Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
|
Good response OBW, and thoughts.
At this point, after all these years -- before, during, and after, the LRC -- Lee & Nee represent just another opinion to consider. Nigel too ... and all opinions included in that pesky "excluded middle."
And while I'm at it. Igzy, in reference to Aramaic and inerrancy, I doubt the non-inerrantists are as convicted and passionate about it as the inerrantists are. Non-inerrantists just admit to doubt about it. They don't have the same certitude in their position as inerrantists do.