Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

“They therefore, being come together, asked him saying, Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” (Darby) The word therefore (in Darby, Asv, and other translations) has the meaning of because of that or for that reason. Because the Lord spoke to them for 40 days about the kingdom of God therefore the apostles asked Him about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It was a simple logical question prompted by the things they heard during those 40 days.

The other thing to consider is this: look at the Lord's response to the question. They were asking about time. "At this time?", they asked. The Lord replied, "It's not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has fixed by His authority". (v.7)

He didn't say, "What are you talking about, the kingdom restored to Israel? Are you nuts?! I'm here for the church! Drop your concepts and read Ephesians 3!"

No, He was, and is, the King of Israel, and the mysterious "Divine purpose and wisdom revealed through the church" in Ephesians 3:9,10 didn't erase it, but rather (so I believe) declared it as gospel. "Where is He who is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star at its rising, and have come to worship Him." (Matt 2:2) Concepts? No, truth: Jesus was indeed the King of the Jews, and came to restore the kingdom [of God] to Israel. But the provenance of times and seasons was not for the disciples to know.

You know, we all have concepts; you have them, so do I. But our concepts are relatively innocuous, compared to those of Witness Lee, because chief among his concepts was the idea that only he didn't have any! Peter, James and John had concepts; all the Christian teachers and preachers had concepts, but Nee and Lee had none! What a gift to the Body of Christ, to have such ministers of the word, raised up in these last days! "Houston, the Oracle has landed. . ." Cheers, loud hurrahs, hats tossed in the air. . . as RG put it, "We got the fresh bread!" Manna from heaven, and all for sale, for just a dollar or three.

Even the authors of the Bible, and the compilers who decided on the canon, had "fallen" and "natural human concepts" of "right and wrong". Only the chosen few, the apostle Paul, John Nelson Darby, Margaret Barber and then Nee and Lee, cared solely for life. Everyone else, apparently, wasn't so clear, beshrouded by their concepts as they were. Yet there was an invisible 'lineage of life' running through the aeons, coursing through the space/time ether, and Nee and Lee had somehow tapped into it, and if we the poor, pathetic mooing cows wanted to participate in the blessing then we'd let them tell us what the Bible said, even if the words in front of us were plainly indicating otherwise.

It was the old, "Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes" trick. Witness Lee convinced us that only he had the sight. We were blind, as had been the disciples, the authors of the NT, and almost all of Christianity through the ages. What a con. . . what an embarrassing ride to have been taken on. Oh well; "Fool me once..."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Even the authors of the Bible, and the compilers who decided on the canon, had "fallen" and "natural human concepts" of "right and wrong". Only the chosen few, the apostle Paul, John Nelson Darby, Margaret Barber and then Nee and Lee, cared solely for life. Everyone else, apparently, wasn't so clear, beshrouded by their concepts as they were. Yet there was an invisible 'lineage of life' running through the aeons, coursing through the space/time ether, and Nee and Lee had somehow tapped into it. . .

If you think I'm being hard on Darby, Lee held him as a 'pre-Nee' visionary of recovered truth, i.e. God's (sole) 'man of the hour', and history hasn't been so kind on Darby's inspirations, and the effect he had on his fellows.

Darby and his supporters clearly believed the 'secret rapture' would occur in their own life time and certainly before the end of the 19th Century. Looking back, Blair Neatby, writing his history of the Brethren in 1901 reflects,

"If anyone had told the first Brethren that three quarters of a century might elapse and the Church be on earth, the answer would probably have been a smile, partly of pity, partly of disapproval, wholly of incredulity. Yet so it has proved. It is impossible not to respect hopes so congenial to an ardent devotion; yet it is clear now that Brethrenism took shape under the influence of a delusion, and that delusion was a decisive element in all of its distinctive features."97

But the rapture did not occur. Whereas the leaders of Irving's Catholic Apostolic church refused to appoint successors, convinced that the Lord would return to Albury before the last one died, so that today the church there remains empty, Darby's dispensationalist ideas permeated beyond his narrow Brethrenism to a new generation of evangelicals in the 20th Century.

Professor Francis W. Newman was a contemporary of Darby and offers this assessment of his impact on those who came under his influence.

