Translation & More

testallthings · 01-18-2016, 06:04 PM

“In this message we shall consider further the builder of the pillars, the skillful Hiram (1 Kings 7:13-14; 2 Chron. 2:13-14).
It is not easy to know the Bible.”

We all agree on this point. So we try our best the search for the best tools we can find.

“Sometimes when translators have difficulty with a particular passage, they assume that the manuscripts are in error.”

It is possible. Sometimes scribes and copist did surely make mistakes.

“However, when we probe into the depths of the revelation of the Bible, we must worship God.”

Surely this is the experience of all who have proved that the revelation of the Bible is from a divine source and it is perfect.

“Often what at first glance appears to be a mistake in the manuscripts turns out to be a mysterious truth hidden in the Scriptures.”

Maybe. I would not deny that it is possible.

“This is true with respect to 1 Kings 7:14. The King James Version renders the verse as, "He [Hiram] was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali." According to this rendering and the understanding of most translators, the modifier, "of the tribe of Naphtali," goes with the word "widow."

That's really so. They translated this verse in the correct way.

“This would mean that this verse says that the widow was of the tribe of Naphtali. But 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that Hiram was "the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan." How could a daughter of Dan also be of the tribe of Naphtali? Some translators, neglecting the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 7:14, tried their best to reconcile this discrepancy, but they failed.”

They failed. Oh, poor translators. How come you failed so miserably? So please can you tell us how to translate this verse. We really have no clue.

“By studying the Hebrew text we have learned that this verse should be translated as follows: "The son of a widowed woman; and he was of the tribe of Naphtali." Thus, Hiram, the son, was of the tribe of Naphtali. This solves the problem.” (Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 86, Section 1) [The words without quotation marks are mine, of course]

Wow! This solves the problem! It was really so simple! Just add the word and!

Let's be serious. In the RcV the verse is translated differently, “He was the son of a widow and he was of the tribe of Naphtali. (RcV)
The job of a translator is to translate not to reconcile discrepancies. Able commentators have solved this problem without tampering with the text.
Here a some examples.

“He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was צֹרִי אִישׁ, i.e., a Tyrian by birth. According to 2Ch_2:13, his mother was “of the daughters of Dan,” i.e., of the tribe of Dan. Both statements may easily be united thus: she was a Danite by birth, and married into the tribe of Naphtali. When her husband died, she was married again as the widow of a Naphtalite, and became the wife of a Tyrian, to whom she bore a son, Hiram. This explanation is also adopted by Bertheau (on the Chronicles); and the conjecture of Lundius, Thenius, and others, that the mother was an Israelitish widow of the city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali, which was quite close to Tyre, is less in harmony with the expression “of the daughters of Dan.”

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

“Hiram was a born master builder. The influence of heredity needs no more signal illustration. He combines his mother's heart and his father's mind. Strange, that in a correspondence between Eastern kings of antiquity, with whom woman's fame was of less than cypher value, Hiram's mother should be mentioned at all; stranger still, that the premier place is given to her, implying that, while both parents were eminent, the mother was pre-eminent. Who was she? “A woman of the daughters of Dan” (2Ch_2:13-14). The Danites bore the brunt of all the Sidonian incursions, until, driven from hearth and home for refuge to the hills, privation and isolation but varied the form of the disasters that dogged them. Finally, submitting to capture or surrender, they were taken across the border into Tyre to suffer further ignominy amid alien surroundings. But never did the sons and daughters of Dan forget their tribal ancestry or affinities. Their traditions and Pride became a splendid inheritance, and their faith sustained them under the sharpest persecution. Even their oppressors grew to respect them, and permitted them to thrive in their midst. Hiram”s mother had the tribal grit, the unswerving courage of her people, so that when named at the Tyrian Court, it is as “a woman of the daughters of Dan.” And, in his letter to Solomon, Hiram the King lets drop this bit of feminine biography that is a tribute to her fine fidelity to conscience. Do not think that this passes in the record as of no account. You can prophesy with tolerable certainty as to Hiram's future when you read his mother's story, and you can as surely anticipate as much for every child of promise whose mother is true to the form of faith that holds her to the people of God.”
The Biblical Illustrator

Ohio · 01-18-2016, 06:38 PM

testallthings, to help clarify quotes and references, several facilities are available to help the reader.

colors
fonts
indents
quote button

then for emphasis, bold, italics, and underline can be used.

Just trying to help out some of us old folks, like me.

testallthings · 01-18-2016, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

testallthings, to help clarify quotes and references, several facilities are available to help the reader.

colors
fonts
indents
quote button

then for emphasis, bold, italics, and underline can be used.

Just trying to help out some of us old folks, like me.

Thanks brother.

aron · 01-19-2016, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Thanks brother.

Nice writing, testallthings. I appreciate your doing some reading on the aftermath of the Danites and Sidonians. I was unaware, as probably were many of us. Thanks for sharing.

testallthings · 01-20-2016, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Nice writing, testallthings. I appreciate your doing some reading on the aftermath of the Danites and Sidonians. I was unaware, as probably were many of us. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks. Hope to post more as soon as possible.

testallthings · 01-20-2016, 10:02 PM

Verse 25 [Mat. 11:25] opens with the words, “At that time.” This refers to the time the Lord was rebuking the cities. Verse 25 says, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I praise You, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth.” When the Lord was rebuking those leading cities, He answered and said, “I praise You, Father.” The word “answered” is very meaningful. Whom did the Lord answer? He answered the Father. While the Lord was rebuking the cities, He fellowshipped with the Father. At that time, answering the Father, He spoke praise to Him. (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 31, Section 5)
“Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word...The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes.” (A brief explanation, NT RcV Revised Edition 1991)

Translating the Bible requires more than adequate comprehension of the original language. Interpreting the Word requires more than a proper understanding of the original languages and their usage plus a more than proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word. Without these things the translation and the interpretation could be just the mere exercise of the translator or preacher fantasy.
The sad thing is that this fantasy is passed on to followers who never bother to “examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Act. 17:11, ASV

viii. Idiomatic Phrases
1. "Answered and said" was used by Hebrew idiom of whatever kind of speech is in question
It should therefore not be rendered literally, "Answered and said," but translated so as to express whatever may be the particular kind of speech referred to in the verb "said"; e.g.:
Matthew 11:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father," etc.
This should be, "At that time Jesus prayed and said," etc.
Mark 12:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ, etc."
Here it should be "Asked and said." So Mark 13:2, etc.
Mark 11:14.-"And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever."
It is clear that this cannot be literally meant, for the tree had said nothing. It should be "Jesus addressed the tree, and said to it."
Bullinger, E.W. - Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated, page 837

Answered and said, “an Hebrew way of speaking, used when nothing goes before, to which what is said can be an answer; see Job_3:2.”
John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible

Redundant use of the verb apokrinomai. The expression “he answered and said” (apokritheis eipen) closely resembles a common Hebrew idiom. The use of the verb apokrinomai “I answer” in this sense is often purely redundant (see Matthew 11:25, 12:38, 17:4, 28:5, Mark 9:5, 11:14, 12:35). In cases in which no question has been asked, it may be misleading to translate the expression “he answered” (Compare Matthew 11:25 in KJV “Jesus answered and said” with NIV “Jesus said”). This idiom is extremely common in the synoptic Gospels, where the writers appear to have modelled themselves after the familiar language of the Septuagint.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

aron · 01-22-2016, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

When the Lord was rebuking those leading cities, He answered and said, “I praise You, Father.” The word “answered” is very meaningful... (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 31, Section 5)

Idiomatic Phrases
1. "Answered and said" was used by Hebrew idiom of whatever kind of speech is in question. It should therefore not be rendered literally

I remember having a Bible which used that phraseology, "answered and said", and used it frequently enough so that I instinctively understood it as not being literal. Funny that Lee never picked up on it. I wonder what translation he was running off of, there; Chinese or English. Certainly he wasn't familiar with Greek, or its idiomatic usage.

Also funny that anyone would let someone so unaware present them with a supposedly definitive presentation of scripture. Mea culpa.

Freedom · 01-22-2016, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Also funny that anyone would let someone so unaware present them with a supposedly definitive presentation of scripture. Mea culpa.

I am always surprised to learn about all these little nuances in language and phrases that I had never considered before.

With respect to translation and understanding things like idioms from ancient languages, that is a never-ending process. There is always more to learn. It is simply absurd that any person or group would proclaim that they have reached a consummation of Biblical interpretation and understanding.

HERn · 01-22-2016, 02:20 PM

Thanks testallthings, that was a very subtle point that I never would have found on my own. Thanks!

testallthings · 01-25-2016, 06:28 PM

LOSING THE LEADERSHIP

"Even one who had so much fellowship with the Gentiles believers was carriesd away in Peter's hypocrisy. What a negative influence Peter exerted on others! Surely he deserved to lose his leadership." (Galatian 2:14, footnote 13.3, RcV)

If Peter lost or not his leadership it was up to the Lord Jesus, the Head, the one Who sent Peter. Just because he was rebuked by Paul it doesn't imply he lost his leadership. Peter made many mistakes, and this is another added to the list, but the Lord Jesus restored him (in the Gospels).

But if we assume that the footnote is correct, which is not!, and that he deserved to lose his leadership, we would like to ask,

When br. W.L. lost his leadership, due to his negative influence by words and works?

Ohio · 01-25-2016, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

But if we assume that the footnote is correct, which is not!, and that he deserved to lose his leadership, we would like to ask,

When Witness Lee lost his leadership, due to his negative influence by words and works?

Very interesting question!

It was so characteristic of WL to highlight the failures of others, especially other ministers. He spared no one, except of course, himself and Nee.

The laws of the Bible and of our land have always placed higher culpability on pre-planned or premeditated crimes. Peter's "crimes" were always in response to his impulsive nature. He had no intention to deny His Lord on the night He was betrayed, nor did he give that meal in Antioch much thought. Peter simply reacted wrongly. Yes, what he did was wrong, but easily repented of, which he obviously did. Imagine how much grace was bestowed upon Peter during his repentance following both these failures! Especially when the entire church of God got to read about them. Today Peter is rewarded with the martyr's crown.

Witness Lee was different, however. In the late 1980's, Lee orchestrated a massive coverup to protect his son Philip, which included the public slander and libel (Fermentation ...) of scores of godly men including John Ingalls. Lee carefully planned this course of action for months on end, during which he had ample time to change his mind (think: repent). He assembled a team of accomplices to carry out his criminal operation. He never repented for any of this. He even went so far as to expedite the restoration of his profligate and absentee son to the good graces of the church in Anaheim, as if that will ensure his salvation in the after life.

testallthings · 01-29-2016, 11:10 PM

ARE THERE TWO STEPS IN THE WORK OF RECONCILIATION?

18 But 1all things are out from God, who has areconciled us to Himself through Christ and has given to us the bministry of reconciliation;
19 Namely, that God ain Christ was reconciling the bworld to Himself, cnot accounting their offenses to them, and has put in us the 1word of reconciliation.
20 On behalf of Christ then we are 1a ambassadors, as God bentreats you through us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be 2reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20, RcV)

Footnote 20.2 says, “In the preceding verse it was the world that was reconciled to God; in this verse it is the believers, who have already been reconciled to God and are to be reconciled further to God. This clearly indicates that two steps are required for men to be fully reconciled to God. The first step is to reconcile sinners to God from sin. For this purpose Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) that they might be forgiven by God. This is the objective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He bore our sins on the cross that they might be judged by God upon Him for us. The second step is to reconcile believers living in the natural life to God from the flesh. For this purpose Christ died for us — the persons — that we might live to Him in the resurrection life (vv. 14-15). This is the subjective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He was made sin for us to be judged and done away with by God that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. By the two aspects of His death He has fully reconciled God's chosen people to God. These two steps of reconciliation are clearly portrayed by the two veils of the tabernacle. The first veil is called "the screen" (Exo. 26:37, lit.). A sinner who was brought to God through the reconciliation of the propitiating blood entered into the Holy Place by passing this screen. This typifies the first step of reconciliation. The second veil (Exo. 26:31-35; Heb. 9:3) still separated him from God, who was in the Holy of Holies. This veil needed to be rent that the sinner might be brought to God in the Holy of Holies. This is the second step of reconciliation. The Corinthian believers had been reconciled to God, having passed through the first veil and having entered into the Holy Place. Yet they still lived in the flesh. They needed to pass the second veil, which had been rent already (Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:20), to enter into the Holy of Holies to live with God in their spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). The goal of this Epistle was to bring them there that they might be persons in the spirit (1 Cor. 2:15), in the Holy of Holies. This was what the apostle meant by saying, "Be reconciled to God." This was to present them full-grown in Christ (Col. 1:28).”

This footnotes claims that there are two steps required for a full reconciliation:
1. Sinners must be reconciled to God, so Christ died for our sins.
2. Believers must be further reconciled with God, so Christ died for our persons.
Furthermore, to support this teaching, there is a reference to the two veils in the Tabernacle.

Although everything seems very clear, and strong, if we shake this “building” a little bit, we discover that it has a very weak foundation.

1. This teaching is based only on a couple of verses in 2 Cor. 5 and nowhere else in the N.T. we have the faint allusion to the two steps of reconciliation.
2. It is based on a wrong understanding of verse 19.
3. It is based on a translation of verse 20 were the word you has been supplied in italics.
4. It is based on the wrong application of Hebrews 9.

Concerning the first point, it is clear that this teaching is not to be found in other Epistles of Paul, or of any other Apostles. Consider the great Epistle to the Romans for examples. In it it is unfolded the Gospel of God in the clearest possible way. Can we see in it the two steps of reconciliation? Verse 19 speaks of what God did in Christ to remove all possible barriers between God and man. He was reconciling, He didn't actually reconciled the entire world! God made the first step, then He sent his messengers to proclaim the word of reconciliation. To this agree what is stated in the Gospel of John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Now, let's consider the third point, the translation of verse 20. Here I quote Dr. E.W. Bullinger, “Here the word “you” is incorrectly supplied. Paul was not beseeching the saints in Corinth to be reconciled to God. They were reconciled as verse 18 declares... Then in verse 19 he goes on to speak of “men”; and in verse 20 he says that he beseeches them , as though God did beseech them by us; we pray them in Christ's stead, and say: – “Be ye reconciled to God.” This was the tenor of his Gospel to the unconverted.” (Figures of Speech used in the Bible, pages 13-14).
Let's come to the last point. The writer to the Hebrews is saying that an ordinary priest (notice that it is not a common sinner as the footnote claims) entered only the first veil, “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (Heb. 9:7, KJV). It was through the blood that the high priest entered the second veil, and that blood was offered for his sins and for the sins of his people. “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. 9:8-12, KJV). In this passage we see that Christ, with His own blood, obtain eternal redemption for us, something that the high priest in the O.T. could not obtain. It seems clear that this passage has nothing to do with a second step of reconciliation.

As always....

Ohio · 01-30-2016, 04:20 AM

It is just so ironic that a ministry like LSM could so obsess over the ministry of reconciliation when they so obviously can't get along with anyone, especially their own.

testallthings · 02-03-2016, 01:13 AM

PURE LIE

“To have the birthright is simply to gain Christ. In order to gain Christ, we must be ready to take a way that does not seem to be the best way. Let me tell you a story that illustrates this, but try to understand me; do not misunderstand me. In the past, some young people in China were inspired by my preaching, believed in the Lord Jesus, and desired to be baptized. However, their parents, who were Buddhists, were very much opposed to this. When they learned that their children were planning to be baptized, they gave them no opportunity to leave home. The young people prayed about this. Eventually, they told their parents that they had to be in school for a certain half-day period. That was surely a lie, for they did not go to school; they went to the church to be baptized. Although they told a lie, it was a pure lie. Their intention in telling that lie was very pleasing to God. If you want to gain Christ, you should not care for the way. Do not be religious; do not keep the rules and regulations. Gain Christ! You need to gain Christ. By any means, get the birthright.”

(Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 3, Section 1 and The King's Antecedents and Status, Chapter 3, Section 1)

I really want to understand and not misunderstand what br. W.L. was trying to say here. He mentions this point about pure lie only here. If we admit that there are pure lies, why not pure murder, pure stealing, pure adultery, and so on. How about stealing money to attend a conference? I don't think God would be very pleased. I don't want to misunderstand, but it is hard to believe that there is something called pure lie. Gaining Christ, Who is the Truth, by means of a pure lie is something that goes far more than just against rules and regulations. I don't want to misunderstand, but I can not agree with this point of view.

Freedom · 02-03-2016, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

I really want to understand and not misunderstand what br. W.L. was trying to say here. He mentions this point about pure lie only here. If we admit that there are pure lies, why not pure murder, pure stealing, pure adultery, and so on. How about stealing money to attend a conference? I don't think God would be very pleased. I don't want to misunderstand, but it is hard to believe that there is something called pure lie. Gaining Christ, Who is the Truth, by means of a pure lie is something that goes far more than just against rules and regulations. I don't want to misunderstand, but I can not agree with this point of view.

I don't want to sidetrack your post too much, but based on my experience, I think that lying is common-place in the LC. WL seemed to feel that whatever served to support the LC was okay. I wouldn't say that the lying is always done outright, but it is often seen in an attitude of disingenuousness. Leaders are unforthcoming with how they represent the LC. Members are purposely misled. I always had a hard time getting straight answers out of people.

The CRI "We Were Wrong" ordeal kind of highlights what I'm talking about. Since I grew up in the LC, I knew all the attitudes, how the LC perceives itself. When the blendeds went on record saying that the LC doesn't perceive itself to be the only true church, that was news to me. When they said that they are receiving of all Christians, that was also news to me. In other words, claims were made which would not be easy for the casual observer to determine to be true or false, so people's ignorance was the perfect occasion to either misrepresent or lie about certain elements of the LC.

I was just reading the website of a Christians on Campus club and they have a section title "False Rumors", apparently an attempt to address concerns about their club that had arisen. There were a few things that I noticed in particular.

First, they say that people accuse them of pushing the RcV Bible (no surprise there). They address that by saying that attendees are welcome to use any version that they like. Based on my experience, I know that these clubs indeed pressure people to use the RcV, and if people were truly allowed to use any version of the Bible, you simply wouldn't see a majority of people using the RcV. This brings me to the next thing that I saw. They say their club is represented by people from "various congregations". Oh yeah? Well it's too bad that they fail to mention it's mostly various LC congregations.

Something else that is mentioned is that they've been accused of only allowing piano, guitar (maybe a few other instruments like tambourine) in their meetings. Well, I know from experience that this represents what's allowed in the LC. Part of the GLA quarantine involved YP using other instruments. It's disingenuous to say the least, and like many other things in the LC, it's not easy to call them out on these kinds of misrepresentations.

Why do they purposely misrepresent such things? Because they believe it's for the greater good. If only they can get people in the door, then later on they can teach them how the LC is really done, and people can get the hints at what the rules really are.

aron · 02-03-2016, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why do they purposely misrepresent such things?

Because they have to. The "Christians on Campus" websites I've seen are extremely misleading, in what they say, and what they (quite deliberately) don't say. If you push them in a corner they'll admit that they're actually only "affiliated" with one ministry, a ministry which allows no affiliation with any other ministry, and unquestioned obedience to it alone (i.e. "oneness").

But if you push the LC Campus Worker in the corner to get at the true truth (vs LC truth), chances are you weren't "good building material" anyway. The misleading websites thus can be used to peel away the gullible and unquestioning ones out of the larger flock. Get them to a meeting where with 10 True Believers and one or two newbies, coerce a charismatic/emotional "Christ in the local church" moment and they're on the way. Next, make them a recruiter, which will further cement their status.

Back to my initial point, the LC response would be that testallthings' inability to take WL's teaching on face value indicates some unresolved darkness or intransigence. The LC always reflects attention away from critical examination, which they call being negative, accusatory, dark, divisive, etc. Any problem always lies with the recipient, not the message.

Freedom · 02-03-2016, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Back to my initial point, the LC response would be that testallthings' inability to take WL's teaching on face value indicates some unresolved darkness or intransigence. The LC always reflects attention away from critical examination, which they call being negative, accusatory, dark, divisive, etc. Any problem always lies with the recipient, not the message.

Those in the LC who read this forum like the blendeds and DCP, might try to portray us as purposely 'misunderstanding' what WL taught. I notice that from the quote of WL, he pleads with his audience saying "do not misunderstand me". When I read this excerpt, there was only one understanding that I walked away with, and that is of course, knowing that WL claimed that it is okay to lie in certain situations. That understanding has nothing to do with trying to understand WL a certain way. For the average reader, it should be a bit disturbing to read something like this.

Based on such concerns, there is an ever-apparent need to address and discuss such things publicly. If there are a good number of people who can't take WL's teaching at face value, then that is indication that he either didn't make himself clear, or that his teachings should be put under the microscope for further examination. If WL's teachings were fully orthodox and could proven to be so, then the LC would have nothing to lose by addressing these things in a forthright manner.

Ohio · 02-03-2016, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those in the LC who read this forum like the blendeds and DCP, might try to portray us as purposely 'misunderstanding' what WL taught. I notice that from the quote of WL, he pleads with his audience saying "do not misunderstand me". When I read this excerpt, there was only one understanding that I walked away with, and that is of course, knowing that WL claimed that it is okay to lie in certain situations.

The Bible provides a case study in moral or civil (dis)obedience. In Acts 5.29, Peter told the authorities, "it is necessary to obey God rather than man." Concerning Lee's comment about a "pure lie," why even go there? Why even suggest that "a lie is not a lie if it's pure." Think about how many "back door escapes" Witness Lee just provided. His only caveat is "do not misunderstand me."

This reminds me of an old LC'er who told me that we have to "lie" to our spouses. "I do it all the time," he said, "I tell her every day how beautiful she is!"

OBW · 02-03-2016, 12:44 PM

As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth.

Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK.

But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie.

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible.

Freedom · 02-03-2016, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth.

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK.

But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie.

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Honesty is valued by many non-Christians so I think the point is that Christians should be beyond reproach in the matter. In most cases, I see the issue as not intentionally trying to deceive people. The spies were commanded by God to spy out the land, so the 'deception' involved was not their own idea.

When it comes to white lies, there is admittedly a lot of grey area. I don't think it is advisable, but it is also not problematic. It is part of being human. In a perfect world it would be nice if the truth didn't hurt, it would be nice to not worry that being honest could lead to hurt feelings. But padding the truth is often necessary. Necessary at work, at home, around friends, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible.

I agree here. Disobedience to parents is wrong, except in rare cases. If WL wanted to claim there were something as a "pure lie" there are a lot of grey areas that don't involve something like disobedience. He picked the wrong issue to use to make this claim.

