New Testament Recovery Version

[zach_dunn]

Hi everyone,

So, today I was donating blood, and the person who was giving me the check-up, to see if I’m healthy enough, asked me what I want to study in college. I told him that I was going to major in Theology and then we proceeded to talk about the subject (he likes Theology as well). At the end of the discussion, he told me to google “Bibles for America” and order their free Bible, the New Testament Recovery Version. I do realize that this is a Protestant version and I’m not going to really read it so much for it’s content, it’s just that at the moment I have zero Protestant Bibles and it will be easier to understand there point-of-view if I read what they’re reading, you know? But really, the reason I got it boils down to this: it claims to have some 13,000 cross-references plus colored maps and from what I saw it has pretty extensive outlines.

I was just wondering what you guys think of this, will it be worth it? Is 13,000 cross-references a lot or is it a little above average? The reason I like the cross-references a lot is because I’m going to be doing my own translation of the Latin Bible in the future and am trying to stock up on as much info. as I can right now . . .

So, the point of this thread is really just to get your opinions on this version and my decision to order it. Thanks a lot for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

PS – The translation can be found here, and the website to order it from is here, if anyone is interested.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I went to their site and looked up John 1.

In their effort to be different, they are awkward: “came into being” rather than “made” or “created”, and saying that the incarnate Word “tabernacled” instead of “dwelt” among us.

Admittedly this is a cursory glance at just one passage. But it’s enough to make me wary of this translation.

And what do they mean by “Recovery Version”? As in 12-steppers? Or they claim to have “recovered” the true meaning in English?

I rather like the New King James myself. It (along with the KJV of 1611 and subsequent revisions, the latest being in 1769) are the only English versions with the New Testament based directly on the Textus Receptus.

 

[zach_dunn]

I went to their site and looked up John 1.

In their effort to be different, they are awkward: “came into being” rather than “made” or “created”, and saying that the incarnate Word “tabernacled” instead of “dwelt” among us.

Admittedly this is a cursory glance at just one passage. But it’s enough to make me wary of this translation.

And what do they mean by “Recovery Version”? As in 12-steppers? Or they claim to have “recovered” the true meaning in English?

I rather like the New King James myself. It (along with the KJV of 1611 and subsequent revisions, the latest being in 1769) are the only English versions with the New Testament based directly on the Textus Receptus.

Yeah, I really don’t like the translation at all. ONe example is 2 Thessalonians 2:14. Catholic and I’m assuming most or all Orthodox Bibles will read “traditions,” and many Protestant versions read “teachings,” this version in, “their effort to be different,” as you said, reads “things.” I find this completely . . . stupid. Like I said before, I really only want it for it’s 13,000+ cross-references and colored maps . . . thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Canto]

Luke 1:28 has grace
But one of the footnotes says the Catholic Church is apostate

I’ve read part of the Gospels and it’s reads okay though others have noted some weird word choices.

If you want a Protestant Bible then the King James and NIV would probably be your best bet. You can read them for free online.

 

[NHInsider]

But if he really just wants the cross-references and maps, why not? Doesn’t sound like he’s going to have his faith threatened by the mangled translation or weird footnotes. . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

But if he really just wants the cross-references and maps, why not? Doesn’t sound like he’s going to have his faith threatened by the mangled translation or weird footnotes. . . .

You’re definitely correct! I tried to make it pretty obvious that I’m not using it to study or anything, I just want lots of cross-references and maps to use for understanding the history a little better; I mean, cross-references and maps can’t lead me astray can they?

 

[Rose_Commander]

This is a very interesting translation of the New Testament. Other than its usual Anti-Catholic commentary, translation and parts of the commentary are very interesting and deep-thought. As of right now, I am editing the commentary to be less Anti-Catholic but it is taking a while since it has ALOT of comments.

 

[zach_dunn]

This is a very interesting translation of the New Testament. Other than its usual Anti-Catholic commentary, translation and parts of the commentary are very interesting and deep-thought. As of right now, I am editing the commentary to be less Anti-Catholic but it is taking a while since it has ALOT of comments.

One other translation that I think is kind of awkward is Mt 16:19

Matthew 16:19
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens.

I find this funny because they try to make it seem like Peter and the Church have no authority. One of the notes says something like, “the church people can only bind what has been already bound in heaven . . .” This actually made me chuckle a little. It only shows how far some people will go, right?

