LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Friedel

It seems to me some here might already be on the slippery slope of a modern higher criticism, a pernicious kind of new modernism.

I have alluded to Nigel's critical problem a few times, about the end result of his article, but it was never picked up by anyone. It has been missed or ignored. The only one that gets it, or shown to get it, is bro Ohio, who dismisses this article out of hand.

When Nigel seeks to dismiss Witness Lee, by calling into question Lee's textual scholars, like Kittel, and by bringing in new scholars, calling into question Lee's etymological methods and results, and the meaning of Greek words, what Nigel ends up doing is calling into question our ability to understand the Greek New Testament.

In short, by calling Lee into question in this treatise, Nigel calls the Bible into question, or at least our ability to understand the New Testament, with unassailed doubt. Nigel seems to be introducing, and applying, the pernicious, so called, "modern higher criticism."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have alluded to Nigel's critical problem a few times, about the end result of his article, but it was never picked up by anyone. It has been missed or ignored. The only one that gets it, or shown to get it, is bro Ohio, who dismisses this article out of hand.

When Nigel seeks to dismiss Witness Lee, by calling into question Lee's textual scholars, like Kittel, and by bringing in new scholars, calling into question Lee's etymological methods and results, and the meaning of Greek words, what Nigel ends up doing is calling into question our ability to understand the Greek New Testament.

In short, by calling Lee into question in this treatise, Nigel calls the Bible into question, or at least our ability to understand the New Testament, with unassailed doubt. Nigel seems to be introducing, and applying, the pernicious, so called, "modern higher criticism."

Nonsense. He isn't calling into question our ability to understand the New Testament. He's calling into questions certain techniques used to "understand" it, such as employing the meaning of a word in a way the writer probably didn't or couldn't mean it.

You are succumbing to the fallacy of the excluded middle, also known as the false dilemma.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nonsense. He isn't calling into question our ability to understand the New Testament. He's calling into questions certain techniques used to "understand" it, such as employing the meaning of a word in a way the writer probably didn't or couldn't mean it.

You are succumbing to the fallacy of the excluded middle, also known as the false dilemma.

Well maybe bro Igzy. I'm just explaining what happened after reading Tomes article. As I explained early on in this thread, I'm left with using "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, pick a textual scholar by the toe, my mother told me to pick the very best one."

As I see it Nigel is not just pulling the rug out from under Lee, but, prolly unintentionally, pulling the rug out from under the Bible too.

Friedel has it, the only way to overcome this conundrum: We should live by faith and the Spirit, and not make Lee's mistake, nor Nigel's error, of going to the Bible scholars for the meaning of the words in the Bible. Else we risk ending up in the land of uncertainty.

To me Lee going to those like Kittel knocks him down right there. Cuz he wasn't going to the Spirit ... like I believed he was while in the LC.

No insult meant but maybe you ought to read Nigel's article again:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well maybe bro Igzy. I'm just explaining what happened after reading Tomes article. As I explained early on in this thread, I'm left with using "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, pick a textual scholar by the toe, my mother told me to pick the very best one."

As I see it Nigel is not just pulling the rug out from under Lee, but, prolly unintentionally, pulling the rug out from under the Bible too.

Friedel has it, the only way to overcome this conundrum: We should live by faith and the Spirit, and not make Lee's mistake, nor Nigel's error, of going to the Bible scholars for the meaning of the words in the Bible. Else we risk ending up in the land of uncertainty.

To me Lee going to those like Kittel knocks him down right there. Cuz he wasn't going to the Spirit ... like I believed he was while in the LC.

No insult meant but maybe you ought to read Nigel's article again:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf

Igzy was right: your argument was a false dilemma or a fallacy of the excluded middle. But, what what is that excluded middle? The general consensus about Bible interpretation has given way to an immense pluralism of perspectives and methods that preclude agreement among scholars. However, Tomes drew fundamentalist boundaries:

This essay evaluates LSM’s works in terms of recent linguistic research. We cite respected biblical scholars with impeccable evangelical credentials. These are not “ivory tower academics in liberal seminaries” who seek to undermine the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith or cast doubt on the veracity of God’s Word. For e.g. we quote from Prof. D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies (1984). Dr. Carson is research professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL.) and a founding council member of the Gospel Coalition. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg is Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary (CO). Prof. Blomberg stands firmly in the conservative evangelical tradition, and has written extensively on the historical reliability of the Gospels. We cite his Handbook of NT Exegesis (2010). Other scholars cited could be equally commended.

