Requesting info on a Bible version...

[Paidion]

But is it wise to let ourselves be impressed and our judgment swayed by things like those you mention about him? Or is it better to seek to know God, and seek His wisdom and discernment so we can avoid being deceived by people and things that may not be what they initially seem?

That "our judgment was swayed" is a supposition. Why not, "The Lord used His servants to bring forth His word"?

However, let's do the "better" thing you mentioned and "seek God's wisdom and discernment." First of all, how do you know we have not already done that? Secondly, how will God reveal that "wisdom and discernment"? If we believe we have received it from Him, is this not subjective? Jepne and I believe that the discernment which God has given had helped us to recognize God's revelation through His servants Watchman Nee and Art Katz. But the discernment you claim (if you claim any), tells you that there is nothing worthwhile in Watchman Nee's teaching and that Jepne's spiritual growth did not come through either Art Katz or Watchman Nee's teachings.

So it seem to me that which of us has God's wisdom and discernment must be decided by some objective criteria, rather than the subjective feeling that we are the ones who have received it, and that those who disagree with our understanding have not.

[backwoodsman]

So it seem to me that which of us has God's wisdom and discernment must be decided by some objective criteria, rather than the subjective feeling that we are the ones who have received it, and that those who disagree with our understanding have not.

That's a really good idea. I don't know what you have in mind as the objective standard, but the one that's always worked well for me is the Bible. Accepting only it as the final authority and comparing everything to it has saved me from all sorts of strange teachings, subjective feelings, and other trouble, including a number of occasions over the years when I've run into ideas that turned out to have originated with the likes of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.

But the discernment you claim (if you claim any)

I make no such claim. Reading things like Lee's and Nee's writings, comparing them to Scripture, and seeing where they conflict requires only a little knowledge of Scripture and an ordinary level of reading comprehension. It doesn't require any special spiritual discernment, only a willingness to go wherever Scripture leads, and nowhere else.

Of course, one has to be willing to sacrifice one's sacred cows when necessary.

[Paidion]

Well, we have recently begun to fellowship with a local church, and have seldom experienced such LIFE in a church, as well as true praise and worship, accompanied by great joy!

I have recently studied some of the Recovery Version of the New Testament and comparing it with the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, have found it a reliable translation. Indeed, it is rather similar to the New American Standard Version.

[Paidion]

That's a really good idea. I don't know what you have in mind as the objective standard, but the one that's always worked well for me is the Bible. Accepting only it as the final authority and comparing everything to it has saved me from all sorts of strange teachings, subjective feelings, and other trouble, including a number of occasions over the years when I've run into ideas that turned out to have originated with the likes of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.

Ahh! But don't you see? It's not the Bible which is your final authority; it is your interpretation of the Bible which is your final authority — and that is subjective. So by what objective standard could show that your interpretation is any better than that of Art Katz, or Watchmen Nee, or Witness Lee?

[backwoodsman]

I have recently studied some of the Recovery Version of the New Testament and comparing it with the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, have found it a reliable translation.

Just to clarify, do you mean: (a) that you believe Witness Lee lied when he clearly stated he made changes in the Bible text to better support his teachings, as documented elsewhere in this thread, or (b) that you consider it a reliable translation in spite of such changes?

Ahh! But don't you see? It's not the Bible which is your final authority; it is your interpretation of the Bible which is your final authority - and that is subjective. So by what objective standard could show that your interpretation is any better than that of Art Katz, or Watchmen Nee, or Witness Lee?

I can't think of anything you might mean by this, except that the Bible is useless as an objective standard because we can never really know what it says, so we need to trust certain men because they're so much wiser than us. What am I missing?

Or, maybe you simply mean that _I_ can't really know and understand Scripture, because what I claim to know of it disagrees with you and those you believe do understand it?

Please elaborate.

Also, if you could comment on what you consider a reliable objective standard, since it seems clear you don't accept Scripture in that role?

[Paidion]

Perhaps prior to my giving any further explanation, you could clearly present the documentation where Witness Lee "clearly stated he made changes in the Bible text to better support his teachings."