HERn · 02-03-2016, 07:00 PM

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

Ohio · 02-03-2016, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

"Have my way with you?" That would never work around here.

No answer is not a safe answer. Even a slight hesitation means trouble!

OBW · 02-04-2016, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

I believe that the implication in both passages is that there are falsehoods used that work to harm the other. Not simply that something less than the whole truth was said. But since it does not clearly say that, it is an opinion.

Freedom · 02-04-2016, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

According the the Bible, I think that a lie can potentially be any sort of untruth. That part is not entirely clear. Notice though, that my reply was regarding a statement that you made: "The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie." I was primarily reacting to that statement. I do not see where the Bible limits the scope of lying to only bearing false witness. Maybe within the context of the 10 commandments yes, but that was not the context of the discussion that was taking place beforehand.

Like I posted yesterday, I see the intention to deceive as the main type of lie that Bible is concerned with. Christians shouldn't be actively seeking to deceive others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

This is why I stated yesterday that there is a lot of grey area. Yes, we should be judicious with our words, but even that can backfire sometimes. For that reason I would not be so quick to assume that a lie is justified by someone's inability to handle the truth. There are times that the truth is needed despite the possibility that it might hurt someones feelings. There are other times when the truth could be used with ill motives, such as if a man were to purposely call his wife fat.

If the truth is used to provoke a negative reaction, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong based on the motive. In your example, the use of the partial truth or a lie is almost always justified. But in other examples, the opposite might be true. Examples all have their limitations.

OBW · 02-04-2016, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

According the the Bible, I think that a lie can potentially be any sort of untruth. That part is not entirely clear. Notice though, that my reply was regarding a statement that you made: "The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie." I was primarily reacting to that statement. I do not see where the Bible limits the scope of lying to only bearing false witness. Maybe within the context of the 10 commandments yes, but that was not the context of the discussion that was taking place beforehand.

Like I posted yesterday, I see the intention to deceive as the main type of lie that Bible is concerned with. Christians shouldn't be actively seeking to deceive others.

This is why I stated yesterday that there is a lot of grey area. Yes, we should be judicious with our words, but even that can backfire sometimes. For that reason I would not be so quick to assume that a lie is justified by someone's inability to handle the truth. There are times that the truth is needed despite the possibility that it might hurt someones feelings. There are other times when the truth could be used with ill motives, such as if a man were to purposely call his wife fat.

If the truth is used to provoke a negative reaction, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong based on the motive. In your example, the use of the partial truth or a lie is almost always justified. But in other examples, the opposite might be true. Examples all have their limitations.

All good reasons that it is difficult to define a lie that is prohibited in absolute terms.

My suggestion was not to say that we are free beyond when we are "on the stand." But short of that, there is a lot of grey and there is reason to be judicious. While not necessarily on point, there is a place where we are advised to be cunning as serpents (I think that is stated correctly). But it would appear that there evidently are times when being less than forthcoming is actually encouraged.

And while I do not believe in a post-modern kind of truth, there is a lot in which the answer is not as absolute as we often think, but is contextual. Just like the issue of judging. We are told in one context not to judge and in another to judge.

Freedom · 02-04-2016, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

My suggestion was not to say that we are free beyond when we are "on the stand." But short of that, there is a lot of grey and there is reason to be judicious. While not necessarily on point, there is a place where we are advised to be cunning as serpents (I think that is stated correctly). But it would appear that there evidently are times when being less than forthcoming is actually encouraged.

This is true. Context is always the determining factor.

testallthings · 02-04-2016, 10:42 PM

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (KJV)

If we just consider the translation of this verse it doesn't seem to justify the title of this post. Some would even dare to say that I have something against calling on the Lord's name. Not at all. But, being not limited to one source of teaching, which can easily become indoctrination, and so close the door to bad, yes, but at the same time good things, I do my homework, as far as possible, and at the same time I receive help from many servants of God. One of my favorite is Watchman Nee.

"A great mistake that many people make is that they do not search the Scriptures themselves. Rather, they read what others have said. No matter how much help others can render us, we have to read and search the Scriptures ourselves. We must not seek help from others all the time while neglecting to read the Bible ourselves. On the one hand, we do not despise prophecy; we need the edification of the prophets as well as those of other ministries. Yet at the same time we have to study the Bible ourselves. We cannot simply receive help from others while neglecting to read it ourselves."
(How to Study the Bible, Chapter 3, Section 1)

Coming back to the passage in question, I let speak another two of them.

“Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord - The marginal reading is, Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord; which words are supposed to signify that in the time of Enos the true followers of God began to distinguish themselves, and to be distinguished by others, by the appellation of sons of God; those of the other branch of Adam’s family, among whom the Divine worship was not observed, being distinguished by the name, children of men. It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended that הוחל huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry. Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry, I shall insert it here.
“In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred; and their error was this: they said, Forasmuch as God hath created these stars and spheres to govern the world, and set them on high, and imparted honor unto them, and they are ministers that minister before him; it is meet that men should laud, and glorify, and give them honor. For this is the will of God, that we magnify and honor whomsoever he magnifieth and honoureth; even as a king would have them honored that stand before him, and this is the honor of the king himself. When this thing was come up into their hearts they began to build temples unto the stars, and to offer sacrifice unto them, and to laud and glorify them with words, and to worship before them, that they might in their evil opinion obtain favor of the Creator; and this was the root of idolatry, etc. And in process of time there stood up false prophets among the sons of Adam, which said that God had commanded and said unto them, Worship such a star, or all the stars, and do sacrifice unto them thus and thus; and build a temple for it, and make an image of it, that all the people, women, and children may worship it. And the false prophet showed them the image which he had feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of such a star, which was made known unto him by prophecy. And they began after this manner to make images in temples, and under trees, and on tops of mountains and hills, and assembled together and worshipped them, etc. And this thing was spread through all the world, to serve images with services different one from another, and to sacrifice unto and worship them. So, in process of time, the glorious and fearful name (of God) was forgotten out of the mouth of all living, and out of their knowledge, and they acknowledged him not.
And there was found no people on the earth that knew aught, save images of wood and stone, and temples of stone, which they had been trained up from their childhood to worship and serve, and to swear by their names. And the wise men that were among them, as the priests and such like, thought there was no God save the stars and spheres, for whose sake and in whose likeness they had made these images; but as for the Rock everlasting, there was no man that acknowledged him or knew him save a few persons in the world, as Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Sham, and Heber. And in this way did the world walk and converse till that pillar of the world, Abraham our father, was born.” Maim. in Mishn, and Ainsworth in loco.”
(Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

COMPANION BIBLE. APPENDIX 21.**
ENOS.* (GEN. 4:26.)* "CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD."

"Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah."* If this refers to Divine worship it is not true:* for Abel and Cain both began, and their descendants doubtless followed their example.
What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah.* They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah.* The A. V. suggests "themselves", in the margin.* But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words "their gods"; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.
The Targum of Onkelos explains it:*
"then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord."
The Targum of Jonathan says:*
"That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord."
Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this.* Rashi says:
"Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord."
Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable.* The sons of men, as "Enosh", are so called for a similar reason (Job 7:17; 15:14.* Ps. 9:20; 103:15.* Dan. 2:43).* See Ap. 14.
If Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, became the first idolatrous priest in Israel (see notes on Judg. 18:30), what wonder that Enos, the grandson of Adam, introduced idolatry among mankind.
Moreover, what "ungodliness" did Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" have to prophesy about in Jude 14, 15, if purity of worship was begun in the days of Enos, instead of profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord? Surely this is sufficient evidence that this profanation of the Name of the Lord was the reason why Enoch was raised up to prophesy against it.

Freedom · 02-05-2016, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

This is an interesting possibility regarding the meaning of Genesis 4:26. Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked to see that it could be interpreted in a way completely opposite from I am accustomed to. I had never given such a possibility any thought before.

Sure enough, I found at least one translation that actually translates the verse that way: Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the LORD began. (ISV)

It's probably fair to say that either possibility is just as likely, however, because the LC has made a rigid practice out of this, the implications are much more severe if it turns out that the meaning is completely the opposite. By the way, I do consider yelling "Oh Lord Jesus" at the top of ones lungs to be a type of profaning of the Lord's name, especially if it is done for show. It is disrespectful of the Lord to say the least.

Ohio · 02-05-2016, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is an interesting possibility regarding the meaning of Genesis 4:26. Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked to see that it could be interpreted in a way completely opposite from I am accustomed to. I had never given such a possibility any thought before.

Sure enough, I found at least one translation that actually translates the verse that way: Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the LORD began. (ISV)

It's probably fair to say that either possibility is just as likely, however,

I'm skeptical, and not because of my LC background.

Gen 4.25 thru chapter 5 is the lineage of Seth in a positive contrast to the lineage of Cain recorded in 4.16-24.

If 4.26 were displaced into the lineage of Cain, I might consider the alternative translation. That's not to say that "calling on Jehovah" is definitive, since another says, "preaching in the name ..."

HERn · 02-05-2016, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

That was very good. Thanks for finding this. I think evil spirits get access to our minds via spiritual lies. I think the teaching of LSM is full of them.

HERn · 02-05-2016, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Have my way with you?" That would never work around here.

No answer is not a safe answer. Even a slight hesitation means trouble!

Well, being a redneck I sometimes get away with course remarks. I guess I should have said it was safe for me. My deepest apologies to any of you young newly married sensitive brothers who might have erred in following the advice of an old goat.

Freedom · 02-05-2016, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm skeptical, and not because of my LC background.

Gen 4.25 thru chapter 5 is the lineage of Seth in a positive contrast to the lineage of Cain recorded in 4.16-24.

If 4.26 were displaced into the lineage of Cain, I might consider the alternative translation. That's not to say that "calling on Jehovah" is definitive, since another says, "preaching in the name ..."

I don't take the phrase "call upon the name of the LORD" to mean anything definitive. What I do think is that this represents point in time where there was a change in people's relationship with God (either for better or worse). Maybe what happened was that people began to take it upon themselves to preach. Maybe there were more public forms of worship. Or the alternative is possibly that people became more bold in profaning the name of the Lord. Although this is probably the least likely, the possibility is worth consideration, especially for a group who has made a practice out of a phrase.

"Calling on the Lord" as it is practiced in the LC is one of those things that was put into practice in a hyper-literal way. I presume at some point that it was claimed that WL was the first one to 'see' the matter of calling on the Lord.

Frankly, I think the main reason that we notice verses like this is because of our background in the LC. Otherwise, we might just read over these verses and think nothing of it. It's not that others didn't notice these verses as well, it's just that the majority of Christians chose to not assume that it meant something more than it did.

It is hard for me to read this verse (and others like it) and think that it is any way related to a specific practice. I'm certain that people didn't all the sudden realized that they needed to start saying "Oh Lord Jesus" three times. It seems like everyone but those in the LC can see this.

JJ · 02-06-2016, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=testallthings;46947]

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

Interesting post, testallthings. The International Standard Version is the only translation I see that renders the word "call" as "profane" in Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb.../t_bibles_4026) and Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=KJ21. All the others use "call", "worship", "preach", 'call themselves by", and even "call inwardly". I'm no Hebrew scholar. But, that suggests the right interpretation to me here.

Ohio · 02-06-2016, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

"Calling on the Lord" as it is practiced in the LC is one of those things that was put into practice in a hyper-literal way. I presume at some point that it was claimed that WL was the first one to 'see' the matter of calling on the Lord.

Even though I spent 3 decades in the LC, we did not have this hyper-literal practice of shouting "O-L-J" 5x in my neck of the woods.

Freedom · 02-06-2016, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even though I spent 3 decades in the LC, we did not have this hyper-literal practice of shouting "O-L-J" 5x in my neck of the woods.

Lucky you. I remember being in the car with an elder, and we were going to a meeting and he wanted to call on the Lord the whole way there

.

The situation was a bit awkward, mostly because I realized that there was an underlying implication that it wasn't acceptable to talk about anything 'normal'.

testallthings · 02-06-2016, 09:11 PM

[QUOTE=JJ;46995]

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

Interesting post, testallthings. The International Standard Version is the only translation I see that renders the word "call" as "profane" in Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb.../t_bibles_4026) and Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=KJ21. All the others use "call", "worship", "preach", 'call themselves by", and even "call inwardly". I'm no Hebrew scholar. But, that suggests the right interpretation to me here.

That's the spirit of a Berean! Search and see if these things are so. That's the aim of my posts. Nothing more, nothing less.

As always...

testallthings · 02-08-2016, 02:47 AM

Brethren, we must not speak as an ass...1

Brothers, we cannot be just a donkey.2

This word is true for all the children of God.

It is true for coworkers. When you brothers stand up to deliver a message (sometimes prepared for you by someone else), and for 90 minutes you just follow closely your outline (how many times I have heard this), what are you doing if not speaking like a donkey? How many times I have being waiting, listening to “your” (actually it was not your) message to catch you out of guard, so to speak, to get a glimpse from your spirit, and when sometimes that finally happened, even if it was for only a minute, how much help I received you are not aware of, but God knows. If only you had followed your heart and your spirit more often, how memorable could have been “your” message, and how much more help could have the church have received from your being. But how many times you chose to speak like a donkey.

It is true for all the saints who in the meeting share from the HWMR. They open it and read it to the other saints, and this is “their” main sharing. How wonderful if after you had read, enjoyed, prayed over whatever was in the HWMR you came to the meeting and spoke few words from “your” spirit, “your” experience and not from someone else messages. But how many times you chose to speak like a donkey.

It is true for every child of God, in whatever denomination, free group, etc. he might be. In whatever situation, we have to share the word of God. Every time we can choose to speak like a donkey, repeating words that have never made roots in us, words that have never worked deeply in our beings or we can draw a little, however small it is, from our personal experience with the word and share that with an unbeliever, a child of God, or the church. But how many times we chose to speak like a donkey.

___________________________________________
NOTES:
1. WATCHMAN NEE ,The Ministry of God’s Word,Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc. New York, 1971, page 39 (PDF)

2. (Watchman Nee, The Ministry of God's Word, (LSM) Chapter 3, Section 2)

There are numerous obstacles for God to speak His word through man. For God to speak directly by Himself poses no difficulty. Neither is there much problem for God to speak through angels. Even using a donkey poses less of a problem than speaking through man because a donkey is not as complicated as a man. A donkey does not form obstacles in its mind, understanding, memory, motive, and spirit. A donkey does not have these problems. If God's word were placed in its mouth, it could repeat the word accurately. But using a donkey is something exceptional for God. God used a donkey to release His word only when the prophet failed. He has no intention for the donkey to replace the prophet; He still wants man to be His prophet. God wants to use man. Man was created especially for God's use. When God created the world, His intention was not to have a submissive machine. In the same way, God is not after a machine that can preach. He is not after something without a will. He is after men who possess a free will. It seems as if He took a big risk when He chose man to be a minister of His word. But God would rather do this than not. God entrusts His word to man, a complicated man, one full of sin, defilement, and weakness. There are also the problems of the outward man, the natural man, and the carnal man. All these are factors against God. Yet God still entrusts His word to man. He wants to gain the greatest glory through overcoming the greatest difficulties. If God can break through these great obstacles, He will secure the greatest glory. (LSM.org, The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 4, Section 1)

With many servants of the Lord, God's word can be found in them only when a word is put into their mouth, and when it is not placed in their mouth, they do not have any word. Yet Paul had reached the stage where he had God's word whether or not it was put into his mouth. Here was a man so trained that he could earn the Lord's trust. Here was a man so trained and trusted by God that his speaking became God's speaking. We cannot do anything about this except to plead for mercy. Brothers, we cannot be just a donkey. We cannot be satisfied with God's word just being placed in our mouth. If this is our condition, it means that we ourselves have nothing to do with God's word. Paul was a man who had much to do with God's word. Even his own opinions became God's opinions. The little thoughts that he had became the thoughts of the Holy Spirit. He was so one with the Spirit of God! His very speaking represented God's speaking. He indeed reached the highest peak. (LSM.org,The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 3, Section 2)

aron · 02-08-2016, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

In whatever situation, we have to share the word of God. Every time we can choose to speak like a donkey, repeating words that have never made roots in us, words that have never worked deeply in our beings or we can draw a little, however small it is, from our personal experience with the word and share that with an unbeliever, a child of God, or the church.

In this there was a cultural element, in the mandate to be a "Witness Lee tape recorder". By drawing on many sources, initially, Nee to some extent by-passed culture; he used culture to negate culture (Europe/American/Asian/African etc). Eventually, consumed with domestic affairs, his ancestral culture dominated; his true roots came out.

With Lee, cultural influence seems to have arrived earlier and stronger in the ministry of God's word, and its effects were pervasive in LC experience. "I am nothing; God is all" became "I am nothing; LC culture is all". The Bible could only be considered through the filter of LC exegeses, and Christ could only be seen through the lattice, if at all (SS 2:9).

There's an interesting scene in Luke 24. Some women get a message from angels concerning the risen Christ: He is living, not among the dead. Jesus' prophetic words from Galilee are rehearsed before the astonished women. (vv. 6,7). They rush back to tell the apostles, and of course they're not believed. Peter, however, still wants to go and check it out. (v.12).

Where in the tightly controlled LC world can one have an independent experience of Christ thusly, and report it to the brothers, much less to the so-called apostle of the age? I saw it rarely, in trainings. Mostly we were limited to declaring, chanting, screaming, verbatim if possible, the words of "God's oracle." That was essentially the sum total of our experience of Christ. And the temporary excitement of shouting something in a public setting was supposedly analogous to the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Freedom · 02-10-2016, 02:34 PM

I'm not too sure how many were ministering under Nee, but from what we know about Lee, it seems that the pathway to the podium involved loyalty to Nee's ministry. Lee helped 'recover' churches to Nee's ministry, and he was awarded a prominent position. With this dynamic in mind, I find it ironic that Nee would be concerned with a lack of substance in the speaking of others. I couldn't imagine that Nee would of really wanted anyone who could say things that would be perceived to be more more substantial than what he spoke.

WL greatly intensified the speaking problem after importing the LC to the U.S. He told everyone that they should speak, and I think this notion of 'functioning' by speaking is something that sold a lot of people on the LC. Presumably it was an open atmosphere with no one was running the show. What could possibly go wrong?

It seems that the first problem was that of people being pressured to speak who really don't need to. Not everyone is cut out to speak, and when such people are forced to speak, they just repeat what they read. There is no value in that. People who aren't good at speaking aren't going to suddenly change and be able to speak well or say things of benefit. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the people who realize that the LC offers them their own soapbox, and they are always ready to take advantage of that. I think that WL didn't see what the actual purpose of speaking is.

It is common knowledge that the blendeds pride themselves in being those to re-speak WL's ministry. They expect others to do the same. So even among those LCers who might have something substantial or beneficial to speak, they are limited by the official regulations. Going back to what Nee said, it seems like he correctly identified a problem, but he didn't identify the real cause. Under him, it was probably the pressure for all designated speakers to use his ministry as a guideline for their speaking. Under WL, it was the pressure to parrot his ministry. Sure it's nice to think that LCers shouldn't repeat what they read, but if it can be reasonably assumed that would get in trouble for not doing so, then the problem isn't the person doing the speaking, it's the leaders who have the power to make the rules.

aron · 02-10-2016, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not too sure how many were ministering under Nee, but from what we know about Lee, it seems that the pathway to the podium involved loyalty to Nee's ministry. Lee helped 'recover' churches to Nee's ministry, and he was awarded a prominent position. With this dynamic in mind, I find it ironic that Nee would be concerned with a lack of substance in the speaking of others. I couldn't imagine that Nee would of really wanted anyone who could say things that would be perceived to be more more substantial than what he spoke.

The pattern I see with Nee and then Lee is that initially there is an open, free atmosphere where everyone is able to ad-lib and follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit as they are able. Some can speak, some can shepherd, some are burdened for the lost or the sick.

In this environment, people's abilities flourish and grow. But eventually there comes a "Rubicon" moment, where they have to either sublimate or even abandon their gift, or get out. Why? Because their star might shine too bright, and steal some of the apostle's greatness.

Anyone not willing to recede into the drab, faceless proletarian sea is accused of being ambitious and attempting to draw others in their orbit. Only the great man's gift is allowed to thrive unfettered. The ones who rise in this milieu are not those with exceptional gifts, but those whose purpose is to trumpet the "rich ministry" of the great leader.

So you see an "early Nee" who was localized and indigenous and free, and a "later Nee" whose goal was centralization, handing over, getting in line, and control. Likewise with Lee in the USA, circa 1960 - 1987. Two strains were seen: the initial one and the later one.

This was confirmed by the speaking of some of the party loyalists: they said that no one who left the LC ever became great, or amounted to anything substantial. This shows that: a) they felt that the leader of the LC was great, and substantial; and b) that (by definition) no one except the great leader could become great. Only one great man per age, thank you very much. Everyone else get in line.

So initially there was the appearance of freedom, but that (in hindsight) was a ruse to draw in the gullible seekers. Ultimately freedom was snatched away and only the True Believers remained. The "Rubicon" moment was: are you loyal, or not?

testallthings · 02-10-2016, 08:06 PM

BIBLE TRANSLATION IS NOT A SIMPLE TASK
(BUT IF YOU HAVE THE EXPERT THEN ALL IS CLEAR)

“Bible translation is not a simple task. For example, consider Matthew 1:20. The Chinese Union Version says, “That which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” This is clear, and no one would question it. But if we dig into the original language, we find that this verse actually says, “That which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The Bible does not merely say, “That which has been conceived in her” but “that which has been begotten in her.” This means that at the time the Lord Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a certain One was born in her. Who is this One? To be sure, He is the Holy Spirit Himself. The Holy Spirit is not only the essence that brought about the Lord Jesus' conception; He is the very One who was begotten in Mary.”1

W. Lee interpretations never fail to amaze me! He was not happy with the word conceived so he thought that begotten was a better one. So far no problem. So what's the interpretation? “This means that at the time the Lord Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a certain One was born in her. Who is this One? To be sure, He is the Holy Spirit Himself.”
As always, we try to apply this new understanding to other verses. Let's stay in chapter 1. Mat 1:2, (KJV) "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren."

Let's see if this new teaching make sense or not. Abraham begat (same greek word) Isaac, actually means that Abraham was begotten in Sarah and a certain one was born in her. Who is this one? To be sure, he is Abraham himself! (By the way, Mat. 1:20, RcV, says, “..for that which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit”, not “..for that which has been begotten in her is the Holy Spirit.”

My dear readers of this post, I don't know if I should cry or laugh.