"For the first time I perceived that so vehement a champion of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, so staunch an opposer of creed and churches, was wedded to an extra-scriptural creed of his own, by which he tested the spiritual state of his brethren."98

"...this gentleman has every where (sic) displayed a wonderful power of bending other minds to his own, and even stamping upon them the tones of his voice and all sorts of slavish imitation. Over the general results of his action I have long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and sacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and setting those at variance who ought to love, yet oh! how specious it was in the beginning! he only wanted men 'to submit their understanding to God,' that is to the Bible, that is to his interpretation."99

97 W. Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), p. 3.

98 Francis W. Newman, Phases of Faith, or, Passages from the History of my Creed (London, John Chapman, 1850), p. 29.

99 Newman, Phases., p. 33.

Brethrenism "took shape under a delusion", as did the Lord's Recovery which followed it. The Bible became a vehicle for the concepts of men, and for their interpretations to be imposed upon others, smothering them and extinguishing the freedom of the Spirit.

http://www.christchurch-virginiawate...es/darby1.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you think I'm being hard on Darby, Lee held him as a 'pre-Nee' visionary of recovered truth, i.e. God's (sole) 'man of the hour', and history hasn't been so kind on Darby's inspirations, and the effect he had on his fellows.

Brethrenism "took shape under a delusion", as did the Lord's Recovery which followed it. The Bible became a vehicle for the concepts of men, and for their interpretations to be imposed upon others, smothering them and extinguishing the freedom of the Spirit.

Having read some of Anthony Groves' (the earliest of the Brethren) views, Brethrenism was nothing like what the exclusives under Darby had fashioned it into. Many, many gifted men of God flocked together around these noble and scriptural ideals. Though Darby had many redeeming virtues, he did hijack the movement, established new exclusive principles of practice, and then "slaughtered" any and all perceived "rivals."

His extreme views have permanently shaped both Nee and Lee. All three eventually followed the same course of action. Initially they all left the existing systems, returning to the plain verses of the Bible, loving one another in assemblies, operating as "a" minister among many. Eventually they each created their own systems, where they were MOTA, the "acting god," and the deputy authority, ready to crush any and all who protested.

W. Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901) is an excellent read for those having trouble understanding "what happened to the glorious churchlife," as I did years ago. (It was available free on line.) It is unfortunate, however, that my current "pay grade" prevented me from really understanding all he wrote. I would read some sections repeatedly with resource materials on hand, and I was just not bright enough to apprehend the complete import of his writing.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by aron

You know, we all have concepts; you have them, so do I. But our concepts are relatively innocuous, compared to those of Witness Lee, because chief among his concepts was the idea that only he didn't have any!

Aron I certainly agree that we all have concepts, opinions, feelings, and so on. What can we do to limit their bearing in our Christian life, in our understanding of the Bible, or other spiritual matters? What you did when you read Clement is most commendable and an example to me.

[testallthings]

Pray that ye enter not into temptation


Act 1:14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (ASV)


Commenting on this verse, in the RcV, W. Lee says (footnote 14.1) that the 12 had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”. The verses he provides for demonstrating his point are Luke 22:40, 45-46.

Luk 22:40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
Luk 22:45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow,
Luk 22:46 and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. (ASV)

Now, how many times Christians (including W. Lee), throughout the entire Church age, were so tired that they didn't pray, so tired that they didn't read the Bible? Could we conclude that they had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”? As long as we live in this mortal body there will be moments (I wish they were only moments!) of weakness. Verse 45 says that they were sleeping for sorrow.

One of the first questions the disciples asked the Lord was to teach them how to pray.
Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.
The last sentence, And bring us not into temptation, echoes the Lord's charge in Luke 22:40, 46.

There were certainly things they didn't understand until Christ was resurrected, but it is unimaginable that the disciples, after spending more than three years with a living example of what a praying Man should be, had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”.

Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of finding faults in others based on a word or an incident. Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of becoming unfair judges of our fellow brothers and sisters.

[testallthings]

I was reading my last post when I noticed 2 mistakes (mine).
The footnote I quoted is evidently wrong, and the citation is not accurate. I apologize for my inaccuracies. I repost my last post with some modifications highlighted in bold.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Pray that ye enter not into temptation


Act 1:14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (ASV)


Commenting on this verse, in the RcV, W. Lee says (footnote 1:14.1) that, "Before the Lord's death the disciples had no interest in praying for spiritual things”. The verses he provides for demonstrating his point are Luke 22:40, 45-46.

