Requesting info on a Bible version...

[backwoodsman]

actually there isn't really anything wrong with rendering "psychikos" as soulish. it may not be the perfect choice universally, but there is nothing misleading about it.

I should've explained a little more to make the example make more sense. To Witness Lee, "soulish" means something very different than what we would call the natural or unspiritual man. It starts with Lee's version of what happened when man fell: "...Satan in the form of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil got into man." If you want to explore it further, I'd suggest reading at least the first chapter of Lee's book, The Flesh and the Spirit, from which that quote comes, and then look up any of the places where he uses "soulish" a lot. (All his books can be read online for free; I hope no one actually gives them any money for a hard copy because of my recommendation to read them.)

So, if you or I read "soulish" in the Recovery Version and understand it the same as if it said "natural" or "unspiritual," as do almost all other versions, then as you say, it's not misleading. But if someone reads it who knows Lee's teachings on soulish vs. spiritual and a few other things, or who simply reads Lee's footnotes (which take up more space than the Bible text) and doesn't know any better, it reinforces the idea that Witness Lee is the only teacher who understands the Bible, because no one else explains it like he does. It's now become misleading.

But I don't want to detract from the main point by getting sidetracked into discussions of Lee's teachings. (Besides, as I said in the other thread, I really don't have time for that now.)

It's not uncommon for Bible translators to occasionally become interpreters instead of simply translators, and unwittingly insert their own theological views into the text here & there. That's not good, but it's part of the cost of reading a translation instead of the original, and it underscores the need to have a variety of sources for any serious study. But if I learned that some Bible version had been deliberately changed to better support some doctrine, even if I agree with the doctrine, I'd be alarmed that any Christian would do such a thing, and I'd want nothing further to do with that version.

So, here we have the Recovery Version, published by a group that's a cult both sociologically and doctrinally. The leader of the cult, who commissioned and oversaw the translation, and had no language expertise himself, openly stated, multiple times, in writing, that he made changes in both the original language texts and the translated text, for the purpose of better supporting his unique teachings. To this day, others in the group openly state essentially the same things, if somewhat less explicitly. I'd like to think that's as big a problem for every Christian as it is for me.

[jeremiah]

backwoodsman,
well in that context, i can see your point.

[Paidion]

The only book I ever read of Watchman Nee's was The Latent Power of the Soul. It's been many years since I read it. Nee understood that all humanity was given "soulish power" and that Adam had the power to instantly go anywhere on earth. He had to have special powers in order to name those many animals. After man sinned, most of the soulish power was gone, but a vestige of it remained. Now, after the fall, Lee considered it dangerous to use this soulish power, for example reading tarot cards, fortune telling, water witching, communicating with the dead, consulting ouji boards, etc. [I am saying this from memory, and I might not have listed these dangerous things correctly, but, in general, it's things of the occult.]

Do you see any great problem in understanding "soulish" as Watchman Nee did?

[Perry]

before I met my husband, the man of God I respected most...

What a lovely sentiment.

[backwoodsman]

The only book I ever read of Watchman Nee's was The Latent Power of the Soul.

One has to have a lot of respect and admiration for anyone who is tortured or killed for his faith, as Watchman Nee was. I can only hope that, if I'm ever in that situation, I can rest in God's grace enough to remain faithful, as he did.

That said, though, what seems to be a normal tendency -- to assume such people are giants in spiritual understanding as well as in faith -- is not reasonable. Nee was saved in 1920, and wrote 'The Spiritual Man' in 1927, at age 23, having been a Christian only about 7 years. Of course it's possible for someone so young and so new in the faith to be a teacher, if it's his calling, and if he knows what he does and doesn't understand -- but to have the kind of paradigm-shifting spiritual understanding many ascribe to Nee is simply not a reasonable suggestion, or even credible. Even the apostle Paul, with all his education, intellect, and disciplined, driven personality -- not to mention his calling as an apostle -- waited 14 years after his conversion to start his ministry.

Almost all of us, it seems, think ourselves much more wise and mature than we really are when we're young; and there's certainly a widespread tendency to think oneself more wise and mature spiritually than is warranted by reality, at any age. When those misunderstandings are reinforced by those around us, instead of corrected, it rarely ends well. And the more influence such a one is given, the worse and more far-reaching the resulting damage, which one can't avoid seeing almost everywhere in professing Christendom. Nee is a prime example of how far offtrack from sound Biblical doctrine one can get in a shockingly short period of time, even if one has the best of intentions, if one believes some of the ideas the enemy puts in our heads when we don't have the wisdom or maturity to recognize deception.

