Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

V. NOT SACRIFICING ANY PORTION OF THE WORD
In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God's further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error. (W.L., On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 3)

I find this to be quite damning of WL.

Suppose you had a Bible study, and someone in that study came under the influence of an evil spirit. That spirit would still (at least initially) acknowledge Jesus, and study the Bible to find God's Christ, but soon would begin to promote "truths" which supposedly the whole Bible looked toward. These "truths" would loom increasingly large in the conversation as time passed.

Eventually the study would not be about the Bible or Jesus, but about the "truths", or doctrines or teaching, of this special teacher and Bible expositor.

Going further, eventually the new teachings, so-called truths, and doctrines would run against some of the Bible, and then this teacher might tell you that the Bible was wrong, and that the writers of the Bible were writing according to "fallen human concepts" or some such. Then the Bible could be safely and profitably ignored to focus instead on the recovered truths, so-called, being promoted.

I've gone into this at some detail in the "Psalms" thread, but it isn't limited to WL's treatment of the Psalms. Just pretty obvious, there. There wasn't much hiding WL's contempt for scripture, there. But I won't belabor the point; if I've tired myself of writing it, so much more the readers!