Putting to Test the Recovery Version

testallthings · 01-07-2016, 07:18 PM

I would like to introduce another footnote. This one in on Matthew 3:1
“Now in those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the wilderness of Judea” (RcV)

Footnote 1(2) John the Baptist's preaching was the initiation of God's New Testament economy. He did this preaching not in the holy temple within the holy city, where the religious and cultured people worshipped God according to their scriptural ordinances, but in the wilderness, in a 'wild' way, not keeping any old regulations. This indicates that the old way of worshipping God according to the Old Testament had been repudiated and that a new way was about to be brought in. Wilderness here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture. It indicates further that something new was going to be built up.

Before analyzing this statements, I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago.
“The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.”

Does anyone disagree about these words? I do not.

“The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.”

Any comment on this point? This is a principle that many students of the Bible would agree on. In most cases, shall we say 99%, a literal interpretation should be preferred over a spiritual interpretation.

“We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.”

I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation.

With this in mind, let's come to the footnote. John the Baptist with his preaching initiated GNTe . He did not preach in the holy temple in the holy city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the place of religious and cultured people that worshipped God according to the Bible, as commanded by God Himself. So John, who wanted to start something new, went into the wilderness, “not keeping any old regulation”.

The first question that comes to my mind is which of the prophets in the O.T. preached in the temple. We know that some spoke far away from Israel (Daniel for example). Thus this mean that they started something new? The Lord Jesus taught in temple, or more precisely in the court of the temple, as well some of His apostles. Does this mean that John the Baptist introduced the GNTe and they brought back the GOTe?

The second question is, How could John the Baptist baptize so many people in the temple? By sprinkling them? Joh 3:23 “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” He needed much water so he went were he could find it.

The third question is, Was baptism a new regulation? To me, it seems that baptism is a very old regulation. Does anyone need proofs? And by the way, when John was asked about what they shall do (the people) did he said something about a new way of worshipping God?

The fourth question is, If wilderness “ here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture”, can someone, who is an expert in spiritual interpretations, and knows how to mix literal and spiritual interpretations in the same passage, please tell me at least what Judea means (you don't need to explain what John the Baptist means).

OBW · 01-08-2016, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

“The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.”
. . . .
“The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.”
. . . .

Any comment on this point?

Actually, fairly well said. But almost always ignored by the one saying it.

Lee was so full of "spiritual overlays" that he used to ignore the literal meaning of the words — even negating them and in some cases declaring them virtually out of the Bible. And while I do not recall him saying this directly, certain of his followers sure came around here (or the other forum years ago) using 1 Cor 2:14 to declare that only spiritual discernment could understand what the literal words really meant. You couldn't take the words at face value, but needed spiritual seeing.

Then we come back to this passage concerning John the Baptist. And when you get down to it, Lee said a lot that was not in the Bible. Without digging into the rest of the Bible (as has now been done) it may or may not have been true. But Lee said it, so it was considered as good as original scripture. And then no one had their mind on when they came to the parts where Jesus taught in the Temple. Or where the apostles taught daily in the Temple.

Of course they noted that last one and probably claimed that the destruction of Jerusalem was designed to chase them away from the Temple — yet another baseless claim that needs spiritual seeing but no literal words.

In short, despite some statements of sound theology in the past, Lee was busy rewriting scripture and its meaning with his footnotes, and in a few cases with his translation through peculiar renderings.

aron · 01-08-2016, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, fairly well said. But almost always ignored by the one saying it..

I'd add that one should take heed how the Bible treats scripture. Here I'm thinking specifically of New Testament (NT) reception of OT texts. (But it could also be seen in echoes of the law within wisdom literature in the OT, as well. Etc.)

The NT authors established precedent in reception of the OT. Lee clearly overturned that precedent by rejecting parts of the OT as fallen concepts of pious sinners, versus inspired revelation. Nowhere did the NT even hint that this was proper treatment. Lee even castigated NT authors (e.g. Peter, James, Jude) for being too reverent with scripture.

