LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[UntoHim]

LSM’s Etymological Errors

A Little Knowledge of Greek is Dangerous

Summary: Witness Lee had only a rudimentary, self-taught knowledge of NT Greek. He relied on outdated word studies (Alford, Vincent, Vine & Kittel). These traits plus a dismissive attitude towards scholarship and boundless self-confidence made him liable to etymological errors and exegetical fallacies. LSM was ignorant of the revolution in biblical linguistics since 1960 which exposed these errors & fallacies. Analysing LSM’s publications we illustrate cases of the etymological root fallacy, invalid word-dissections, the reverse etymological fallacy, illegitimate totality transfer, the selective evidence fallacy, the word-concept fallacy & the unwarranted associative fallacy. E.g.s presented include key Greek words—ekklesia, oikonomia, parakletos, dunamis, proginosko, Laodicea, Nicolaitans, oida/ginosko, logos/rhema & agapao/phileo. Such exegetical fallacies & etymological errors undermine the value of LSM’s NT Recovery Version & Life-study commentaries.

Witness Lee (1905--1997) possessed many gifts, attested by his voluminous publications and his institutional legacy--LSM’s global network of local churches. However, competence in biblical languages (OT Hebrew & NT Greek) was not one of his strengths. W. Lee’s facility in biblical languages was marked by four characteristics:
[1] No formal training. W. Lee acknowledged that,0 “neither Brother Nee nor I studied in a seminary.” “I have not studied Greek in any school,”1 he conceded, and,2 “I never took a Greek class; neither was I taught...I am not a Greek scholar.” W. Lee had a rudimentary, self-taught, knowledge of NT Greek. He knew no Hebrew.

[2] With only limited Greek, W. Lee relied on reference tools. He says,3 “We did not study Greek, yet we had dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances to help us....” W. Lee alleged he used the “best reference books.” He asserted,4 “Although I am not a Greek scholar, my explanation of the NT Greek is based on the study of past Greek scholars. The Greek commentaries...I regularly use are the best & the most authoritative.” Despite these claims, a closer look shows his sources were badly outdated. W. Lee’s writings5 refer to works by John N. Darby (1800-- 88), Henry Alford (1810 – 71), Marvin Vincent (1834—1922), W. E. Vine (1873 – 1949), Kenneth Wuest (1893 – 1962) and Gerhard Kittel6 (1888 – 1948). Most of these commentaries and word-studies date from the 19th century; only one is post-World War 2. Plus W. Lee adopted Watchman Nee’s views which mostly relied on 19th-century scholars—Darby, Alford, etc.7 There is no evidence W. Lee used contemporary resources.

[3] A dismissive attitude towards contemporary Christian scholarship. W. Lee alleged that,8 “Since 1945 until the present there has not been a publication with spiritual weight in English or in Chinese. Many Christian publications are being printed, but they...lack content concerning the divine life, the truth, & Bible exposition.”

[4] Boundless self-confidence, despite his limited training and obsolete resources. W. Lee avowed,9 “Even though I do not understand Greek literature, I can be considered an expert on the usage of Greek words.” Plus he asserted, “I have studied every word in the New Testament. I wrote books...according to a scholarly standard in which every finding is grounded with evidence.”10 These are bold assertions for an ‘amateur.’
Given this combination of traits it is not surprising that errors were committed and fallacies perpetuated. Witness Lee had “helpers” with greater facility in biblical languages to assist him in avoiding such pitfalls. However, due to the Recovery’s focus on the “Minister of the Age with the Vision of the Age,” these ‘helpers’ functioned as W. Lee’s “cheer-leaders,” rather than correctives. This bias is evident in LSM’s Affirmation & Critique which invariably affirms Witness Lee’s teachings, while critiquing other scholars and expositors.

50 years ago a revolution occurred which “shook the foundations of…attempts to do theology in the form of word studies.”11 Since then biblical scholars have highlighted the exegetical fallacies and etymological errors which blighted expositions based on earlier reference works by Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine, Kittel and their peers. Consider G. Kittel’s multi-volume work. W. Lee commends it saying,12 “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament written by Gerhard Kittel...contain[s] deep analysis on the meaning and usage of every significant word in the NT.” However, K. A. Cherney Jr. concludes “flawed linguistic principles underlie Kittel’s TDNT.”13 and Prof. Stanley E. Porter advises,14 “this source should be avoided for discussion of meaning...” These warnings run counter to W. Lee’s declaration,15 “I consult this set of books the most. As a result I can cut straight the word of the truth according to the Greek language when I expound the New Testament.”

