Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The poster here ZNPaaneah has mentioned on several occasions that he personnaly knew the translators of the RecVers, and that from the very beginning the RecVers was little more than a plagiarizing of the ASV 1901, with semantic updates. None of them were qualified for the work, which is why none of them dared to list their names.

Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages. I have a copy in my office and the translators are listed as "John C. Ingalls, Bill Duane, Albert Knoch, Witness Lee". It is my understanding that Duane did have an advanced degree in biblical Greek. I believe Knock's grandfather was a biblical translator (could have been an uncle or other relative). I think Ingalls was a self-taught student of biblical Greek (I may be wrong on this). Of course Witness Lee had absolutely zero former training of any sort and had no business being listed as a translator.

I think the notion of plagiarizing the ASV is to grossly mischaracterize the efforts of the translators of the Recovery Version New Testament, with the exception of Lee having his name included as a translator, which was a joke. I'm no Greek scholar, but I studied under several and most of them have noted that the Recovery Version NT seems to follow the New American Standard Version more than any other modern translation, however this could simply be a matter of the translators having the same inclination to use certain methods of translation as others.

Originally Posted by testallthings

The RcV Bible claims to be the best translation with the best footnotes. What I want to find out, and here I ask the help of the readers and members of this forum, is to test and see if these things are true.

Actually the Recovery Version NT is a fairly good modern translation, although it tends to be unnecessarily literal at times. For example John 7:39 is rendered as "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." Almost all modern English translations render it "for as yet the Spirit had not been given" (ESV and many others) To those of us familiar with Witness Lee's teaching of "Jesus becoming the life-giving Spirit", the reasons for this rendering are obvious - Lee wanted as many proof-texts as possible to back up his unorthodox, modalisitc teachings regarding the Trinity. So I'm assuming he talked the translators into making this linguistically awkward translation.

At other times the Recovery Version NT wanders far afield from being faithful to the orthodox understanding of certain key Greek words/terms. One glaring example would be the Recovery Version's rendering of the Greek word ἀλήθεια (alētheia) in John 16, which has been rendered universally as "truth", but is rendered as "reality" in the Recovery Version, where John 16:13 comes out as "But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming". Here again we see the undue influence of Witness Lee, who had absolutely no business being a significant influence among the translators.

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a limited number of examples where Witness Lee did have some undue influence. Of course the main problem with the Recovery Version is that nearly 50 percent of the text is the footnotes, which contain many of the questionable teachings of Witness Lee.

[testallthings]

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a limited number of examples where Witness Lee did have some undue influence. Of course the main problem with the Recovery Version is that nearly 50 percent of the text is the footnotes, which contain many of the questionable teachings of Witness Lee.

I have the same opinion.

[testallthings]

I would like to introduce another topic from Mat.2:1-12.

Were the chief priests and the scribes of the people wrong in not going with the magi to find the Christ?


But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by testallthings

But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?

I doubt it had anything to do with their "human concept". My theory is that it could have been as simple as they were passing through Jerusalem on their journey and were hoping that someone could provide them with a specific location.

Verse 9 says this: When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

So to me, it doesn't even seem like they knew their final destination until after stopping in Jerusalem.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I doubt it had anything to do with their "human concept"... to me, it doesn't even seem like they knew their final destination until after stopping in Jerusalem.

The human concept on display is that of the editor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages.

Actually the Recovery Version NT is a fairly good modern translation, although it tends to be unnecessarily literal at times.

I much prefer the "original" RecVers by Ingalls et.al. The subsequent version is excessively wordy at times. The original is more readable.

The subsequent version came about due to Ingalls expulsion from the program after he exposed Philip Lee's profligate ways as LSM's "Office Manager." John Ingalls' name had to be expunged from all the LSM books.

Quote: 'But before considering this question, there is another one. Were the magi "misled by their human concept" (footnote 2.2) to go to Jerusalem?
In the same note it is stated that, "The Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ, whereas the magi received a living vision concerning Him." But after that they were mislead. It is really so?' :End
(1). The magi said they saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him.
No mention of anything to do with whatsoever or which soever ‘human concept’.
(2). Matthew did not say that 'the Jews had a mental knowledge in dead letters concerning Christ', and did not say that 'the magi received a living vision concerning Him'. Whoever said that, the Recovery version compilers should know that it is not the exact God's word. And btw, The Lord God had inspired men to write His word and had not commissioned anyone to footnote after Him.
(3). But after that they were mislead. It is really so? - how dare you question the footnote. In your strong voice repeat the footnote, shake a fist and lift yourself up in a small jump. hooray! you've made yourself a goood material. What?! you are thinking over it and aaaskingg what? let the blending forces propel this one OUT ...

