Talk:Recovery Version

message: * 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.   --209.102.126.117 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ASV

message: I removed "Controversy" by 71.74.94.29 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. 71.74.94.29 might as well just create a new article dedicated to the interpretation of this Bible. Ancos (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hi Salil. I added it last year but it was deleted by 71.74.94.29. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, criticism section should be added here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancos (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: 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)
thread_title: In the news

message: 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)
replies: text: 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?  74.137.111.179 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reviews of the Recovery Version 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Many and "Extensive" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Move of article

message: "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)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, definitely pre-ASV (though the verb forms are often more modern). Darby Bible. --Haruo (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASV v. Darby