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.

Etymology
Etymology is the study of a word’s origin and the historical development of its meaning over time.16 Earlier biblical word studies often appealed to the ‘root’ or ‘original’ meaning of a Greek (or Hebrew) word. W. Lee employs etymology, for example, when expounding Paul’s statement that he “obtained help...from God” (Acts 26:22). He says,17 “The Greek word [rendered ‘help’] originally meant alliance.This implies that the apostle was allied with God and realized God's assistance in this alliance.” This exposition implicitly assumes that the ‘root’ meaning of the word rendered ‘help’ [Greek: epikourias], originating generations earlier, with the sense of ‘alliance,’ remained embodied in the word and this connotation was understood by both the biblical author and his first readers. In this particular instance that may indeed be true. However, clearly this is not always the case. The meanings of words tend to evolve over time, so that later meanings may diverge, or even contradict the original (‘root’) meaning. To illustrate, the terms “nephew” and “niece” derive from Old French words which meant "grandson” & “grand-daughter” (respectively) prior to 1600. Today, in contrast, these terms refer to a sibling’s son or daughter. More striking, the English word "nice" is said to be derived from the Latin nescius, meaning ignorant. It is safe to assume that in modern use the term, ‘nice’ is not intended to convey the original meaning, ‘ignorant.’ In such cases, the etymological root meaning is misleading; it hinders, rather than helps our understanding. Similar pitfalls exist in the Greek language of the New Testament.

Etymological Errors
In recent decades scholars have sought to correct the erroneous assumptions underlying earlier word-studies. As Professor Anthony Thiselton observes,18 “Many writers, including a number of biblical scholars, believe that the etymological meaning of a word is somehow its ‘basic’ or ‘proper’ meaning.” This “mistaken” and “false assumption” that “questions about etymology somehow relate to the real or ‘basic’ meaning of a word,”19 led NT Greek scholars like Alford, Kittel, Vincent, Vine, etc., to emphasize the ‘root’ or original meaning of Greek words. Their pronouncements are particularly alluring to expositors with little linguistic skill, yet who seek the “deeper, hidden, intrinsic significance” of Scripture. Moreover, statements like “according to Dean Alford, (Vincent, or Vine) the root of this Greek word means...” tend to be treated as authoritative by audiences with limited knowledge of biblical languages. W. Lee’s writings reflect this misplaced emphasis on the root meaning of Greek words. He asserts, for example, that if “Bible [translators] do not have an accurate understanding of the original meanings of the words in the Bible, then their translation will surely contain mistakes.”20

“The standard reference tools used in New Testament studies were written before the advent and certainly before the development of modern linguistics,”21 writes Prof. Stanley E. Porter. As a result they were prone to error. Prof. Grant R. Osborne observes regarding Greek word-studies, that,22 “previously, scholars thought that the meaning of a word could be found in its historical development,” traced back to an original root. Hence, “until recently scholars believed that the key to a word’s meaning lay in its origin and history. This assumption of linear development lay behind the misuse of etymology, wherein any past use of a word could be read into its current meaning.”23 Word Studies typically assumed that a single basic meaning had been transmitted from the word’s original root to its current conjugates. Prof Osborne notes that,24 “many of the older lexicons (such as Thayer’s Greek lexicon) and word study books (such as Vincent, Vine or Wuest) assumed” each Greek word derived from a ‘root’ which had “a universal meaning that can be transferred across time,” to its use in the New Testament. Given a direct link between the ‘root’ and a word’s current meaning (and absent any significant intervening change) etymology yields the word’s ‘true meaning.’ But today NT scholars affirm that these are “previously-held ideas that do not work,”25 Prof. Osborne reports. Since meanings often change over time, it is an etymological error to assume that the origin of a word is its true meaning, that a word’s root is its ‘real meaning.’26 As Prof. Thiselton warns,27 “the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history. Hundreds of words diverge from or even (like ‘nice’) oppose their etymology.” The “main point,” Prof. Osborne reminds us,28 “is that the root meaning...is not a ‘universal meaning’ that permeates the whole ...We dare not assume any type of universal meaning for a root.” Yet W. Lee’s linguistic resources are often guilty of this offence. Kittel’s TDNT “frequently indulged in...the root fallacy,” warns Prof. Stanley E. Porter.29