So, if you perceive that Tome's criticisms undermine the fundamentals, at least you can appreciate, that was not his intent in writing, nor a line of thinking that he was interested in pursuing. Even within the boundaries of the five fundamental, however, there is vast room for disagreement. And, I think your argument raises a question even within Tome boundaries: If we accept Tomes analysis that Lee's errors resulted from lack graduate education and use of flawed sources, what hope is there for the rest of us that we can come to the Bible directly and hope to understand it correctly?

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by awareness

As I see it Nigel is not just pulling the rug out from under Lee, but, prolly unintentionally, pulling the rug out from under the Bible too.

I have not the capacity nor the time to write a detailed response to the lengthy dissertation by Mr. Nigel Tomes on Witness Lee’s alleged Etymological Errors and I fear this piece would consequently be unnecessarily long. I will therefore use numbers to discuss certain points I would like to make. This should not be seen as indicating some form of chronology or an outline.

1. Mr. Tomes set out to prove that Witness Lee applied some (allegedly) erroneous principles when doing certain word studies. As I started to read it all, I was waiting for the Barr and Carson references because it is all so predictable. I hasten to add that I do not speak in defense of Witness Lee but Nigel Tomes is a little too much. He states in his very first paragraph: “LSM was ignorant of the revolution in biblical linguistics since 1960 which exposed these errors & fallacies.” Yet nowhere does he explain this generalization; instead, he proceeds by quoting academic after academic to disprove what Witness Lee taught, albeit sometimes indirectly. He should have explained what James Barr had started, he should have spent some time on the influence of Eugene Nida (and Jannie Louw), he should have explained the difference between dynamic and formal equivalence and how they are applied to produce modern translations. He should at least have referred to the optimal equivalence of the Holman Bible. (I once read somewhere that the translators of the NIV had omitted 64,000 words from the original Greek.) Yet he did not. He proceeded to execute a hatchet job which was surely aimed at convincing Local Churchers to toss Lee.

2. The problem with the followers of Witness Lee is not so much about what he taught but about what they inevitably become. When they start with “O, Lord Jesus” and look to the ground, staring into the great nothingness before them, they pummel any dissident into submission. They are a strong force to be reckoned with. But for most of the time do not expect great spirituality because they learn to remember through repetition but they do not usually learn to learn the great truths of the Word of God. They are in effect automatons with little or no discernment. This has not changed.

3. Yet, I believe Mr. Tomes has done the Lord’s seekers a disservice; he has possibly done a lot of harm to the faith of some believers with his criticism of Witness Lee’s lack of Greek knowledge. Someone can pick up his vitriol and end up in the spiritual gutter with no hope and no interest anymore in the Lord; it has happened many times in the past and it can happen again when anyone decides to attack another believer and many are damaged due to the fallout. Sure, Witness Lee often lied and regularly exaggerated but in much of his ministry there is some merit, once you have eliminated the fluff and dross. That is, if you can get yourself to actually read it. I cannot.

4. I rejected Witness Lee after 23 years because of all the lies, misrepresentations, manipulation, domination, intimidation, bullying, backstabbing, Daystar and similar abortive schemes, failed restaurants with start-up money from believers, his protection of his errant sons over real brothers who had stood by him for decades, the shenanigans taking place in his “office”, etc. – not because he was a Greek novice. Even after 14 years I still keep a Recovery Version and its New Testament concordance handy because quite regularly the Spirit reminds me of a verse and I remember the expression in the Recovery Version. For personal use I generally resort to one of several translations.

5. Somewhere on this thread Steve Miller (VoiceInWilderness) describes himself as an “amateur” in Hebrew and then proceeds to competently compare different Old Testament translations. Let us then call Witness Lee an “amateur” in Greek, like Mr. Tomes in fact did, but let us not use this in a derogatory way. Steve is by his own admission a heavyweight software developer but he would probably be able to hold his own when Biblical Hebrew and its applications are discussed.

6. Gail Riplinger has three different degrees: in interior design, home economics and art. However, she is considered the go-to person for KJV Only-ism. In academic training in Hebrew she should probably also be considered an amateur but she gained a lot respect in her field of interest and she is considered an authority when it comes to the KJV vs Other Translations.