OBW · 01-08-2016, 07:58 AM

Matt 5:20, Note 1

Quote:

Righteousness here does not refer only to objective righteousness, which is the Christ whom we receive when we believe in Him and are thus justified before God (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 3:26); it refers even more to subjective righteousness, which is the indwelling Christ lived out of us as our righteousness that we may live in the reality of the kingdom today and enter into its manifestation in the future. This subjective righteousness is obtained not by merely the fulfilling of the old law, but by the complementing of the old law through the fulfilling of the new law of the kingdom of the heavens given by the new King here in this section of the Word. This righteousness of the kingdom people, which is according to the new law of the kingdom, surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, which is according to the old law. It is impossible for our natural life to gain this surpassing righteousness; it can be produced only by a higher life, the resurrection life of Christ. This righteousness, which is likened to the wedding garment (22:11-12), qualifies us to participate in the wedding of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-8) and inherit the kingdom of the heavens in its manifestation, that is, to enter into the kingdom of the heavens in the future.

I find it interesting that there is something in scripture that supports the idea of objective righteousness. Lee provides 1 Cor 1:30 and Rom 3:26.

But after that, it is strictly what Lee says. He pontificates for 187 of the 218 words found in this note with not even a hint that there is a basis for what he is saying. I see that he does mention a couple of other verses (Matt 22:11-12 and Rev 19:7-8) but they are not in support of the proposition that there is a subjective righteousness, rather support for other items which he claims comes from the subjective righteousness.

He continues to write:

Quote:

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is the righteousness of letters, which they practiced by their own life according to the old law of letters; the surpassing righteousness of the kingdom people is the righteousness of life, which they live out by taking Christ as their life according to the new law of life. Both in nature and in standard, the righteousness of life far surpasses the lifeless righteousness practiced by the scribes and Pharisees.

It is true that the scribes and the Pharisees practiced the old "law of letters." But there is nothing here or anywhere else that dictates that it was the fact of doing it "by their own life" that was a problem.

I do not say that there is nothing true in this footnote. But its primary thrust creates a false sense of our part in the process of living righteously. Lee has made some necessary component that Christians can miss out of something that they always have. Jesus did not say to believe in Him and keep digging inward to find Him and sin no more. He said to go and sin no more. I think that Peter's "you have everything you need" statement sums it up nicely. We have it. We don't need to figure out how to exercise out spirit, but how to exercise ourselves unto righteousness.

Besides, how else do we live God's life than by believing in Jesus and living according to what is commanded.

While I spent a bit of time on my take on Lee's theology, it is more noteworthy that Lee had a lot to say, but not much support for what he said, And I believe it should be evident that what he said is not consistent with what the scriptures say elsewhere.

In short, an opinion not supported by anything. And he honestly didn't support it. Just said it.

aron · 01-08-2016, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not say that there is nothing true in this footnote. But its primary thrust creates a false sense of our part in the process of living righteously. Lee has made some necessary component that Christians can miss out of something that they always have. Jesus did not say to believe in Him and keep digging inward to find Him and sin no more. He said to go and sin no more. I think that Peter's "you have everything you need" statement sums it up nicely. We have it. We don't need to figure out how to exercise out spirit, but how to exercise ourselves unto righteousness.

I think Lee mis-aims twice. Neither of the mis-aimings are of themselves wrong, but are not the point of the exercise. Lee says there are "dead letters" and "law-keepers" like the Pharisees. Then he says, there are the (NT) "kingdom people" who live by Christ. But there is a gaping hole in the middle.

You see, there was this guy named Jesus. He lived in the reality of all the pious statements of well-meaning sinners who declared fealty to God's governmental kingdom. This Obedient Son is the shining object of the whole thing. Lee segues neatly from the failed OT law-keepers to the successful NT grace-livers, missing the One in the middle who holds the whole thing together.

Paul and Peter didn't give exegeses on David's inability to fulfill his prophetic word. They noted the inability of David, true (e.g. Acts 2:29) but then said that the word was still true. Jesus filled it. Lee seems determined to miss the obvious, here.

Anyway, that's my own subjective take on his teaching. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing as OBW in the bolded part of the quote. Or similar.

aron · 01-10-2016, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago.

“We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.”

I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation.

I noted this in my study on Psalms. Lee held the psalmist to a different set of standards. When King Agag got hacked to bits by the prophet Samuel, Agag signified the flesh. Samuel's violent zeal, therefore, was approved.

But when the psalmist pursued his enemies and "beat them small" (18:37) he was being uncharitable, and not following the NT economy, so-called, and blessing his enemy. So the first got interpreted spiritually, and was approved for his being absolute, and the second interpreted literally, and condemned.