Exegetical Fallacy
Earlier New Testament Word Studies, which focussed on the roots of words, frequently fell into this pitfall. In his book, Exegetical Fallacies, Dr. D. A. Carson observes that,30 “One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word[’s]...meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word.” Grant R. Osborne concurs saying,31 “The root fallacy assumes that the root of a term...carries a basic meaning that is reflected in every subordinate use of the word.” Similarly Prof. David Alan Black observes that,32 “New Testament commentators are often guilty of finding the ‘real meaning’ of a word merely by looking up its etymology, without paying attention to the context in which that word occurs...[This is] the fallacy of etymologizing, an over-emphasis on etymology.” Aware of this fallacy, today’s scholars conclude that, in general,33 “the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology,” says Dr. D. A. Carson. Since the Greek language developed during the eons prior to the New Testament,34 “We cannot presume that an author would necessarily be aware of a word’s etymology. And [even] if he was, we cannot assume, without some evidence, that he intended his readers to grasp the connection,” observes Dr. Moises Silva. To illustrate this point, consider an English example; the word “good-bye,” comes from the Anglo-Saxon ‘root’, “God be with you.” However, when someone says “good-bye,” today, it does not necessarily (if ever) mean they are asking for God’s presence to be with you. That ‘root meaning’ is a misleading indicator of the current meaning of ‘good bye.’ The same principle holds true for NT Greek words; appeal to a word’s etymological root often hinders, rather than helps. The prevalence of this pitfall led the editors of the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible to declare,35 “Etymological studies...have become a menace to sound interpretation.”

Etymology Occasionally Useful
While past studies overemphasized etymology, analysing a word’s original meanings is not totally without merit. Contemporary scholars point out that occasionally a word’s etymology is a useful guide to its meaning. Some people in Scripture were named based on the name’s meaning (& perhaps its etymology)-- e.g. Jacob, Israel, Peter, etc,--not just family history (Lk. 1:61) or the name’s sound. Sometimes a compound Greek word’s meaning relates directly to its components. Dr. Robert Cara points out the Greek wordekballō, (often rendered “to cast out,” e.g.,Matt. 9:33), is a combination of‘throw’(ballo) and ‘out’ (ek). But, note that ‘one exception does not prove the rule.’ Professor Robert Cara emphasizes that even when a word’s etymology and its current meaning dovetail together, the word’s meaning ultimately derives from its currentusage, not its etymology.36

Contemporary New Testament scholars focus on a word’s current [‘synchronic’] meaning, at the time the New Testament was written, rather than its prior historical development. This focus is justified because the task of biblical exegesis is to37 “answer the question: what did the biblical author mean?...what did the author intend his original readers to understand?” As Dr. Osborne states,38 “In the past linguistic word studies centred on etymology and linguistic roots. Today, however, all recognize that semantics is based on synchronic [i.e., a word’s current meaning] and structural considerations. The background of a word is a valid aspect only when there is a deliberate allusion to a past use...” This radical revision in biblical scholars’ views is not reflected in W. Lee’s expositions which rely on outdated reference books containing frequent etymological fallacies. He 39 denigrated Christianity for being “stranded on the sands of superstition, superficiality, & lukewarm theology;” meanwhile his own expositions of Scripture were stranded on the shores of outdated & discredited linguistics.

