[aron]

(From the Recovery Version translation)

Psalm 110:1

Jehovah declared to my Lord,
Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies
Your footstool

Matthew 22:41-46

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them,
Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's.
He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,
"The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet"?
If then David calls Him Lord, how is He his son?
And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor disd anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore.

So did Jesus "shrink back" from the divine name, properly given in Psalm? Or did the writers of the gospels? Or was it hidden, only to be revealed in the last days by the Apostle of the Age in the True and Recovered Church?

I think Tomes made a good case for the emergence and decline of the word "Jehovah" for the divine name, in modern usage. And ultimately whether one says "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord" isn't as important as how one behaves. How one treats one's neighbor is most indicative of their relationship with God, whether it is familial or estranged.

Likewise, I find Jee'-zus and Hay'-soos and Yeh'-shua to be viable alternatives. Nobody is forcing the Greeks to live like Jews, or the Jews to live like Greeks, and this goes for pronunciations etc. See Paul's speech to Peter, quoted in Galatians chapter 2, here. I think it is relevant.

What makes this germane to "Local Church Discussions" is this: Witness Lee turned it into a moral issue. He was ostensibly clear, and cutting straight the word of the truth in translations as in all matters; any other rendering was to "shrink back"*, cowardly, double-souled, etc. WL used these epithets to those who took different positions. He had the light, and the others, ALL others, were "dark" or "confused" or had "twisted" the word. He alone was true and pure.

And this even went as far as the writers and composers of the Bible, both OT and NT, when they ran afoul of his hermeneutical agendas.

So Nigel exposing the utter amateurishness of at least some aspects of the Recovery Version's production is certainly relevant to seeing this ministry and its movement for what they really are.

*See the comments in the preface of the 2003 RecV.