Talk:Recovery Version

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RcV OT & NT[edit]

  • Why are you referring to the RcV of the New Testament and the RcV of the Old Testament as if they are two separate publications? An "Old Testament Recovery Version" has never been published as such. Also, what is the source of the information that the birth of the RcV was due to the ASV not allowing Witness Lee to add footnotes to their translation? --SeekingOne 03:49, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I edited the entry in a minor way. It said that this translation was a translation from the original greek into english. The way it was stated made it sound like other english bibles are not translated from the greek, which is not true, they all are expect for a few (wycliff, Rheims, and Confraternity version are the only that I can think of at the moment, and they are all older versions). --- Allranger Feb. 06, 2005
  • I'm moving that this page be renamed Recovery Version of the Bible. The person who started this topic was apprantly not aware that the Old Testament had been translated or released. To me, changing the name and redirecting the current page is a no-brainer. However, I can't do this right now because my account is too new. 15:13 PDT, Vancouver86er, July 15, 2005


  • The comment of "was created in response to the publishers of the American Standard Version of the Bible who refused to allow the Living Stream Ministry to insert footnotes into their text." seems inaccurate since the American Standard Version of 1901 and 1929 had been in the public domain long before 1985. Perhaps you were referring to the copyright holder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) instead or maybe the copyright holder of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) instead. -- 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society purchased the copyright to the ASV early on and was its sole publisher for years. I was under the impression that they had renewed it. Are you sure that it is in public domain, and was so before 1985? The WTBTS was printing ASV Bibles well into the 1970s, and presumably ceased doing so only to promote its own translation, the New World Translation, specifically the 1984 revision. Heather (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at what US copyright law was at the time (source). At the time, there was a 28 year copyright term, renewable for a single extension of 28 years. The ASV was published in 1901, so had an initial term until 1929, and then it was renewed, so its copyright would have expired in 1957 (source). From what I've read, the Jehovah's Witnesses acquired a license to republish the ASV in 1944 (i.e. they acquired a non-exclusive license from the copyright holder, they did not acquire the copyright — I think it very unlikely the owners of the ASV, which from 1929 onwards was the International Council of Religious Education, which later became the National Council of Churches, would have agreed to sell the actual copyright to the JWs, but they obviously didn't mind licensing it to them.) So, it was public domain from 1958 onwards, and hence I doubt this explanation of why the Living Stream Ministry did their own bible translation is factually accurate. (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I removed "Controversy" by because a) it can start a dispute. Please discuss about opinions at a forum elsewhere. b) this article talks about this Bible, not about the interpretation of this Bible. might as well just create a new article dedicated to the interpretation of this Bible. Ancos (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ancos, could you please provide the citation for this news which you have added today. I have heard of this before but I don't have any solid citation for this news. Also, as we know and see that the Recovery Version is an article on wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) -- let's discuss and rethink on it that whether this section is important or required in an encyclopedia or not (just like the controversy over interpretation). Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salil. I added it last year but it was deleted by Please google "George Bush Bible Hong Kong". If you look at the main page of Wikipedia, you can see a section called "In the news". Something related and significant that has happened is history. History can be considered encyclopedic. Ancos (talk) 06:19, 09 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel like we should have some sort of Criticism section like the other translations have. I read this article and after finishing it found myself wondering what makes this Bible different from any other. The article doesn't really say that much (if anything) about the text of this translation and scholarly reaction to it. Heather (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, criticism section should be added here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancos (talkcontribs) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the news[edit]

In 2002, the President of the United States George W. Bush expressed personal concern on the detention of a Hong Kong resident by China government with the charge of transporting 16,000 copies of such Bible in southeastern China. Any version of Bible has to be approved and monitored by the government before it can be transported into China. HopeChrist (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I also believe that this article should be expanded; may be just like any other translation. We can include a section on its translation and history. A section on scholarly reaction/criticism could be included too. Also, the features of this Bible could be presented as well, in much more details. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As it is, this article only talks about the notes and chapter introductions--things that would be present in any study Bible. Why create a whole new translation if the only thing interesting about it is that you've wrapped notes around it? Why was this translation created, and by what sort of group of translators? Has there been any scholarly reaction, controversy, or criticism? (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the Recovery Version[edit]