Matthew 1:1-2 (Recovery version) :
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
Saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him.

People who love ‘this translation’ to be the best translation are not taking it as it is? They value the footnote more? The footnote has subtracted from the actual bible verses and has added ... (read it for yourself).

[Ohio]

And btw, The Lord God had inspired men to write His word and had not commissioned anyone to footnote after Him.

Great line!

How in the world did Christians survive two millennia of hardships on earth without Lee's "interpreted" word?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So the bottom line is that the Recovery Version NT is a decent translation, with there being a . . .

collection of words that Lee preferred because they fit his theology better.

Sometimes more literal, as Unto indicated. But often not really helpful in true meaning.

Sometimes more obscure (with the declaration that it was "clearly" the better choice). For example, insisting on turning "truth" into "reality" as if that somehow made the meaning more clear. Actually, it incorrectly divided truth into two kinds of truth. Ordinary truth and God's truth. But truth is truth.

Some were intentionally different so that the claim of being a better translation could be made. And that played into the general mantra that a "high" lexicon equaled a high spirituality. Not an exclusively LCM notion. But Lee made it into part of the basis for differentiation and that sense of superiority that hooked the followers.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Actually the translators of the original New Testament Recovery Version (circa 1985) were indeed listed on the opening pages. I have a copy in my office and the translators are listed as "John C. Ingalls, Bill Duane, Albert Knoch, Witness Lee". It is my understanding that Duane did have an advanced degree in biblical Greek. I believe Knock's grandfather was a biblical translator (could have been an uncle or other relative). I think Ingalls was a self-taught student of biblical Greek (I may be wrong on this). Of course Witness Lee had absolutely zero former training of any sort and had no business being listed as a translator.

From the RV Wiki pages:
The Recovery Version is a recent translation of the Bible from the revised 1990 edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,[2] and the Nestle-Aland Greek text as found in Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edition).[3] The translators believe that Christians’ understanding of the Bible has progressed in the past two thousand years, in part due to "philological and exegetical scholarship that makes more precise the meaning of the biblical words or phrases or practices" [4] and in part due to an accumulation of Christian experience. This understanding forms the basis of this translation, with guidance from the major authoritative English versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version

Nell

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Nell

From the RV Wiki pages:
The Recovery Version is a recent translation of the Bible from the revised 1990 edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,[2] and the Nestle-Aland Greek text as found in Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edition).[3] The translators believe that Christians’ understanding of the Bible has progressed in the past two thousand years, in part due to "philological and exegetical scholarship that makes more precise the meaning of the biblical words or phrases or practices" [4] and in part due to an accumulation of Christian experience. This understanding forms the basis of this translation, with guidance from the major authoritative English versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version

Nell

Quoting from the same site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version
just from the beginning and before your quote

“The Recovery Version is a study Bible with a modern English translation of the Scriptures from their original languages. It is a result of roughly three decades of translation and revision work by the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, from 1974 to 2003. The New Testament was published in 1985 and revised in 1991, and the Holy Bible was published in 2003."

This seems to confirm what others have written about the first translation. But I leave this discussion to those who wrote about it.

There is another point which the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Version
does not mention. I didn't mention it in my first post either, but now that you are coming back to it here it is:
“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 RV Revised Edition 1991)

If I understand correctly it means that to translate the Bible it is not sufficient to know Hebrew and Greek, but that you have to understand the Bible. So with this understanding than we can go back and translate the Bible. I would like you to say something about this point.

One example of this kind of application would be Luke 4:19 “ To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of jubilee.” (RV) The words in italics been the “proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” (A brief explanation, NT RV Revised Edition 1991)
Another one is in Acts 13:1 “Now there were in Antioch, in the local church,....(RV)
Here local is part of the text. All major Bible translations say the church that was there.

It would be very interesting to know were the “proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word” as a principle to help translate the Bible was applied. I only provided two examples. That's too bad.

I hope after this and other posts, that will surely follow, we could resume studying more footnotes from Matthew. I plan to do so a few days later. If God wills.