I don't think Lee would have gotten away with this in a seminary paper. But as the self-styled MOTA his every word was divinely-inspired. Even if his various inspirations were contradictory.

testallthings · 01-10-2016, 07:59 PM

“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569).

“We could hardly have a more suitable and powerful example of the importance of attending to
the one great requirement of "the Word of Truth"; as to rightly dividing its subject matter.
In the matter of letters, or epistles, it is very important in our social life to carefully observe the
address written on the envelope. It makes for peace and harmony, and prevents awkward
mistakes and misunderstandings.
It is a mistake that is sometimes made, and it may be that when we have opened a letter that is
not addressed to us we commence to read it; and as we read on we find things said that are
exceedingly interesting and most instructive; but we come upon other things which we cannot
make out, and we find references to matters which we do not understand, and to circumstances
with which we are unacquainted, because we are not the persons directly written to.
Then, if we are wise, we turn to the address, and there we discover the mistake we have made,
and the cause of all our confusion. It is exactly so with
3. The Epistles to the Dispersion.—No Epistle has been the source of such confusion, and none
has received such treatment as that written by James.
(a) The Epistle of James is addressed:—
To the Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad.
Doubtless they were believers, up to a certain point; but exactly what they believed, or how far
they believed we are not told.
They evidently, as Jews, believed that Christ was the Messiah, and had a certain amount of light:
but the question is, Did they, as sinners, believe in Christ as their Saviour; or know that "Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth"? It is clear from the surface
of the Epistle that they did not have the standing of those who were "called to be saints": or of
members of the spiritual Body of Christ, as set forth in the Epistles addressed to the churches of
Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse.
They were "Christians" as distinguished from Jews and Gentiles, but were they members of "the
Church of God?" Who are the "ye" in chapter 4? Who are the "rich men" in 5:1? The stand-point
of the epistle is wholly Jewish. They were monotheists as appears from 2:19. Their place of
worship was the "Synagogue" (2:2, margin).
In 5:12 the prohibition of swearing is according to the Jewish formula; and, in verse 14 the
anointing with oil is in accordance with Jewish practice at that time.
Spiritual and vital Christianity is nowhere seen. Only twice is "Christ" named at all (1:1; 2:1).
The word "Gospel" is not used, and the "Mystery" is unknown. The fundamental doctrines of
the Gospel are not even alluded to: such as Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, Resurrection,
or Ascension.
The Morality of the Law is there (2:8,13). The coming of the Lord as the Judge is there (5:8,9).
Justification by works is there (2:20-26).
All the errors combated refer to Judaism. Religion (threskeia) is there, but it is shown that the
works of mercy and charity are better than all the outward forms of religious worship. Fatalism,
formalism and hypocrisy, arrogance and oppression, are specially dealt with; but surely these are
not the sins which distinguish and characterize the Church of God.
All the phenomena are Palestinian or Eastern, as we may gather from the references to the early
and latter rain (5:7); to the fig, oil, and wine (3:12); to drought (5:17,18); to salt and bitter
springs (3:11,12); and to the hot wind (1:11).
The Epistle is full of references to the Sermon on the Mount, which (as we shall see later) has
reference to the past Dispensation, not to the present. We may compare
James 1:2, 5:10,11 with Matthew 5:10-12
James 1:4 with Matthew 5:48
James 1:5,17, 5:15 with Matthew 7:7,11
James 1:9, 2:5 with Matthew 5:3
James 1:22-25, 2:10,11 with Matthew 5:19
James 1:20 with Matthew 5:22
James 1:22, 2:14, 5:7-9 with Matthew 7:21-26
James 2:1-3 with Matthew 6:2,5
James 2:8 with Matthew 7:12
James 2:10,11 with Matthew 7:12
James 2:13 with Matthew 6:14,15, 7:2
James 2:14 with Matthew 7:21
James 3:1, 4:11 with Matthew 7:1
James 3:12 with Matthew 7:16
James 3:17,18 with Matthew 5:9
James 4:3 with Matthew 7:8
James 4:4 with Matthew 6:24
James 4:8 with Matthew 5:8
James 4:9 with Matthew 5:4
James 4:10 with Matthew 5:3,4
James 4:11 with Matthew 7:1
James 4:13-16 with Matthew 6:25
James 5:2 with Matthew 6:19
James 5:10 with Matthew 5:12
James 5:12 with Matthew 5:34
From other parts of the Lord's teaching in connection with the Kingdom we may compare
James 1:14 with Matthew 15:19
James 4:12 with Matthew 10:28
James 5:1 with Luke 6:24
These phenomena in the subject-matter, when interpreted of the Church of God, and
appropriated by those who are "in Christ," and "complete in Him," led to such confusion that,
though the Epistle was in the primitive Syriac version from the first (cent. ii.), and was quoted as
Canonical by the great Greek Fathers or cent. iv., yet there were always great doubts about its
canonicity, and delays in receiving it.
These doubts were revived when translations of the Bible began to be made at the Reformation.
Erasmus, Luther, and others questioned the canonicity of the Epistle; and it is well known that
Luther went so far as to call it "a veritable Epistle of straw" ("Eine rechte stroherne Epistel").
The same difficulties and doubts are felt to-day. But they are all caused by interpreting of the
Church of God that which is written to quite a different class of people belonging to "the Twelve
Tribes."
The question is, Do we belong to "the Twelve Tribes"? Do we worship in a Synagogue? Is it our
custom, as a People, to anoint with oil? Is not the "Assembly" of James 5:14* identical with the
"Synagogue of 2:2?**
* Which is translated "church" in AV and RV.
** Which is translated "Assembly" in AV and "Synagogue" in RV.
The answers to these questions will show that the Epistle is not addressed to us, i.e., to those
who are "in Christ," and who are "the Church of God."
The moment we discern this, and rightly divide off, the class of persons addressed, there will be
an end of all the laboured arguments to bring the Epistle of James into harmony with the Epistle
to the Romans; and of all attempts to reconcile its teaching with that of Ephesians or Colossians.
There will be nothing either to harmonize or to reconcile. James will be seen to be true in what
he wrote to those whom he addressed, and Paul will be seen to be true in what he wrote. Both
will be seen to be true in what they said to those to whom they were respectively inspired to
write, if we rightly divide these portions of the Word of truth.” (How to enjoy the Bible, E.W. Bullinger, 1916)