“This is a great truth, but it has been neglected through the limitation of man's knowledge. The Chinese Union Version is one of the seven best versions in the world. But even if we read this portion a thousand times, we will not be aware of the mystery and reality of God's birth within man. Actually, the revelation in the original language is plain and obvious, but because man's study of the Bible is inadequate and his understanding of theology incomplete, he becomes muddled and shortsighted.”1

Now comes the stick (as usual), to chastise “the limitation of man's knowledge” the inadequacy of man's study, and his incomplete understanding of theology. Because of these lacks man “becomes muddled and shortsighted”. Notice who becomes muddled and shortsighted!

__________________________________________________ ___________________________
NOTES:
1. (Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision and Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way, Chapter 18, Section 2)

OBW · 02-10-2016, 08:27 PM

Quote:

My dear readers of this post, I don't know if I should cry or laugh.

Both would work nicely.

First you cry as you mourn the time wasted in the wilderness of the LCM. The time lost to the locusts.

Then you laugh as you realize how ridiculous all those things Lee said really are.

testallthings · 02-13-2016, 10:03 PM

WITCHCRAFT? NO!
(But what is it?)

1 Cor. 5:3-4, “ For I, on my part, though being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already judged, as if being present, him who has thus done this,
In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus” (RcV)
Footnote on verse 4.2 says, "The apostle's spirit was so strong that it attended the meeting of the Corinthian believers. His spirit was assembled with them to carry out his judgment upon the evil person."

This verse, in my opinion, is a very difficult one (there is something similar (?) in 2 Ki. 5:26). I have, at the moment, more questions than answers. According to the footnote (or according to these verses?), it seems that the spirit of Paul “attended the meeting of the Corinthian believers”.

FROM THE LS OF 1 CORINTHIANS

“

"In verse 4 Paul clearly says, “When you and my spirit are assembled.” By this we know that Paul's spirit attended the meeting in Corinth. This does not mean, however, that his spirit actually traveled to Corinth. This has absolutely nothing in common with witchcraft, which claims that a person's soul can leave his body and visit other people. According to this verse, Paul's spirit was so strong that he could somehow attend the meeting in Corinth. When they were gathered together, his spirit was with them to deliver the evil one to Satan. This is altogether a spiritual matter, something wholly in the spirit.”1

In his LS W.L. is more careful (?). First he denies that this was witchcraft (“which claims that a person's soul can leave his body and visit other people”). I know nothing about witchcraft, so my first question is: Does witchcraft claim that only souls can leave the body or that the soul or/and the spirit can leave the body?

Then, he says, “We should never think that Paul's spirit actually went to Corinth and attended the meeting. Nevertheless, as the Corinthian believers were meeting together, Paul exercised his spirit to be with them and to judge the evil one and to remove him. We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother. This is what Paul's spirit did regarding the situation at Corinth.”1

This contradicts his footnote (someone might say that there isn't enough space to explain everything in the footnote). I believe the footnotes should be considered as is “final word” on things shared in the LS.

Lastly, he suggests that we can do the same! “We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother.” I have never met a believer who claimed to have learned this practice! Did you, my dear readers? Did he (W.L.)?

______________________________________
NOTES:

1 (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 36, Section 1)

Freedom · 02-14-2016, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

This contradicts his footnote (someone might say that there isn't enough space to explain everything in the footnote). I believe the footnotes should be considered as is “final word” on things shared in the LS.

Lastly, he suggests that we can do the same! “We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother.” I have never met a believer who claimed to have learned this practice! Did you, my dear readers? Did he (W.L.)?

It's hard to know for sure what WL really intended to say here, but any way you look at it, WL spoke a bunch of nonsense.

This statement in his LS message is what I find to be particularly concerning: "We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother. This is what Paul's spirit did regarding the situation at Corinth."

If there were such a possibility as what WL describes here, it would involve the paranormal. I doubt that WL really wanted to imply this, but that's what happens when he tries to interpret things too literally. There is a phrase in verse 3 that WL seemed to ignore - "as if being present". For me, "as if" implies that Paul did something (pronounced judgement) in the same way he would of had he been there physically.

The context of these verses is judgement. Paul knew about a situation that was reported, and he judged it accordingly. And it seems Paul's role in all this was only because he had a vested interest in Corinth and those in Corinth had failed to judge the immoral person. This brings me to my point. Since Paul had started the church there in Corinth, he cared about what was going on there. Part of the 'spirit' of Paul's ministry involved judgement when necessary. They failed in this regard, so Paul urged them to deliver the immoral one to Satan. Paul was the one who had taught the word of God to them. It would thus follow that they looked to him as an example and hopefully tried to follow his example.

This is what I see as the meaning of "when you and my spirit have been assembled". Paul urged them to take an action as if he was there. He already pronounced judgement, indicating that they should do the same.

aron · 02-16-2016, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's hard to know for sure what WL really intended to say here, but any way you look at it, WL spoke a bunch of nonsense.

This statement in his LS message is what I find to be particularly concerning: "We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother. This is what Paul's spirit did regarding the situation at Corinth."

If there were such a possibility as what WL describes here, it would involve the paranormal. I doubt that WL really wanted to imply this, but that's what happens when he tries to interpret things too literally.

The first sentence I agree with: WL spoke a bunch of nonsense. But I have a different reading, here. I see two things: first is that these people really believed this stuff. So to dismiss it as irrelevant is to dismiss God's word as irrelevant, and God's ministers as mistaken, or passé.

Secondly, why we dismiss is because of our theology. WL defended the Protestant theology, which was his launching pad. So if Protestant theology couldn't see something, neither could WL the post-Protestant Bible expositor.

So let's go back, shall we? Back before centuries of tradition and speculation marred the word, and before the Calvinists rejected centuries of tradition and went "sola scriptora" which meant sola theologica. If their theology couldn't handle the word then the word fell by the wayside.

If you look at the record in scripture it seems clear that the actors and writers of the drama we call the New Testament absolutely believed in this "spooky action from a distance", to borrow a phrase from our pal Einstein. Jesus could speak a word in one place, and a Roman Centurion's servant was healed in another place. Simultaneously! The word takes pains to point this out.

How did this happen? If you read the text, the Centurion himself supplies the explanation: "I also have servants working under me, and I tell them 'go' and they go..." No mention in either the Life-Study message or the footnotes who are the 'servants' working under Jesus. WL's theology doesn't handle it so it's ignored.

The actual mechanism of salvation in this instance, for Jesus to be in one place and someone to get healed in another, is ignored because it might rub into the centuries of fluff and nonsense that have grown up around these tales, so hey - let's just ignore the word! No need to do all the hard work of sorting the proverbial wheat from the chaff. That's what scholars do in those dreaded seminaries - but hey, we're here for life! Right?

Also look at John 1:51. WL couldn't handle the imagery, and simply referenced the "house of God" motif, and ignored what was happening right in front of him. Jacob's dream/vision of "angels ascending and descending" ascribed by Jesus, to Himself and His experience, got reduced to "much traffic" in the Life-Study of Genesis. Much traffic of what - diesel/electric submarines?

Now, back to Paul. What happened? I don't know. I haven't done enough looking and/or thinking even to guess. Maybe allegorical, as Freedom suggests. Even today, "I am with you in spirit" is a kind of catch-all benediction people give each other in parting; even non-believers do this, to signify oneness of purpose and feeling.

But Witness Lee was a true child of Calvin, in the "sola scriptora" idea. He had scripture and he had his opinion, and if his opinion was ignorant then scripture suffered the consequences. You'd likely either get some willfully obtuse remark like testallthings quoted, or simply silence, as if the word of scripture wasn't even there.

"It has no meaning to me, therefore it has no meaning, therefore it doesn't exist." What a simple and easy way to get through life! And you can even apply this to scripture! Who knew? As they say, ignorance is bliss.

testallthings · 02-20-2016, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Secondly, why we dismiss is because of our theology. WL defended the Protestant theology, which was his launching pad. So if Protestant theology couldn't see something, neither could WL the post-Protestant Bible expositor.

W.L. defended the Protestant theology? This would make W.L. turn in his grave!
W.L. couldn't see something the Protestant theology itself couldn't see? This would make W.L. jump out of his grave!
(we all know how he despised Protestantism, and how he boasted that he saw more than those who went before him)

aron · 02-20-2016, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

W.L. defended the Protestant theology? This would make W.L. turn in his grave!
W.L. couldn't see something the Protestant theology itself couldn't see? This would make W.L. jump out of his grave!
(we all know how he despised Protestantism, and how he boasted that he saw more than those who went before him)

In the "recovery" narrative, Martin Luther loomed large as a champion. W.L. built on that "recovery of justification by faith" in his progressive revelation idea.

Ohio · 02-20-2016, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

W.L. defended the Protestant theology?
W.L. couldn't see something the Protestant theology itself couldn't see?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

In the "recovery" narrative, Martin Luther loomed large as a champion. W.L. built on that "recovery of justification by faith" in his progressive revelation idea.

According to Lee's Protestant remnant theology, Martin Luther was the Grand-Daddy of all MOTA's. He was the Zerubbabel of the OT, returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the foundation of the temple of God on the "proper ground." Protestantism was his foundation, but Lee's role was to correct and consummate any flaws which previous MOTA's might still have had.

JJ · 02-20-2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to Lee's Protestant remnant theology, Martin Luther was the Grand-Daddy of all MOTA's. He was the Zerubbabel of the OT, returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the foundation of the temple of God on the "proper ground." Protestantism was his foundation, but Lee's role was to correct and consummate any flaws which previous MOTA's might still have had.

I see the problem with MOTA and remnant theology being that there is only one MOTA at a time. While Martin Luther took a big step in recovering the church to the pure word of God, he was hardly alone, but rather part of the Spirit's response through a group of reformers bold enough to risk their lives by standing with truth versus the church's teaching of the day. This has been the case ever since.

The Ministry of the Age is the ministry of God's word and Spirit, rather than law (or licentiousness and self exaltation). No single man has ever "cornered that market". And, anyone who thinks he or a very small group of men has needs to learn more of Bible and church history. The Lord has a way of preserving a remnant of thousands of faithful saints in a manner that is hidden to God's prophets, until He chooses to reveal them (to His glory!).

HERn · 02-20-2016, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

I see the problem with MOTA and remnant theology being that there is only one MOTA at a time. While Martin Luther took a big step in recovering the church to the pure word of God, he was hardly alone, but rather part of the Spirit's response through a group of reformers bold enough to risk their lives by standing with truth versus the church's teaching of the day. This has been the case ever since.

The Ministry of the Age is the ministry of God's word and Spirit, rather than law (or licentiousness and self exaltation). No single man has ever "cornered that market". And, anyone who thinks he or a very small group of men has needs to learn more of Bible and church history. The Lord has a way of preserving a remnant of thousands of faithful saints in a manner that is hidden to God's prophets, until He chooses to reveal them (to His glory!).

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

Ohio · 02-20-2016, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

Great book! I gobbled it up as soon as I got it. It was church history books like this one that helped me see through Lee's self-serving views of history.

HERn · 02-20-2016, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great book! I gobbled it up as soon as I got it. It was church history books like this one that helped me see through Lee's self-serving views of history.

That dear couple left the GLA churches and joined with the LSM denomination in Fairborne. In my opinion I think the GLA churches were more healthy than the LSM-denomination churches.

JJ · 02-21-2016, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

Yes, the Pilgrim Church is great chronicle of church history that I believe illustrates the proper "remnant" principle.

Ohio · 02-21-2016, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

That dear couple left the GLA churches and joined with the LSM denomination in Fairborne. In my opinion I think the GLA churches were more healthy than the LSM-denomination churches.

I knew the brother RR that started the LC in Fairborn. We were in Columbus together since 1977, as was Phil Comfort and many others. After Comfort was badly abused and publicly shamed by TC in 1981-82 while staying in Cleveland, he returned to Columbus and stepped down from the eldership and no longer ministered in the meetings. The rest of us attempted to proceed doing the best we could, though relations with TC were strained. Brother RR and the other Columbus leaders heard what happened to PC in detail, and all of them were quite disgusted with TC's behavior.

Then in 1985 TC launched into another public shaming campaign, this time with RR. TC, in an orchestrated group ministry rotation among the LC's, arranged for RR to speak in Cleveland after the Lord's Table meeting. TC slips into the back row just in time for RR to share, and promptly ridiculed him openly, with the goal to destroy RR's reputation in the region. RR remained in the Columbus area for awhile, and then eventually ended up in Fairborn (a Dayton, OH suburb) with a few others, to start a new LC. While WL was alive, TC frantically tried to prevent Fairborn from becoming a legitimate LC, recognized by LSM, and permitted by them to receive the Life Study Standing Order and attend their trainings. After WL passed, the BB's used Fairborn and a few other "rebel" LC's in the area to create inroads of support to undermine TC's authority in the region.

During the GLA Quarantines (circa 2006) I said repeatedly that many more regional leaders would have supported TC, except for the way he treated them. After working together with Cleveland for decades, Chicago joined LSM because their leader (Bill Barker) got publicly shamed by TC over a local matter involving the Spanish language work. Here's a full time senior worker in his 60's, leading a region of LC's (in IL, WI, IN, MN) getting majorly chastised over a minor matter in front of many younger brothers. This is how TC created enemies out of beloved brothers. This is how WL trained TC to rule the LC's.

OBW · 02-21-2016, 04:04 PM

Question. It seems that there was maybe one actual reference to a remnant in the Bible. Was it so important that there should be a remnant theology?

The reason I ask it this way is that the whole remnant idea based on the return from Babylon would seem to not be anything specifically special in the way that Lee taught it. Surely there was the prophetic need for Israel to be once again when the Messiah came. But it has always been interesting that they were only very briefly somewhat free from bondage even in Judea. And one of the leaders of the return was only there for a while for some of the building, then was required to return to his post as cup bearer for the king.

And it was the semi-freedom to return, or stay, or go elsewhere that seems to have begun the scattering that found the Jews almost everywhere when Paul began his journeys. Not so negative after all.

My problem with remnant theology is that it is steeped in the idea that Christians are mostly falling away and there has to be some special few who stand for the truth, or return to the truth. I honestly think that this is more in error than whatever "deadness" we attribute to groups that just don't get excited outwardly like the LRC and some other groups do.

testallthings · 02-21-2016, 08:30 PM

THE CHURCH OF GOD

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 1Co 1:2 unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours (ASV)

"Paul's description of the church is marvelous. However, Christians have not paid adequate attention to it. The church is the church of God, for it is constituted of the divine nature. The expression “the church of God” indicates that the church has the nature of God, that it is constituted of the element of God. Therefore, the church is of God." (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=2FEADBC94D

At the outset, let me say that this paragraph is not included in the footnotes on the same verse.

W. Lee is trying to indicate that the church has the nature of God based on the preposition of. This is a very weak argument because few verses later Paul said, “1Co 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” (ASV)

I don't think Paul indicated that some Corinthians had the nature of Paul, others of Apollos, some others of Cephas, and finally some of Christ.
What he was indicating, is that the church doesn't belong to apostles, but only to God. Am I wrong?

testallthings · 02-29-2016, 11:26 PM

ELLIPSIS?

“To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of jubilee.'' (Luke 4:19, Recovery Version of the Bible)

Every Bible translator has to face the problem of ellipsis. Here is what Dr. E.W. Bullinger wrote on the subject in his unique book:

“El-lip´-sis, a leaving in ( en ) in, and ( leipein ) to leave .
The figure is so called, because some gap is left in the sentence, which means that a word or words are left out or omitted . The English name of the figure would therefore be Omission .
The figure is a peculiar form given to a passage when a word or words are omitted; words which are necessary for the grammar, but are not necessary for the sense. The laws of geometry declare that there must be at least three straight lines to enclose a space. So the laws of syntax declare that there must be at least three words to make complete sense, or the simplest complete sentence. These three words are variously named by grammarians. In the sentence “Thy word is truth,” “Thy word” is the subject spoken of, “truth” is what is said of it (the predicate), and the verb “is” (the copula) connects it.
But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax may be
legitimately broken by Ellipsis.
The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasised by the omission. For instance, in Matt. 14:19, we read that the Lord Jesus “gave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.”
There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, “the disciples to the multitude,” because there is no verb. The verb “gave” is omitted by the figure of Ellipsis for some purpose. If we read the last sentence as it stands, it reads as though Jesus gave the disciples to the multitude!
This at once serves to arrest our attention; it causes us to note the figure employed; we observe the emphasis; we learn the intended lesson. What is it? Why, this; we are asked to dwell on the fact that the disciples gave the bread, but only instrumentally, not really. The Lord Jesus Himself was the alone Giver of that bread. Our thoughts are thus, at once, centered on Him and not on the disciples....These Ellipses must not be arbitrarily supplied according to our own individual views; we are not at liberty to insert any words, according to our own fancies: but they are all scientifically arranged and classified, and each must therefore be filled up, according to definite principles which are well ascertained, and in obedience to laws which are carefully laid down.” (FIGURES OF SPEECH USED IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED,By E. W. Bullinger, D.D.)

An example of a correctly supplied word is Mat. 2:9:

“And after they heard the king, they went their way, and behold, the star which they saw at its rising led them until it came and stood over the place where the child was.” (Recovery Version of the Bible).

Now let's consider Luke 4:19 Recovery Version of the Bible. Not even one major Bible translation (that I am aware of) adds the words “the year of jubilee”(in italics, of course).
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord is already clear. There is no need to add any more words. This is more like an explanation, or rather an interpretation that has slipped, in italics, of course, into the text. The phrase “the year of jubilee” of course can find its place in the footnotes, where it belongs.

The Bible itself provides examples of explanations:

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Joh 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.(KJV)

The difference is that, in the last 4 examples, the One Who added an explanation was the Holy Spirit.

testallthings · 03-07-2016, 11:27 PM

SUPPLYING, WRONGLY SUPPLYING

Hebrews 10:22, “Let us come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.” (The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)

The first thing we notice in this verse are the words in italics which no other Bible (as far as I know) has included in the text. This is purely an interpretation that has slipped into the text, again! (in italics, of course).
The question is, if W. Lee is free to insert his interpretation in the text, when he finds it useful, why complaining about what others have done in John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. KJV)?

JJ · 03-09-2016, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

SUPPLYING, WRONGLY SUPPLYING

Hebrews 10:22, “Let us come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.” (The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)

The first thing we notice in this verse are the words in italics which no other Bible (as far as I know) has included in the text. This is purely an interpretation that has slipped into the text, again! (in italics, of course).
The question is, if W. Lee is free to insert his interpretation in the text, when he finds it useful, why complaining about what others have done in John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. KJV)?

Yes, a footnote seems more appropriate here than an insertion.

testallthings · 03-12-2016, 11:54 PM

TRANSLATING THE BIBLE

(Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word (From “A BRIEF EXPLANATION, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991)

1 Pet. 1:5 In which time you exult, though for a little while at present, if it must be, you have been made sorrowful by various trials ( The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991)

Again, in this verse The New Testament Recovery Version differs from all the other major translations because it adds the word time (in italics).
So far we have seen that in three cases, Luke 4:19; Heb. 10:22: 1 Pet. 1:6; The New Testament Recovery Version insert an interpretation in the text.

I am not surprised because this matches what is stated in A BRIEF EXPLANATION. If I understand it correctly, it seems that “a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” (interpretation?) helps in translating the Bible. This might be true or not but can never give anybody the liberty to insert his interpretation in the text of the Holy Word (there are many cases, of course, where words must be supplied to make the text clear to us modern reader).

JJ · 03-14-2016, 09:31 PM

1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

Hmmmm, I wonder if this applies here (and many other places on these message boards)?

OBW · 03-15-2016, 10:40 AM

"Do not go beyond what is written" is a most profound statement. And it argues for:

Less clear doctrine than more clear doctrine.
Less emphasis on what can be derived from rather than what is simply said.
Less speculation as to how spiritual practice "X" should look and more following of Christ.

And we tend to get so worried about how to follow Christ in deciding between non-sinful choice A over non-sinful choice B rather than in living in the manner that we were created to live (and for that matter, commanded to live — by both the law and by Christ).

How we should live is written. But what non-sinful choice we should make is not. But we worry about whether we are living right by the right source rather than worrying that we are not living right. The former is really not written. The latter is.

Ohio · 03-15-2016, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

SUPPLYING, WRONGLY SUPPLYING

Hebrews 10:22, “Let us come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.” (The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)

The first thing we notice in this verse are the words in italics which no other Bible (as far as I know) has included in the text. This is purely an interpretation that has slipped into the text, again! (in italics, of course).

Hebrews 10.19 refers to having "boldness to enter the holiest (which is the holy of holies) place by the blood of Jesus." All the translations make reference to the "holy place, the holiest place, the most holy place, etc." which was a major theme of the gospel, especially to the Jews. They had no permission to enter this place behind the veil until Christ died for our sins. Hebrews uses the temple all all old covenant types to point us to the reality, who is Christ.

Hebrews 10.22 is a parallel verse to 10.19, building on it, and adding further imagery, i.e. "our body washed in pure water," referring to the laver. As such, the "holy of holies" is a little more than implied, since "boldness for entering" and "coming forward" are parallel constructs, both pointing in typology to the holiest place within the temple.

The supplied words here never bothered me before. I have seen far more liberties taken by other translators. But I agree with JJ that a footnote here probably would have been more appropriate.

testallthings · 03-15-2016, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The supplied words here never bothered me before. I have seen far more liberties taken by other translators. But I agree with JJ that a footnote here probably would have been more appropriate.

I am not bothered either if the words supplied are strictly necessary. What is curious is that, in the three cases posted, the RcV is the only Bible (that I am aware of) that has extra words. This gives no moral ground to W. Lee to criticize other Bibles for inserting given in John 7:39.

testallthings · 03-16-2016, 10:18 PM

John 7

Many Christians, I suppose, love very much the Gospel of John. In it they find the verse that maybe changed their lives, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 (KJV)
In it, the miracles are called signs. In the Life-Study of John, W. Lee interprets this signs as a “cases to illustrate the matter of life”. What he means is that in this signs we have a change from death into life. When he comments on chapter 7 he says,

“After the full harvest of their crops, the Jewish people observed the feast of Tabernacles to enjoy what they had reaped in the worship of God (Exo. 23:16; Deut. 16:13-15). Hence, this feast signifies the completion, achievement, and success of man's career, study, and other matters of human life, including religion, with the joy and enjoyment thereof...Eventually, after working your entire life, you will be thirsty, because everything has a last day. Everything ends. The last day is always a great day. After people attain a certain success, other people will give them a memorial day.”1

I think to do justice to the text, John 7, a little bit of what was going on there at that time should be at least noticed.