[OBW]

(And the Quote button would not work on this one, though it did on others today).

“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 RV Revised Edition 1991)

The problem here is "proper understanding." That is presumed by the writers of that statement to be Lee and his minions and no one else.

It is a claim of special understanding that allows them to further claim that their interpretation is correct even where it stands in contrast to the actual text of scripture in its original language.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Was there a "second irruption"? If so, I would have thought that the bible would have mentioned it.

In my earlier post, I suggested that perhaps Noah's family tree had Nephilim blood in it. That also has no basis so I do not expect it to be taken seriously. Genesis 10 does talk a little on how the Canaanites came from Noah's son.

I am mindful of 1 Timothy 1:4's warning not to get bogged down by genealogies so I am inclined to not pursue this question of where the Nephilim came from.

My view is that the Bible's teaching point is that the relevant question to ask is "What do we do to the Nephilim?", and not "Where did the Nephilim come from".

If micah6v8 doesn't want to pursue the question of where the Nephilim came from, let's respect his wish.

Originally Posted by OBW

And, btw, I actually did provide one plausible explanation. And it is the existence of some people who clearly stand out as remarkably taller than others whose very presence scared the spies.

And to someone who had lived among "normal" people for years and had never seen anyone over 6 feet tall and was suddenly standing in the proximity of someone who was clearly 7 feet tall and the consideration was going to was against them, you don't think there would be some trepidation in them?

Do you have anything that actually makes Nephilim among the Canaanites true? If not . . . .

Yes we have Numbers 13:33, " And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Yes we have Numbers 13:33, " And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

So then there is the question of what Nephilim actually refers to. Is it truly linked to the pre-flood result of fallen angels marrying the sons of men? Or is that a conjecture itself. And if those were called Nephilim, is the current reference intended to establish a literal link, or just a general connection due to external characteristics?

So look into the word "Nephalim" and you find that it is a transliteration of the word found in both Genesis and Numbers. But the word simply means giant. Oddly, the reference in Genesis to the sons of God bearing children through the daughters of man is not linguistically linked to Nephilim. Just in the same sentence as being something "afterward." The word means giant. There is nothing special here except that they were larger than normal. And it appears that one of the Canaanite tribes was named Nephilim because there were some significantly large men among them.

I find it interesting that among certain ethnic groups there are sometimes larger than normal occurrences of extremely large and tall people. More common among certain Czech communities. I saw someone only slightly smaller than Andre the Giant in a butcher shop in West, Texas (the city, not the western part of Texas). I would be afraid if I had to go into battle where it was heavily hand-to-hand.

So is Nephilim really linked to something so spiritually special, or just a word left in its original language and thereby creating a buzz of mystery when the translated word would have simply indicated giants. Not saying giants are not significant. But is there really any mystery about them other than the fact of little explanation of how "giant" they were or how they came to be?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

So then there is the question of what Nephilim actually refers to. Is it truly linked to the pre-flood result of fallen angels marrying the sons of men? Or is that a conjecture itself. And if those were called Nephilim, is the current reference intended to establish a literal link, or just a general connection due to external characteristics?

So look into the word "Nephalim" and you find that it is a transliteration of the word found in both Genesis and Numbers. But the word simply means giant. Oddly, the reference in Genesis to the sons of God bearing children through the daughters of man is not linguistically linked to Nephilim. Just in the same sentence as being something "afterward." The word means giant. There is nothing special here except that they were larger than normal. And it appears that one of the Canaanite tribes was named Nephilim because there were some significantly large men among them.

I find it interesting that among certain ethnic groups there are sometimes larger than normal occurrences of extremely large and tall people. More common among certain Czech communities. I saw someone only slightly smaller than Andre the Giant in a butcher shop in West, Texas (the city, not the western part of Texas). I would be afraid if I had to go into battle where it was heavily hand-to-hand.

So is Nephilim really linked to something so spiritually special, or just a word left in its original language and thereby creating a buzz of mystery when the translated word would have simply indicated giants. Not saying giants are not significant. But is there really any mystery about them other than the fact of little explanation of how "giant" they were or how they came to be?

I'm not buying your premise that "giant" people are called nephilim for no other reason other than their size. Both instances of the word in scripture indicates an actual race of giants, which the Lord God saw fit to judge, first by a vast flood, and then by a great army.

If all giant guys were called nephilim, then why is there no mention of Goliath being a nephilim?