This is just a short excerpt from a book I highly recommend, and it is in the public domain. I am making the “mistake” of only posting this part, so this may raise more questions than answers. I hope those who have time and are willing may read more from the book itself. At the same time I do not want to distract anyone from the main reason of this thread. (But I am guilty of just doing that. Sorry.)

testallthings · 01-15-2016, 11:14 PM

Mat. 3:2 “And Saying, Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (RcV)

It is very interesting that John the Baptist didn't have to explain what the kingdom of the heavens was. That means that every Jew understood what he meant. The Lord Jesus was the son of David, the King of the Jews (2:2; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 27:37; “...and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:32-33). The Lord Jesus came to establish the Messianic kingdom promised to David, of which every Jew knew very well.

Let's come to footnote 2.2 and 2.3. In the first one the RcV says that the kingdom of the heavens is different from the Messianic kingdom. In the second, that according to Mat. 16:18-19 “the terms church and kingdom of the heavens are used interchangeably.” If these things were true, than we should expect John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, and the apostles to clearly tell the Jews that their were mistaken in expecting a literal kingdom to be established according to what God promised in the O.T.. Concerning the word church it should be noticed that in the O.T. there was a church. Act 7:38 “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (K.J.V.) Why the RcV doesn't use the word church in this verse?

The RcV draws a parallel between church and kingdom of the heavens because the two terms happen to be in the same context. Let's see how the same interprets these two verses. Mat 19:23: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (K.J.V.) It is actually here there the two terms are interchangeable and not in Mat. 16:18-19! Footnote 24.2 makes a distinction between these two terms, but its position is not defensible. Why the double standard in finding synonyms, we might ask?

But, let's assume for a moment that church and kingdom of the heavens mean the same thing and read Mat. 3:2 again: “And Saying, Repent for the church has drawn near.” How does this verse sounds now? The church is coming! Therefore repent! This doesn't sound very scary. After all isn't the church, as the Body of Christ, living in the age of grace? This is absurd. John was telling the Jews that the wrath was coming! The axe was laid at the root of the trees. That Messiah would thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat. 3:7-12). That's why he was urging the people to repent and be baptized.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-16-2016, 05:39 AM

Really interesting thread.