"15. The first day of the feast of Tabernacles, a feast-day. Thirteen young bullocks offered,&c. Numbers 29:13, and so on. The preparation of the Chagigah. They lodge that night in Jerusalem.
16. The second day of the feast. Twelve young bullocks offered. The appearance of all
the males in the court.
17. The third day. Eleven young bullocks.
18. The fourth day. Ten.
19. The fifth day. Nine.
20. The sixth day. Eight.
21. The seventh day. Seven.
22. The eighth day. One young bullock offered." 2

They offered 70 bullocks according to the 70 nations of the world, and on the eighth day 1 bullock for Israel. I think this picture is meaningful. Can we call it intercession for the ignorant pagans, who knew not the true God?

“The morning would begin with the normal daily morning burnt offering. However, during the Feast of Tabernacles a rite was added to the daily burnt offering called the water-drawing ceremony. During the preparation of the burnt offering,20 a procession of priests with the accompaniment of flute playing and singing wended their way from the temple down to the Pool of Siloam where a priest filled a golden flask with water while a choir repeated Isa. 12:3: “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Mishnah Sukkah 4:9; 5:1; Talmud Sukkah 48b). The Pool of Siloam was a collecting pool for the spring Gihon, the major water supply for Jerusalem. The Jews referred to water from springs or streams fit for drinking as “living water.” Living water was considered the most superior form of water for ritual purification.21” 3

So, on the last day there was no water-drawing ceremony. It was in that day that the Lord Jesus cried out, “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:37-38 (KJV)

“The difficulties of this verse are great, as may be seen by a reference to the
commentators. It will be noted that a comparison is suggested by the word ( kathos), like as, and that there is an Ellipsis which must be supplied. Bengel suggests “as the Scripture hath said so it shall be,” or “so shall it be.” But something more is evidently required. Is there not a reference to the Haphtarah, i.e. , the portion selected (from the Prophets) as the lesson to be read on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which was Zech. 14:1-21?*

The Lord was not present then, for it was not until “the midst of the feast” that He went up (verse 14 ). But in “the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,” with evident reference to the Scripture which had been read, “He that believeth on me (as the Scripture hath said [ concerning Jerusalem: so shall it be ]) out of his heart rivers of living water shall flow.”
What the Scripture had said concerning Jerusalem in Zech. 14:8 was this: – “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea,” &c. To this agree the words of the prophecy in Ezek. 47:1.11. These
prophecies shall yet be literally fulfilled with regard to Jerusalem: and what will then actually take place illustrates what takes place now in the experience of every one who believes in Jesus. Even as those rivers will flow forth from Jerusalem in that day, so now the Holy Spirit, in all His wondrous powers, and gifts, and graces, flows forth from the inward parts–the new nature of the believer.

* The portion from the Law ( Acts 13:15 ) read in conjunction with this was Lev. 22:26. 23:44; with Num. 29:12.16 .” 4

It was custom in the synagogues at the time of the Lord Jesus to read passages from the Law and the Prophets. We have examples in the New Testament in Luke 4:16-21 and Acts 13:15. The interesting, and sad things, is that today Isaiah 61:1, 7:14, 52:13: Hosea 11:1, and may other Christological, or Messianic passages, used by the Lord Jesus or by the apostles, to prove the Lord claims to be the Messiah, are not read in the synagogues. (for further reading (interesting reading) http://www.haaretz.com/news/what-hap...tarah-1.166699. If the link doesn't work google What Happened to Jesus' Haftarah?)

So with this little sketch as the background of John 7 the question is, Did W. Lee do justice to the text?
[/SIZE]
____________________________________

Notes
1 (Life-Study of John, Chapter 17, Section 2)
http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...d=0D8843C64D7E

2 From the Talmud and Hebraica, John Lightfoot ( A copy can be downloaded at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/talmud)

3 John 7-9 in Light of the Feast of Tabernacles, Bruce K. Satterfield
Brigham Young University-Idaho (very interesting, though the author seems to be a Mormon)

4 FIGURES OF SPEECH USED IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED
By E. W. Bullinger, D.D.

aron · 03-17-2016, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Less emphasis on what can be derived from rather than what is simply said.

What is derived can easily drive us apart, as we think that we have recovered hidden truths and messages in the text which give us an inside edge in the Christian race. But in so doing we can quickly elevate ourselves as "seers of the divine revelation", obviously much more gifted than the hoi-polloi, who must "get in line" and "hand everything over" and become "absolutely identical" with the vision we have received at God's hand.

And the plain message of love and redemption and righteousness gets discarded. What is simply said gets read away by today's revelation from the oracle. This is a danger to us all! Witness Lee told us to get out of our minds; he forgot to get out of his.

testallthings · 03-29-2016, 12:24 AM

THE MINGLED SPIRIT

Romans 8:4 says, “That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.” Bible translators have had difficulty discerning whether the spirit mentioned in this verse is the divine Spirit or the human spirit. We need to see that in Romans 8, the Spirit is no longer merely the Spirit of God, as He was in creation (Gen. 1:2), but also the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the resurrecting One. Furthermore, this all-inclusive Spirit is mingled with our spirit. Romans 8:16, which says, “The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit,” mentions the two spirits together. Thus, the spirit in verse 4 refers not merely to the divine Spirit or the human spirit but to these two spirits mingled together as one spirit. Every believer has such a mingled spirit. (The Two Spirits in Romans, Chapter 7, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...d=2A0F5D0666F8

Thus, Galatians 5 unveils the war between our flesh and the Spirit. Although most translators find it difficult to decide whether the spirit in Galatians 5:25 denotes our human spirit or the Holy Spirit, I am confident that it denotes the mingled spirit, the mingling of the Holy Spirit with our regenerated spirit. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 13, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=230E5A0A67

I have written many posts arguing against W. Lee interpretation of certain passages of The Scriptures. I have stated my opinion, understanding, for doing so, and I let the readers judge if what I said was too far from the truth.

In this post I say Amen to Lee's words. When W. Lee is right, well he is right (this is my opinion). So I am not going to disprove something I approve. I never thought that W. Lee was always wrong (if someone is disappointed, let him be disappointed).

So why the purpose of this post? Well, I am actually disappointed at something W. Lee didn't say. Most translators have problem figuring out if they need to use Spirit or spirit in certain verses of the Bible, especially the letter to the Romans. But W. Lee, not a translator himself, was confident to affirm that the verses are talking about the mingled spirit.

I am very confident, too, that this is the explanation, for a simple reason:

The use of a large or small 's' is of extreme difficulty in the case of the word Spirit; not in giving it when the Holy Spirit is simply spoken of personally. There it is simple enough. But as dwelling in us, our state by it, and the Holy Spirit itself, are so blended as to make it then very difficult; because it is spoken of as our state, and then as the Holy Ghost. If it be put large, we lose the first; if small, the Spirit personally. I can only leave it with this warning, calling the attention of the reader to it. It is a blessed thought that it is so blended in power that our state is so spoken of; but if we lose the divine Person, that blessing itself is lost. The reader may see, not the difficulty, for it does not exist there, but the blending of the effect and the person in Romans viii. 27.
REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1871)
The Holy Scriptures A New Translation from the Original Languages
by J. N. Darby
http://www.ccel.org/bible/jnd/darby.htm
__________________________________________________ _________
Disclaimer:
I am not 100% sure that W. Lee never acknowledged Darby as the source of his understanding about the mingled spirit.

OBW · 03-29-2016, 01:32 PM

I've got to disagree. If the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, then they are not mingled, or in any way a single spirit. Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself. A single, mingled spirit could never do anything but agree with itself. Therefore it would be irrelevant to say that they agree with each other since it is to say that it agrees with itself.

I sure hope so.

But since there is stated a sense of agreement, they must not be the same, but rather two that are (at least at times) "on the same page" about things.

So there is a distinction that is never obliterated in the "tea" of mingling.

Besides, what is the basis that Lee gives for claiming they are mingled? It is either that he says it is so, or the fact that they agree.

If we rely on the fact that Lee said it without a further thought, then we have abandoned the reasoning that the Bible provides that would actually argue otherwise.

If we rely on the fact that they agree, then does that mean that every two persons that agree on something are "mingled"? Consider that the verse does not say that the Spirit and our spirit are in sync on everything you can imagine. Rather it is a specific thing — that we are the sons of God.

And then the fact that you can make arguments that certain verses are vague as to whether it is the Spirit or our spirit, or possibly both together does not cause the Spirit and our spirit to be joined in such a way that they cannot be separated or distinguished in the way that Lee argues in his teaching of "mingling."

Even statements like "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" does not necessarily denote anything about the combining of the things that we call "the Spirit" and "our spirit." "Spirit" (not the Holy Spirit) denotes much more than a so-called "organ of the human being or the "third" of the Trinity. It is also a reference to a unity of thought and mind. It is even a reference to a way of living or acting. A "spirit of camaraderie" denotes a unity of purpose, direction, intent, etc. So being one spirit with the Lord is at least partly about becoming aligned with his ways, purposes, etc.

(And don't even bother bringing up "God's eternal purpose" as taught by Lee. There is not really much supporting that particular teaching. It sounds good. It seems spiritual. But it is really little more than the labeling of Lee's errant teachings in a way that cannot be fought against without seeming to fight against God.)

Lee boils everything down to a single definition, therefore he is busy using a form of equivocation to mislead. "Spirit" denotes so many things. But for Lee, the word is very singular in meaning, therefore whatever the particular verse is actually about can be rewritten according to his misdirection to a different meaning of the word.

HERn · 03-29-2016, 01:50 PM

Thanks Mike, that was great! Are you a lawyer?

Freedom · 03-29-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Besides, what is the basis that Lee gives for claiming they are mingled? It is either that he says it is so, or the fact that they agree.

I also don't see where Lee provided any basis to support his assertions. What I see as being the key point to Rom 8:16 is the fact that the Spirit Himself provides evidence/proof that we are children of God. Nowhere do I see anything to indicate the word mingling being applicable to the subject at hand.

So much of what WL taught involved things being taken out of context. A verse that you mentioned, 1 Cor 6:17, is a prime example of something that WL took out of context. If read alone, perhaps it makes sense why Lee would have thought it to support his teaching. If he had considered it in the context of the preceding verse, he might have realized that there was nothing literal about it whatsoever. In verse 16, Paul says that someone joined to a prostitute is one flesh (figuratively). Since he is speaking figuratively then it can only be assumed that being one Spirit with the Lord is meant in a figurative way. There is no reason to add any hocus pocus stuff to it that isn't there. Actually if LCers were to read the Bible thoughtfully, they might realize that Paul was no stranger to using rhetorical devices.

OBW · 03-29-2016, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Thanks Mike, that was great! Are you a lawyer?

Not a lawyer. Possibly worse, an accountant, specifically a tax accountant specializing in the U.S. tax issues of international operations.

Between reading tax laws and studying some logic and a little philosophy, I have come to see the systemic flaws in arguments, not just dealing with what I know to be true or false. I don't necessarily know the answer to some of the things that Lee claims is this way or that way. He could ultimately be right on some of them (though I have my suspicions concerning the controversial ones). But seeing the leaps in logic, the over-simplifying, the tricks of rhetoric to make the hearer/reader follow when there is nothing actually presented that connects to follow, etc., makes me very suspicious.

I start from a position that if it is really true, you don't need to trick people into following you. If your logic is sound, it will be seen as sound. But if your arguments are just rhetorical and argumentative tricks to make people agree without thinking, I assume that there must be something wrong with the "facts." It must not be "simply" this or "obviously" that. Instead it screams to me that it must not be so or there would be no need to hide what is really there.

That does not mean that there is nothing true that is being argued for in a wrong way. But when there is so much of it — and it includes too much "A really means B" and other things that take what I can see and makes me think it is really something else — I become very skeptical.

I followed a podcast from the Princeton Law Review for several years that tried to find problems with everyday, water-cooler arguments. It took on all sides of news clippings and other things that were being argued in the public square and picked apart the arguments. I continue to follow "Skeptoid." The guy is an atheist, but he seldom gets into religion and mostly covers myths, legends, conspiracy theories, SCAMs (that's supplementary, complimentary and alternative medicines, as Mark Crislip from "Quackcast" calls them).

And remember, the plural of anecdote is not data. (another Crislip saying)

(Taking a solution of water plus so little of something else that it is 99% sure that an entire liter of it would not have even one molecule is not a sound medical practice. You might actually get better in a few days. But you probably would have anyway.)

And I have probably offended almost everyone somewhere in there. That seems to be at least one of my callings in life.

testallthings · 03-30-2016, 05:32 AM

OBW, I know you are a very logical person, and I share with you the same skepticism when I see
“the leaps in logic, the over-simplifying, the tricks of rhetoric to make the hearer/reader follow when there is nothing actually presented that connects to follow, etc..”

You said,
“I've got to disagree. If the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, then they are not mingled, or in any way a single spirit. Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself. A single, mingled spirit could never do anything but agree with itself. Therefore it would be irrelevant to say that they agree with each other since it is to say that it agrees with itself.

I sure hope so.

But since there is stated a sense of agreement, they must not be the same, but rather two that are (at least at times) "on the same page" about things.

So there is a distinction that is never obliterated in the "tea" of mingling.”

I say Amen to what you said about the fact that the two spirits are distinct. As far as I remember that's what W. Lee taught. In any case we should at least let him explain what he meant by the term mingling. If we start with the wrong premises or definition of terms than ....well you know logic better than me.

I feel the need to clarifying something about my last post and my posts in general. In the last one I was not defending, or proving the teaching concerning the mingled spirit. That would require a lot more effort, time, and space. If that had been my aim I would have not just quoted few passages (which clearly do not do justice to W. Lee's teaching on the subject) but first of all I would have read carefully a couple of books on the subject, and then state my reasons for or against it. I I have not the desire, neither the time to do so. It will also appear weird. On one thread I'll “criticize” on another I'll “defend” W. Lee interpretations.

Let me say something about my posts in general. Usually they deal with small points, because they do not require lots of study, research, etc.. There are some big issues I'll like to discuss but I just mention them without going to deep. There is one in particular that is dear to me, one that I mentioned on the other thread of mine about W. Lee's horrible teaching about the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. But just to scratch the surface of that subject requires too much from me.

I am satisfied to present to those who read my posts some hints, thoughts, different point of view,
about certain things I disagree with W. Lee. I am aware of my inability to present my views in the most clear and logical way. My hope is that others might find the desire and the time to ponder over the thing shared in my posts and see for themselves if there is anything that may stir up their desire to see if these things are so.

testallthings · 04-07-2016, 08:51 PM

COINCIDENCE??

In a previous post I mentioned about the use of many works not duly quoted in the Recovery Version of the Bible. In rereading Dr. Tomes Nigel work, LSM’s PLAGIARISM—
An Initial Inquiry1, and finding examples about Vincent, Scofield, Vine, etc., but not about Darby, and having noticed long time ago, while reading Darby's translation, some of his notes (coincidence??) in the RcV, and having a little time to play hide and seek, here we go.

Heb. 8:11 And they shall by no means each teach his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, 1Know the Lord; for all will 1know Me from the little one to the great one among them.

1*In this verse two Greek words are used for know:*the first is ginosko,*which signifies the outward, objective knowledge; the second is oida,*which refers to the inward, subjective consciousness. In John 8:55 the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees that they did not know ( ginosko)*God the Father (even in the outward, objective knowledge), and that He did know (oida)*the Father (in the inward, subjective consciousness). Both words are used in 1 John 2:29. (W. Lee, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)

Two Greek words are used for 'to know' in the New Testament – ginosko and oida. The former signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression 'being acquainted with' perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the thought of what is inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external. The difference between the two words is illustrated in John 8:55, 'ye know (ginosko) him not; but I know (oida) him;' in John 13:7, 'What I do thou doest not know (oida) now, but thou shalt know (ginosko) hereafter;' and in Heb. 8:11, ' they shall not teach...saying, Know (ginosko) the Lord; because all shall know (oida) me.' the word oida is used of Christ as knowing the Father, and as knowing the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharises, of Paul's knowledge of a 'man in Christ,' and of the Christian's knowledge that he has eternal life. 'I know whom I have believed,' 2 Tim 1:12 – I have the inward conscious knowledge of who the person is: see also 1 cor. 16:15; 2 Tim. 3:14 and 15 – all of these refer to inward conscious knowledge. The difference between the significance of the two words is often slight; and objective knowledge may pass into conscious knowledge, but not vice versa. The Greek for conscience is derived from oida: see ch. 4.:4, 'I am conscious of nothing in myself,' that is, not conscious of any fault. In the present passage, “We know that an idol is nothing ' is conscious knowledge. ' If any one think he knows (conscious knowledge), he knows (objectively) nothing yet as he ought to know it (objectively):' he is known (objectively) of him,' so 'knowledge,' in ver. 10. (Footnote a on 1 Cor. 8:1, Darby, THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, A NEW TRANSLATION, KINGSTON BIBLE TRUST 1984)

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but the RcV footnote is very similar to the first part of Darby's note.

Freedom · 04-08-2016, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

In a previous post I mentioned about the use of many works not duly quoted in the Recovery Version of the Bible. In rereading Dr. Tomes Nigel work, LSM’s PLAGIARISM—

I don't recall seeing any other works quoted in the RcV except maybe in passing reference. There isn't even a list of references at the end of the RcV. Maybe MOTA's are exempt from citing their sources.

Or maybe WL wanted to purposely push the notion that he came up with all the content in the RcV himself.

testallthings · 04-09-2016, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't recall seeing any other works quoted in the RcV except maybe in passing reference. There isn't even a list of references at the end of the RcV. Maybe MOTA's are exempt from citing their sources.

Or maybe WL wanted to purposely push the notion that he came up with all the content in the RcV himself.

Yes, Freedom, it is quite hard to find one of the 50 footnotes out of the 9000 that actually cite their sources. (Darby is mentioned 13 times. In my previous post I was referring to one note of his to wich no credit was given)

Witness Lee also warned of the “risks” of studying older writings.21 Only a handful of expositors
and scholars from previous generations are explicitly referenced; most of these date back to the
nineteenth century or earlier. The Recovery Version’s notes refer to Marvin R. Vincent (1834-
1922) eighteen times, Dean Henry Alford (1810-1871) fifteen times, and John N. Darby (1800–
1882) thirteen times. In addition, Bengel, Conybeare, and Wuest are cited a couple of times.22
Together these citations comprise a mere fifty footnotes, out of a grand total of 9,000. Some
notable Bible expositors and scholars from previous generations—Lightfoot, Moule, A. T.
Robertson, Westcott, W. E. Vine, F. F. Bruce, for example—are conspicuously absent from
citations in LSM’s Recovery Version and Life-study series.LSM’s PLAGIARISM—
An Initial Inquiry, Dr. Nigel Tomes

testallthings · 06-24-2016, 07:21 PM

The English New Testament Recovery Version does not depart too much from the King James Version?

"In order to learn the English language, you can practice studying not only the New Testament Recovery Version but also the King James Version, which does not contain too many new words or sophisticated phrases. Most people appreciate the depth of its English. Those who are pursuing to learn the English language cannot bypass the King James Version. Many have tried to replace it with other English versions because its history is over three hundred years old and because it contains some phrases or terms that are somewhat out of date. However, no version has been able to replace it. When we were working on the English New Testament Recovery Version, we did not depart too much from the King James Version. We did our best to preserve its style and use its phrases, clauses, and words, unless they did not match the meaning of the original text. Therefore, the language of the English New Testament Recovery Version is not too sophisticated and should be easy for you to get into. This will be a great help to you." (Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 3, Section 1) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=3457D94EDA

I must confess that after I read these words I was positively surprised by the way W. Lee praised the KJV. Other times I heard or read about the poor KJV, so you can imagine my reaction. Although no translation is without errors, thank God that His word has been translated in almost every language.

FROM THE PREFACE OF THE KJV

Many other things we might give thee warning of (gentle Reader) if wee had not exceeded the measure of a Preface alreadie. It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further then we can aske or thinke. Hee removeth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountaines of living water which yee digged not; doe not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither preferre broken pits before them with the wicked Jewes. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vaine, O despise not so great salvation! Be not like swine to treade under foote so precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts; neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a messe of potage. If light be come into the world, love not darknesse more then light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, starve not your selves. Remember the advise of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great faire, and to seeke to make markets afterwards: also the encouragement of S. Chrysostome, It is altogether impossible, that he that is sober (and watchfull) should at any time be neglected: Lastly, the admonition and menacing of S. Augustine, They that despise Gods will inviting them, shal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessednes in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to reade it; when hee stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answere, Here am I; here wee are to doe thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all prayse and thankesgiving. Amen.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...troduction.php

Freedom · 06-24-2016, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

"In order to learn the English language, you can practice studying not only the New Testament Recovery Version but also the King James Version, which does not contain too many new words or sophisticated phrases. Most people appreciate the depth of its English. Those who are pursuing to learn the English language cannot bypass the King James Version. Many have tried to replace it with other English versions because its history is over three hundred years old and because it contains some phrases or terms that are somewhat out of date. However, no version has been able to replace it. When we were working on the English New Testament Recovery Version, we did not depart too much from the King James Version. We did our best to preserve its style and use its phrases, clauses, and words, unless they did not match the meaning of the original text. Therefore, the language of the English New Testament Recovery Version is not too sophisticated and should be easy for you to get into. This will be a great help to you." (Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 3, Section 1) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=3457D94EDA

It's interesting that WL tries to pass of the KJV as a good 'reference' in addition to the RcV. I don't really think that he means what he says. One of his hand-selected elders in Anaheim says the following:

Quote:

For example, in Matthew 10: 32, The Chinese Union Version Bible as well as the King James Version Bible both translated this phrase as: “Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” This portion of the text according to the original text should be translated as: “Everyone therefore who will confess in ME before men, I also will confess in HIM before my Father who is in the heavens.” The King James Version of the Bible missed “in ME” in the first half and also missed “in HIM” in the last half. In other words, according to both Versions, in the first half, we are missed out in the Lord; and in the last half, the Lord is missed out in us, therefore, the text omits to describe the organic union that takes place between the two... It is very unfortunate and reckless that both the King James Version and the Chinese Union Version had not translated such points as these accurately.

With regard to the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version, we are not boasting.
Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 61-62). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The above statement is what I take to be the true view of the KJV in the LC. The fact that they would say that KJV renderings are "unfortunate and reckless" is something that I find to be highly suspect. It's not to say that the KJV is perfect, but given the time and place it which it was put out, it is a timeless translation and that is an understatement.

testallthings · 06-26-2016, 12:49 AM

To Freedom

What you said is interesting. What I really wanted to know if the RcV followed the KJV. Does anyone know?

Ohio · 06-26-2016, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Freedom

What you said is interesting. What I really wanted to know if the RcV followed the KJV. Does anyone know?

