headed by the "Minister of the Age"!

[TLFisher]

Translaters of the recovery version choose to use the word sonship instead of adoption. Not that's wrong, but it is misleading. Sonship is a generic term.
Whether by birth or by adoption, it's still sonship.
For example a brother I know who was adopted, he's the son of the husband and wife who adopted him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Translaters of the recovery version choose to use the word sonship instead of adoption. Not that's wrong, but it is misleading. Sonship is a generic term.
Whether by birth or by adoption, it's still sonship.
For example a brother I know who was adopted, he's the son of the husband and wife who adopted him.

Both aspects are true. We are genuine sons, born of our Heavenly Father. We are also legally adopted sons. John stresses the former, while Paul stresses the latter, using the Roman legal system as a backdrop.

As was his pattern, Lee picked one side and pitted it against the other, as if all Christians since the first century had completely missed out on his message. Thus was his "recovery."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

In other words The RcV is translated to accommodate LSM doctrines and teachings.

Maybe not as serious as declaring the Son to not be God, as another group has done. But between the peculiar and irregular word choices, coupled with his teachings that based themselves on the declaration that something like "God's economy" dictated that it could not mean what the words actually said (or that the words should be dismissed as not really inspired), which are then scattered throughout the footnotes (which are taken as words from God often in opposition to the actual words from God that Lee is commenting on), Lee found a way to make everything he wanted to be true supported by the Bible.

Or at least appear to be so.

He might not have been a slave owner, member of the KKK, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon, but he engaged in the same kind of (sometimes not-so) subtle altering of the text and meaning of God's word such that it was no longer actually God's word. At least not in those places. When you teach that Romans 8 means that you no longer have to consider and try to be righteous, you are teaching something that God did not say. You are making God's word of no effect. Therefore you do not know God's word.

Such a teacher cannot be taken seriously and should be rejected. They should not be able to wear the badge of "teacher of the Word."

[OBW]

The whole debate about whether it is about a natural birth (aka being born again) or an adoption is an exercise in selective understanding. There is the aspect of being born again. Evidently this was a common thought to the Jews when they took converts into Judaism. They were treated as if they had been born with blood linking back to the Patriarchs.

But adoption was used by Paul for a reason. He was noting that we did not have a position simply because we were granted it by birth, but that we were chosen to be in that position. Parents may choose to have children, but they don't get to choose who will be the result of their union. They get what they get. But when you adopt, you get something that already is. The person is already defined. They are black, white, Asian, etc. They were children of wealthy, intelligent people who were killed in a car accident. Or the offspring of a junkie who didn't have any idea who the father was and CPS took the child away at birth. And the adoptive parents get to choose.

God has chosen. He would choose us all, but we would all have to answer the call to repentance. But he takes all who will. And makes them sons.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The whole debate about whether it is about a natural birth (aka being born again) or an adoption is an exercise in selective understanding. There is the aspect of being born again. Evidently this was a common thought to the Jews when they took converts into Judaism. They were treated as if they had been born with blood linking back to the Patriarchs.

But adoption was used by Paul for a reason. He was noting that we did not have a position simply because we were granted it by birth, but that we were chosen to be in that position. Parents may choose to have children, but they don't get to choose who will be the result of their union. They get what they get. But when you adopt, you get something that already is. The person is already defined. They are black, white, Asian, etc. They were children of wealthy, intelligent people who were killed in a car accident. Or the offspring of a junkie who didn't have any idea who the father was and CPS took the child away at birth. And the adoptive parents get to choose.

God has chosen. He would choose us all, but we would all have to answer the call to repentance. But he takes all who will. And makes them sons.

Great points here.

Lee's point was poorly taken: adopted children are not genuine children.

It's interesting to note that Lee never challenged Paul's many teachings on adoption (esp. Romans and Galatians), but on how all of Christianity had missed the point completely -- that is, of course, until he came along.

[TLFisher]

Just a theory, how ironic it is the RcV omits adoption in their translation? It may be because the translators feel other translations were inept? It could be their translation is according to a particular view on adoption?
It will be interesting to see how other translations compare and not to single out RcV as a standalone.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Just a theory, how ironic it is the RcV omits adoption in their translation? It may be because the translators feel other translations were inept? It could be their translation is according to a particular view on adoption?
It will be interesting to see how other translations compare and not to single out RcV as a standalone.

I did find out of 53 Bible translations, 34 had translated at least 4 of the following 5 verses as adoption (Romans 8:15, 23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5).
The Recovery Version was 1 of 12 translations that did not translate any of the five previous verses as adoption.
Question is why?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I did find out of 53 Bible translations, 34 had translated at least 4 of the following 5 verses as adoption (Romans 8:15, 23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5).
The Recovery Version was 1 of 12 translations that did not translate any of the five previous verses as adoption.
Question is why?

John's writings emphasize spiritual birth, while Paul emphasizes legal adoption according to Roman customs of the day.

Both are true, and aspects of God's salvation. Lee decided that John's writings were more "spiritual," and just another way he could "improve" on "poor, poor, Christianity."

We, however, don't need to choose sides, and can accept both.