Any content added to a Wikipedia article needs to have 3rd party support. The current version is taken right off of an Amazon web page written in support of the Recovery Version and several other books published by the Living Stream Ministry. This then is a supporter's view of a version, i.e. a book review, that he has been taught by the LSM is the best version, since the LSM controls the ministry in the local churches. What is needed here is a scholarly review by an independent 3rd party. I suggested one but it was replaced by the supporters with a 1st party review. This is basically advertising and not encyclopedic. Otherwise this discussion degenerates into an editors war for propoganda.Appropo (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropro, according to your editing history with regards to other articles, such as Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry, it is obvious to the casual observer that for you "this discussion degenerated into an editors war for propaganda" a long time ago. Your edits are not neutral and are not examples of "encyclopedic" archiving. Hence, do not purport them to be. ATShank (talk) 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Many and "Extensive"[edit]

These two terms are distinctly POV. My Study Bible has roughly 10^9 cross references. That makes most Bibles appear to be lacking in cross-references. OTOH, a bible with 10K cross-references has many, in comparison to a Bible with no cross-references. The same thing applies to footnotes, study maps, and all the other Bible Aids and tools that are available. jonathon (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a check on this organization. It is their usual practice to use big POV words such as "most authoritative", "100% reliable" etc in their propaganda. NPOV reinforcement is needed here.Ancos (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the merge?[edit]

Why the suggested merge with Bibles for America? Juubaa (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article[edit]

The Wikipedia page concerning the Recovery Version translation of the Bible was moved to this page for the sake of being consistent with the titles of other Bible translation pages. For example, the Authorized King James Version, English Standard Version, American Standard Version, etc. Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Translation Committee[edit]

The following info was removed from the article. It provides vital info for readers of the article & readers of the Recovery Version

Witness Lee is the chief editor of the Recovery Version, and author of its footnotes, outlines, and cross references. Here Lee provides behind-the-scenes information:

1. "In 1974 I received a burden to write footnotes for all the 27 books of the NT. ~ After 11 years and 22 trainings, in 1984 the translation of the 27 books of the NT was completed and published with footnotes, outlines, and cross references. ~ Over the past 1,000 years, many books related to the NT have been published, and we have spent much time studying the important books; nevertheless, many of the published books do not provide much help. We have gathered together the main points from the important books and, using simple words, included them in the footnotes of the Recovery Version of the NT. Hence, as long as a person reads the footnotes and the Life-study messages, all the riches we have received will be displayed before his eyes." {Jan 1985} [1]

2. "It took us a significant amount of time to translate the Recovery Version into English, and we are still revising it. Several full-time brothers in America are currently comparing the Recovery Version with the Greek text with the view of publishing a revised edition." {Jan 1985}[2]

3. "Under my leadership, several brothers who were capable in English and quite good in Greek re-translated the NT text. Following that, I revised it and made decisions regarding the truth. We called this new translation of the English NT, the Recovery Version. Then based upon this new translation, I finished writing the footnotes. The preparation work included not only the revision of the scriptural text and the writing of the footnotes but also the writing of the outlines for the training messages." {Nov 1985}[3]

4. "I am deeply concerned that if those who are involved in the translation of the Bible do not have an accurate understanding of the original meanings of the words in the Bible, then their translation will surely contain mistakes. Hence, after careful consideration I have decided to labor on this personally by taking the lead in the translation of the NT Recovery Version, and I hope that we can complete this project as soon as possible." {Oct-Dec 1985}[4]


  1. ^ Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 4: The Increase & Spread of the Church [c.10, s.3]
  2. ^ The Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones [c.2, s.2]
  3. ^ Speaking for God [c.1, s.4]
  4. ^ Vessels Useful to the Lord [c.3, s.1]

Witness Lee's (self-described) Greek qualifications[edit]

And just like the above, the following info was removed from the article. It provides vital info for readers of the article & readers of the Recovery Version. How can we resolve this?