Poster ZNPaaneah, who knew the chief translator Robichaux personally, has written several times that the RecVers closely followed the 1901 ASV, and we know that it followed the KJV closely.

testallthings · 06-26-2016, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Poster ZNPaaneah, who knew the chief translator Robichaux personally, has written several times that the RecVers closely followed the 1901 ASV, and we know that it followed the KJV closely.

Thanks Ohio for this info.

UntoHim · 06-26-2016, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Poster ZNPaaneah, who knew the chief translator Robichaux personally, has written several times that the RecVers closely followed the 1901 ASV, and we know that it followed the KJV closely.

Actually the chief translators of the Recovery Version NEW TESTAMENT were John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Bill Duane. Kerry Robichaux was only brought in the assist in polishing the final version.

According to Ingalls, the Chinese Language Recovery Version served as the universal basis for the English NT RcV. Of course the Greek manuscripts should should serve as the universal basis of any translation of the NT, but this was Witness Lee's attempt to influence the translation. Lee had absolutely no business even being in the same room as the translators, but since he was the one apostle with the one ministry for the age....

Ohio · 06-26-2016, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually the chief translators of the Recovery Version NEW TESTAMENT were John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Bill Duane. Kerry Robichaux was only brought in the assist in polishing the final version.

According to Ingalls, the Chinese Language Recovery Version served as the universal basis for the English NT RcV. Of course the Greek manuscripts should should serve as the universal basis of any translation of the NT, but this was Witness Lee's attempt to influence the translation. Lee had absolutely no business even being in the same room as the translators, but since he was the one apostle with the one ministry for the age....

If you remember, Phillip Lee had the original Rec Vers thrown out and replaced with Robichaux. There are lots of differences between the two, but not so much as with other translations.

UntoHim · 06-26-2016, 12:13 PM

All my recollections come from what John Ingalls wrote in Speaking The Truth In Love and a private conversation I had with him at his home in the early 1990s. At that time he didn't think that the NT Recovery Version which was completed by himself, Knoch and Duane was going to be thrown out and replaced. In all these years I have never heard of such a thing happening. Maybe Ohio can fill us in on what actually took place. I do know that the names of Ingalls, Knoch and Duane have been conveniently purged as the original/main translators of the RcV, which in my view is a criminal act by Lee, his sons and anyone else involved over there at LSM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speaking The Truth In Love

RECOVERY VERSION TRANSLATION DEBACLE
October 1987

Over a period of eleven years, from 1974 to 1984, I had worked together with other brothers on the preparation of the text for the Recovery Version of the New Testament. During the greater part of that time, and up to the completion, my co-workers were Bill Duane and Albert Knoch. We worked by ourselves in direct conjunction with Brother Witness Lee, presenting to him our work on each book. Anything to do with the text, any revisions or alterations, were accomplished in direct consultation with Brother Lee. After that he delivered it to the Living Stream Office for all the processes of printing and publication. Hence, in all this work we had no contact whatever with the office.

After the entire New Testament was completed, we anticipated the time when a thorough revision would be made to strengthen various weaknesses in the translation, and to make it more concordant, accurate, and readable. We were informed, however, that the work of revision would be totally headed up by the Living Stream Ministry Office, that is, by its general manager Philip Lee. From past experience and observation we knew that such a relationship would be fraught with great difficulties, and we were full of apprehension. But we had no choice. A room was prepared in the LSM office for this work, and the date for the commencement of the work was set for October 15th.

Kerry Robichaux, a full-time employee of the LSM office was appointed to work with us as a special consultant, he had an advanced degree in linguistics, specializing in Greek; so he was considered a valuable asset to the work. Moreover, he had assisted Brother Lee along with others on the work of the Chinese Recovery Version in Taipei. A Chinese-speaking brother was also appointed to work with us, checking all our work to see that the English revision conformed to the Chinese Recovery Version, which was to be the universal base of other language versions.

On Thursday, October 15, we sat down together in our new facility for the first time and endeavored to lay some groundwork regarding the principles under which we would operate. It was not long before we clashed with Kerry over the guidelines, but we managed to get through and go on. The second day, October 16th, Kerry mentioned some matters regarding the daily schedule which he had received from Philip Lee, with whom he was in continual contact. There was some difficulty over that due to our prior understanding, and Bill Duane proposed that I should be the one to maintain contact with Philip, and not allow room for confusion by both Kerry and I bringing announcements from the office. Relating to the confusion, Bill added, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in and frustrate our work.” Kerry was not happy with Bill’s proposal, but we managed to finish the session and arrange to come back the following week.

To my utter amazement I was informed the following day by Godfred, who received a telephone call from Philip, that our work was being immediately terminated, and the translation would be moved to Texas. Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father. Godfred was appalled and totally disgusted with Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the whole affair was being handled. He was outraged, more so than me, considering that we who had been so closely and deeply involved in the work for years and burdened for its final completion were so abruptly being relieved of our responsibility and replaced. He pointed out to me that this was an example of Phillip’s untenable, growing influence over the work and over his father.

Early in the morning on the following day, the Lord’s Day, Brother Lee called me from Taiwan, and said that he had learned of the problem. He ordered us to stop the work for a week and not continue for a week to allow time to pray and consider what to do. He asked me to pray too. I told Brother Lee over the phone what actually had happened and that it was not at all as he had heard. In any case, Brother Lee felt that to keep the peace there had better be a change. A few days later he had called again to say that he had made the final decision: the work would be moved to Irving, Texas, just as Godfred had been told by Philip Lee. Kerry and others would work there and send their drafts to me, and I would personally render the final review. I acquiesced to this arrangement. It seemed clear that Bill Duane was being excluded from any part in the work. Brother Lee also advised me to use my time to render more help to the church in Anaheim, a matter for which I told him I was burdened.

Fairly speaking, given the parameters of the work under which we were expected to labor, i.e.. the ministry office environment with Philip Lee in charge, it would have definitely been necessary sooner or later to make some rearrangement. There would inevitably be friction and unpleasant eruptions. From the beginning I could foresee nothing else. Therefore for the work to continue in peace Brother Lee would eventually be forced to take some sort of action. I am thankful that it occurred sooner rather than later. For me the burden of the work under such conditions would have been a great strain on my health, and I was not ready to sacrifice my life in that way. (Some brothers have recently asserted that I should have used the opportunity of Brother Lee’s telephone calls from Taiwan to share with him over the phone our deep concerns. This I would never do. Such grave considerations required face to face encounters.)

Bill Duane was utterly revulsed upon learning of Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the matter was handled. Under such conditions he was happy to be relieved of any further involvement, but saddened that the translation work came to such a conclusion. I continued in the work on the revision, polishing the drafts from Texas and passing them on to Brother Lee, for over a year. Eventually, toward the end of 1988, I felt I should withdraw, and tendered a letter of resignation to Brother Lee on December 3rd. That brought to a close a major era in my life and work.

-----------------------------------------------------

testallthings · 06-27-2016, 05:46 PM

Thanks UntoHim for another piece of the story behind the RcV.

Freedom · 06-27-2016, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A review of the RcV

According to Wikipedia (accessed 8 March 2006), “First published in 1985, the Recovery Version of the New Testament was created in response to the publishers of the American Standard Version of the Bible who refused to allow the Living Stream Ministry to insert footnotes into their text. These footnotes are taken from the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, written specifically for the Recovery Version for a greater understanding and experience of the text.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/recovery-version.html

I wonder how much truth there is to this? It doesn't sound too far-fetched, and if true it would indicate that the true 'purpose' behind the RcV was none other than to provide a place for Lee to put his footnotes.

Ohio · 06-28-2016, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

At that time he didn't think that the NT Recovery Version which was completed by himself, Knoch and Duane was going to be thrown out and replaced. In all these years I have never heard of such a thing happening. Maybe Ohio can fill us in on what actually took place.
-

What I posted was from ZNPaaneah.

What he has written corresponds with that Wiki blurb just posted.

ZNPaaneah regularly posted here until he got upset and left. Since then he has been writing continually on the old Public Square forum. He could be consulted there.

Freedom · 06-28-2016, 09:50 AM

There are a lot of questions that have been in the back of my mind about the RcV. I can vaguely remember seeing old-timers with NT RcV 'booklets' for various books of the NT. I seem to remember hearing that these were produced in conjunction with the Life-Studies. I was once told, and I have no idea if it's true, that the original 1985 RcV was essentially just throwing together all these booklets produced and printing it as a NT Bible. John Ingalls' testimony would certain support that, especially because he readily admits that they (the original translators) produced something sub-par that needed extensive revision. So it makes me wonder if a printed NT Bible was ever the original intended goal or not. Is that what WL initially tasked them with producing, or was it more something along the lines of a study aide for his Life-Studies?

If WL did indeed want to add footnotes (condensed Life-Studies excerpts) to a Bible such as the ASV/NASV, then the RcV text was just his reaction to being told 'no'. Knowing Lee's temperament, he probably asked for something quick and dirty to be produced at a whim and that's what was produced. I haven't read the original 1985 text and compared it to the later text, but I couldn't imagine it being too much different. Even if Kerry made substantial improvements, it's ironic to think about all the politics at play: 1) the motivation behind the translation, 2) the purging of the original translators, and 3) the final 'spin' placed on the translation, that it's the 'consummation' of the past 2000 years of understanding among Christians. And who claims to have this understanding? The editorial section. I bet most people who get a free Bible from BFA wonder who the editorial section is. I wonder too.

TLFisher · 06-28-2016, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I bet most people who get a free Bible from BFA wonder who the editorial section is. I wonder too.

Is it really a free Bible or just a free New Testament? Even if RcV is a good translation, I say thanks, but no thanks. I'm just reactive from remembering the tapes in my head when serving brothers would be condescending towards NASB, NIV, or any version that wasn't RcV, Darby, or KJV.

Ohio · 06-28-2016, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

There are a lot of questions that have been in the back of my mind about the RcV. I can vaguely remember seeing old-timers with NT RcV 'booklets' for various books of the NT. I seem to remember hearing that these were produced in conjunction with the Life-Studies. I was once told, and I have no idea if it's true, that the original 1985 RcV was essentially just throwing together all these booklets produced and printing it as a NT Bible. John Ingalls' testimony would certain support that, especially because he readily admits that they (the original translators) produced something sub-par that needed extensive revision. So it makes me wonder if a printed NT Bible was ever the original intended goal or not. Is that what WL initially tasked them with producing, or was it more something along the lines of a study aide for his Life-Studies?

The original RecVers came out book by book just in time for each Life Study training. Outlines accompanied the messages, so the RecVers booklet and outline were on each seat to start the training. They would also be sent to all those who prepaid to watch the videos. The Life Study of the NT started in '74 with John's gospel (I think), then Romans, then Hebrews, then Revelations, when I came on board. The quality of the handouts improved over time. I think the videos started with Matthew in '77 or '78. The loose Life Study messages would come out months later.

Each subsequent book of the RecVers had more and more footnotes. Actually Romans had an introductory paragraph about each section of verses, but little footnotes. On my desk here is the original bound version of those booklets passed out in all the trainings. I like Ingalls text of the scripture much better than Robichaux's, though admittedly they are quite similar.

The major work that was needed to put together the current RecVers was not in the actual text, the accompanying outlines, or the verse references, it was all the footnotes. Brothers had to read through all the Life-Studies and glean out text to add for footnotes. When you read the new RecVers with the Life Study, you will see whole sections which correspond word for word.

Ingalls felt his initial work needed reworking to harmonize the translation into a complete whole. I am not so sure about that, since the tendency is to uniformize? the diverse books into one coherent. But that's not how they were originally penned. Many of the current translations (like the NLT for which Philip Comfort was NT coordinating editor) used different translators for each book. What's so bad about that?

The quality of binding and paper for the new RecVers is head over heels better than that original cobbled together book. After many years of experimentation on those of my books (and my shoes btw) which tend to fall apart at the seams, I have by now arrived at my adhesive of choice to hold these well worn items together, at least for another day.

testallthings · 06-28-2016, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Poster ZNPaaneah, who knew the chief translator Robichaux personally, has written several times that the RecVers closely followed the 1901 ASV, and we know that it followed the KJV closely.

I went through the fist 10 verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, and Revelation (it is not much) and it seems to me that the RcV follows very closely the ASV rather than the KJV.

Ohio · 06-28-2016, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

I went through the fist 10 verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, and Revelation (it is not much) and it seems to me that the RcV follows very closely the ASV rather than the KJV.

Correct.

The American Standard Version (1901) and the Revised English Version (1887) both followed the traditional Elizabethan English of the King James Version (1611.)

The Recovery Version (1985/1990) follows closely to the ASV, as you have said.

In his book The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Dr. Philip Comfort (formerly my elder in the church in Columbus) said the following:

Quote:

The New Testament scholars began to discover that most of the N.T. was written in Koine Greek -- the language of the people. As a result, there was a strong prompting to translate the N.T. into the language of the people. Various translators chose to divorce themselves from the traditional Elizabethan English as found in the King James Version (and even in the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version) and produce fresh renderings in the common idiom. (page 62)

It is interesting to note that LSMers ignorantly condemn other English translations simply for endeavoring to duplicate the vernacular of the common people, just as the writers of the N.T. used Koine Greek in their day.

In a footnote referenced in this paragraph of Comfort's book, he did note that 3 books of the N.T. were written in a style closer to classical Greek than Koine Greek. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts in polished Greek; and the writer of Hebrews wrote in prosaic Greek.

Freedom · 06-29-2016, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is interesting to note that LSMers ignorantly condemn other English translations simply for endeavoring to duplicate the vernacular of the common people, just as the writers of the N.T. used Koine Greek in their day.

In a footnote referenced in this paragraph of Comfort's book, he did note that 3 books of the N.T. were written in a style closer to classical Greek than Koine Greek. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts in polished Greek; and the writer of Hebrews wrote in prosaic Greek.

Quote:

Translation Methodology
The Recovery Version conforms to a particular philosophy of Bible translation which is admittedly not in vogue today. Every translation of the Bible embodies a philosophy about what the Bible is, about the relation of its writers to God, and even about God Himself. The trend today is away from a more literal rendering of the ancient text toward a more literary one; newer translations seek to make the Bible easy to read and understand. But while we do not aim for obscurity, we contend that the deep things of God are not simple for human language, that the mind of Christ is not shallow or easily explained, and that the content of the Bible comes not merely through our renderings but by the Spirit through spiritual words. Our view about Bible translation reflects Paul’s words to the Corinthians concerning the ministry in general: "Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things with spiritual words" (1 Cor. 2:13). Our words, our translation, must be with spiritual words, else the Spirit, we maintain, has no way nor any responsibility to bear the spiritual things of the Bible to our readers. We admit that translation of this sort is sometimes not the easiest to read or comprehend, but we are compelled to sacrifice easy reading for deeper truth. Though we are for the casual reading of the Bible, we maintain that the Bible is to be studied carefully, and we so translate it, attempting to leave in our work the fine points expressed in the original.

http://www.recoveryversion.org/translation.html

LSM makes no effort to hide the fact that they favor a literal translation. I really have nothing against a literal translation per se, in fact, I think it has value just as do translations that are more readable have their value.

The problem that I see, however, is trying to fit the Bible in a certain 'box', in LSM's case, it's the box of literal translation. It simply doesn't work.

LSM seems to believe that readability always involves compromising accuracy. Does it? I don't think so. Those who authored the NT certainly didn't think so.

OBW · 06-29-2016, 10:17 AM

From Translation Methodology:

Quote:

But while we do not aim for obscurity, we contend that the deep things of God are not simple for human language, that the mind of Christ is not shallow or easily explained, and that the content of the Bible comes not merely through our renderings but by the Spirit through spiritual words. Our view about Bible translation reflects Paul’s words to the Corinthians concerning the ministry in general: "Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things with spiritual words" (1 Cor. 2:13). Our words, our translation, must be with spiritual words, else the Spirit, we maintain, has no way nor any responsibility to bear the spiritual things of the Bible to our readers. We admit that translation of this sort is sometimes not the easiest to read or comprehend, but we are compelled to sacrifice easy reading for deeper truth. Though we are for the casual reading of the Bible, we maintain that the Bible is to be studied carefully, and we so translate it, attempting to leave in our work the fine points expressed in the original.

The first thing said in this part is that they are not aiming for obscurity. Yet retaining terse and difficult construction just because some Hebrew or Greek idiom translates to very convoluted words is of no value to anyone except those who want to keep the Bible as a mystery that only they (claim to) understand.

If it requires the Spirit to really understand what is being said, that would be true whether the underlying words were difficult or easier to understand. Making initial understanding more difficult does not help us rely on the Spirit. It makes us more likely to throw up our hands in despair. Besides, if the original Hebrew or Greek was something written in common language rather than in the nit-picking style of the formal language, then the goal at writing was "clearly" to be clear and not obscure.

How duplicitous to then insist on not only refusing the common language, but making it so difficult that even those well-adept at the formal language would have trouble. It surely is not a "spiritual" thing. Instead it is evidence of a desire for superiority over those to whom the results will be provided.

Besides what benefit is there to be gained from translating a colloquialism or idiom into a string of English words that are ridiculous and indecipherable relative to the actual meaning when the intent of the idiom was to be understood. Just say that in English. That is proper translation.

They need to stop hiding behind a false veil of superiority. It makes them look stupid. (And in some sense, they are.)

Freedom · 06-29-2016, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

How duplicitous to then insist on not only refusing the common language, but making it so difficult that even those well-adept at the formal language would have trouble. It surely is not a "spiritual" thing. Instead it is evidence of a desire for superiority over those to whom the results will be provided.

LSM presumes that difficult language is equal with greater spiritual content. If I read a KJV, there are plenty of passages where I might struggle with difficult language. That doesn't mean that the KJV is more 'spiritual' or accurate, it means that it contains language and phrasing that is reminiscent of 400 years ago. But this is exactly the kind of trap that many people fall into, not just in the LC, but outside too. Ideas like esoteric=spiritual, difficult=superior, etc.

Ohio · 06-29-2016, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

LSM makes no effort to hide the fact that they favor a literal translation. I really have nothing against a literal translation per se, in fact, I think it has value just as do translations that are more readable have their value.

The problem that I see, however, is trying to fit the Bible in a certain 'box', in LSM's case, it's the box of literal translation. It simply doesn't work.

LSM seems to believe that readability always involves compromising accuracy. Does it? I don't think so. Those who authored the NT certainly didn't think so.

Strict literalism can lead to worse inaccuracies. How do language idioms sound when translated literally? Ever try to read Robert Young's literal translation (YLT, 1862) of the N.T.?

Philip Comfort classifies translations in this way, with some examples:

Strictly Literal (NASB)
Literal (NKJV, RSV, NAB)
Literal with idiomatic freedom (NIV, NJB, REB)
Dynamic Equivalent, modern speech (TEV)
Paraphrastic (TLB)

Let's face it, Lee and LSM always know what is best!

Personally, I attempted to read the KJV several times in my early life, and quite unsuccessfully. Then a friend from work, along with others, bought cases of Paraphrased Bibles, called The Greatest is Love (TLB) and passed them out. I was wonderfully saved, and filled with His Spirit, just by reading this version of the N.T. After I entered the LC, I was persuaded that my beloved paraphrase too "watered down," childish, and error-prone, so I discarded it. Just recently I found a used book at Amazon and replaced it! Better than a thousand Life Studies! So much for LSM's official version.

OBW · 06-29-2016, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

LSM presumes that difficult language is equal with greater spiritual content.

Yes I have heard this stated in different terms in the past 10 years. My nephew asserted that saying better made it better. While that is a paraphrase, it is so close to exactly what he said that it would be nit-picking to argue otherwise.

Freedom · 07-01-2016, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Strict literalism can lead to worse inaccuracies. How do language idioms sound when translated literally? Ever try to read Robert Young's literal translation (YLT, 1862) of the N.T.?

Philip Comfort classifies translations in this way, with some examples:

Strictly Literal (NASB)
Literal (NKJV, RSV, NAB)
Literal with idiomatic freedom (NIV, NJB, REB)
Dynamic Equivalent, modern speech (TEV)
Paraphrastic (TLB)

Let's face it, Lee and LSM always know what is best!

Personally, I attempted to read the KJV several times in my early life, and quite unsuccessfully. Then a friend from work, along with others, bought cases of Paraphrased Bibles, called The Greatest is Love (TLB) and passed them out. I was wonderfully saved, and filled with His Spirit, just by reading this version of the N.T. After I entered the LC, I was persuaded that my beloved paraphrase too "watered down," childish, and error-prone, so I discarded it. Just recently I found a used book at Amazon and replaced it! Better than a thousand Life Studies! So much for LSM's official version.

I have referenced The Message from time to time, and I do think that there is some amount of value in paraphrased text. And I'm sure the concern also exists outside the LC that such things 'dilute' God's Word. I don't see the problem, other than the way scripture is paraphrased is based upon the author's own understanding of scripture.

As you say, literal translations cannot always carry context and idioms. That is what often makes them difficult. Of course, they have their value when it comes to accuracy. Actually, it's ironic that accuracy was a goal with the RcV, because things were deliberately mistranslated to fit Lee's teachings.

testallthings · 07-03-2016, 07:32 PM

A swallow does not make a spring.

Mat. 8:2 a And behold, a 1b leper, coming near, 2c worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if You are willing, You can cleanse me.

Note 2.2 The leper worshipped the new King and called Him "Lord," recognizing that He is the Lord God. In reality the new King is Jehovah the Savior — Jesus. (See note 211*in ch. 1.)

(W. Lee, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry)

There are two problems with this interpretation, and both of them are the result of forgetting that words may have more than one meaning, and that the context can help us to translate and interpret in a way that is both faithful and consistent with the general use of the terms at the time the New Testament was written.

The two words are προσκυνέω (proskuneō) and κύριος (kurios).
The first has the meaning of to worship, to bow down, to show reverence and submission. The second means Lord, lord, master, sir.