It wasn't until I started read other versions that I started to feel the awkwardness of the Recovery version. I thought the Bible just sounded like that (I am thinking of things like Galatians 3:24 using "child-conductor." What is that?!). I was reading John and came to 7:39 He said this about the Spirit. Those who believed in Jesus were going to receive the Spirit, for the Spirit had not yet been received because Jesus had not yet been glorified (HCSB) or in the NLT When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.

The Recovery version omits any past participle after yet. It reads like this : 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.

I think the omission fits the modalist (?) idea of the processed triune God and is wholly intentional, ignoring the sense of the text in order to support an interpretation under the guise of being more accurate.

What do you all think about this?

NewManLiving · 01-16-2016, 06:49 AM

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

JJ · 01-16-2016, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is not in the Greek text.

"Light" comes to us in the person of Jesus Christ. And, while our brothers and sisters often help us to see "the Light", they and we are not The Light, just luminaries reflecting Him. Unfortunately, our dear brother and his followers (including me) fell into the snare of Lucifer by looking at the glory and beauty given by the Lord to the recovery when it was beholding and reflecting Him, taking the credit, and grasping equality with God.

OBW · 01-18-2016, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus.

I would agree that Lee was not modalistic in the sense that most theologians use the term. But he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."

He would make statements like "there is only one spirit, therefore if the last Adam becomes the life giving spirit, then that must mean the Holy Spirit" (paraphrased). While he would argue against modalism, he would insist that there was no real, meaningful three. He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside.

"There is only one spirit" is a false statement. There is only one with the name "Spirit" but God the Father is spirit. As are Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. But the reference to "spirit" is not about person, but about nature, or essence. When Jesus told the woman at the well that God is spirit, he did not say that God is the Holy Spirit. He said that God is not a singular being with a fixed location. God is of essence that is dispersed. There is no "here" or "there" with respect to God. No need to worship at this place because that is where he is. He is everywhere.

And Lee's oft-quoted question that went something like "is there more than one spirit that gives life?" is a misunderstanding of terms. Jesus gives life and he is spirit. But he is not the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit also gives life because God gives life. But the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, yet he is spirit and gives life. Same analysis for the Son and the Spirit.

Was Lee just that ignorant about what he was talking about? Or was he that deceitful? I am not sure that there are any other options. Either he really didn't understand or he was a manipulator of linguistics to arrive at conclusions that the words couldn't actually get to.

Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

JJ · 01-16-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat. 3:2 “And Saying, Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (RcV)

It is very interesting that John the Baptist didn't have to explain what the kingdom of the heavens was. That means that every Jew understood what he meant. The Lord Jesus was the son of David, the King of the Jews (2:2; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 27:37; “...and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:32-33). The Lord Jesus came to establish the Messianic kingdom promised to David, of which every Jew knew very well.

Let's come to footnote 2.2 and 2.3. In the first one the RcV says that the kingdom of the heavens is different from the Messianic kingdom. In the second, that according to Mat. 16:18-19 “the terms church and kingdom of the heavens are used interchangeably.” If these things were true, than we should expect John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, and the apostles to clearly tell the Jews that their were mistaken in expecting a literal kingdom to be established according to what God promised in the O.T.. Concerning the word church it should be noticed that in the O.T. there was a church. Act 7:38 “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (K.J.V.) Why the RcV doesn't use the word church in this verse?

The RcV draws a parallel between church and kingdom of the heavens because the two terms happen to be in the same context. Let's see how the same interprets these two verses. Mat 19:23: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (K.J.V.) It is actually here there the two terms are interchangeable and not in Mat. 16:18-19! Footnote 24.2 makes a distinction between these two terms, but its position is not defensible. Why the double standard in finding synonyms, we might ask?

But, let's assume for a moment that church and kingdom of the heavens mean the same thing and read Mat. 3:2 again: “And Saying, Repent for the church has drawn near.” How does this verse sounds now? The church is coming! Therefore repent! This doesn't sound very scary. After all isn't the church, as the Body of Christ, living in the age of grace? This is absurd. John was telling the Jews that the wrath was coming! The axe was laid at the root of the trees. That Messiah would thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat. 3:7-12). That's why he was urging the people to repent and be baptized.

Witness Lee didn't equate the term "the Kingdom of the Heavens" to just to the church (see his chart after Matthew 5:4 in Recovery Version), it includes the church and the Millennium age with the Messianic Kingdom within it.

testallthings · 01-17-2016, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Witness Lee didn't equate the term "the Kingdom of the Heavens" to just to the church (see his chart after Matthew 5:4 in Recovery Version), it includes the church and the Millennium age with the Messianic Kingdom within it.

