Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes
This kind of exposition leaves one at a loss for words! It is pure fabrication, 100% fiction, devoid of any basis in fact! It simply manifests the expositor’s ignorance. Evidently, here is someone with zero knowledge of biblical Hebrew teaching falsehoods to people who know even less! It is clear from what has been presented above that “Jehovah” is not a genuine Hebrew word, but a pseudo-Hebrew term that resulted from mistranslation. It follows that it makes no sense to parse “Jehovah” into three components—Je, Ho and Vah; in this context none of these elements has the meaning Witness Lee claims. This is yet another exegetical fallacy and a serious one.
|
I would surmise that had I read WL's statement in the past, I would have accepted it without thought, just like all the other wild claims that he made. This is really the problem, that members aren't willing to think about, or verify claims that are made, not even to mention challenge these claims. It's even fair to say that most of us weren't equipped to challenge such claims in the first place.
One thing that Nigel has done very well is to point out WL's own admissions that he had never studied any biblical languages. Therefore, he had no business
initiating or overseeing a new translation of the Bible. For LSM to portray the RcV as "
the most accurate translation" is dishonest to say the least. With all the popular Bible translations out there, I am fairly certain that ever single version besides the RcV had numerous scholars assisting with, verifying and editing the translations. I know of maybe a few "linguistics" people that LSM has on staff that LSM will use that as their "credibility" in producing a Bible translation. The introduction at the beginning of the OT RcV really destroys the credibility of the translators as far as I'm concerned. They knowingly admit that 'Jehovah' is neither correct or recommended today, yet they insist upon using it anyways. Why? Probably because it's what WL would have wanted.