LSM's Attack on Adoption - Tomes

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Excellent point. I was just writing on another thread about "balance", and my struggle to find it. But at least I'm familiar with the notion in reading through scripture. Proverbs says 3 times that multiple witnesses, or counselors, provide safety. Not coincidentally God has given us multiple parallel witnesses of Jesus, comprising the text of the Bible.

And Nee, according to Lee, was famous for just this: using multiple, seemingly disparate voices to create a harmonious whole. Why wouldn't Lee and his Blended Minions allow us the same privilege? No; instead we got One Ministry and One Trumpet. Bleh.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

I agree Ohio. I believe what John and Paul wrote about are one an the same. Paul seems to use the Roman custom as a means one might relate to. Something I had brought up privately with a brother is the initial New testament recovery version translation back in 1985 I believe. My first edition may be in California at my parents home. It would be interesting to see how Ingalls, Duane, and Knoch translated those verses. You see Ohio, I have an issue. Just as Obama has an agenda with gun control, LSM appears to have an agenda HOW the Bible is translated. When LSM translates, the agenda is to have the text line-up with key LSM doctrines (God's economy, God-man teaching, and deptuty authority).
Since the 1985 edition occurred before the drastic change that occurred in the late 1980's, it would be interesting to know what changes were made to the recovery version post-1990. My current position is the initial RcV edition has more credibility than following editions.

[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?

Originally Posted by Terry

I agree Ohio. I believe what John and Paul wrote about are one an the same. Paul seems to use the Roman custom as a means one might relate to. Something I had brought up privately with a brother is the initial New testament recovery version translation back in 1985 I believe. My first edition may be in California at my parents home. It would be interesting to see how Ingalls, Duane, and Knoch translated those verses.

All five of these verses are translated "sonship" in the RecVers 1st edition by Ingalls et.al.