Sure. I was limiting my comment only on footnotes 2.2 and 2.3 of Mat. 3:2.

testallthings · 01-17-2016, 12:38 AM

If anyone is interested in the history of English Bible Translation here is a nice site. If you have time try to find in the preface of so many Bible one that come close to the claims of the RcV.

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

About Darby and his translation the author of the website writes,

"Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes."

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

JJ · 01-16-2016, 07:58 AM

[QUOTE=testallthings;46450]“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569).

Good and interesting points made in this post. Thanks for the reference, which is new to me.

I'm having a hard time throwing out James (and I guess 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and maybe Jude, "epistles to the dispersion") altogether from our bibles, because there are so many things that apply the "the New Man" where there are no Jews or Gentiles (But Christ is all and in all). "Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights" comes to mind. I do like the idea of being careful to not assume it all applies to Gentile believers.

01-07-2016, 07:18 PM	#1
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version I would like to introduce another footnote. This one in on Matthew 3:1 “Now in those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the wilderness of Judea” (RcV) Footnote 1(2) John the Baptist's preaching was the initiation of God's New Testament economy. He did this preaching not in the holy temple within the holy city, where the religious and cultured people worshipped God according to their scriptural ordinances, but in the wilderness, in a 'wild' way, not keeping any old regulations. This indicates that the old way of worshipping God according to the Old Testament had been repudiated and that a new way was about to be brought in. Wilderness here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture. It indicates further that something new was going to be built up. Before analyzing this statements, I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago. “The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.” Does anyone disagree about these words? I do not. “The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.” Any comment on this point? This is a principle that many students of the Bible would agree on. In most cases, shall we say 99%, a literal interpretation should be preferred over a spiritual interpretation. “We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.” I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation. With this in mind, let's come to the footnote. John the Baptist with his preaching initiated GNTe . He did not preach in the holy temple in the holy city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the place of religious and cultured people that worshipped God according to the Bible, as commanded by God Himself. So John, who wanted to start something new, went into the wilderness, “not keeping any old regulation”. The first question that comes to my mind is which of the prophets in the O.T. preached in the temple. We know that some spoke far away from Israel (Daniel for example). Thus this mean that they started something new? The Lord Jesus taught in temple, or more precisely in the court of the temple, as well some of His apostles. Does this mean that John the Baptist introduced the GNTe and they brought back the GOTe? The second question is, How could John the Baptist baptize so many people in the temple? By sprinkling them? Joh 3:23 “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” He needed much water so he went were he could find it. The third question is, Was baptism a new regulation? To me, it seems that baptism is a very old regulation. Does anyone need proofs? And by the way, when John was asked about what they shall do (the people) did he said something about a new way of worshipping God? The fourth question is, If wilderness “ here indicates that a new way of God's New Testament economy is contrary to religion and culture”, can someone, who is an expert in spiritual interpretations, and knows how to mix literal and spiritual interpretations in the same passage, please tell me at least what Judea means (you don't need to explain what John the Baptist means).