“And worshipped him in a civil and respectful way, showing great reverence to him as a man; which he did by falling down on his knees, and on his face; prostrating himself before him, in a very humble and submissive manner, as the other evangelists relate: for that he worshipped him as God, is not so manifest; though it is certain he had an high opinion of him, and great faith in him; which he very modestly expresses.” (John Gill's exposition of the entire Bible, e-Sword)

Worshipped him - Bowed down before him, to show him respect. See the notes at Mat_2:2.
To worship him - This does not mean that they had come to pay him religious homage, or to adore him They regarded him as the King of the Jews, but there is no evidence that they supposed that he was divine. They came to honor him as a Prince, or a king, not as God. The original word implies no more than this. It means to prostrate oneself before another; to fall down and pay homage to another. This was the mode in which homage was paid to earthly kings, and this they wished to pay to the new-born King of the Jews. See the same meaning of the word in Mat_20:20; Mat_18:26; Act_10:25; Luk_14:10. The English word “worship” also meant formerly “to respect, to honor, to treat with civil reverence’” (Webster).(Abert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, e-Sword)

We could quote more from other commentators, but this will only make this post too long. Leaving the “opinion” of men, let's look at what the Scripture says. I'll quote very few examples.
Mat 27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.
Joh_4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water?
Joh_12:21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Rev 7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (ASV)

In all these verses the word translated Sir or lord in Greek is κύριος (kurios).
The Samaritan woman addressed Jesus in the same way as the leper, but here the KJV and the RcV translate Sir. When the Greeks called Philip Sir (kurios) did they imply that he was God? When John called the elder my lord (my kurios) was he falling into idolatry?
In pointing out this different, and probably more correct, interpretation, we do not intend to minimize or to question Jesus divinity. We believe with Paul, Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (KJV)

What we question is that if this verse (Mat. 8:2) shows clearly Jesus divinity it could be used to win a debate with an Unitarian, but I guess this has never been the case. Outwardly the Lord Jesus was found in a fashion as a man (the Word became flesh). It was not easy to see that He was God. Demons of course recognized Him as the Son of God and the Holy One, and were told close their mouth so not to spread this “revelation”. When He asked the disciple what the people thought about Him the answer was that some believed He was one of the prophets, but for Peter, who got the revelation from the Father, He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus told them not to tell others about this revelation.

If the Lord Jesus was so careful about keeping His real identity hidden, why (if W. Lee's interpretation is correct) He never said a word to the leper, or to the centurion? And why no one from the crowd that was following Him (maybe a scribe or a Pharises, it seems they were everywhere) didn't say
like in Luk 19:39 Teacher, rebuke thy disciples? (And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples.)

Although W. Lee's incorrect interpretation this time has the merit of giving honor to the Lord Jesus, nonetheless it is incorrect. As the proverb goes, A swallow does not make a spring.

aron · 07-06-2016, 02:08 PM

I remember reading a note in the preface to the RecV where they said that they won't "shrink back from the divine name" Jehovah. I suppose this is in distinction to the Tetragrammaton, JHWH. And the English equivalent "The LORD".

Question: why didn't Jesus use the word Jehovah? "The LORD said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... " why didn't Jesus say, "Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... "?

Why wasn't Jehovah used by the NT writers and speakers? Shrinking back? Secretive? If so, what changed in the late 20th century, that we no longer shrink back from so doing?

HERn · 07-06-2016, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading a note in the preface to the RecV where they said that they won't "shrink back from the divine name" Jehovah. I suppose this is in distinction to the Tetragrammaton, JHWH. And the English equivalent "The LORD".

Question: why didn't Jesus use the word Jehovah? "The LORD said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... " why didn't Jesus say, "Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... "?

Why wasn't Jehovah used by the NT writers and speakers? Shrinking back? Secretive? If so, what changed in the late 20th century, that we no longer shrink back from so doing?

I did not know that Jesus or the NT writers did not use Jehovah. Why would LSM make a big deal out of this?

UntoHim · 07-06-2016, 07:54 PM

Interesting thing is that Jesus (anglicized form of Yeshua) was thought to be a form of "Jehovah saves" by many scholars over the years.

The simple truth is that no one has any way to know how names were pronounced over 2,000 years ago in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean. It is almost certain that Jesus' every-day language was Aramaic. It is almost certain that Aramaic speakers did not use the name "Jehovah". Jesus addressed the Father several times with the Aramaic word "Abba". Some scholars have postulated that this term is roughly equivalent to the English term "Daddy". Other scholars have claimed that this translation of Abba is dubious.

In any event, it is almost certain that Jesus never used this term "Jehovah". Of course he taught in the synagogue, and the official language of the synagogues was probably Hebrew, so Jesus most likely used some form of the Hebraic name of God: Yahweh יהוה

It is all a matter of speculation at this point. Regular forum contributor Nigel Tomes has produced a rather comprehensive treatment of this matter which is posted on the forum here:
Tradition trumps Truth: Jehovah—the Recovery’s Misnomer
Not a very easy read, but for those of you interested in such things, it's very much worth your time.

-

testallthings · 08-01-2016, 11:51 PM

Philippians 2:4

Not regarding each his own 1 virtues, but each the 1 virtues of others also.

4.1*Lit., things; referring to virtues and qualities. We should regard not only our own virtues and qualities but also those of others. (The New Testament Recovery Version, Revised edition 1991, published by Living Stream Ministry, Aneheim, California)

The first thing we notice is that the RcV transaltion of this verse is quite unusual. What I mean is that it is probably the only one that adds the word virtues. This is probably W. Lee undertanding of the passage which I had preferred printend in italics. It is true that in the footnote to Philippians 2:4 he gives the lit. translation and then his interpretation. In it he also mentions qualities. That's how Darby renders this verse, “regarding not each his own qualities , but each those of others also”. (Quoted from e-Sword. In the printed Bible he puts qualities in square brackets). It seems clear that for the translation of this verse W. Lee relied on Darby's translation. Darby, however, in his footnote for the word qualities states that it can also mean advantages. One thing is clear that the translation of this verse is somehow a difficult task, not just for Darby or Lee, but for all Bible translators in general (some have used profits, private good, concerns, care, and others simply things).

I have been pondering over this verse for a while, reading again every epistle of Paul (and of course Philippians) and other passages in the New Testament that might shed some light on this verse. After this instructive reading, I have the impression that virtues (moral excellence), qualities (personal trait, especially a character trait), profit, care and concerns are possibly acceptable interpretations though not the only ones. First, let us consider the immediate context.
Php 2:3 let nothing be in the spirit of strife or vain glory, but, in lowliness of mind, each esteeming the other as more excellent than themselves;
Php 2:4 regarding not each his own qualities , but each those of others also.
Php 2:5 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus;
Php 2:6 who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form...(Darby).
Verse 3 speaks of esteeming others (to me this seems to indicate something more than just virtues) as more excellent than ourselves. Verse 6 gives us the example of the Lord Jesus Himself. Without trying to get too much into the analysis of the kenosis of our Lord, one thing seems clear, He abandoned (for a while) His high position to become a servant. It was the Lord Jesus Himself, as it is recorded in the Gospel of John chapter 13, that gave the disciple a humbling lesson. After He had finished washing their feet He said, Joh 13:13 Ye call me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well, for I am so . Joh 13:14 If I therefore, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet; Joh 13:15 for I have given you an example that, as I have done to you, ye should do also. Joh 13:16 Verily, verily, I say to you, The bondman is not greater than his lord, nor the sent greater than he who has sent him. Joh 13:17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them. (Darby) To be Teacher or Lord has nothing to do with virtues but it is a matter of position. I guess many messages have been spoken and printed about this passage and how to wash one another's feet. I think, the most important lesson for the disciples, and for all of us alike, is that we should give up our high position, whatever that position might be (teacher, apostle, prophet...) if we really want to be in a “position” (that of a servant) to wash one another's feet (of course there is another aspect to this truth as seen in the life of Paul who in some cases exercised and in other did not exercised his apostolic authority).

Another passage that seems to support this “interpretation” is 1 Corinthians 12. As we all know there is one body but many members and each member is different from another having received a special gift or function from God. This different “position” (apostle, prophet, teacher...) should not cause the members of the one Body to either dispair of his gift or exalt himself over other members. ( 1Co 12:15 If the foot say, Because I am not a hand I am not of the body, is it on account of this not indeed of the body?
1Co 12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, I have not need of thee; or again, the head to the feet, I have not need of you.) No, every member should care for the other members, honoring them, to maintain the unity of the Body. The same thought is expressed in Romans 12 (Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace which has been given to me, to every one that is among you, not to have high thoughts above what he should think; but to think so as to be wise, as God has dealt to each a measure of faith.
Rom 12:4 For, as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; Rom 12:16 Have the same respect one for another, not minding high things, but going along with the lowly: be not wise in your own eyes). We should not think highly of ourselves or of our office but we should honor the other members. There are some more passages but this post is already long.

I am still meditating over Philippians 2. Maybe what I said is nothing but speculation and as such you know what to do with it.

testallthings · 09-04-2016, 08:38 PM

Ignatius of Antioch (c.35 ?– c.108)

While not having the same authority of the Holy Scripture it is nonetheless instructive and sometimes clarifying referring to the so called Church Fathers (no book after the closing of the N. T. is inspired. While there are thousands of wonderful and inspiring books none matches the Bible.) Ignatius, the second or the third bishop of Antioch, being a disciple of Peter, Paul or John, or of all three (the story is not so clear) lived very close to (and for a while in) the apostolic age.
From his seven letters he strongly encourages submission to the bishop (one of the elders in the church) as to Christ. Was he right in affirming this? Was he wrong? My point is to show that submission to authority in the church was not a Chinese invention influenced by its tradition or by Mao.

In any case Ignatius has not a good reputation in the Lord's Recovery. Actually, as a martyred he was praised by Watchman Nee. For what he wrote in his seven letters he is criticized by W. Lee and in less degree by W. Nee (and maybe by Protestant in general, I don't know). Let's start by quoting Lee,

“...Ignatius wrongly interpreted the words in Acts 20:17-28. There the apostle clearly said that the overseers were elders. Elder denotes the person, and overseer denotes the service; these two terms are two designations for the same person. Ignatius, however, thought that the overseers, spoken of in Acts 20:17-28, were higher than the elders; he taught that elders were for a locality but that overseers were not limited to one locality...”
(The Testimony and the Ground of the Church, Chapter 14, Section 1, at www.lsm.org)

“Ignatius was a dear brother, but he made a big mistake in teaching that an overseer, a bishop, was higher than an elder. This shows us that we must be careful in interpreting the Bible. An overseer or bishop according to Ignatius controls the elders in the churches. This may have seemed like a small mistake, but this was the opening of the door for the hierarchy in today’s Christendom.”
(Elders' Training, Book 04: Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 8, Section 1, at www.lsm.org)

“Ignatius was able to make such a big mistake because he was not clear about the Body, the one new man. His erroneous teaching gave the ground to rank within the church and brought hierarchy into the church.”
(The History of the Church and the Local Churches, Chapter 1, Section 2, at www.lsm.org)

W. Lee accuses Ignatius of wrongly interpreting the words in Acts 20:17-28, and by doing so to have introduced hierarchy in the church. If anyone actually reads the seven letters of Ignatius he will see that W. Lee deduction is wrong. How did he know that Ignatius was interpreting that passage? He was not teaching at all! There were already bishops “ruling” the church! He did not introduce a new teaching!
A very young W. Nee is more clear on this point,

“Twelve years after John wrote Revelation, one "father" of that time, Ignatius, also wrote to the church in Ephesus. From that letter we can see that by then the church had left the system established by Christ and the apostles. Originally, overseers and elders were the same group of people. There was no such thing as one man ruling one church or many churches. We have mentioned this point before. However, the Nicolaitans were raised up. They changed the Lord's system, gave special authority to the workers, and established a sect. Ignatius did not stop this. On the contrary, he encouraged this from the side. In chapter six of his book, it was mentioned, "Hence, it is very obvious that as we honor the Lord Himself, we should also honor the bishop." Notice the word bishop here is singular. This shows us the beginning of the one-man-rule. This is not only true with Ephesus; all the churches of that day were under this snare. Hence, when Ignatius wrote to the Manicheans, he said, "As the Lord would not do anything apart from the Father, in the same way, you [the elders, deacons, or the members] should not do anything apart from the bishop."”

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 04: The Christian (2), Chapter 3, Section 12, at www.lsm.org)

Nee complaint about Ignatius is that he didn't stop the situation (the situation was already there) that “gave special authority to the workers”. He didn't blame Ignatius for misinterpretation or for a new teaching. This difference in understanding of a simple fact of history as this (between Lee and Nee) makes me wonder how, and how much really Lee got from Nee when allegedly Nee told Lee about all the best things of 1900 years of Christianity.

JJ · 09-25-2016, 09:24 PM

Thanks, Testallthings for digging up quotes from Lee and Nee regarding Ignatius' stance toward bishops.

What is most remarkable to me is that saints in TLR have ended up treating them like the Pope. Whatever they said carries more weight than scripture!

01-18-2016, 06:04 PM	#1
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Translation & More “In this message we shall consider further the builder of the pillars, the skillful Hiram (1 Kings 7:13-14; 2 Chron. 2:13-14). It is not easy to know the Bible.” We all agree on this point. So we try our best the search for the best tools we can find. “Sometimes when translators have difficulty with a particular passage, they assume that the manuscripts are in error.” It is possible. Sometimes scribes and copist did surely make mistakes. “However, when we probe into the depths of the revelation of the Bible, we must worship God.” Surely this is the experience of all who have proved that the revelation of the Bible is from a divine source and it is perfect. “Often what at first glance appears to be a mistake in the manuscripts turns out to be a mysterious truth hidden in the Scriptures.” Maybe. I would not deny that it is possible. “This is true with respect to 1 Kings 7:14. The King James Version renders the verse as, "He [Hiram] was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali." According to this rendering and the understanding of most translators, the modifier, "of the tribe of Naphtali," goes with the word "widow." That's really so. They translated this verse in the correct way. “This would mean that this verse says that the widow was of the tribe of Naphtali. But 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that Hiram was "the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan." How could a daughter of Dan also be of the tribe of Naphtali? Some translators, neglecting the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 7:14, tried their best to reconcile this discrepancy, but they failed.” They failed. Oh, poor translators. How come you failed so miserably? So please can you tell us how to translate this verse. We really have no clue. “By studying the Hebrew text we have learned that this verse should be translated as follows: "The son of a widowed woman; and he was of the tribe of Naphtali." Thus, Hiram, the son, was of the tribe of Naphtali. This solves the problem.” (Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 86, Section 1) [The words without quotation marks are mine, of course] Wow! This solves the problem! It was really so simple! Just add the word and! Let's be serious. In the RcV the verse is translated differently, “He was the son of a widow and he was of the tribe of Naphtali. (RcV) The job of a translator is to translate not to reconcile discrepancies. Able commentators have solved this problem without tampering with the text. Here a some examples. “He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was צֹרִי אִישׁ, i.e., a Tyrian by birth. According to 2Ch_2:13, his mother was “of the daughters of Dan,” i.e., of the tribe of Dan. Both statements may easily be united thus: she was a Danite by birth, and married into the tribe of Naphtali. When her husband died, she was married again as the widow of a Naphtalite, and became the wife of a Tyrian, to whom she bore a son, Hiram. This explanation is also adopted by Bertheau (on the Chronicles); and the conjecture of Lundius, Thenius, and others, that the mother was an Israelitish widow of the city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali, which was quite close to Tyre, is less in harmony with the expression “of the daughters of Dan.” Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament “Hiram was a born master builder. The influence of heredity needs no more signal illustration. He combines his mother's heart and his father's mind. Strange, that in a correspondence between Eastern kings of antiquity, with whom woman's fame was of less than cypher value, Hiram's mother should be mentioned at all; stranger still, that the premier place is given to her, implying that, while both parents were eminent, the mother was pre-eminent. Who was she? “A woman of the daughters of Dan” (2Ch_2:13-14). The Danites bore the brunt of all the Sidonian incursions, until, driven from hearth and home for refuge to the hills, privation and isolation but varied the form of the disasters that dogged them. Finally, submitting to capture or surrender, they were taken across the border into Tyre to suffer further ignominy amid alien surroundings. But never did the sons and daughters of Dan forget their tribal ancestry or affinities. Their traditions and Pride became a splendid inheritance, and their faith sustained them under the sharpest persecution. Even their oppressors grew to respect them, and permitted them to thrive in their midst. Hiram”s mother had the tribal grit, the unswerving courage of her people, so that when named at the Tyrian Court, it is as “a woman of the daughters of Dan.” And, in his letter to Solomon, Hiram the King lets drop this bit of feminine biography that is a tribute to her fine fidelity to conscience. Do not think that this passes in the record as of no account. You can prophesy with tolerable certainty as to Hiram's future when you read his mother's story, and you can as surely anticipate as much for every child of promise whose mother is true to the form of faith that holds her to the people of God.” The Biblical Illustrator

01-18-2016, 06:38 PM	#2
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: TRANSLATION & MORE testallthings, to help clarify quotes and references, several facilities are available to help the reader. colors fonts indents quote button then for emphasis, bold, italics, and underline can be used. Just trying to help out some of us old folks, like me. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

01-20-2016, 10:02 PM	#6
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More Verse 25 [Mat. 11:25] opens with the words, “At that time.” This refers to the time the Lord was rebuking the cities. Verse 25 says, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I praise You, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth.” When the Lord was rebuking those leading cities, He answered and said, “I praise You, Father.” The word “answered” is very meaningful. Whom did the Lord answer? He answered the Father. While the Lord was rebuking the cities, He fellowshipped with the Father. At that time, answering the Father, He spoke praise to Him. (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 31, Section 5) “Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word...The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes.” (A brief explanation, NT RcV Revised Edition 1991) Translating the Bible requires more than adequate comprehension of the original language. Interpreting the Word requires more than a proper understanding of the original languages and their usage plus a more than proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word. Without these things the translation and the interpretation could be just the mere exercise of the translator or preacher fantasy. The sad thing is that this fantasy is passed on to followers who never bother to “examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Act. 17:11, ASV viii. Idiomatic Phrases 1. "Answered and said" was used by Hebrew idiom of whatever kind of speech is in question It should therefore not be rendered literally, "Answered and said," but translated so as to express whatever may be the particular kind of speech referred to in the verb "said"; e.g.: Matthew 11:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father," etc. This should be, "At that time Jesus prayed and said," etc. Mark 12:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ, etc." Here it should be "Asked and said." So Mark 13:2, etc. Mark 11:14.-"And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." It is clear that this cannot be literally meant, for the tree had said nothing. It should be "Jesus addressed the tree, and said to it." Bullinger, E.W. - Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated, page 837 Answered and said, “an Hebrew way of speaking, used when nothing goes before, to which what is said can be an answer; see Job_3:2.” John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible Redundant use of the verb apokrinomai. The expression “he answered and said” (apokritheis eipen) closely resembles a common Hebrew idiom. The use of the verb apokrinomai “I answer” in this sense is often purely redundant (see Matthew 11:25, 12:38, 17:4, 28:5, Mark 9:5, 11:14, 12:35). In cases in which no question has been asked, it may be misleading to translate the expression “he answered” (Compare Matthew 11:25 in KJV “Jesus answered and said” with NIV “Jesus said”). This idiom is extremely common in the synoptic Gospels, where the writers appear to have modelled themselves after the familiar language of the Septuagint. http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

01-22-2016, 02:20 PM	#9
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 960	Re: Translation & More Thanks testallthings, that was a very subtle point that I never would have found on my own. Thanks! __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

01-25-2016, 06:28 PM	#10
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More LOSING THE LEADERSHIP "Even one who had so much fellowship with the Gentiles believers was carriesd away in Peter's hypocrisy. What a negative influence Peter exerted on others! Surely he deserved to lose his leadership." (Galatian 2:14, footnote 13.3, RcV) If Peter lost or not his leadership it was up to the Lord Jesus, the Head, the one Who sent Peter. Just because he was rebuked by Paul it doesn't imply he lost his leadership. Peter made many mistakes, and this is another added to the list, but the Lord Jesus restored him (in the Gospels). But if we assume that the footnote is correct, which is not!, and that he deserved to lose his leadership, we would like to ask, When br. W.L. lost his leadership, due to his negative influence by words and works?

