Sonships Bible - The Recovery Version

The mind of shysters and crooks :
When the Bible does not say what you want it to say .. Re-write it

The Recovery Version of the Bible is a direct English translation of the Scriptures, produced and published by Living Stream Ministries, part of the Local Church movement. The relationship between the Local Church and the Recovery Version of the Bible may or may not raise questions about its trustworthiness, depending on how one views this particular group. At the very least, one should be cautioned to treat the specific translations and footnotes of the Recovery Version with caution, if not a large dose of skepticism.

The Recovery Version is presented as a formal translation, and most analysts would agree that it uses an extremely literal approach. From an objective standpoint, the text follows reasonably closely to accepted manuscripts of the Bible, with some editorial license in which ones to follow. In some cases, this results in the use of phrases that are nearly meaningless in English. The book also includes extensive footnotes—so many that they could be fairly described as a commentary. The Recovery Version has raised some caution flags over particular translated passages, as well as the content of these footnotes.

The general opinion of Witness Lee’s theology is mixed, and the same goes for the content of the Recovery Version. Both feature confusing and sometimes contradictory accounts of doctrines such as the Trinity and human nature. According to supporters of Local Church, this is just a matter of cultural confusion, and taking all of the commentary in context results in an orthodox view of theology. According to detractors, the Recovery Version is the result of beliefs that are either aberrant or conflicted, or both. Also, the fact that the names and credentials of the translators are not publically available is a legitimate source of suspicion.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Recovery-Version-Bible.html

This reminds me of the controversy over the New World Translation.

Originally posted by @fmf
This reminds me of the controversy over the New World Translation.

Funny how he comes down on the JWs for doing the same thing he does.

He wants to have a monopoly on religious crookedness. 😀

Originally posted by @rajk999
The mind of shysters and crooks :
When the Bible does not say what you want it to say .. Re-write it

The Recovery Version of the Bible is a direct English translation of the Scriptures, produced and published by Living Stream Ministries, part of the Local Church movement. The relationship between the Local Church and the Recovery Version of the Bib ...[text shortened]... legitimate source of suspicion.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Recovery-Version-Bible.html

I personally have several translations of the Bible (NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB and a pocket Recovery). I must admit however that I have not read the recovery bible, I have no reason for this I just haven't; I received the recovery bible in the mail at no cost.

Most bibles today come with some sort of footnotes, these are as you noted above in the form of commentary and/or study helps. I myself have recently purchased a bible that has no commentary and no study helps in the hope that I could allow God to speak regarding his word without the distraction of other people's input.

As I have stated previously, I don't know sonship and I don't know much about the local church as a movement. I never even heard of Witness Lee until I started watching this forum. It seems to me that your criticism of the 'recovery bible' is more of an attack on sonship and his place of worship, albeit in an indirect way. That's fine with me, he can fight that battle if he wants to.

What I am curious about and which you failed to provide any information towards it, what is wrong with the recovery bible"

When the Bible does not say what you want it to say .. Re-write it

Please provide some passages that have been 're-written' to say what the local church wants it to say.

The relationship between the Local Church and the Recovery Version of the Bible may or may not raise questions about its trustworthiness, depending on how one views this particular group.

I know this is a cut and paste, but it is now attributed to you as you have posted it. Knowing how you feel about sonship and his church, I assume your view towards the recovery bible is untrustworthy (if I assume correctly), but why? Can you provide something for an honest inquiry?

The Recovery Version has raised some caution flags over particular translated passages, as well as the content of these footnotes.

Footnotes aside, what caution flags do you believe are raised over translated passages?

My inquiry of this and your opinion on it is an honest one, can you provide several specifics in which the recovery bible is, paraphrasing here, 'illegitimate'?

Thanks

Originally posted by @leunammi
I personally have several translations of the Bible (NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB and a pocket Recovery). I must admit however that I have not read the recovery bible, I have no reason for this I just haven't; I received the recovery bible in the mail at no cost.

Most bibles today come with some sort of footnotes, these are as you noted above in the form of co ...[text shortened]... e several specifics in which the recovery bible is, paraphrasing here, 'illegitimate'?

Thanks

Anytime someone joins an old conversation, the onus is on them to catch up.
There are many examples which came up over the years... not going to dig into all that.
Read the new thread started by sonship on Rewards, and tell me if you see any.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Anytime someone joins an old conversation, the onus is on them to catch up.
There are many examples which came up over the years... not going to dig into all that.
Read the new thread started by sonship on Rewards, and tell me if you see any.

Hmmm, I thought this was a new thread in which comments have been made (as of this post, I think I am 6 in). Do you really expect me to search for examples that came up over the years, please. If you don't want to answer my inquiry on the thread, that's fine.

You made a statement, provide some evidence to what you have stated. Otherwise, I will take it that you are unable.

What would be the point of this thread if you are not willing to answer a question?

Originally posted by @leunammi
Hmmm, I thought this was a new thread in which comments have been made (as of this post, I think I am 6 in). Do you really expect me to search for examples that came up over the years, please. If you don't want to answer my inquiry on the thread, that's fine.

You made a statement, provide some evidence to what you have stated. Otherwise, I will t ...[text shortened]... e unable.

What would be the point of this thread if you are not willing to answer a question?

Are you always that annoying?

Originally posted by @rajk999
Are you always that annoying?

So let me understand this here.

1. You start an OP in which you cut and paste something from the internet.
2. You are asked a question by a poster (myself) with regards to what you posted in your OP, and it is an honest inquiry.
3. You tell said poster to go dig up the answers to the inquiry from years of other threads.

Are you $hitten me? That is annoying! and a few other words which I won't bother saying.

Good grief, get over yourself already, it's rather ugly.

Originally posted by @leunammi
So let me understand this here.

1. You start an OP in which you cut and paste something from the internet.
2. You are asked a question by a poster (myself) with regards to what you posted in your OP, and it is an honest inquiry.
3. You tell said poster to go dig up the answers to the inquiry from years of other threads.

Are you $hitten me? That is ...[text shortened]... r words which I won't bother saying.

Good grief, get over yourself already, it's rather ugly.

I told you before that sonship started a thread called Rewards. there are only 2 pages. Read them.You are one lazy sob

Originally posted by @rajk999
I told you before that sonship started a thread called Rewards. there are only 2 pages. Read them.You are one lazy sob

Lazy slob? Don't talk about yourself like that, most unbecoming.

Nevermind dude, not worth the hassle conversing with you.

I believe the King James Version is the best translation (and not just because I like the “thees” and the “thous.&rdquo😉

Originally posted by @romans1009
I believe the King James Version is the best translation (and not just because I like the “thees” and the “thous.&rdquo😉

Why do you believe it is the best? You prefer word for word over thought for thought or paraphrased?

Originally posted by @leunammi
Why do you believe it is the best? You prefer word for word over thought for thought or paraphrased?

I remember reading at one point that the KJV, unlike nearly every other version, is based on the Textus Receptus and that the Textus Receptus is superior to the Alexandrian texts, which other translations are based upon. I read that years ago so hopefully I’m remembering what I read accurately.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I believe the King James Version is the best translation (and not just because I like the “thees” and the “thous.&rdquo😉

Is that because it calls 'slaves' servants and waters down the reality that the OT God condoned slavery?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Is that because it calls 'slaves' servants and waters down the reality that the OT God condoned slavery?

I already stated while I like the KJV. Did you miss that?