Here Lee gives further insights into his Greek education and tools he used, and what he thought about Greek scholars.

1. "Although neither Brother Nee nor I studied in a seminary, no one can say that we do not know theology."[1]

2. "I never took a Greek class; neither was I taught. ~ Although I am not a Greek scholar, my explanation of the NT Greek is based on the study of past Greek scholars. ~ Many footnotes in the Recovery Version of the NT are the extracts of the best reference books."[2]

3. "1932. Before then I had not learned the Greek alphabet, but a copy of the NT in Chinese that I received from an elderly brother included an explanation of the Greek language. The first page of this explanation consisted of the Greek alphabet with a pronunciation guide in both Mandarin and English. I used this to learn the Greek alphabet in 6 months. ~ I took the opportunity and purchased many used books, including two excellent Greek-English dictionaries. I used these books to learn Greek. ~ During the 52 years that have passed since 1932, I have done in-depth study of biblical Greek using the writings of biblical scholars throughout the centuries, even though I have not studied Greek in any school. I regularly consult Greek dictionaries and Bible concordances. ~ I consult this set of books {TDNT} the most. As a result I can cut straight the word of the truth according to the Greek language when I expound the NT. ~ I do not have a Ph.D. in English, but when I speak with theologians, they marvel at the words and expressions that I use."[3]

4. "1. Accuracy ~ The Recovery Version is the most accurate translation. It is an improvement based on the existing acceptable versions and the most recently recovered truths. ~ 2. Readability ~ The Recovery Version is one of the most readable translations. The style and word usage of many versions are old and hard to understand."[4]

5. "What darkness they are in! To this day no prominent theologian or professor of theology has written a proper book to refute my theological viewpoints. Today, the whole of Christianity is in darkness. In other words, they know almost nothing of the truth. We need to know that obtaining a doctor’s degree in Hebrew and Greek does not mean that one knows the Bible. Many of these people are even unbelievers; they read the Bible with blind eyes. It is not sufficient to know the Bible in the way of understanding the meaning of each word in the original language; we must see the light revealed by the meaning of each word in the original language. ~ I hold no degrees, and I do not know Hebrew. I know only enough Greek to be able to use reference books. But I cannot deny one fact: that today’s Christianity is desolate, shallow, and ignorant of the truth. You can discern this by looking at their hymns. Even their best writings are very shallow."[5]

6. "Although I do not know Greek well, I can consult reference books."[6]


  1. ^ The Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones [c.7, s.2] (Jan 1985)
  2. ^ .The Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones [c.14, s.2] (Apr-May 1985)
  3. ^ The Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones [c.8, s.1] (Jan 1985)
  4. ^ Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God [c.4, s.6] (1990 compilation)
  5. ^ The Full Knowledge of the Word of God {Oct 1985} [c.3, s.3] (Oct 1985)
  6. ^ The Sufficiency, Pursuit, & Learning of the Lord's Serving Ones [c.9, s.2] (Apr 1960)

Translation Methodology[edit]

