Sonships Bible - The Recovery Version

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

Have you ANY idea how much html laden posts we are going to have to wade through now!?

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 want all of you to go Google up the name F.F. Bruce.
Go find out who this person is. You may check Wikipedia -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce

Then I want you to consider the significance of F. F. Bruce making this comment about the Recovery Version New Testament.

I have read with interest the copies of translations of New Testament epistles in the Recovery Version. This is a version which I had not previously met. The version seems to me to be an accurate and fairly literal rendering of the Greek. The user of this version will get a precise impression of what the sacred text says.

With all good wishes:
Yours Sincerely,
F.F. Bruce

Other comments found at:

http://www.recoveryversion.bible/comments.html

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

Cult Fighters of the 70s now say "We Were Wrong" upon more careful study of the ministry of Witness Lee.

http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/we-were-wrong-2/

An excerpt: [my bolding]

07 Cultic, Aberrant, or (Unconventionally) Orthodox?

A Reassessment of the “Local Church” Movement
by Elliot Miller

New Religious Movements/Doctrinal Discernment: One of the largest and most dynamic Christian movements in China, the “local churches” (LC) of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, planted churches in the United States beginning in the 1960s. It was greeted with suspicion by the evangelical community, and it was not long before CRI and other discernment ministries began labeling it heretical. But, after a six-year reevaluation, CRI has concluded that the LC has been misunderstood and is neither cultic nor aberrant, but merely different. Learn the reasons why in this special five-part article, along with some valuable lessons on how to do—and not to do—discernment ministry

Originally posted by @sonship
I want all of you to go Google up the name [b]F.F. Bruce.
Go find out who this person is. You may check Wikipedia -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce

Then I want you to consider the significance of F. F. Bruce making this comment about the Recovery Version New Testament.

--- quote snipped ---

[/b]

Didn't robbie carrobbie respond to criticism of his preferred version of the Bible by simply citing somebody or other who happened to like aspects of it?

Originally posted by @sonship
Other comments found at:

http://www.recoveryversion.bible/comments.html

Which comments that are analytically critical of the Recovery Version can you point us to at http://www.recoveryversion.bible - which is the web site of the organization that published the Recovery Version ~ is it not?

Originally posted by @fmf
Didn't robbie carrobbie respond to criticism of his preferred version of the Bible by simply citing somebody or other who happened to like aspects of it?

DIdn't FMF resort to guilt by association to troll up discord and debate?

Originally posted by @sonship
DIdn't FMF resort to guilt by association to troll up discord and debate?

I am not resorting to guilt by association at all ~ do you even know what that phrase means? I am comparing your citing of someone who likes the Bible you happen to like ~ in defence of its translation ~ to someone else's citing of someone who likes the Bible they happened to like ~ in defence of that translation. This is not the kind of legitimate juxtoposition that is meant by "guilt by association".

Originally posted by @sonship
http://www.recoveryversion.bible/comments.html

I don't see the names of the translators who worked on the Recovery Version on that website. Are their identities secret?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not resorting to guilt by association at all ~ do you even know what that phrase means? I am comparing your citing of someone who likes the Bible you happen to like ~ in defence of its translation ~ to someone else's citing of someone who likes the Bible they happened to like ~ in defence of that translation. This is not the kind of legitimate juxtoposition that is meant by "guilt by association".

The Recovery Version is a good translation which can be obtained minus footnotes or with voluminous footnotes and study notes.

If you have some specific problem with the rendering of some verse or a specific problem with a footnote I'd be glad to take a look at it.

Just frantically throwing dust into the air as Rajk999 has done means nothing much.

Please don't ask me to go running after Robbie Carrobie's posts to double check if I did something that reminded you of what he once did.

Originally posted by @sonship
Please don't ask me to go running after Robbie Carrobie's posts to double check if I did something that reminded you of what he did.

What on earth are you on about? I've already told you exactly how your cite-a-writer defence of the Bible you like is virtually the same as robbie carrobie's cite-a-writer defence the version of the Bible he liked. Why would you have to go "running after robbie carrobie's posts"?

Originally posted by @sonship
The Recovery Version is a good translation which can be obtained minus footnotes or with voluminous footnotes and study notes. If you have some specific problem with the rendering of some verse or a specific problem with a footnote I'd be glad to take a look at it.

What criticisms of the Recovery Version do you feel have the most merit, even if you feel able to refute them?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't see the names of the translators who worked on the Recovery Version on that website. Are their identities secret?

I know one Dr. Kerry S. Robichaux is deeply involved.
I think the Nestle Greek text is the chief source for the New Testament.

If you have some favorite verses in the Bible, I recommend you check out how they read to you in the RcV. Good place to start. Then if there is a study note on that passage, check that out.

I have known more than one case of people getting the RcV NT and start reading it and stayed up all night do so. They couldn't put it down for hours after examining the study notes.

Many, many Bible difficulties quite well addressed in the footnotes of brother Witness Lee. And you may obtain an RcV without footnotes.

I have both.
I have many English versions of the BIble.
I love the Bible.

Originally posted by @fmf
What criticisms of the Recovery Version do you feel have the most merit, even if you feel able to refute them?

I don't like to carry mine around.
The one with footnotes (full Bible) I find better to leave on my desk than carry around. That's a criticism I have.

So for attending Bible studies and going to meetings I usually take my version without the voluminous footnotes.

If you prefer another version of the Bible we can talk about major themes of the Christian life with your preferred English Version.

You should have seen me refer to many English renderings of a passage from the Bible Hub website.

You've seen me do this perhaps before? Ie. Second Corinthians 3:17

Berean Literal Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

New American Standard Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

King James Bible
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Christian Standard Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Contemporary English Version
The Lord and the Spirit are one and the same, and the Lord's Spirit sets us free.

Good News Translation
Now, "the Lord" in this passage is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

International Standard Version
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom.

NET Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom.

New Heart English Bible
Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But The Spirit is THE LORD JEHOVAH, and wherever The Spirit of THE LORD JEHOVAH is, there is freedom.

I don't recall ever writing that ONLY in the RcV could a particular verse be read the only right way.

It has been a long time since I caught up on recent criticisms of the RcV. I don't think it is a particular sign of anything that I be conversant on what critics are saying.

I hardly have time to get into all the riches of ministry and truth in the word of God. Probably midst the gossip there are some legitimate issues I could think about. I don't think I need to be daily occupied with someone's latest beef to prove I am objective or something.

If you know of something specific, I may go take a look.

Originally posted by @sonship
Probably midst the gossip there are some legitimate issues I could think about. I don't think I need to be daily occupied with someone's latest beef to prove I am objective or something.

Who has said you "need to be daily occupied" with anything?

You seemed pretty conversant on the issues with the NWT. Would you say you are more able to talk about the criticisms of that version of the Bible (NWT) than about the criticisms of the Recovery Version of the Bible, or less able?

Originally posted by @fmf
What criticisms of the Recovery Version do you feel have the most merit, even if you feel able to refute them?

Seems a question you may want to ask Rajk. But you won't because you know as well as everyone else here he's not worth the effort.

But it still makes you appear disingenuous.