01-10-2016, 07:59 PM	#7
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version “It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ” Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569). “We could hardly have a more suitable and powerful example of the importance of attending to the one great requirement of "the Word of Truth"; as to rightly dividing its subject matter. In the matter of letters, or epistles, it is very important in our social life to carefully observe the address written on the envelope. It makes for peace and harmony, and prevents awkward mistakes and misunderstandings. It is a mistake that is sometimes made, and it may be that when we have opened a letter that is not addressed to us we commence to read it; and as we read on we find things said that are exceedingly interesting and most instructive; but we come upon other things which we cannot make out, and we find references to matters which we do not understand, and to circumstances with which we are unacquainted, because we are not the persons directly written to. Then, if we are wise, we turn to the address, and there we discover the mistake we have made, and the cause of all our confusion. It is exactly so with 3. The Epistles to the Dispersion.—No Epistle has been the source of such confusion, and none has received such treatment as that written by James. (a) The Epistle of James is addressed:— To the Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad. Doubtless they were believers, up to a certain point; but exactly what they believed, or how far they believed we are not told. They evidently, as Jews, believed that Christ was the Messiah, and had a certain amount of light: but the question is, Did they, as sinners, believe in Christ as their Saviour; or know that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth"? It is clear from the surface of the Epistle that they did not have the standing of those who were "called to be saints": or of members of the spiritual Body of Christ, as set forth in the Epistles addressed to the churches of Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse. They were "Christians" as distinguished from Jews and Gentiles, but were they members of "the Church of God?" Who are the "ye" in chapter 4? Who are the "rich men" in 5:1? The stand-point of the epistle is wholly Jewish. They were monotheists as appears from 2:19. Their place of worship was the "Synagogue" (2:2, margin). In 5:12 the prohibition of swearing is according to the Jewish formula; and, in verse 14 the anointing with oil is in accordance with Jewish practice at that time. Spiritual and vital Christianity is nowhere seen. Only twice is "Christ" named at all (1:1; 2:1). The word "Gospel" is not used, and the "Mystery" is unknown. The fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are not even alluded to: such as Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, Resurrection, or Ascension. The Morality of the Law is there (2:8,13). The coming of the Lord as the Judge is there (5:8,9). Justification by works is there (2:20-26). All the errors combated refer to Judaism. Religion (threskeia) is there, but it is shown that the works of mercy and charity are better than all the outward forms of religious worship. Fatalism, formalism and hypocrisy, arrogance and oppression, are specially dealt with; but surely these are not the sins which distinguish and characterize the Church of God. All the phenomena are Palestinian or Eastern, as we may gather from the references to the early and latter rain (5:7); to the fig, oil, and wine (3:12); to drought (5:17,18); to salt and bitter springs (3:11,12); and to the hot wind (1:11). The Epistle is full of references to the Sermon on the Mount, which (as we shall see later) has reference to the past Dispensation, not to the present. We may compare James 1:2, 5:10,11 with Matthew 5:10-12 James 1:4 with Matthew 5:48 James 1:5,17, 5:15 with Matthew 7:7,11 James 1:9, 2:5 with Matthew 5:3 James 1:22-25, 2:10,11 with Matthew 5:19 James 1:20 with Matthew 5:22 James 1:22, 2:14, 5:7-9 with Matthew 7:21-26 James 2:1-3 with Matthew 6:2,5 James 2:8 with Matthew 7:12 James 2:10,11 with Matthew 7:12 James 2:13 with Matthew 6:14,15, 7:2 James 2:14 with Matthew 7:21 James 3:1, 4:11 with Matthew 7:1 James 3:12 with Matthew 7:16 James 3:17,18 with Matthew 5:9 James 4:3 with Matthew 7:8 James 4:4 with Matthew 6:24 James 4:8 with Matthew 5:8 James 4:9 with Matthew 5:4 James 4:10 with Matthew 5:3,4 James 4:11 with Matthew 7:1 James 4:13-16 with Matthew 6:25 James 5:2 with Matthew 6:19 James 5:10 with Matthew 5:12 James 5:12 with Matthew 5:34 From other parts of the Lord's teaching in connection with the Kingdom we may compare James 1:14 with Matthew 15:19 James 4:12 with Matthew 10:28 James 5:1 with Luke 6:24 These phenomena in the subject-matter, when interpreted of the Church of God, and appropriated by those who are "in Christ," and "complete in Him," led to such confusion that, though the Epistle was in the primitive Syriac version from the first (cent. ii.), and was quoted as Canonical by the great Greek Fathers or cent. iv., yet there were always great doubts about its canonicity, and delays in receiving it. These doubts were revived when translations of the Bible began to be made at the Reformation. Erasmus, Luther, and others questioned the canonicity of the Epistle; and it is well known that Luther went so far as to call it "a veritable Epistle of straw" ("Eine rechte stroherne Epistel"). The same difficulties and doubts are felt to-day. But they are all caused by interpreting of the Church of God that which is written to quite a different class of people belonging to "the Twelve Tribes." The question is, Do we belong to "the Twelve Tribes"? Do we worship in a Synagogue? Is it our custom, as a People, to anoint with oil? Is not the "Assembly" of James 5:14* identical with the "Synagogue of 2:2?** * Which is translated "church" in AV and RV. ** Which is translated "Assembly" in AV and "Synagogue" in RV. The answers to these questions will show that the Epistle is not addressed to us, i.e., to those who are "in Christ," and who are "the Church of God." The moment we discern this, and rightly divide off, the class of persons addressed, there will be an end of all the laboured arguments to bring the Epistle of James into harmony with the Epistle to the Romans; and of all attempts to reconcile its teaching with that of Ephesians or Colossians. There will be nothing either to harmonize or to reconcile. James will be seen to be true in what he wrote to those whom he addressed, and Paul will be seen to be true in what he wrote. Both will be seen to be true in what they said to those to whom they were respectively inspired to write, if we rightly divide these portions of the Word of truth.” (How to enjoy the Bible, E.W. Bullinger, 1916) This is just a short excerpt from a book I highly recommend, and it is in the public domain. I am making the “mistake” of only posting this part, so this may raise more questions than answers. I hope those who have time and are willing may read more from the book itself. At the same time I do not want to distract anyone from the main reason of this thread. (But I am guilty of just doing that. Sorry.)