 

[thistle]

Hi everyone,

So, today I was donating blood, and the person who was giving me the check-up, to see if I’m healthy enough, asked me what I want to study in college. I told him that I was going to major in Theology and then we proceeded to talk about the subject (he likes Theology as well). At the end of the discussion, he told me to google “Bibles for America” and order their free Bible, the New Testament Recovery Version. I do realize that this is a Protestant version and I’m not going to really read it so much for it’s content, it’s just that at the moment I have zero Protestant Bibles and it will be easier to understand there point-of-view if I read what they’re reading, you know? But really, the reason I got it boils down to this: it claims to have some 13,000 cross-references plus colored maps and from what I saw it has pretty extensive outlines.

I was just wondering what you guys think of this, will it be worth it? Is 13,000 cross-references a lot or is it a little above average? The reason I like the cross-references a lot is because I’m going to be doing my own translation of the Latin Bible in the future and am trying to stock up on as much info. as I can right now . . .

So, the point of this thread is really just to get your opinions on this version and my decision to order it. Thanks a lot for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

PS – The translation can be found here, and the website to order it from is here, if anyone is interested.

Why on earth would you really want to read a Protestant Bible? Among other things it is incomplete with 7 books missing from it. You do not need to read one of their Bibles to understand their point of view. Its their private interpretation of the Bible that’s screwed up and anyway which Protestants do you mean? 33,000 denominations can look at the Bible and have different interpretations.
If you need one for your shelf better stick to the KJV.

 

[grace_singh]

my husband and i recieved a copy of this Bible a few months ago. we were wary of it, and generally stick to the KJV.

there is some concern among Evangelical other Conservative Christians as to whether the theology of Living Stream Ministries (who financed and distribute this translation) are doctrinally sound.

Bibles translated and distributed by very small churches mainly to promote themselves or their founder’s theology are usually good to read with a big helping of salt, and a careful eye.

 

[zach_dunn]

Why on earth would you really want to read a Protestant Bible?

As I stated in my OP, I’m not reading this like it is the truth. I’m not reading this because I think it is better than my Catholic Bibles, I have decided that I am going to translate the Bible into English (from Latin first, than a different Greek edition) and this version claims to have over 13,000 cross-references which will be very beneficial to anyone who wants to use my translation as a tool to learn.

Among other things it is incomplete with 7 books missing from it.

It would if it was a Bible, it is simply a New Testament, nothing more.

You do not need to read one of their Bibles to understand their point of view.

When people want to learn what the Church believes, would you send them to an SDA minister? How about a Mormon priest? Do you give them Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism? How about Jack Chick’s Smokescreens? I’m sure you get the point, a Catholic can explain a Protestant doctrine however he/she likes, but there is always some bias. I prefer to show Protestants that what they believe is incorrect in their own words.

Its their private interpretation of the Bible that’s screwed up

I’m not saying that their private interpretation is right, not at all. I just don’t think it hurts to see where they are coming from. In fact, one of the greatest Catholic Apologists of our time has even suggested reading anti-Catholic works:

Instead, they all seem to fall back on one source, Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism*, which might be called the “Bible” of the anti-Catholic movement within fundamentalism. . . .* Roman Catholicism is worth examining*, because what credibility the anti-Catholic movement has depends largely on the credibility of this one volume. (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 28)*

And on page 345 of his book he gives mailing addresses to many anti-Catholic organizations, examining other faiths is not a bad thing, but it is dangerous if your faith is weak. Mine is not.

and anyway which Protestants do you mean? 33,000 denominations can look at the Bible and have different interpretations.

You see, this is not to learn about one specific denomination. This book has an introduction about how one is saved (they are basically arguing for Sola Fide) and how the Scriptures alone are the only rule of faith for true Christians.

What you do not know about me is that I’m in the process of gathering a vast amount of apologetics information. I plan on creating a website to help out sincere Catholics who encounter the occasional religious conversation and need help. I envision an apologetics website that is more complete than any other, lacking in very little. I intend to use arguments from Protestant sources which is why I am also in the process of buying up many books by Catholics and non-Catholics. There, now you know a little more about me.

If you need one for your shelf better stick to the KJV.

I’m definitely going to get one of those, along with an NIV and an ESV . . . those will have to wait!

P.S. Just as an addendum to what I said about my website aspirations . . . I’m going to college to be a software designer and one of my main goals is to create a very, very good Bible study software. Obviously a Catholic version that rivals the many others out there, including the Logos software. You’ll be the first one to know when I’m done!! (at least 10 years from now . . . sorry!)

 

[zach_dunn]

my husband and i recieved a copy of this Bible a few months ago. we were wary of it, and generally stick to the KJV.

there is some concern among Evangelical other Conservative Christians as to whether the theology of Living Stream Ministries (who financed and distribute this translation) are doctrinally sound.

