Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
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.
|
It's funny, but I was mostly unaware that the usage of
Jehovah was uncommon until one day when I happened to read the RcV preface. It then occurred to me that hardly anyone else was using it besides maybe the Jehovah's witnesses. It did lead me to investigate a bit.
While issues of nomenclature are nothing to get worked up about, the real issue is what has been pointed out, that WL/LSM attempted to make this into a moral issue. Because they spoke of not "shrinking back" from using the word
Jehovah, the hidden implication is that to not engage in what they perceive to be a correct practice is highly inferior. If a minority position is going to be mandated, there had better be good reason for it. I'm all for hearing a well laid out argument. But as Nigel pointed out, the appeal to tradition/heritage is absurd as other religious traditions have been viscous attacked by Lee/LSM.
What
Ohio posted earlier in this thread is spot on:
This is exactly what happens when a minister and a publisher have no vetting process, internal or external. They publish for a closed audience who, like mushrooms, are kept in the dark and fed manure.