7. Witness Lee realized he did not have the deep knowledge and application of the ancient languages and he admitted to that on several occasions, as chronicled by Mr. Tomes. He then appealed to young people to go and study so they can assist him. (I believe that it is how it happened.) Kerri Robicheaux was the first to do just that and he completed his PhD at Dallas Theological Seminary. Then he became Witness Lee’s “helper” in all things Greek and Hebrew, I believe (and maybe Aramaic, too). Scott Decaito (I am sure I have positively messed up the spelling of his surname but I am entirely at a loss to what it should be!) also joined the efforts at LSM and eventually gained his PhD (after he had left). Scott perished during the “Present Rebellion” of 1988-1989. When full-timers initially started to converge on Taipei and Anaheim, Roger Good(e) arrived from New Zealand. He later married the “helper” of Witness Lee’s wife. Roger got his PhD in linguistics somewhere along the line. Today he teaches at the different full-time trainings while Kerri probably still revises the Recovery Version “till he dies” (his own words to me). I therefore put it to Mr. Tomes that Witness Lee could not have remained ignorant about new directions in linguistic studies. He had the real deal working with him. He probably preferred not to follow the new influences. Amateurs” like John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Bill Duane worked on the early translations of Witness Lee’s New Testament but they were either kicked out, died or just faded into obscurity.

8. Somewhere in history (probably in the late-70s), Dr. Philip Comfort joined Witness Lee’s Recovery but in Titus Chu’s jurisdiction. Phil Comfort is still highly regarded in linguistic circles today and he was the chairman of the committee that produced the New Living Translation. He was also one of the two chief editors of the recently published Tyndale Bible Dictionary. While in Witness Lee’s Recovery he produced a kind of concordance on exactly what Nigel Tomes is complaining about now, namely a compilation of word studies from the ministry of Witness Lee. LSM published it and I used to own one but in my cleaning out my shelves of Witness Lee’s books, Philip Comfort’s also got the boot. In the late 1980s I overheard two brothers from the environs of Titus Chu discussing Philip Comfort. One said to the other that he had left Witness Lee’s Recovery because Witness Lee refused to pull him in to be a “helper” with the languages, notwithstanding his obvious expertise and knowledge in Greek. This is second hand, so please do not quote me. Afterwards I started searching for anything written by Philip Comfort and I found a few. However, I could not find any mention or reference by him about Witness Lee or the Recovery Version. Dr. Philip Comfort is today an editor at Tyndale Publishers and he has taught at Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University. Quite a catch, one would think, but Witness Lee did not “trust” him enough. Remember, Witness Lee “stood on the shoulders” (as he so famously said on so many occasions) of John Nelson Darby, C H Macintosh, Thomas Newberry, William Kelly, Robert Govett, Vincent, D M Panton, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, Vine, Henry Alford, Gerhard Kittel, Watchman Nee, Benjamin Wills Newton and others; Philip Comfort’s shoulders were not considered “the right stuff”.

9. Mr. Tomes discusses a number of so-called “word study fallacies” and he quotes several linguists/scholars. Are they believers, true believers or do some also dabble in the occult (like Westcott and Hort by their own admission did)? However, this is where the slippery slope drops away at an alarming speed. Please note, he stops short of describing Witness Lee’s teachings as heresy although he probably could have in some cases. However, I was immediately reminded of some novel so-called “fallacies” taught by Witness Lee: 1. In Ephesians 2:10 most translations translated poiēma as “workmanship”. Witness Lee used “masterpiece”. Was he wrong? Did he take too much liberty? 2. In Philippians 3:11 Paul used the unique word exanastasis (ek + anastasis). Most all translations translate this word the same as anastasis (resurrection). Witness Lee stuck to “out-resurrection” plus his interpretation footnote. Was he wrong? Did he take too much liberty? There are probably more but I cannot immediately recall other examples.

10. So there, clean out your shelves of all the “outdated” and “obsolete” Greek tools. Mr. Tomes is in fact invalidating all previous Greek studies (now considered outdated and obsolete) and is by definition invalidating all the words of former preachers and writers who lived before the 1960s. All that is valid now is what was written and spoken post-James Barr, according to the Mr. Tomes’ insight.

11. Mr. Tomes is directing his readers towards theology. Theology is defined as a “study of God”. God is not limited to literal Greek and Hebrew words and their interpretation by so-called scholars; God is not a “science”; “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Mr. Tomes suggests indirectly that without a proper modern understanding of Greek and Hebrew you cannot understand the Bible; therefore you cannot understand God; therefore you are ignorant of the message of the Bible. When the Lord asked the disciples whether they wanted to leave, just as others had done, Peter replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68, 69). Mr. Tomes is indeed calling for all to throw out the baby with the bath water. Often the Holy Spirit shines on a specific Word or phrase and the Lord speaks to the seeker. If you apply the Nigel Tomes theorem, this cannot be unless the Holy Spirit moves with great care between the former fallacies and the modern understanding of the original languages.