Bibles translated and distributed by very small churches mainly to promote themselves or their founder’s theology are usually good to read with a big helping of salt, and a careful eye.

As a Catholic, I tend to think that all non-Catholics are technically not “doctrinally sound” . . .

 

[verity2]

On reading and searching for different bibles when I was a protestant, I found the New Jerusalem Bible with notes, maps, indexes in the only Catholic book shop in Cape Town. I found all the books that are missing from most protestant versions of the Bible: just imagine that - Luther took all these books out and even altered Greek words here and there in the NT and removed the Wisdom books! the third testament! the contribution of Greek philosophy. Since this discovery I have been a catholic in the original church founded by Jesus with his first pope, Peter. The scholarship of this bible is spectacular and reveals complete dedication in a scientific way. Protestants give their own interpretations of bible texts and therefore one could start one’s own church. KJV is sadly lacking in such scholastic integrity, being king Henry’s bible, as are paraphrastic versions which omit all the books…

 

[verity2]

I’d love to add more but I’ve said the essentials.

 

[zach_dunn]

On reading and searching for different bibles when I was a protestant, I found the New Jerusalem Bible with notes, maps, indexes in the only Catholic book shop in Cape Town. I found all the books that are missing from most protestant versions of the Bible: just imagine that - Luther took all these books out and even altered Greek words here and there in the NT and removed the Wisdom books!

He not only removed some Wisdom books, he also threw out some historical books and parts of Esther and Daniel.

the third testament!

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this . . . there aren’t three testaments, are you referring to the deuterocanon?

the contribution of Greek philosophy. Since this discovery I have been a catholic in the original church founded by Jesus with his first pope, Peter. The scholarship of this bible is spectacular and reveals complete dedication in a scientific way. Protestants give their own interpretations of bible texts and therefore one could start one’s own church. KJV is sadly lacking in such scholastic integrity, being king Henry’s bible, as are paraphrastic versions which omit all the books…

I don’t believe that KJV is “paraphrasistic,” it’s probably the best Protestant version there is. It’s actually fairly literal, is it not?

 

[thistle]

As I stated in my OP, I’m not reading this like it is the truth. I’m not reading this because I think it is better than my Catholic Bibles, I have decided that I am going to translate the Bible into English (from Latin first, than a different Greek edition) and this version claims to have over 13,000 cross-references which will be very beneficial to anyone who wants to use my translation as a tool to learn.

It would if it was a Bible, it is simply a New Testament, nothing more.

When people want to learn what the Church believes, would you send them to an SDA minister? How about a Mormon priest? Do you give them Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism? How about Jack Chick’s Smokescreens? I’m sure you get the point, a Catholic can explain a Protestant doctrine however he/she likes, but there is always some bias. I prefer to show Protestants that what they believe is incorrect in their own words.

I’m not saying that their private interpretation is right, not at all. I just don’t think it hurts to see where they are coming from. In fact, one of the greatest Catholic Apologists of our time has even suggested reading anti-Catholic works:

Instead, they all seem to fall back on one source, Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism*, which might be called the “Bible” of the anti-Catholic movement within fundamentalism. . . .* Roman Catholicism is worth examining*, because what credibility the anti-Catholic movement has depends largely on the credibility of this one volume. (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 28)*

And on page 345 of his book he gives mailing addresses to many anti-Catholic organizations, examining other faiths is not a bad thing, but it is dangerous if your faith is weak. Mine is not.

You see, this is not to learn about one specific denomination. This book has an introduction about how one is saved (they are basically arguing for Sola Fide) and how the Scriptures alone are the only rule of faith for true Christians.

What you do not know about me is that I’m in the process of gathering a vast amount of apologetics information. I plan on creating a website to help out sincere Catholics who encounter the occasional religious conversation and need help. I envision an apologetics website that is more complete than any other, lacking in very little. I intend to use arguments from Protestant sources which is why I am also in the process of buying up many books by Catholics and non-Catholics. There, now you know a little more about me.

I’m definitely going to get one of those, along with an NIV and an ESV . . . those will have to wait!

P.S. Just as an addendum to what I said about my website aspirations . . . I’m going to college to be a software designer and one of my main goals is to create a very, very good Bible study software. Obviously a Catholic version that rivals the many others out there, including the Logos software. You’ll be the first one to know when I’m done!! (at least 10 years from now . . . sorry!)

You should contact Ron Conte, one of the forum members. He has recently completed his own translation of the Bible and has put it on public domain.