01-29-2016, 11:10 PM	#12
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More ARE THERE TWO STEPS IN THE WORK OF RECONCILIATION? 18 But 1all things are out from God, who has areconciled us to Himself through Christ and has given to us the bministry of reconciliation; 19 Namely, that God ain Christ was reconciling the bworld to Himself, cnot accounting their offenses to them, and has put in us the 1word of reconciliation. 20 On behalf of Christ then we are 1a ambassadors, as God bentreats you through us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be 2reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20, RcV) Footnote 20.2 says, “In the preceding verse it was the world that was reconciled to God; in this verse it is the believers, who have already been reconciled to God and are to be reconciled further to God. This clearly indicates that two steps are required for men to be fully reconciled to God. The first step is to reconcile sinners to God from sin. For this purpose Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) that they might be forgiven by God. This is the objective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He bore our sins on the cross that they might be judged by God upon Him for us. The second step is to reconcile believers living in the natural life to God from the flesh. For this purpose Christ died for us — the persons — that we might live to Him in the resurrection life (vv. 14-15). This is the subjective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He was made sin for us to be judged and done away with by God that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. By the two aspects of His death He has fully reconciled God's chosen people to God. These two steps of reconciliation are clearly portrayed by the two veils of the tabernacle. The first veil is called "the screen" (Exo. 26:37, lit.). A sinner who was brought to God through the reconciliation of the propitiating blood entered into the Holy Place by passing this screen. This typifies the first step of reconciliation. The second veil (Exo. 26:31-35; Heb. 9:3) still separated him from God, who was in the Holy of Holies. This veil needed to be rent that the sinner might be brought to God in the Holy of Holies. This is the second step of reconciliation. The Corinthian believers had been reconciled to God, having passed through the first veil and having entered into the Holy Place. Yet they still lived in the flesh. They needed to pass the second veil, which had been rent already (Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:20), to enter into the Holy of Holies to live with God in their spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). The goal of this Epistle was to bring them there that they might be persons in the spirit (1 Cor. 2:15), in the Holy of Holies. This was what the apostle meant by saying, "Be reconciled to God." This was to present them full-grown in Christ (Col. 1:28).” This footnotes claims that there are two steps required for a full reconciliation: 1. Sinners must be reconciled to God, so Christ died for our sins. 2. Believers must be further reconciled with God, so Christ died for our persons. Furthermore, to support this teaching, there is a reference to the two veils in the Tabernacle. Although everything seems very clear, and strong, if we shake this “building” a little bit, we discover that it has a very weak foundation. 1. This teaching is based only on a couple of verses in 2 Cor. 5 and nowhere else in the N.T. we have the faint allusion to the two steps of reconciliation. 2. It is based on a wrong understanding of verse 19. 3. It is based on a translation of verse 20 were the word you has been supplied in italics. 4. It is based on the wrong application of Hebrews 9. Concerning the first point, it is clear that this teaching is not to be found in other Epistles of Paul, or of any other Apostles. Consider the great Epistle to the Romans for examples. In it it is unfolded the Gospel of God in the clearest possible way. Can we see in it the two steps of reconciliation? Verse 19 speaks of what God did in Christ to remove all possible barriers between God and man. He was reconciling, He didn't actually reconciled the entire world! God made the first step, then He sent his messengers to proclaim the word of reconciliation. To this agree what is stated in the Gospel of John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Now, let's consider the third point, the translation of verse 20. Here I quote Dr. E.W. Bullinger, “Here the word “you” is incorrectly supplied. Paul was not beseeching the saints in Corinth to be reconciled to God. They were reconciled as verse 18 declares... Then in verse 19 he goes on to speak of “men”; and in verse 20 he says that he beseeches them , as though God did beseech them by us; we pray them in Christ's stead, and say: – “Be ye reconciled to God.” This was the tenor of his Gospel to the unconverted.” (Figures of Speech used in the Bible, pages 13-14). Let's come to the last point. The writer to the Hebrews is saying that an ordinary priest (notice that it is not a common sinner as the footnote claims) entered only the first veil, “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (Heb. 9:7, KJV). It was through the blood that the high priest entered the second veil, and that blood was offered for his sins and for the sins of his people. “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. 9:8-12, KJV). In this passage we see that Christ, with His own blood, obtain eternal redemption for us, something that the high priest in the O.T. could not obtain. It seems clear that this passage has nothing to do with a second step of reconciliation. As always.... __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

01-30-2016, 04:20 AM	#13
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: Translation & More It is just so ironic that a ministry like LSM could so obsess over the ministry of *reconciliation* when they so obviously can't get along with anyone, especially their own. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

02-03-2016, 01:13 AM	#14
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More PURE LIE “To have the birthright is simply to gain Christ. In order to gain Christ, we must be ready to take a way that does not seem to be the best way. Let me tell you a story that illustrates this, but try to understand me; do not misunderstand me. In the past, some young people in China were inspired by my preaching, believed in the Lord Jesus, and desired to be baptized. However, their parents, who were Buddhists, were very much opposed to this. When they learned that their children were planning to be baptized, they gave them no opportunity to leave home. The young people prayed about this. Eventually, they told their parents that they had to be in school for a certain half-day period. That was surely a lie, for they did not go to school; they went to the church to be baptized. Although they told a lie, it was a pure lie. Their intention in telling that lie was very pleasing to God. If you want to gain Christ, you should not care for the way. Do not be religious; do not keep the rules and regulations. Gain Christ! You need to gain Christ. By any means, get the birthright.” (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 3, Section 1 and The King's Antecedents and Status, Chapter 3, Section 1) I really want to understand and not misunderstand what br. W.L. was trying to say here. He mentions this point about pure lie only here. If we admit that there are pure lies, why not pure murder, pure stealing, pure adultery, and so on. How about stealing money to attend a conference? I don't think God would be very pleased. I don't want to misunderstand, but it is hard to believe that there is something called pure lie. Gaining Christ, Who is the Truth, by means of a pure lie is something that goes far more than just against rules and regulations. I don't want to misunderstand, but I can not agree with this point of view. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-03-2016, 12:44 PM	#19
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Translation & More As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth. Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK. But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie. And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth. Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

02-03-2016, 07:00 PM	#21
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 960	Re: Translation & More And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth. Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours! __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

02-04-2016, 10:42 PM	#27
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS? Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (KJV) If we just consider the translation of this verse it doesn't seem to justify the title of this post. Some would even dare to say that I have something against calling on the Lord's name. Not at all. But, being not limited to one source of teaching, which can easily become indoctrination, and so close the door to bad, yes, but at the same time good things, I do my homework, as far as possible, and at the same time I receive help from many servants of God. One of my favorite is Watchman Nee. "A great mistake that many people make is that they do not search the Scriptures themselves. Rather, they read what others have said. No matter how much help others can render us, we have to read and search the Scriptures ourselves. We must not seek help from others all the time while neglecting to read the Bible ourselves. On the one hand, we do not despise prophecy; we need the edification of the prophets as well as those of other ministries. Yet at the same time we have to study the Bible ourselves. We cannot simply receive help from others while neglecting to read it ourselves." (How to Study the Bible, Chapter 3, Section 1) Coming back to the passage in question, I let speak another two of them. “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord - The marginal reading is, Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord; which words are supposed to signify that in the time of Enos the true followers of God began to distinguish themselves, and to be distinguished by others, by the appellation of sons of God; those of the other branch of Adam’s family, among whom the Divine worship was not observed, being distinguished by the name, children of men. It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended that הוחל huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry. Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry, I shall insert it here. “In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred; and their error was this: they said, Forasmuch as God hath created these stars and spheres to govern the world, and set them on high, and imparted honor unto them, and they are ministers that minister before him; it is meet that men should laud, and glorify, and give them honor. For this is the will of God, that we magnify and honor whomsoever he magnifieth and honoureth; even as a king would have them honored that stand before him, and this is the honor of the king himself. When this thing was come up into their hearts they began to build temples unto the stars, and to offer sacrifice unto them, and to laud and glorify them with words, and to worship before them, that they might in their evil opinion obtain favor of the Creator; and this was the root of idolatry, etc. And in process of time there stood up false prophets among the sons of Adam, which said that God had commanded and said unto them, Worship such a star, or all the stars, and do sacrifice unto them thus and thus; and build a temple for it, and make an image of it, that all the people, women, and children may worship it. And the false prophet showed them the image which he had feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of such a star, which was made known unto him by prophecy. And they began after this manner to make images in temples, and under trees, and on tops of mountains and hills, and assembled together and worshipped them, etc. And this thing was spread through all the world, to serve images with services different one from another, and to sacrifice unto and worship them. So, in process of time, the glorious and fearful name (of God) was forgotten out of the mouth of all living, and out of their knowledge, and they acknowledged him not. And there was found no people on the earth that knew aught, save images of wood and stone, and temples of stone, which they had been trained up from their childhood to worship and serve, and to swear by their names. And the wise men that were among them, as the priests and such like, thought there was no God save the stars and spheres, for whose sake and in whose likeness they had made these images; but as for the Rock everlasting, there was no man that acknowledged him or knew him save a few persons in the world, as Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Sham, and Heber. And in this way did the world walk and converse till that pillar of the world, Abraham our father, was born.” Maim. in Mishn, and Ainsworth in loco.” (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Whole Bible) COMPANION BIBLE. APPENDIX 21.** ENOS.* (GEN. 4:26.)* "CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD." "Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah."* If this refers to Divine worship it is not true:* for Abel and Cain both began, and their descendants doubtless followed their example. What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah.* They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah.* The A. V. suggests "themselves", in the margin.* But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words "their gods"; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them. The Targum of Onkelos explains it:* "then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord." The Targum of Jonathan says:* "That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord." Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this.* Rashi says: "Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord." Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable.* The sons of men, as "Enosh", are so called for a similar reason (Job 7:17; 15:14.* Ps. 9:20; 103:15.* Dan. 2:43).* See Ap. 14. If Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, became the first idolatrous priest in Israel (see notes on Judg. 18:30), what wonder that Enos, the grandson of Adam, introduced idolatry among mankind. Moreover, what "ungodliness" did Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" have to prophesy about in Jude 14, 15, if purity of worship was begun in the days of Enos, instead of profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord? Surely this is sufficient evidence that this profanation of the Name of the Lord was the reason why Enoch was raised up to prophesy against it. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-06-2016, 04:28 PM	#33
JJ Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 1,006	Re: Translation & More [QUOTE=testallthings;46947] DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS? Interesting post, testallthings. The International Standard Version is the only translation I see that renders the word "call" as "profane" in Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb.../t_bibles_4026) and Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=KJ21. All the others use "call", "worship", "preach", 'call themselves by", and even "call inwardly". I'm no Hebrew scholar. But, that suggests the right interpretation to me here.

02-08-2016, 02:47 AM	#37
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More Brethren, we must not speak as an ass...1 Brothers, we cannot be just a donkey.2 This word is true for all the children of God. It is true for coworkers. When you brothers stand up to deliver a message (sometimes prepared for you by someone else), and for 90 minutes you just follow closely your outline (how many times I have heard this), what are you doing if not speaking like a donkey? How many times I have being waiting, listening to “your” (actually it was not your) message to catch you out of guard, so to speak, to get a glimpse from your spirit, and when sometimes that finally happened, even if it was for only a minute, how much help I received you are not aware of, but God knows. If only you had followed your heart and your spirit more often, how memorable could have been “your” message, and how much more help could have the church have received from your being. But how many times you chose to speak like a donkey. It is true for all the saints who in the meeting share from the HWMR. They open it and read it to the other saints, and this is “their” main sharing. How wonderful if after you had read, enjoyed, prayed over whatever was in the HWMR you came to the meeting and spoke few words from “your” spirit, “your” experience and not from someone else messages. But how many times you chose to speak like a donkey. It is true for every child of God, in whatever denomination, free group, etc. he might be. In whatever situation, we have to share the word of God. Every time we can choose to speak like a donkey, repeating words that have never made roots in us, words that have never worked deeply in our beings or we can draw a little, however small it is, from our personal experience with the word and share that with an unbeliever, a child of God, or the church. But how many times we chose to speak like a donkey. ___________________________________________ NOTES: 1. WATCHMAN NEE ,The Ministry of God’s Word,Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc. New York, 1971, page 39 (PDF) 2. (Watchman Nee, The Ministry of God's Word, (LSM) Chapter 3, Section 2) There are numerous obstacles for God to speak His word through man. For God to speak directly by Himself poses no difficulty. Neither is there much problem for God to speak through angels. Even using a donkey poses less of a problem than speaking through man because a donkey is not as complicated as a man. A donkey does not form obstacles in its mind, understanding, memory, motive, and spirit. A donkey does not have these problems. If God's word were placed in its mouth, it could repeat the word accurately. But using a donkey is something exceptional for God. God used a donkey to release His word only when the prophet failed. He has no intention for the donkey to replace the prophet; He still wants man to be His prophet. God wants to use man. Man was created especially for God's use. When God created the world, His intention was not to have a submissive machine. In the same way, God is not after a machine that can preach. He is not after something without a will. He is after men who possess a free will. It seems as if He took a big risk when He chose man to be a minister of His word. But God would rather do this than not. God entrusts His word to man, a complicated man, one full of sin, defilement, and weakness. There are also the problems of the outward man, the natural man, and the carnal man. All these are factors against God. Yet God still entrusts His word to man. He wants to gain the greatest glory through overcoming the greatest difficulties. If God can break through these great obstacles, He will secure the greatest glory. (LSM.org, The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 4, Section 1) With many servants of the Lord, God's word can be found in them only when a word is put into their mouth, and when it is not placed in their mouth, they do not have any word. Yet Paul had reached the stage where he had God's word whether or not it was put into his mouth. Here was a man so trained that he could earn the Lord's trust. Here was a man so trained and trusted by God that his speaking became God's speaking. We cannot do anything about this except to plead for mercy. Brothers, we cannot be just a donkey. We cannot be satisfied with God's word just being placed in our mouth. If this is our condition, it means that we ourselves have nothing to do with God's word. Paul was a man who had much to do with God's word. Even his own opinions became God's opinions. The little thoughts that he had became the thoughts of the Holy Spirit. He was so one with the Spirit of God! His very speaking represented God's speaking. He indeed reached the highest peak. (LSM.org,The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 3, Section 2) __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-10-2016, 02:34 PM	#39
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: Translation & More I'm not too sure how many were ministering under Nee, but from what we know about Lee, it seems that the pathway to the podium involved loyalty to Nee's ministry. Lee helped 'recover' churches to Nee's ministry, and he was awarded a prominent position. With this dynamic in mind, I find it ironic that Nee would be concerned with a lack of substance in the speaking of others. I couldn't imagine that Nee would of really wanted anyone who could say things that would be perceived to be more more substantial than what he spoke. WL greatly intensified the speaking problem after importing the LC to the U.S. He told everyone that they should speak, and I think this notion of 'functioning' by speaking is something that sold a lot of people on the LC. Presumably it was an open atmosphere with no one was running the show. What could possibly go wrong? It seems that the first problem was that of people being pressured to speak who really don't need to. Not everyone is cut out to speak, and when such people are forced to speak, they just repeat what they read. There is no value in that. People who aren't good at speaking aren't going to suddenly change and be able to speak well or say things of benefit. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the people who realize that the LC offers them their own soapbox, and they are always ready to take advantage of that. I think that WL didn't see what the actual purpose of speaking is. It is common knowledge that the blendeds pride themselves in being those to re-speak WL's ministry. They expect others to do the same. So even among those LCers who might have something substantial or beneficial to speak, they are limited by the official regulations. Going back to what Nee said, it seems like he correctly identified a problem, but he didn't identify the real cause. Under him, it was probably the pressure for all designated speakers to use his ministry as a guideline for their speaking. Under WL, it was the pressure to parrot his ministry. Sure it's nice to think that LCers shouldn't repeat what they read, but if it can be reasonably assumed that would get in trouble for not doing so, then the problem isn't the person doing the speaking, it's the leaders who have the power to make the rules.

02-10-2016, 08:06 PM	#41
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More BIBLE TRANSLATION IS NOT A SIMPLE TASK (BUT IF YOU HAVE THE EXPERT THEN ALL IS CLEAR) “Bible translation is not a simple task. For example, consider Matthew 1:20. The Chinese Union Version says, “That which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” This is clear, and no one would question it. But if we dig into the original language, we find that this verse actually says, “That which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The Bible does not merely say, “That which has been conceived in her” but “that which has been begotten in her.” This means that at the time the Lord Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a certain One was born in her. Who is this One? To be sure, He is the Holy Spirit Himself. The Holy Spirit is not only the essence that brought about the Lord Jesus' conception; He is the very One who was begotten in Mary.”1 W. Lee interpretations never fail to amaze me! He was not happy with the word conceived so he thought that begotten was a better one. So far no problem. So what's the interpretation? “This means that at the time the Lord Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a certain One was born in her. Who is this One? To be sure, He is the Holy Spirit Himself.” As always, we try to apply this new understanding to other verses. Let's stay in chapter 1. Mat 1:2, (KJV) "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren." Let's see if this new teaching make sense or not. Abraham begat (same greek word) Isaac, actually means that Abraham was begotten in Sarah and a certain one was born in her. Who is this one? To be sure, he is Abraham himself! (By the way, Mat. 1:20, RcV, says, “..for that which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit”, not “..for that which has been begotten in her is the Holy Spirit.” My dear readers of this post, I don't know if I should cry or laugh. “This is a great truth, but it has been neglected through the limitation of man's knowledge. The Chinese Union Version is one of the seven best versions in the world. But even if we read this portion a thousand times, we will not be aware of the mystery and reality of God's birth within man. Actually, the revelation in the original language is plain and obvious, but because man's study of the Bible is inadequate and his understanding of theology incomplete, he becomes muddled and shortsighted.”1 Now comes the stick (as usual), to chastise “the limitation of man's knowledge” the inadequacy of man's study, and his incomplete understanding of theology. Because of these lacks man “becomes muddled and shortsighted”. Notice who becomes muddled and shortsighted! __________________________________________________ ___________________________ NOTES: 1. (Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision and Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way, Chapter 18, Section 2) __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-13-2016, 10:03 PM	#43
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More WITCHCRAFT? NO! (But what is it?) 1 Cor. 5:3-4, “ For I, on my part, though being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already judged, as if being present, him who has thus done this, In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus” (RcV) Footnote on verse 4.2 says, "The apostle's spirit was so strong that it attended the meeting of the Corinthian believers. His spirit was assembled with them to carry out his judgment upon the evil person." This verse, in my opinion, is a very difficult one (there is something similar (?) in 2 Ki. 5:26). I have, at the moment, more questions than answers. According to the footnote (or according to these verses?), it seems that the spirit of Paul “attended the meeting of the Corinthian believers”. FROM THE LS OF 1 CORINTHIANS “ "In verse 4 Paul clearly says, “When you and my spirit are assembled.” By this we know that Paul's spirit attended the meeting in Corinth. This does not mean, however, that his spirit actually traveled to Corinth. This has absolutely nothing in common with witchcraft, which claims that a person's soul can leave his body and visit other people. According to this verse, Paul's spirit was so strong that he could somehow attend the meeting in Corinth. When they were gathered together, his spirit was with them to deliver the evil one to Satan. This is altogether a spiritual matter, something wholly in the spirit.”1 In his LS W.L. is more careful (?). First he denies that this was witchcraft (“which claims that a person's soul can leave his body and visit other people”). I know nothing about witchcraft, so my first question is: Does witchcraft claim that only souls can leave the body or that the soul or/and the spirit can leave the body? Then, he says, “We should never think that Paul's spirit actually went to Corinth and attended the meeting. Nevertheless, as the Corinthian believers were meeting together, Paul exercised his spirit to be with them and to judge the evil one and to remove him. We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother. This is what Paul's spirit did regarding the situation at Corinth.”1 This contradicts his footnote (someone might say that there isn't enough space to explain everything in the footnote). I believe the footnotes should be considered as is “final word” on things shared in the LS. Lastly, he suggests that we can do the same! “We also may learn to visit a brother by our spirit. While we remain at home, it is possible for our spirit to visit a brother.” I have never met a believer who claimed to have learned this practice! Did you, my dear readers? Did he (W.L.)? ______________________________________ NOTES: 1 (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 36, Section 1) __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-21-2016, 04:04 PM	#55
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Translation & More Question. It seems that there was maybe one actual reference to a remnant in the Bible. Was it so important that there should be a remnant theology? The reason I ask it this way is that the whole remnant idea based on the return from Babylon would seem to not be anything specifically special in the way that Lee taught it. Surely there was the prophetic need for Israel to be once again when the Messiah came. But it has always been interesting that they were only very briefly somewhat free from bondage even in Judea. And one of the leaders of the return was only there for a while for some of the building, then was required to return to his post as cup bearer for the king. And it was the semi-freedom to return, or stay, or go elsewhere that seems to have begun the scattering that found the Jews almost everywhere when Paul began his journeys. Not so negative after all. My problem with remnant theology is that it is steeped in the idea that Christians are mostly falling away and there has to be some special few who stand for the truth, or return to the truth. I honestly think that this is more in error than whatever "deadness" we attribute to groups that just don't get excited outwardly like the LRC and some other groups do. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

02-21-2016, 08:30 PM	#56
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More THE CHURCH OF GOD 1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 1Co 1:2 unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours (ASV) "Paul's description of the church is marvelous. However, Christians have not paid adequate attention to it. The church is the church of God, for it is constituted of the divine nature. The expression “the church of God” indicates that the church has the nature of God, that it is constituted of the element of God. Therefore, the church is of God." (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=2FEADBC94D At the outset, let me say that this paragraph is not included in the footnotes on the same verse. W. Lee is trying to indicate that the church has the nature of God based on the preposition of. This is a very weak argument because few verses later Paul said, “1Co 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” (ASV) I don't think Paul indicated that some Corinthians had the nature of Paul, others of Apollos, some others of Cephas, and finally some of Christ. What he was indicating, is that the church doesn't belong to apostles, but only to God. Am I wrong? __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

02-29-2016, 11:26 PM	#57
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More ELLIPSIS? “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of jubilee.'' (Luke 4:19, Recovery Version of the Bible) Every Bible translator has to face the problem of ellipsis. Here is what Dr. E.W. Bullinger wrote on the subject in his unique book: “El-lip´-sis, a leaving in ( en ) in, and ( leipein ) to leave . The figure is so called, because some gap is left in the sentence, which means that a word or words are left out or omitted . The English name of the figure would therefore be Omission . The figure is a peculiar form given to a passage when a word or words are omitted; words which are necessary for the grammar, but are not necessary for the sense. The laws of geometry declare that there must be at least three straight lines to enclose a space. So the laws of syntax declare that there must be at least three words to make complete sense, or the simplest complete sentence. These three words are variously named by grammarians. In the sentence “Thy word is truth,” “Thy word” is the subject spoken of, “truth” is what is said of it (the predicate), and the verb “is” (the copula) connects it. But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax may be legitimately broken by Ellipsis. The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasised by the omission. For instance, in Matt. 14:19, we read that the Lord Jesus “gave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.” There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, “the disciples to the multitude,” because there is no verb. The verb “gave” is omitted by the figure of Ellipsis for some purpose. If we read the last sentence as it stands, it reads as though Jesus gave the disciples to the multitude! This at once serves to arrest our attention; it causes us to note the figure employed; we observe the emphasis; we learn the intended lesson. What is it? Why, this; we are asked to dwell on the fact that the disciples gave the bread, but only instrumentally, not really. The Lord Jesus Himself was the alone Giver of that bread. Our thoughts are thus, at once, centered on Him and not on the disciples....These Ellipses must not be arbitrarily supplied according to our own individual views; we are not at liberty to insert any words, according to our own fancies: but they are all scientifically arranged and classified, and each must therefore be filled up, according to definite principles which are well ascertained, and in obedience to laws which are carefully laid down.” (FIGURES OF SPEECH USED IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED,By E. W. Bullinger, D.D.) An example of a correctly supplied word is Mat. 2:9: “And after they heard the king, they went their way, and behold, the star which they saw at its rising led them until it came and stood over the place where the child was.” (Recovery Version of the Bible). Now let's consider Luke 4:19 Recovery Version of the Bible. Not even one major Bible translation (that I am aware of) adds the words “the year of jubilee”(in italics, of course). To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord is already clear. There is no need to add any more words. This is more like an explanation, or rather an interpretation that has slipped, in italics, of course, into the text. The phrase “the year of jubilee” of course can find its place in the footnotes, where it belongs. The Bible itself provides examples of explanations: Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. Joh 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.(KJV) The difference is that, in the last 4 examples, the One Who added an explanation was the Holy Spirit. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

03-07-2016, 11:27 PM	#58
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More SUPPLYING, WRONGLY SUPPLYING Hebrews 10:22, “Let us come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.” (The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry) The first thing we notice in this verse are the words in italics which no other Bible (as far as I know) has included in the text. This is purely an interpretation that has slipped into the text, again! (in italics, of course). The question is, if W. Lee is free to insert his interpretation in the text, when he finds it useful, why complaining about what others have done in John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. KJV)? __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

03-12-2016, 11:54 PM	#60
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More TRANSLATING THE BIBLE (Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word (From “A BRIEF EXPLANATION, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991) 1 Pet. 1:5 In which time you exult, though for a little while at present, if it must be, you have been made sorrowful by various trials ( The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991) Again, in this verse The New Testament Recovery Version differs from all the other major translations because it adds the word time (in italics). So far we have seen that in three cases, Luke 4:19; Heb. 10:22: 1 Pet. 1:6; The New Testament Recovery Version insert an interpretation in the text. I am not surprised because this matches what is stated in A BRIEF EXPLANATION. If I understand it correctly, it seems that “a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” (interpretation?) helps in translating the Bible. This might be true or not but can never give anybody the liberty to insert his interpretation in the text of the Holy Word (there are many cases, of course, where words must be supplied to make the text clear to us modern reader). __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

03-14-2016, 09:31 PM	#61
JJ Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 1,006	Re: Translation & More 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. Hmmmm, I wonder if this applies here (and many other places on these message boards)?