12. Imagine someone who had been walking with the Lord daily for the past 20 or 30-odd years. He is dedicated to the Lord yet he now has to start over. He is also a Greek “amateur”. He makes the same mistakes with what Mr. Tomes calls “fallacies”: he believes the church has been called out, he thinks he “knows” the real meaning of parakletos and dunamis, etc. Now confront such a person with the piece by Nigel Tomes, replete with his heavy-handed treatment of many things Witness Lee had taught. This dear one now has to clear out his bookshelf of “outdated” and “obsolete” Greek tools, even though he got much help from many in the past (although he gets to keep Timothy and Barbara Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament since it was first published only in 1981). Is this person now supposed to start over, to forget everything he had learned and treasured, to learn a new spiritual language, so as to meet the new standard set by Mr. Nigel Tomes?

13. A pernicious and devastating new modernism that calls the ordinary person’s faith into question.

[zeek]

The New Testament shows that Jesus himself was an amateur who, according to the educated scribes and Pharisees and the Sadducees, misinterpreted the scriptures. I don't know if he went to Bible College, but it isn't mentioned in the text. Anyway his method of interpretation was probably off per Tome's criteria because it came before Prof. James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

4. I rejected Witness Lee after 23 years because of all the lies, misrepresentations, manipulation, domination, intimidation, bullying, backstabbing, Daystar and similar abortive schemes, failed restaurants with start-up money from believers, his protection of his errant sons over real brothers who had stood by him for decades, the shenanigans taking place in his “office”, etc. – not because he was a Greek novice. Even after 14 years I still keep a Recovery Version and its New Testament concordance handy because quite regularly the Spirit reminds me of a verse and I remember the expression in the Recovery Version. For personal use I generally resort to one of several translations.

I agree, and except for the lengths of time, could write the same verbatim.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

8. Somewhere in history (probably in the late-70s), Dr. Philip Comfort joined Witness Lee’s Recovery but in Titus Chu’s jurisdiction. Phil Comfort is still highly regarded in linguistic circles today and he was the chairman of the committee that produced the New Living Translation. He was also one of the two chief editors of the recently published Tyndale Bible Dictionary. While in Witness Lee’s Recovery he produced a kind of concordance on exactly what Nigel Tomes is complaining about now, namely a compilation of word studies from the ministry of Witness Lee. LSM published it and I used to own one but in my cleaning out my shelves of Witness Lee’s books, Philip Comfort’s also got the boot. In the late 1980s I overheard two brothers from the environs of Titus Chu discussing Philip Comfort. One said to the other that he had left Witness Lee’s Recovery because Witness Lee refused to pull him in to be a “helper” with the languages, notwithstanding his obvious expertise and knowledge in Greek. This is second hand, so please do not quote me. Afterwards I started searching for anything written by Philip Comfort and I found a few. However, I could not find any mention or reference by him about Witness Lee or the Recovery Version. Dr. Philip Comfort is today an editor at Tyndale Publishers and he has taught at Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University. Quite a catch, one would think, but Witness Lee did not “trust” him enough. Remember, Witness Lee “stood on the shoulders” (as he so famously said on so many occasions) of John Nelson Darby, C H Macintosh, Thomas Newberry, William Kelly, Robert Govett, Vincent, D M Panton, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, Vine, Henry Alford, Gerhard Kittel, Watchman Nee, Benjamin Wills Newton and others; Philip Comfort’s shoulders were not considered “the right stuff”.

Phil Comfort was a much loved brother who was a gifted teacher. Both W. Lee and T. Chu fought over the "rights" to his talents. In Columbus, Comfort had all the saints reading Lee's books, culling out suitable word definitions for his use in the book mentioned by Friedel above. This was ironical since Phil, from the earliest days, was never a Lee-tape-recorder, and used a diversity of research materials. For example, one time he told me that "for Galatians, Luther was the best ..." He went on to cite a number of authors for each of the NT books.

I believe Phil Comfort saw Bill Freeman as a mentor in the Recovery. One time after a local meeting during the winter of '77-'78, I was with Phil and Bill chatting in the dining room, and Phil casually asked Bill if there was still the "need" to study Greek, since so much had already been written to date. Bill was abrupt and precise, "God wrote in Greek!" At this point in time, Phil had just begun teaching in Columbus public schools, and was only 27, not yet realizing how his life would turn out. Bill sowed (or watered) a seed in Phil that eventually bore much fruit.