If you really want to gain better insight regarding the Recovery Version, perhaps you might consider the review of this translation by the well-respected and thorough bible-researcher.com by clicking on the link below:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/recovery-version.html

[backwoodsman]

Perhaps prior to my giving any further explanation, you could clearly present the documentation where Witness Lee "clearly stated he made changes in the Bible text to better support his teachings."

It seems we just go around in circles on some of these things. Please review page 1 of this thread. If you've read much of Witness Lee's writings, no doubt you've run into similar quotes a number of times.

If you really want to gain better insight regarding the Recovery Version, perhaps you might consider the review of this translation by the well-respected and thorough bible-researcher.com by clicking on the link below:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/recovery-version.html

Last time you posted this link, you commented that he doesn't address Lee's claim to have made changes. Clearly he's no fan of Lee, so I assume he's not aware of it, which is what one would expect -- unless someone has pointed it out to him, or he found it in Lee's other writings like I did, there's no reason he'd know.

Quoted from the conclusions of the two reviews on that page:

2006: "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... 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."

2009: "However, I cannot recommend the edition of the New Testament which has extensive footnotes, because invariably those using it will read the footnotes... 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)."

"Well-respected and thorough," indeed. As you said, he has good insight on the Recovery Version. Thank you for bringing him to our attention.

Do you consider yourself a follower of Witness Lee? You're very dedicated to defending him at any cost. He emphasized over and over the importance of reading the Recovery Version (not just any Bible), the notes in it, and his other writings every day, and said others' writings were a risky waste of time. Do you agree with him on these points? Why do you think it was so important to him that his followers read no other Bible but his? Was he just proud of his work, or might there have been some deeper reason?

I hope this thread doesn't go on much longer. I expect others may be getting as tired of it as I am.

[Paidion]

Do you consider yourself a follower of Witness Lee?

No, I don't. I consider myself a follower of Christ. Neither do the Christians with whom I fellowship, though they use Lee's writings a lot. I love the fellowship since the saints are so alive in Christ, and rejoice in their praise and worship!

I previously met with a group who read the writings of George Warnock a lot. Does that mean I was a follower or George Warnock? No. And neither were the saints with whom I fellowshipped at that time.

You're very dedicated to defending him at any cost.

FALSE.

He emphasized over and over the importance of reading the Recovery Version (not just any Bible), the notes in it, and his other writings every day, and said others' writings were a risky waste of time. Do you agree with him on these points?

How can I agree or disagree? I have no quotes which suggest that he said that other writings are a waste of time. None of his writings which we read in our fellowship ever contain such a stance. I suppose it is useless to ask you for such quotes since I asked you to clearly present the documentation where Witness Lee "clearly stated he made changes in the Bible text to better support his teachings." All you did was point me to other posts which I had already read and found no such documentation. So it seems that either you cannot provide such documentation, or refuse to provide it.

Why do you think it was so important to him that his followers read no other Bible but his?

I have no evidence that this charge is true. I read the NASB regularly in our meetings and no one has offered even the slightest hint that it may not be a valid translation.
Indeed the other saints have clearly said that no one has a problem with quotes or readings from other authors.

We were also told that no one from any other church tells them what to do. They also accept saints who think differently. I was given one of Watchman Nee's works in which he said that we need to accept all people whom the Lord has accepted, no matter what their thinking is. So far, no one has given the slightest objection to anything I have said in the meetings — whereas several standard denominational people, mostly Baptists, have labelled me a heretic.

I hope this thread doesn't go on much longer. I expect others may be getting as tired of it as I am.

If you're so tired of it, there's one way you can fix that. Cease posting to it!

[backwoodsman]

How can I agree or disagree? I have no quotes which suggest that he said that other writings are a waste of time.

It's on page 21 of his book, "Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord's Recovery." It's quoted and referenced in my 2nd post in this thread, along with the others you say aren't there. Get back to me when you've found them; until then, I guess we're at an impasse.