Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
That's my impression of Nigel too. But it still doesn't mean that Nigel doesn't have an axe to grind with Lee, and is working thru mental disappointments with Lee and his ministry.
Nigel really needs to come out here and explain all this.
|
You can call it an axe to grind if you want, but I see it as speaking into a system in which the source of everything is Lee, therefore if you take exception to anything, it is an exception to Lee. You don't have to be targeting a person to point to the things that you see as being incorrect.
As for Cassidy's grasping at straws to refute the points Nigel makes on word studies, it is just that — grasping at straws. The kind of word analysis that insists upon the juxtaposition of two words meaning the literal thing — especially decades later — is really stupid. The word means what it means in the era in which it is written not when it is created.
As for the complaint about some "revolution," I recall my son mentioning that while he was in seminary, they were studying words and one of the things that had been troublesome for centuries was that there were some words and phrases that just did not seem to really make the kind of sense that had been pushed for those centuries. The words were typically the kind that were falling back on pre-Christ (by centuries) uses of words because the uses at the time did not make much more sense. Then they begin to discover a wealth of writings from the era of the NT that were not in what would have been the "high Greek" of the era, but more of the common people and suddenly things began to fit. It began to make sense.
And since the usage of the era was now known, the tendency toward harsh (and awkward) renderings based on literal juxtaposition of the translation of component word parts were discarded. Actually a very sound result. This claim that there was something new in the last 50 years is not really true, just the learning of old information.