Initially Comfort had much liberty to promote outside authors, but as Lee began to reign in the workers during the 70's, Phil had suspicious eyes watching him. Shortly after this, Titus Chu "demanded" that Phil quit his teaching job to serve "full-time." Later still, Titus Chu "demanded" that Phil relocate to Cleveland for further "training." In LC parlance this really means to "beat one into total submission," and this is what TC attempted to do to Phil. Instead Phil returned to Columbus with the LC version of PTSD.

Fortunately, his family support system helped to transition him back to "real life" by enabling him to obtain a Masters in English at OSU. It was during this time in Columbus, that Phil's initial love for the scripture in its original language returned to him, and he obtained his PhD at Wheaton. The rest is history, as Friedel mentioned in his post.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

10. So there, clean out your shelves of all the “outdated” and “obsolete” Greek tools. Mr. Tomes is in fact invalidating all previous Greek studies (now considered outdated and obsolete) and is by definition invalidating all the words of former preachers and writers who lived before the 1960s. All that is valid now is what was written and spoken post-James Barr, according to the Mr. Tomes’ insight.

This is exactly the point I have tried to make about Tomes' conclusions.

Since Tomes so highly values the most recent Christian scholarship, and dismisses much of what the body of Christ would consider time-tested classics, he really does himself a disservice. By critiquing Lee, he has just shot himself in the foot, undermining whatever credibility he has acquired through all his previous papers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Friedel

I have not the capacity nor the time to write a detailed response to the lengthy dissertation by Mr. Nigel Tomes on Witness Lee’s alleged Etymological Errors

Same for us all. That's why I suggest we take it a bite at a time.

Originally Posted by Friedel

instead, he [Tomes] proceeds by quoting academic after academic to disprove what Witness Lee taught

"Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe ....I've lost my Bible. What word meaning do I catch by the toe?"

Originally Posted by F

He [Tomes] proceeded to execute a hatchet job which was surely aimed at convincing Local Churchers to toss Lee.

If so results will be weak.

Originally Posted by F

2. The problem with the followers of Witness Lee is not so much about what he taught but about what they inevitably become. When they start with “O, Lord Jesus” and look to the ground, staring into the great nothingness before them, they pummel any dissident into submission.

The problem is the authority structure.

Originally Posted by F

3. Yet, I believe Mr. Tomes has done the Lord’s seekers a disservice;
. . . However, this is where the slippery slope drops away at an alarming speed.
. . . 13. A pernicious and devastating new modernism that calls the ordinary person’s faith into question.

Yes, by calling into question and debating words in the New Testament, Tomes produces uncertainty, that could lead to a crisis of faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

13. A pernicious and devastating new modernism that calls the ordinary person’s faith into question.

Exactly.

And this is what I and others have resisted for years.

In the effort to debunk Lee, one undermines the faith in others, and they result in being shipwrecked, as happened to the early church.

I think I speak for others here in saying that the forum has long rejected this type of activity.

Tomes really should respond here to "clear his name" so to speak.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Friedel

8. Somewhere in history (probably in the late-70s), Dr. Philip Comfort joined Witness Lee’s Recovery but in Titus Chu’s jurisdiction. Phil Comfort is still highly regarded in linguistic circles today and he was the chairman of the committee that produced the New Living Translation.

Wow NLT is my favorite translation nowadays. I never understood the book of Job until I read it in NLT.

That's pretty cool knowing a former LC member was responsible for producing it.

[OBW]

While I understand most of Friedel's complaints back in #156, I think that in one way he misses the boat of Nigel's complaints against LSM and Witness Lee. In his point 4 he says:

Yet, I believe Mr. Tomes has done the Lord’s seekers a disservice; he has possibly done a lot of harm to the faith of some believers with his criticism of Witness Lee’s lack of Greek knowledge. Someone can pick up his vitriol and end up in the spiritual gutter with no hope and no interest anymore in the Lord; it has happened many times in the past and it can happen again when anyone decides to attack another believer and many are damaged due to the fallout. Sure, Witness Lee often lied and regularly exaggerated but in much of his ministry there is some merit, once you have eliminated the fluff and dross. That is, if you can get yourself to actually read it. I cannot.