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and was closed for various reasons. In looking at it, I viewed the Translation Methodology paragraph, and most of it was written in the first person plural ("we"). That would appear to be the voice of the translation committee or of Living Stream Ministry. I deleted that material. Wikipedia is never written in the first person plural, and the views of LSM should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. Besides, that language may have been copied from the preface to the translation, in which case it is copyrighted (probably by LSM). Wikipedia should not express the views of the Living Stream Ministry (or of any other organization) in the voice of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some additional editing, along the lines of the above comment. I think a great deal more is needed to explain that the viewpoint is that of the translators and publishers, which as with all translators and publishers of the Bible as much as any other book, is their own view of their own work. It cannot be taken as as NPOV statement in an encyclopedia. I tagged the article accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from what I can tell, the Translation Methodology section was largely a copyright violation, with text taken verbatim from , , and . In addition, I agree about the NPOV issue - the translators' own views might be relevant if they are critically discussed in secondary sources, but simply repeating their points of view as if it were in Wikipedia's voice is not relevant. I have gutted the section and restored one, rewritten, paragraph.
Oh, and to forestall one potential response to this: restoring the previous version with quotation marks would not be appropriate. Wikipedia summarises what secondary sources say, it does not reproduce the exact phrasing of primary (or, for that matter, secondary) sources except in very short snippets where a paraphrase is impossible. --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery Version is NASB Knock-off[edit]

Any man, woman, or reading-child can examine 10 (consecutive, random, or targeted) verses, & instantly notice that the Recovery Version is just a blatantly plagiarized NASB. See Plagiarism in Recovery Version by Nigel Tomeson, Jan.3/13 ~ - And I suppose this ref is also inappropriate ( ) so I will keep searching.

  • Jn.1:14 - glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace & REALITY

- NASB - glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace & G225-TRUTH

  • Jn.1:17 - the law was given through Moses; grace & REALITY came through Jesus Christ

-NASB - the Law was given through Moses; grace & G225-TRUTH were realized through Jesus Christ

  • Jn.14:6 - I am the way & the REALITY & the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me

-NASB - I am the way, & the G225-TRUTH, & the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me

  • Jn.14:17 - the Spirit of REALITY, whom the world cannot receive

-NASB - the Spirit of G225-TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive

  • Jn.15:26 - when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of REALITY, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify concerning Me

-NASB - When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of G225-TRUTH who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me

  • Jn.16:13 - when He, the Spirit of REALITY, comes, He will guide you into all the REALITY; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak

-NASB - when He, the Spirit of G225-TRUTH, comes, He will guide you into all the G225-TRUTH; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak

  • Eph.4:21 - If indeed you have heard Him & have been taught in Him as the REALITY is in Jesus

-NASB - if indeed you have heard Him & have been taught in Him, just as G225-TRUTH is in Jesus

  • Eph.4:24 - which was created according to God in righteousness & holiness of the REALITY

-NASB - which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness & holiness of the G225-TRUTH

  • 1Jn.5:6 - the Spirit is the REALITY

-NASB - the Spirit is the G225-TRUTH Kreematismos (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been alerted to a dispute regarding the "Recovery Version" page on Wikipedia. Please refer to the guidelines regarding appropriate sources when editing pages. After a careful review of your last several edits, it very much appears that they are based on inappropriate sources and are a matter of personal opinion and belief. Though these are important to have in one's values, they do not hold a place here on Wikipedia. In order to maintain the integrity on Wikipedia, we must follow these guidelines in good-faith and be balanced by other editors. I invite you to continue to edit on Wikipedia but to do so with good sources and a good-faith, not personal beliefs and accusations. Happy editing!
Σosthenes12 Talk 05:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 99% of my sources are LSM quotes. But I have much to learn to try & keep everyone calm :-) --Kreematismos (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


"The name of the translation derives from the desire to recover biblical teachings and spiritual experiences that were historically lost or neglected, such as justification by faith.[2]" is written to imply that these teachings were historically lost. This is not NPOV. It is the contention of the translators that this is the case, but is not universally accepted.Martin Turner (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASV v. Darby[edit]

The sidebar says the text is derived from the ASV, but even the most cursory examination of the multiversion comparison of verses table clearly shows that the dominant influence is Darby. (And Darby's version predated, I'm pretty sure, the ASV.) FWIW. --Haruo (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely pre-ASV (though the verb forms are often more modern). Darby Bible. --Haruo (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]