 

[peary1]

I went to their site and looked up John 1.

In their effort to be different, they are awkward: “came into being” rather than “made” or “created”, and saying that the incarnate Word “tabernacled” instead of “dwelt” among us.

Admittedly this is a cursory glance at just one passage. But it’s enough to make me wary of this translation.

And what do they mean by “Recovery Version”? As in 12-steppers? Or they claim to have “recovered” the true meaning in English?

I rather like the New King James myself. It (along with the KJV of 1611 and subsequent revisions, the latest being in 1769) are the only English versions with the New Testament based directly on the Textus Receptus.

Textus Receptus always reminds me of the name of a dinosaur.

 

[peary1]

SOME FACTS ABOUT THE “TEXTUS RECEPTUS”:

It originated through a highly exaggerated statement – actually a publisher’s blurb – in the preface of the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book “the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” This is how this Latin term textus receptus (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament. On the European continent, aside from Great Britain, the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.

The translators of the King James Version did not use the “textus receptus” in their early translations. In fact, the Dutch version did not even come out until thirteen years later.

The “textus receptus” was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament, issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.

The text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based is NOT identical with the later “textus receptus”? They differ in 257 places.

There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with either with the edition published by Stephanus or the Elziver brothers. Both of them are conflate texts.

The scholars who prepared the King James Version were NOT convinced that their text was absolutely correct. They recognized the possibility of copyists’ errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” In Acts 25:6 where their text reads: “When he had tarried among them more than ten days,” they inserted the following marginal note: “Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”

The source of most of the readings found both in the edition of Stephanus and in that of Elzevir follow the edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in 1516, the year before the Reformation began.

There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with the one prepared by Erasmus. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.

The Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus was dedicated to Pope Leo X, the pope who later condemned Luther and the Reformation. It is believed that this pope gave Erasmus’ publisher the exclusive right to publish the Greek New Testament for a period of time.

During the three and one-half centuries since the King James Version was made dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

The additions in the “textus receptus” do not contain any idea that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament in parts that agree with the earlier manuscripts. The differences consist mainly of repetition of ideas already contained elsewhere in the Scripture.

 

[verity2]

Reply To Zach Dunn: The so-called third testament consists of books falling into the category of wisdom literature and they are of relatively late origin. 2 Maccabees gives the first hint of the immortality of the soul. These books were written by Greek educated Hebrews and thus the very important contribution of Greek philosophy to western science entered the Hebrew canon. There is no comparable exposition of Wisdom to be found in philosophy and God is wise and man needs wisdom. The KJV came about when king Henry VIII ordered a new protestant bible which was finished by king James under the auspices of the new printing press discovered by Caxton in England about the same time. There was great destruction in England at that time, martyrdom of priests and loss of priceless Catholic manuscripts and monasteries. I don’t like KJV because it uses words like THOU and THINE to create an old world atmosphere of authority and because it arose out of all that injustice. The words YOU and YOURS are quite acceptable. What about Douay Rheims if you need an old translation? At least it has all the books. I think that Luther and Calvin and the rest have done the world a great disservice. Understatement.

 

[zach_dunn]

Reply To Zach Dunn: The so-called third testament consists of books falling into the category of wisdom literature and they are of relatively late origin. 2 Maccabees gives the first hint of the immortality of the soul. These books were written by Greek educated Hebrews and thus the very important contribution of Greek philosophy to western science entered the Hebrew canon. There is no comparable exposition of Wisdom to be found in philosophy and God is wise and man needs wisdom.

So you are referring to the deuterocanon?

The KJV came about when king Henry VIII ordered a new protestant bible which was finished by king James under the auspices of the new printing press discovered by Caxton in England about the same time. There was great destruction in England at that time, martyrdom of priests and loss of priceless Catholic manuscripts and monasteries.

Don’t dislike a translation because of what was going on in history at the time. I’m not saying I’m a fan of the KJV, I mean, it has its moments (just like any other translation), but I generally prefer Catholic translations.

I don’t like KJV because it uses words like THOU and THINE to create an old world atmosphere of authority and because it arose out of all that injustice. The words YOU and YOURS are quite acceptable. What about Douay Rheims if you need an old translation? At least it has all the books. I think that Luther and Calvin and the rest have done the world a great disservice. Understatement.

I personally don’t have a problem with archaic English, which is why I read the Douay-Rheims. For the record, you seem to be under the impression that I enjoy the KJV or use it as a normal reading Bible: I don’t. This is not related to what I responded to you about previously. You said that the KJV is a paraphrasing Bible and I said it wasn’t.