LSM's Plagiarism - An Initial Inquiry

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'd rather pick it up here, Ohio, but since someone posted a link over there and then everyone jumped on the "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon immediately, I felt I had to make a comment both places.

Uh oh. The "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon sounds like my handiwork, dear brother.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Moreover, in that at least many of the footnotes do in fact attribute numerous things to Vincent and Alford, Tomes' argument is much weakend that there is something fundamentally wrong with the moral fiber of the "LSM-faithful." (See his footnote 45.) The argument here that citation "tapered off" is counter balanced by the reality that those attributions are still in the currently published edition of the Recovery Version. They erased John Ingall's name and his translation work but Alford and Vincent's attributions, such as they are, remain to this day.

As I said over on "the other forum", Nigel stated up front that there are 50 footnotes in the RcV that do attribute brothers like Vincent and Alford. This is stated clearly right near the beginning of the second paragraph:

“Despite being “all-inclusive” and based on ‘the best Christian writings,’ explicit references to Bible expositors and Christian scholars are rare in the Recovery Version. Only fifty footnotes— one-half of one percent—refer to Bible scholars or authors of ‘the best Christian writings.’ Everything else is presented as Witness Lee’s own composition.”

In appendix A, Nigel actually lists all those 50 footnotes that do reference brothers like Alford, Vincent, Darby, etc. Nigel lists 18 footnotes that reference Vincent, 15 which reference Alford, 13 footnotes that reference Darby, 3 footnotes that reference Bengel, 2 footnotes that references Conybeare, and 1 footnote that references Williston Walker. When you account for the fact that two footnotes reference both Alford and Vincent, you are left with a count of 50.

I may be misunderstanding you, dear brother. I agree 100% that the issue is indeed, as you stated, “INADEQUATE attribution”.