Luk 22:40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
Luk 22:45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow,
Luk 22:46 and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. (ASV)

Now, how many times Christians (including W. Lee), throughout the entire Church age, were so tired that they didn't pray, so tired that they didn't read the Bible? Could we conclude that they had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”? As long as we live in this mortal body there will be moments (I wish they were only moments!) of weakness. Verse 45 says that they were sleeping for sorrow.

One of the first questions the disciples asked the Lord was to teach them how to pray.
Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.
The last sentence, And bring us not into temptation, echoes the Lord's charge in Luke 22:40, 46.

There were certainly things they didn't understand until Christ was resurrected, but it is unimaginable that the disciples, after spending more than three years with a living example of what a praying Man should be, had “no interest in praying for spiritual things”.

Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of finding faults in others based on a word or an incident. Father, bring us not into temptation, the temptation of becoming unfair judges of our fellow brothers and sisters.

[Ohio]

I came across this Review of the Recovery Version written some years ago. (Actually two reviews by the same writer, spaced a few years apart.) It closely matches my own views. The writer obviously invested much time into his reviews, and thus are quite valuable.

I'll post only the two brief conclusions now:

The Recovery Version is a conservative translation, for the most part similar in its style and translation to versions such as the NASB and the ESV. There are a few places in the Old Testament where the desire to be literal and perhaps following an older style of English has produced renderings that are misleading or difficult to understand. Such places are more common in the New Testament. There are also unusual translations in a few places. But on the whole, the Recovery Version is a reliable translation.

However, I cannot recommend the edition of the New Testament which has extensive footnotes, because invariably those using it will read the footnotes. This edition has been distributed freely to all who have requested a copy by a body linked to The Local Church, and it appears that many copies have been distributed. While I was working with Bible Society I received several enquiries from people who had obtained one of these New Testaments – usually wanting to know what some of the footnotes meant! In view of what is in some of the footnotes, anyone using this edition should be cautious and test them against what the Bible actually says (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The Recovery Version is a fairly literal translation. In places, the translators’ attempts to be literal have led to renderings which would probably baffle some readers, some phrases being meaningless or not readily understandable. The translators have tried to consistently render certain Greek words by the same English words, wherever they occur – but this can be fallacious, since some words can take on different meanings depending on the context. However, the translation itself appears reasonably reliable, and there is little in it which appears to be a distortion aimed at promoting peculiar doctrines or theories.

However, the edition of the Recovery New Testament that I used, which has extensive headings and footnotes, cannot be recommended, because invariably those using it will read the footnotes. This edition has been distributed freely to all who have requested a copy by a body linked to The Local Church, and it appears that many copies have been distributed. I have had several enquiries from people who have obtained a copy – usually wanting to know what some of the footnotes mean! Some copies are now turning up in second-hand book shops.

The footnotes are extensive and are almost a commentary on the Bible text. Some footnotes deal with textual and translational matters, but most are comments on what is in the Bible text – interpreting and explaining what is there, and applying it to personal and church life. Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church. These include what seems to be a modalistic understanding of the Triune God, “calling on the name of the Lord”, the mingling of the divine with human in believers, and an eschatology which, while pre-millennial, includes several unusual particulars.

[Evangelical]

"Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church" .

Actually, many bible translations promote the peculiar teachings of something or someone.

http://www.1611-king-james-bible.com/history.html

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church" .

Actually, many bible translations promote the peculiar teachings of something or someone.

http://www.1611-king-james-bible.com/history.html

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

How about addressing all the peculiar teachings of the LC?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Anglicans did not like Calvin's footnotes in the Geneva bible, so they produced their own (the KJV), and forced people to use it.

So instead of being hypocrites about it, if you don't like bible versions with footnotes by someone, why don't you all go back to using the Latin Vulgate?

My biggest problem with the RcV is that the LC mandates it. To mandate any teachings, no matter whose they are is going too far. I have various study Bibles. I take all of the commentary with a grain of salt. And there's really nothing wrong with commentary as long as it's used as an aid and not a lens by which everything is interpreted.