Revolution in Biblical Linguistics
This seismic change in the analysis of biblical languages is not a recent development. It began over 50-years ago with the publication of Prof. James Barr’s, Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford Univ. Press, 1961). Dr. Barr’s landmark study amounted to “a reconstruction of descriptive biblical linguistics.”40 Barr’s book “shook the foundations of…word studies, most notably the TDNT,”41 writes NT Professor Max Turner. Beginning with this work, Prof. James Barr pioneered the biblical semantics movement and “laid the foundations for a linguistically-oriented approach to biblical lexicography.”42 Michael Wilkins calls this a ‘revolution.’ He writes, “Although word studies have historically been the common means for attempting to clarify the meaning of the biblical literature, modern lexicological…analysis has revolutionized such studies. The work of James Barr [1926-2006] has facilitated that revolution. Beginning with his Semantics of Biblical Language he criticizes the approach to lexicography which characterized much of the TDNT.”43 Professor Barr applied key principles of linguistics to challenge traditional etymology-based studies of words and critique the lexical approach of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Barr’s critique of G. Kittel’s TDNT was devastating; “The major problems [Barr] identified [in TDNT] were a failure to distinguish adequately between a word and a concept; an over-reliance on etymology, including the ‘root fallacy;’ the errors of ‘illegitimate identity transfer’ and ‘‘illegitimate totality transfer’; deciding the meaning of words independently of their use in sentences and discourse; and identifying theological thought in words, rather than word-combinations or sentences,” writes Claire S. Smith.44 Subsequent work has confirmed that “flawed linguistic principles underlie Kittel’s TDNT.”45 In view of this, contemporary scholars counsel that “this source [Kittel] should be avoided for discussion of meaning...”46 Yet LSM is wholly ignorant of these key developments. Ironically, W. Lee writes recommending Kittel’s 10-volume, TDNT,47 “I consult this set of books the most. As a result I can cut straight the word of the truth according to the Greek language when I expound the New Testament.” The following sections highlight some of the etymological errors and exegetical fallacies which resulted from Witness Lee’s flawed approach.

Examples of LSM’s Etymological Errors
Example #1 Ekklesia—“Called-out Assembly”
The Greek word Ekklesia is a prime example of the error of etymologizing. Prof. James L. Boyer exemplifies the logical process which embodies this error. He writes,48 “We may illustrate the [flawed] etymological approach to the study of words...The Greek word ‘church’ in the New Testament is ekklesia. This word is formed of two parts, the preposition ek meaning ‘out of’ and the root connected with the verb kaleo, ‘to call.’ Therefore, the etymology of the word suggests ‘a called-out assembly.’ From this point on the [interpretive] process...may go as far as the interpreter's sense of good judgment will let him. It is a select group, called out from among the rest of the world. Therefore also it is a separatist group. It is composed of those who are called, so it is involved in the doctrine of election. Since the calling involved a caller, and an actual call issued, therefore the church is an official constituted body rather than a heterogeneous mass of separatists. Perhaps you can go on further.”

The precise content differs, but this commentary is strikingly similar to LSM’s own exposition. W. Lee asserts,49 “The Greek word translated ‘church’ in these verses is ekklesia, composed of two words: ek, out, and kaleo, called. Put together, these two words mean a called out congregation or an assembly of the called ones. Hence, according to the literal sense of the word, the church is the assembly of those called out of the world by God.”

Expounding this further, LSM’s Lesson Book says:50
“The Greek word ekklesia indicates that the church is a congregation called out of the world so that God may carry out His purpose. According to Genesis 1:26, man was created by God to bear His image and...authority. However, man fell again and again. Eventually...man fell into the world, the system of Satan. In the eyes of God, as a result of the fall the entire human race has actually become the world. In John 3:16, human beings as a totality are called ‘the world.’ Since fallen man is in the world and has even become the world, how can God fulfill His purpose with man and through man? The only way is for God to call out a part of the human race. God has done this very thing. In applying His salvation to us, the first thing God does is to call us. Therefore, the first status of the church is that of the assembly of those who have been called out of the world by God to Himself for the fulfillment of His purpose. Because the church as the assembly is separated from the world, we may say that the church is composed of the real Hebrews. The root of the word Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) means ‘to pass over’; it especially means to pass over a river from one region to another and from one side to another. Hence, the word Hebrew denotes a river crosser, one who crosses a river. The church is composed of the believers who, as real Hebrews, have been called by God out of the world and have ‘crossed the river’ from one realm to another. Now as believers in Christ we are the called out ones, the assembly, the congregation called out by God, the ekklesia in opposition to the world, which is on the other side of the river we have crossed. Just as our forefather Abraham was called out of the land of Chaldea, so we have been called out of the world by God to be His assembly. Whenever we speak of the church as the assembly, the ekklesia, we need to realize that this means that the church has been separated from the world. The first status of the church indicates a thorough separation of God’s called out ones from the world. There must be a great and thorough separation between the church as the ekklesia and the world as the system, the cosmos, of Satan. As the assembly, the church is separated entirely for God so that He may have a means to carry out His eternal purpose.”