01-15-2016, 11:14 PM	#8
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version Mat. 3:2 “And Saying, Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (RcV) It is very interesting that John the Baptist didn't have to explain what the kingdom of the heavens was. That means that every Jew understood what he meant. The Lord Jesus was the son of David, the King of the Jews (2:2; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 27:37; “...and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:32-33). The Lord Jesus came to establish the Messianic kingdom promised to David, of which every Jew knew very well. Let's come to footnote 2.2 and 2.3. In the first one the RcV says that the kingdom of the heavens is different from the Messianic kingdom. In the second, that according to Mat. 16:18-19 “the terms church and kingdom of the heavens are used interchangeably.” If these things were true, than we should expect John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, and the apostles to clearly tell the Jews that their were mistaken in expecting a literal kingdom to be established according to what God promised in the O.T.. Concerning the word church it should be noticed that in the O.T. there was a church. Act 7:38 “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (K.J.V.) Why the RcV doesn't use the word church in this verse? The RcV draws a parallel between church and kingdom of the heavens because the two terms happen to be in the same context. Let's see how the same interprets these two verses. Mat 19:23: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (K.J.V.) It is actually here there the two terms are interchangeable and not in Mat. 16:18-19! Footnote 24.2 makes a distinction between these two terms, but its position is not defensible. Why the double standard in finding synonyms, we might ask? But, let's assume for a moment that church and kingdom of the heavens mean the same thing and read Mat. 3:2 again: “And Saying, Repent for the church has drawn near.” How does this verse sounds now? The church is coming! Therefore repent! This doesn't sound very scary. After all isn't the church, as the Body of Christ, living in the age of grace? This is absurd. John was telling the Jews that the wrath was coming! The axe was laid at the root of the trees. That Messiah would thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat. 3:7-12). That's why he was urging the people to repent and be baptized.

01-16-2016, 05:39 AM	#9
ABrotherinFaith Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 100	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version Really interesting thread. It wasn't until I started read other versions that I started to feel the awkwardness of the Recovery version. I thought the Bible just sounded like that (I am thinking of things like Galatians 3:24 using "child-conductor." What is that?!). I was reading John and came to 7:39 He said this about the Spirit. Those who believed in Jesus were going to receive the Spirit, for the Spirit had not yet been received because Jesus had not yet been glorified (HCSB) or in the NLT When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet *been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory. The Recovery version omits any past participle after yet. It reads like this : 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*. I think the omission fits the modalist (?) idea of the processed triune God and is wholly intentional, ignoring the sense of the text in order to support an interpretation under the guise of being more accurate. What do you all think about this?

01-16-2016, 06:49 AM	#10
NewManLiving Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 153	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

01-17-2016, 12:38 AM	#15
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version If anyone is interested in the history of English Bible Translation here is a nice site. If you have time try to find in the preface of so many Bible one that come close to the claims of the RcV. http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html About Darby and his translation the author of the website writes, "Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes." http://www.bible-researcher.com/darby.html

01-16-2016, 07:58 AM	#16
JJ Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 1,006	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version [QUOTE=testallthings;46450]“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ” Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569). Good and interesting points made in this post. Thanks for the reference, which is new to me. I'm having a hard time throwing out James (and I guess 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and maybe Jude, "epistles to the dispersion") altogether from our bibles, because there are so many things that apply the "the New Man" where there are no Jews or Gentiles (But Christ is all and in all). "Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights" comes to mind. I do like the idea of being careful to not assume it all applies to Gentile believers.