Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
So Nigel's hard work turns out to be just another opinion? So why all the footnotes and such? Is Nigel's work just an exercise in futility, or maybe a struggle in his own mind, still trying to get free it from Witness Lee?
No wonder no one wants to deal with it.
So rename the thread so that it's honest. Name it something like : Nigel's Opinions of Lee's Etymological Errors.
What's so great about Nigel's opinions anyway. May as well be my opinions.
|
Actually, in a world in which there is always a level of opinion involved, it is often the result of the findings of the many that is meaningful relative to the findings of the few (or the one). Not always, but often.
As for Lee, he seems to mostly have argued that the few is always the right way, seldom agreeing with the common findings. His version of the Bible is full of footnotes that reference almost no one but his own opinion. Meanwhile, Nigel references many other authors.
It is true that a lot of it has a level of uncertainty. But it should be that those who diligently seek will be convinced of truth as they seek and discuss among themselves. It takes a lot of gumption to declare that everyone else that is seeking (and coming to relatively common understanding and conclusions) is wrong and only the outliers are right.
It takes a special set of colored glasses that are adjusted to make the rare finding right and the mainstream of understanding wrong. Those who seek will find. But we are warned of those who teach differently. And there is no argument that Lee taught differently. The only argument is how different it was and whether he was the one who was right and everyone else was wrong. Since he seemed to find his "truth" on his own, as did Nee before him, I think it safe to generically assert that it was Lee who failed to find the truth where his version differs from that of others.