[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find the term "chock-full" to be far too vague.

I do too, and only used it because Drake used this term to characterize the Bible's deficiencies. My point is, if it's true for the Bible then it's doubly or trebly true for the one (WL) who's criticizing the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For all the errors we can claim WL had, "ignoring scripture" in his teaching is not one of them. He did a verse by verse exegesis of the entire Bible.

If you look at your RecV, from Psalm 3 to 7 there is only a passing comment that it is "mixed". With one footnote he dismisses 5 chapters as irrelevant. And the trend continues with chapters 9 through 15, and 17 through 21. Only what NT reception forces him, does he cover.

I don't see this as someone who treasures the Bible. Drake suggests that he wasn't 'inspired' to cover it. Well, maybe he should have gone out and gotten a regular job, then, like everyone else; not pass himself off as a professional Bible teacher and interpreter.

I'm ignorant but don't pass myself off as an expert, and try to sell books and messages and trainings; perhaps the most ignorant person is the one who says everyone but them is ignorant: they can't learn from anyone. WL once told us he hadn't learnt anything from anyone for 45 years.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, perhaps the task of writing footnotes for the Psalms falls to someone the Lord inspires. Is that you? Exactly, how many footnotes have you written on the Psalms? As many as Brother Lee wrote? I’m not trying to embarrass you... but instead of criticizing Brother Lee for not writing more footnotes to Psalms than he did... then why don’t you do it instead of sitting on a quasi Internet Bema and passing judgment? What if you are held to the same standard as you hold Brother Lee to on number of footnotes written at the judgement that matters most....will you pass that exam?

What's needed on this forum is not a verse-by-verse exposition (though posting as an amateur on the Psalms thread I may have seen more Christ than the professional WL did in his RecV footnotes); what's needed is for someone to point out that ignorant charlatans may cover their ignorance by dismissing the work they're supposedly unveiling (the Bible [!!!]) as, what did you call it - 'deficient', or 'erroneous'. That's a clear 'red flag' which should be called out.

Because 20-somethings are often too naïve to see this, and being gullible and easily coerced, may find themselves in a college conference, trembling with emotion, pledging their lives to "serve Christ", which means to henceforth slavishly consume this charlatan's output, and peddle it to others.

So someone needs to point out the obvious, here.

Originally Posted by Drake

But, you still have not shown us where the Bible states about itself what you think it should say. Where?

Drake

Psalm 12:6 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.

The Bible has been purified seven times, which is more than we can say for WL's corpus, or yours or mine for that matter. If there's a challenge between the expositor and the Word, I'll go with the Word.

Watchman Nee's supposed classic, the "Spiritual Man", didn't even make it past the second printing, and the publisher had to put out a note in the forward that he'd cribbed without attribution from Jessie Penn-Lewis' writings. The publisher said, "That's what the Chinese custom is, when they like someone's writing; it's a compliment". Yes, and sell it as their own.

Same with WL. His oeuvre needs some purification. And, you're welcome.