03-15-2016, 10:40 AM	#62
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Translation & More "Do not go beyond what is written" is a most profound statement. And it argues for: Less clear doctrine than more clear doctrine. Less emphasis on what can be derived from rather than what is simply said. Less speculation as to how spiritual practice "X" should look and more following of Christ. And we tend to get so worried about how to follow Christ in deciding between non-sinful choice A over non-sinful choice B rather than in living in the manner that we were created to live (and for that matter, commanded to live — by both the law and by Christ). How we should live is written. But what non-sinful choice we should make is not. But we worry about whether we are living right by the right source rather than worrying that we are not living right. The former is really not written. The latter is. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

03-16-2016, 10:18 PM	#65
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More John 7 Many Christians, I suppose, love very much the Gospel of John. In it they find the verse that maybe changed their lives, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 (KJV) In it, the miracles are called signs. In the Life-Study of John, W. Lee interprets this signs as a “cases to illustrate the matter of life”. What he means is that in this signs we have a change from death into life. When he comments on chapter 7 he says, “After the full harvest of their crops, the Jewish people observed the feast of Tabernacles to enjoy what they had reaped in the worship of God (Exo. 23:16; Deut. 16:13-15). Hence, this feast signifies the completion, achievement, and success of man's career, study, and other matters of human life, including religion, with the joy and enjoyment thereof...Eventually, after working your entire life, you will be thirsty, because everything has a last day. Everything ends. The last day is always a great day. After people attain a certain success, other people will give them a memorial day.”1 I think to do justice to the text, John 7, a little bit of what was going on there at that time should be at least noticed. "15. The first day of the feast of Tabernacles, a feast-day. Thirteen young bullocks offered,&c. Numbers 29:13, and so on. The preparation of the Chagigah. They lodge that night in Jerusalem. 16. The second day of the feast. Twelve young bullocks offered. The appearance of all the males in the court. 17. The third day. Eleven young bullocks. 18. The fourth day. Ten. 19. The fifth day. Nine. 20. The sixth day. Eight. 21. The seventh day. Seven. 22. The eighth day. One young bullock offered." 2 They offered 70 bullocks according to the 70 nations of the world, and on the eighth day 1 bullock for Israel. I think this picture is meaningful. Can we call it intercession for the ignorant pagans, who knew not the true God? “The morning would begin with the normal daily morning burnt offering. However, during the Feast of Tabernacles a rite was added to the daily burnt offering called the water-drawing ceremony. During the preparation of the burnt offering,20 a procession of priests with the accompaniment of flute playing and singing wended their way from the temple down to the Pool of Siloam where a priest filled a golden flask with water while a choir repeated Isa. 12:3: “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Mishnah Sukkah 4:9; 5:1; Talmud Sukkah 48b). The Pool of Siloam was a collecting pool for the spring Gihon, the major water supply for Jerusalem. The Jews referred to water from springs or streams fit for drinking as “living water.” Living water was considered the most superior form of water for ritual purification.21” 3 So, on the last day there was no water-drawing ceremony. It was in that day that the Lord Jesus cried out, “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:37-38 (KJV) “The difficulties of this verse are great, as may be seen by a reference to the commentators. It will be noted that a comparison is suggested by the word ( kathos), like as, and that there is an Ellipsis which must be supplied. Bengel suggests “as the Scripture hath said so it shall be,” or “so shall it be.” But something more is evidently required. Is there not a reference to the Haphtarah, i.e. , the portion selected (from the Prophets) as the lesson to be read on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which was Zech. 14:1-21?* The Lord was not present then, for it was not until “the midst of the feast” that He went up (verse 14 ). But in “the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,” with evident reference to the Scripture which had been read, “He that believeth on me (as the Scripture hath said [ concerning Jerusalem: so shall it be ]) out of his heart rivers of living water shall flow.” What the Scripture had said concerning Jerusalem in Zech. 14:8 was this: – “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea,” &c. To this agree the words of the prophecy in Ezek. 47:1.11. These prophecies shall yet be literally fulfilled with regard to Jerusalem: and what will then actually take place illustrates what takes place now in the experience of every one who believes in Jesus. Even as those rivers will flow forth from Jerusalem in that day, so now the Holy Spirit, in all His wondrous powers, and gifts, and graces, flows forth from the inward parts–the new nature of the believer. * The portion from the Law ( Acts 13:15 ) read in conjunction with this was Lev. 22:26. 23:44; with Num. 29:12.16 .” 4 It was custom in the synagogues at the time of the Lord Jesus to read passages from the Law and the Prophets. We have examples in the New Testament in Luke 4:16-21 and Acts 13:15. The interesting, and sad things, is that today Isaiah 61:1, 7:14, 52:13: Hosea 11:1, and may other Christological, or Messianic passages, used by the Lord Jesus or by the apostles, to prove the Lord claims to be the Messiah, are not read in the synagogues. (for further reading (interesting reading) http://www.haaretz.com/news/what-hap...tarah-1.166699. If the link doesn't work google What Happened to Jesus' Haftarah?) So with this little sketch as the background of John 7 the question is, Did W. Lee do justice to the text? [/SIZE] ____________________________________ Notes 1 (Life-Study of John, Chapter 17, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...d=0D8843C64D7E 2 From the Talmud and Hebraica, John Lightfoot ( A copy can be downloaded at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/talmud) 3 John 7-9 in Light of the Feast of Tabernacles, Bruce K. Satterfield Brigham Young University-Idaho (very interesting, though the author seems to be a Mormon) 4 FIGURES OF SPEECH USED IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED By E. W. Bullinger, D.D. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

03-29-2016, 12:24 AM	#67
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More THE MINGLED SPIRIT Romans 8:4 says, “That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.” Bible translators have had difficulty discerning whether the spirit mentioned in this verse is the divine Spirit or the human spirit. We need to see that in Romans 8, the Spirit is no longer merely the Spirit of God, as He was in creation (Gen. 1:2), but also the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the resurrecting One. Furthermore, this all-inclusive Spirit is mingled with our spirit. Romans 8:16, which says, “The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit,” mentions the two spirits together. Thus, the spirit in verse 4 refers not merely to the divine Spirit or the human spirit but to these two spirits mingled together as one spirit. Every believer has such a mingled spirit. (The Two Spirits in Romans, Chapter 7, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...d=2A0F5D0666F8 Thus, Galatians 5 unveils the war between our flesh and the Spirit. Although most translators find it difficult to decide whether the spirit in Galatians 5:25 denotes our human spirit or the Holy Spirit, I am confident that it denotes the mingled spirit, the mingling of the Holy Spirit with our regenerated spirit. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 13, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=230E5A0A67 I have written many posts arguing against W. Lee interpretation of certain passages of The Scriptures. I have stated my opinion, understanding, for doing so, and I let the readers judge if what I said was too far from the truth. In this post I say Amen to Lee's words. When W. Lee is right, well he is right (this is my opinion). So I am not going to disprove something I approve. I never thought that W. Lee was always wrong (if someone is disappointed, let him be disappointed). So why the purpose of this post? Well, I am actually disappointed at something W. Lee didn't say. Most translators have problem figuring out if they need to use Spirit or spirit in certain verses of the Bible, especially the letter to the Romans. But W. Lee, not a translator himself, was confident to affirm that the verses are talking about the mingled spirit. I am very confident, too, that this is the explanation, for a simple reason: The use of a large or small 's' is of extreme difficulty in the case of the word Spirit; not in giving it when the Holy Spirit is simply spoken of personally. There it is simple enough. But as dwelling in us, our state by it, and the Holy Spirit itself, are so blended as to make it then very difficult; because it is spoken of as our state, and then as the Holy Ghost. If it be put large, we lose the first; if small, the Spirit personally. I can only leave it with this warning, calling the attention of the reader to it. It is a blessed thought that it is so blended in power that our state is so spoken of; but if we lose the divine Person, that blessing itself is lost. The reader may see, not the difficulty, for it does not exist there, but the blending of the effect and the person in Romans viii. 27. REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1871) The Holy Scriptures A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby http://www.ccel.org/bible/jnd/darby.htm __________________________________________________ _________ Disclaimer: I am not 100% sure that W. Lee never acknowledged Darby as the source of his understanding about the mingled spirit. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

03-29-2016, 01:32 PM	#68
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Translation & More I've got to disagree. If the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, then they are not mingled, or in any way a single spirit. Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself. A single, mingled spirit could never do anything but agree with itself. Therefore it would be irrelevant to say that they agree with each other since it is to say that it agrees with itself. I sure hope so. But since there is stated a sense of agreement, they must not be the same, but rather two that are (at least at times) "on the same page" about things. So there is a distinction that is never obliterated in the "tea" of mingling. Besides, what is the basis that Lee gives for claiming they are mingled? It is either that he says it is so, or the fact that they agree. If we rely on the fact that Lee said it without a further thought, then we have abandoned the reasoning that the Bible provides that would actually argue otherwise. If we rely on the fact that they agree, then does that mean that every two persons that agree on something are "mingled"? Consider that the verse does not say that the Spirit and our spirit are in sync on everything you can imagine. Rather it is a specific thing — that we are the sons of God. And then the fact that you can make arguments that certain verses are vague as to whether it is the Spirit or our spirit, or possibly both together does not cause the Spirit and our spirit to be joined in such a way that they cannot be separated or distinguished in the way that Lee argues in his teaching of "mingling." Even statements like "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" does not necessarily denote anything about the combining of the things that we call "the Spirit" and "our spirit." "Spirit" (not the Holy Spirit) denotes much more than a so-called "organ of the human being or the "third" of the Trinity. It is also a reference to a unity of thought and mind. It is even a reference to a way of living or acting. A "spirit of camaraderie" denotes a unity of purpose, direction, intent, etc. So being one spirit with the Lord is at least partly about becoming aligned with his ways, purposes, etc. (And don't even bother bringing up "God's eternal purpose" as taught by Lee. There is not really much supporting that particular teaching. It sounds good. It seems spiritual. But it is really little more than the labeling of Lee's errant teachings in a way that cannot be fought against without seeming to fight against God.) Lee boils everything down to a single definition, therefore he is busy using a form of equivocation to mislead. "Spirit" denotes so many things. But for Lee, the word is very singular in meaning, therefore whatever the particular verse is actually about can be rewritten according to his misdirection to a different meaning of the word. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

03-29-2016, 01:50 PM	#69
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 960	Re: Translation & More Thanks Mike, that was great! Are you a lawyer? __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

03-30-2016, 05:32 AM	#72
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More OBW, I know you are a very logical person, and I share with you the same skepticism when I see “the leaps in logic, the over-simplifying, the tricks of rhetoric to make the hearer/reader follow when there is nothing actually presented that connects to follow, etc..” You said, “I've got to disagree. If the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, then they are not mingled, or in any way a single spirit. Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself. A single, mingled spirit could never do anything but agree with itself. Therefore it would be irrelevant to say that they agree with each other since it is to say that it agrees with itself. I sure hope so. But since there is stated a sense of agreement, they must not be the same, but rather two that are (at least at times) "on the same page" about things. So there is a distinction that is never obliterated in the "tea" of mingling.” I say Amen to what you said about the fact that the two spirits are distinct. As far as I remember that's what W. Lee taught. In any case we should at least let him explain what he meant by the term mingling. If we start with the wrong premises or definition of terms than ....well you know logic better than me. I feel the need to clarifying something about my last post and my posts in general. In the last one I was not defending, or proving the teaching concerning the mingled spirit. That would require a lot more effort, time, and space. If that had been my aim I would have not just quoted few passages (which clearly do not do justice to W. Lee's teaching on the subject) but first of all I would have read carefully a couple of books on the subject, and then state my reasons for or against it. I I have not the desire, neither the time to do so. It will also appear weird. On one thread I'll “criticize” on another I'll “defend” W. Lee interpretations. Let me say something about my posts in general. Usually they deal with small points, because they do not require lots of study, research, etc.. There are some big issues I'll like to discuss but I just mention them without going to deep. There is one in particular that is dear to me, one that I mentioned on the other thread of mine about W. Lee's horrible teaching about the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. But just to scratch the surface of that subject requires too much from me. I am satisfied to present to those who read my posts some hints, thoughts, different point of view, about certain things I disagree with W. Lee. I am aware of my inability to present my views in the most clear and logical way. My hope is that others might find the desire and the time to ponder over the thing shared in my posts and see for themselves if there is anything that may stir up their desire to see if these things are so. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

04-07-2016, 08:51 PM	#73
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More COINCIDENCE?? In a previous post I mentioned about the use of many works not duly quoted in the Recovery Version of the Bible. In rereading Dr. Tomes Nigel work, LSM’s PLAGIARISM— An Initial Inquiry1, and finding examples about Vincent, Scofield, Vine, etc., but not about Darby, and having noticed long time ago, while reading Darby's translation, some of his notes (coincidence??) in the RcV, and having a little time to play hide and seek, here we go. Heb. 8:11 And they shall by no means each teach his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, 1Know the Lord; for all will 1know Me from the little one to the great one among them. 1In this verse two Greek words are used for know:the first is ginosko,which signifies the outward, objective knowledge; the second is oida,which refers to the inward, subjective consciousness. In John 8:55 the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees that they did not know ( ginosko)God the Father (even in the outward, objective knowledge), and that He did know (oida)the Father (in the inward, subjective consciousness). Both words are used in 1 John 2:29. (W. Lee, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry) Two Greek words are used for 'to know' in the New Testament – ginosko and oida. The former signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression 'being acquainted with' perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the thought of what is inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external. The difference between the two words is illustrated in John 8:55, 'ye know (ginosko) him not; but I know (oida) him;' in John 13:7, 'What I do thou doest not know (oida) now, but thou shalt know (ginosko) hereafter;' and in Heb. 8:11, ' they shall not teach...saying, Know (ginosko) the Lord; because all shall know (oida) me.' the word oida is used of Christ as knowing the Father, and as knowing the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharises, of Paul's knowledge of a 'man in Christ,' and of the Christian's knowledge that he has eternal life. 'I know whom I have believed,' 2 Tim 1:12 – I have the inward conscious knowledge of who the person is: see also 1 cor. 16:15; 2 Tim. 3:14 and 15 – all of these refer to inward conscious knowledge. The difference between the significance of the two words is often slight; and objective knowledge may pass into conscious knowledge, but not vice versa. The Greek for conscience is derived from oida: see ch. 4.:4, 'I am conscious of nothing in myself,' that is, not conscious of any fault. In the present passage, “We know that an idol is nothing ' is conscious knowledge. ' If any one think he knows (conscious knowledge), he knows (objectively) nothing yet as he ought to know it (objectively):' he is known (objectively) of him,' so 'knowledge,' in ver. 10. (Footnote a on 1 Cor. 8:1, Darby, THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, A NEW TRANSLATION, KINGSTON BIBLE TRUST 1984) Maybe it is just a coincidence, but the RcV footnote is very similar to the first part of Darby's note. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

06-24-2016, 07:21 PM	#76
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More The English New Testament Recovery Version does not depart too much from the King James Version? "In order to learn the English language, you can practice studying not only the New Testament Recovery Version but also the King James Version, which does not contain too many new words or sophisticated phrases. Most people appreciate the depth of its English. Those who are pursuing to learn the English language cannot bypass the King James Version. Many have tried to replace it with other English versions because its history is over three hundred years old and because it contains some phrases or terms that are somewhat out of date. However, no version has been able to replace it. When we were working on the English New Testament Recovery Version, we did not depart too much from the King James Version. We did our best to preserve its style and use its phrases, clauses, and words, unless they did not match the meaning of the original text. Therefore, the language of the English New Testament Recovery Version is not too sophisticated and should be easy for you to get into. This will be a great help to you." (Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 3, Section 1) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=3457D94EDA I must confess that after I read these words I was positively surprised by the way W. Lee praised the KJV. Other times I heard or read about the poor KJV, so you can imagine my reaction. Although no translation is without errors, thank God that His word has been translated in almost every language. FROM THE PREFACE OF THE KJV Many other things we might give thee warning of (gentle Reader) if wee had not exceeded the measure of a Preface alreadie. It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further then we can aske or thinke. Hee removeth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountaines of living water which yee digged not; doe not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither preferre broken pits before them with the wicked Jewes. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vaine, O despise not so great salvation! Be not like swine to treade under foote so precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts; neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a messe of potage. If light be come into the world, love not darknesse more then light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, starve not your selves. Remember the advise of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great faire, and to seeke to make markets afterwards: also the encouragement of S. Chrysostome, It is altogether impossible, that he that is sober (and watchfull) should at any time be neglected: Lastly, the admonition and menacing of S. Augustine, They that despise Gods will inviting them, shal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessednes in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to reade it; when hee stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answere, Here am I; here wee are to doe thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all prayse and thankesgiving. Amen. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...troduction.php __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

06-26-2016, 12:49 AM	#78
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More To Freedom What you said is interesting. What I really wanted to know if the RcV followed the KJV. Does anyone know? __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

06-27-2016, 05:46 PM	#84
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More Thanks UntoHim for another piece of the story behind the RcV. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

06-28-2016, 09:50 AM	#87
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: Translation & More There are a lot of questions that have been in the back of my mind about the RcV. I can vaguely remember seeing old-timers with NT RcV 'booklets' for various books of the NT. I seem to remember hearing that these were produced in conjunction with the Life-Studies. I was once told, and I have no idea if it's true, that the original 1985 RcV was essentially just throwing together all these booklets produced and printing it as a NT Bible. John Ingalls' testimony would certain support that, especially because he readily admits that they (the original translators) produced something sub-par that needed extensive revision. So it makes me wonder if a printed NT Bible was ever the original intended goal or not. Is that what WL initially tasked them with producing, or was it more something along the lines of a study aide for his Life-Studies? If WL did indeed want to add footnotes (condensed Life-Studies excerpts) to a Bible such as the ASV/NASV, then the RcV text was just his reaction to being told 'no'. Knowing Lee's temperament, he probably asked for something quick and dirty to be produced at a whim and that's what was produced. I haven't read the original 1985 text and compared it to the later text, but I couldn't imagine it being too much different. Even if Kerry made substantial improvements, it's ironic to think about all the politics at play: 1) the motivation behind the translation, 2) the purging of the original translators, and 3) the final 'spin' placed on the translation, that it's the 'consummation' of the past 2000 years of understanding among Christians. And who claims to have this understanding? The editorial section. I bet most people who get a free Bible from BFA wonder who the editorial section is. I wonder too. __________________ Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

07-03-2016, 07:32 PM	#98
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Translation & More A swallow does not make a spring. Mat. 8:2 a And behold, a 1b leper, coming near, 2c worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if You are willing, You can cleanse me. Note 2.2 The leper worshipped the new King and called Him "Lord," recognizing that He is the Lord God. In reality the new King is Jehovah the Savior — Jesus. (See note 211*in ch. 1.) (W. Lee, The New Testament Recovery Version, revised edition 1991, Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry) There are two problems with this interpretation, and both of them are the result of forgetting that words may have more than one meaning, and that the context can help us to translate and interpret in a way that is both faithful and consistent with the general use of the terms at the time the New Testament was written. The two words are προσκυνέω (proskuneō) and κύριος (kurios). The first has the meaning of to worship, to bow down, to show reverence and submission. The second means Lord, lord, master, sir. “And worshipped him in a civil and respectful way, showing great reverence to him as a man; which he did by falling down on his knees, and on his face; prostrating himself before him, in a very humble and submissive manner, as the other evangelists relate: for that he worshipped him as God, is not so manifest; though it is certain he had an high opinion of him, and great faith in him; which he very modestly expresses.” (John Gill's exposition of the entire Bible, e-Sword) Worshipped him - Bowed down before him, to show him respect. See the notes at Mat_2:2. To worship him - This does not mean that they had come to pay him religious homage, or to adore him They regarded him as the King of the Jews, but there is no evidence that they supposed that he was divine. They came to honor him as a Prince, or a king, not as God. The original word implies no more than this. It means to prostrate oneself before another; to fall down and pay homage to another. This was the mode in which homage was paid to earthly kings, and this they wished to pay to the new-born King of the Jews. See the same meaning of the word in Mat_20:20; Mat_18:26; Act_10:25; Luk_14:10. The English word “worship” also meant formerly “to respect, to honor, to treat with civil reverence’” (Webster).(Abert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, e-Sword) We could quote more from other commentators, but this will only make this post too long. Leaving the “opinion” of men, let's look at what the Scripture says. I'll quote very few examples. Mat 27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Joh_4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water? Joh_12:21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Rev 7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (ASV) In all these verses the word translated Sir or lord in Greek is κύριος (kurios). The Samaritan woman addressed Jesus in the same way as the leper, but here the KJV and the RcV translate Sir. When the Greeks called Philip Sir (kurios) did they imply that he was God? When John called the elder my lord (my kurios) was he falling into idolatry? In pointing out this different, and probably more correct, interpretation, we do not intend to minimize or to question Jesus divinity. We believe with Paul, Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (KJV) What we question is that if this verse (Mat. 8:2) shows clearly Jesus divinity it could be used to win a debate with an Unitarian, but I guess this has never been the case. Outwardly the Lord Jesus was found in a fashion as a man (the Word became flesh). It was not easy to see that He was God. Demons of course recognized Him as the Son of God and the Holy One, and were told close their mouth so not to spread this “revelation”. When He asked the disciple what the people thought about Him the answer was that some believed He was one of the prophets, but for Peter, who got the revelation from the Father, He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus told them not to tell others about this revelation. If the Lord Jesus was so careful about keeping His real identity hidden, why (if W. Lee's interpretation is correct) He never said a word to the leper, or to the centurion? And why no one from the crowd that was following Him (maybe a scribe or a Pharises, it seems they were everywhere) didn't say like in Luk 19:39 Teacher, rebuke thy disciples? (And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples.) Although W. Lee's incorrect interpretation this time has the merit of giving honor to the Lord Jesus, nonetheless it is incorrect. As the proverb goes, A swallow does not make a spring. __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

07-06-2016, 02:08 PM	#99
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	The divine name I remember reading a note in the preface to the RecV where they said that they won't "shrink back from the divine name" Jehovah. I suppose this is in distinction to the Tetragrammaton, JHWH. And the English equivalent "The LORD". Question: why didn't Jesus use the word Jehovah? "The LORD said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... " why didn't Jesus say, "Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand... "? Why wasn't Jehovah used by the NT writers and speakers? Shrinking back? Secretive? If so, what changed in the late 20th century, that we no longer shrink back from so doing? __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'