I'd never read 'The Latent Power of the Soul,' but found it online -- on a site called paidionbooks.org -- read parts and scanned through the rest. The word that comes most prominently to mind is 'crackpot.' My next thought is that it's hard to imagine how anyone could believe such fantastical ideas could be derived from the Bible, or in any way Biblical, although I know he thought they were. He states as though it's perfectly rational: "Although we may not rate Adam’s power as being a billion times over ours, we can nonetheless safely reckon it to be a million times over ours." And it goes downhill from there. At least now I know where Witness Lee got his ideas about man becoming God.

Many years ago I started reading 'The Spiritual Man.' It was really tough going because, between Nee's style and content, it's hard to make much sense of what he says. I got about 1/3 through it, and while I understood what he was saying, I couldn't see how on earth he got a lot of it from anything in the Bible. At best, it's irrelevant speculation and a distraction from true Godly spirituality, from the simplicity of seeking and knowing God. The only thing that kept me at it so long was the knowledge that so many revere his writings -- I kept thinking there's gotta be something good in here somewhere. But there's not.

[Paidion]

At best, it's irrelevant speculation and a distraction from true Godly spirituality, from the simplicity of seeking and knowing God. The only thing that kept me at it so long was the knowledge that so many revere his writings -- I kept thinking there's gotta be something good in here somewhere. But there's not.

It's hard for me to believe you are actually saying this with sincerity. But it seems that you are.

The highly intellectual prophetic Jewish disciple of Christ, Aaron Arthur Katz, a much-sought-after powerful speaker, led many people to repentance and a major life change. Why do you suppose Art loved and promoted Watchman Nee's writings, if at best they are "irrelevant speculation and distraction from true Godly spirituality? Why do you suppose such a man found "something good" in them, while you do not?

[Perry]

...and that Adam had the power to instantly go anywhere on earth. He had to have special powers in order to name those many animals. After man sinned, most of the soulish power was gone, but a vestige of it remained...

Do you see any great problem in understanding "soulish" as Watchman Nee did?

Hi Paidion,
Let me repeat that I am not familiar with Nee, and haven't read his books. Also, I can't tell from your post whether your defending the above belief, or just pointing to it as an example of Nee's teaching.

My first reaction, however, is as follows:

Doesn't Gen 2:19 say that the animals came to Adam rather than the other way around? Do you suppose that Noah teleported himself around the planet to gather the animals, or that they came to the ark? If the latter, how would that be any stranger than the animals coming to Adam to be named, as Gen 2:19 seems to suggest.?

[backwoodsman]

It's hard for me to believe you are actually saying this with sincerity. But it seems that you are.

What a coincidence -- I thought pretty much the same thing while reading your last post. (the one describing what Nee said in his book)

Why do you suppose such a man found "something good" in them, while you do not?

I don't know enough about Art Katz to give a definitive answer, sorry. 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?

[Jepne]

I am afraid that judging a man's life work because he began it seven years into his walk instead of fourteen does not make sense. I have read things I wrote when I was one year old in the Lord that astounded me years later, only because it was the Holy Spirit speaking through me.

"The Latent Power of the Soul" helped me to take a sober look at christendom, so I cannot be impressed that someone skimmed it and called the author a crackpot.

"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?"

If you ever sit under the ministry of someone whose words open your eyes to see your need of repentance, are you just letting yourself be 'impressed and swayed', and does it mean that you have not yourself 'sought God's wisdom and discernment'? Perhaps you believe there are no valid ministers of the Gospel in this day.

There are things I did not agree with Art Katz on, of course! From year to year, I don't even agree with myself on everything. But, with his words as well as Watchman Nee's and others', what I have taken with me are the life-changing words that turned me from living for myself and led to a life of devotion to God.

[backwoodsman]

I am afraid that judging a man's life work because he began it seven years into his walk instead of fourteen does not make sense.

I agree. But if you'll reread that post a little more carefully, I think you'll see that my concerns run somewhat deeper than that.

Perhaps you believe there are no valid ministers of the Gospel in this day.

To the contrary, I believe there are many. But those who claim some special knowledge no one else has, or recommend those who claim such knowledge, or want followers to "sit under" their ministry, are not among them.

One thing I noticed many years ago, and have always been thankful for, is that God will use whatever we make Him work with to draw us toward Himself, if our hearts are truly seeking Him. He can use those who teach error, and even the error itself, if we insist on it. But even in the best of cases, we'd be much better off if we'd have simply avoided the error.

So I'm not at all surprised that God could use someone like Watchman Nee to get your attention. But now that He has it, I'd suggest you take a step back and carefully evaluate how much of what Nee said can reasonably be called Biblical, and how much of it would be better set aside. After all, it's God whose words changed your life, not Watchman Nee or Art Katz.