First, this point is bookended with the claim that believers may have been harmed by suggesting Lee doesn't really know the Greek very well, then saying Lee's ministry is of "some merit, once you have eliminated the fluff and dross." How do you suggest that believers are even possibly aided by a ministry that requires everyone to know what needs to be ignored? How is it a disservice to point people away from a ministry that needs more than normal discernment to discover the "fluff and dross" (errors?) to find the merit?

I mean, if he cannot actually get himself to read it, how does he think it is going to help anyone else? And I suspect that Friedel is capable of figuring out what is not worthy of keeping.

But if it was really about how good Lee was at knowing Greek by himself, I might agree with him. But, like Nee before him, there is the assumption that Lee knows how to spot the right Greek scholars in each case and is therefore giving the best analysis in each such case.

So how do we toss Lee's word studies (or supplied word studies that fit his theology)? Why do we think we need them? Does anyone think that if we read the scripture as it is we are getting bad theology? If it says that we know something, do we really get something important out of "knowing" which source of "know" is being used (and whether there really is such a distinction)? Or love? Or Life? or Word? Almost none of those words "simply" mean what Lee said they do. It is an oversimplification. And in some cases creates distinctions that are virtually nonexistent.

And as has been pointed out by several, most recently by awareness, there is no meaning added to the Greek word for power due to the use of it as the word from dynamo which is, in modern usage, a power plant.

In short (too late) Lee didn't need to know Greek. He just needed the opportunity to make distinctions — real or imagined — so that he could seem to rise above others in the eyes of his loyal followers. It may be that Nigel has overstated some of it. But not much. It is not that there is clearly a better choice in all cases. But in many cases, it is true that Lee made unwarranted distinctions — less for improvement of scriptural/spiritual understanding than for isolating himself as a superior source of knowledge. No Lee did not claim to know Greek well. But he claimed to know how to choose between alternate theories by those who were. Yet in most cases, not even knowing about those alternate theories is actually a spiritually sound place to be.

God is love. Period. That is understandable. Don't need to parse Greek words.

And for God's economy, the worst thing about that one is that he simply said it was true because he said it. He claimed that a thorough study of the entire scripture would show him to be right, but couldn't muster even one example. But then in training after training, "God's economy" became the reason that words did not mean what they said. Or the reason to disregard whole sections of scriptural text. He never pointed out any of the places where "God's economy" (as he defined it) was supported, but instead where the overlay of God's economy required that we understand something not otherwise found in the text. It is the ultimate begging of the question. The un-established that manhandles everything else that did not fit into Lee's private theology.

For a man who openly admitted a lack of Greek knowledge, he surely used marginal word studies over and over to arrive at novel positions that continually isolated his group from Christianity. All as he worked his way from "just a preacher" to the MOTA.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And for God's economy, the worst thing about that one is that he simply said it was true because he said it.

God's Economy was Lee's Holodeck.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I understand most of Friedel's complaints back in #156, I think that in one way he misses the boat of Nigel's complaints against LSM and Witness Lee. In his point 4 he says:

First, this point is bookended with the claim that believers may have been harmed by suggesting Lee doesn't really know the Greek very well, then saying Lee's ministry is of "some merit, once you have eliminated the fluff and dross." How do you suggest that believers are even possibly aided by a ministry that requires everyone to know what needs to be ignored? How is it a disservice to point people away from a ministry that needs more than normal discernment to discover the "fluff and dross" (errors?) to find the merit?

I mean, if he cannot actually get himself to read it, how does he think it is going to help anyone else? And I suspect that Friedel is capable of figuring out what is not worthy of keeping.

Your point is valid. I should have qualified it by saying attacking Witness Lee's ministry in the way Mr. Tomes did has the potential damaging those still meeting in the LSM churches. By attacking their daily staple you risk harming their faith.

I have family still meeting there. When I left 14 years ago they were warned against me as "being sick with a contagious spiritual disease". Therefore I have made a point of never discussing Witness Lee's ministry with any of them but I have continued to pray that the Lord will open their eyes in His time.

My reference about the content of his ministry minus the "fluff and dross" is a general evaluation and not intended to encourage anybody to actually dig into it. Never.

Out of curiosity I listened the other day on the internet to a little bit of one of his messages on the LSM website. I was taken aback. How is it possible that I could have listened to him so regularly and for so many years? I could actually picture myself sitting there astonished that one man could know so much! I was gobsmacked. It shows how easy it is to be lured into following him.

So I have a genuine concern for the current crop of Local Churchers.