LSM’s exposition relies heavily on the derivation of ekklesia from the ‘root meaning’ of ‘called-out assembly.’ Based on this link it emphasizes separation from the world. This point is further buttressed by the claim that the “root of the word Hebrew means ‘to pass over’...Hence, the word Hebrew denotes a river-crosser, one who crosses a river.” This latter notion is then linked with the church by the assertion, “The church is composed of the...real Hebrews, [who] have been called by God out of the world and have ‘crossed the river’...’’ Hence LSM’s commentary appeals to the etymological roots of the words ‘ekklesia’ and ‘Hebrew.’

LSM’s appeal to the root meaning of ‘Hebrew’ is easily dismissed. The issue is not whether the term, ‘Hebrew’ can be validly traced back to the root meaning of ‘river-crosser;’ that is irrelevant. More to the point, in later generations, ‘Hebrew’ was generally understood as an ethnic designation of a Semitic people-group and their language. The concept of ‘river-crosser’ dating back to Abraham’s era, ~2,000 BC, became lost in the ‘mists of time;’ it was not an intrinsic element of the term ‘Hebrew.’ Moreover few Christians (besides Messianic Jews for Jesus) consider themselves to be “real Hebrews.” This entire discussion is empty etymologizing.

Turning to LSM’s oft-repeated assertion that ekklesia means ‘called-out assembly,’ this too is the fallacious result of etymologizing. NT Greek Studies explains that while it is true “that Christians have been called out of the world and into the Body of Christ or Family of God, there is absolutely no indication that this was its emphasis or meaning in NT times. It [ekklesia] simply means congregation or assembly and refers to a gathering of people, really any people, yet in the NT that group of people happens to be Christians. This faulty translation could in part be due to the reader misunderstanding the nature of the Greek language used in the NT.”51 J. P. Louw, & Eugene A. Nida state that,52 “Though some…have tried to see in the termἐκκλησίαa more or less literal meaning of ‘called-out ones,’ this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning ofἐκκλησία inNTtimes or even by its earlier usage. The term ἐκκλησίαwas in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to anassemblyof persons constituted by well-defined membership…For theNT…the meaning of ἐκκλησiais ‘anassemblyof God’s people’.” Dr. Robert Cara explains further that,53 “The Greek wordekklesia...is a combination of the wordsto callandout. However, scholarly Greek dictionaries do not give the definition of ‘called-out ones’ forekklesia because it is not being used that way during the time of the New Testament. Although it is theologically true that Christians have been called out from the sinful world to be the church, that truth is not derived from the wordekklesia.”

Despite countless repetitions, LSM’s denotation of ‘called out assembly’ is not found in contemporary literature from the New Testament era. As Grant R. Osborne explains,54 ekklesia “is often said to mean ‘the called-out believers’ while in reality nowhere in extant Greek literature does ekklesia have this connotation.” In that era ekklesia was not defined in terms of the sphere out-of-which its members have been summoned. Rather, as Dr. David Alan Black states,55 “In the New Testament...the noun ekklesia does not mean a called-out group, but an assembly of people defined by membership, in contrast to ochlos, which refers to a crowd.” Professor Stanley E. Porter suggests the term,56 “ekklesia was used because it was a word for ‘gathering for a purpose,’ an instance of which might have been a Christian [purpose].” Ekklesia simply meant an assembly, defined by the common bond which its members shared—the belief that the resurrected Jesus was both Lord and Christ—not by what they were called out of. This distinction is important. Moreover, this conclusion is not a recent discovery. Over a century ago the respected biblical scholar F. J. A. Hort (1828–1892), pointed out in his classic work,The Christian Ecclesia, that this (supposed) exclusive meaning of ekklesia—a called-out subset from a larger group —did not have support. In his 1898 work, Cambridge Professor Hort stated,57 “There is no foundation for the widely spread notion thatekklesiameans a people or a number of individual men called out of the world or mankind...the compound verb ekkaleois never so used, and ekklesianever occurs in a context which suggests this supposed sense to have been present in the writer's mind. In usageek-kaleomeant only, ‘to call forth,’ and not, as this [supposed] interpretation would require, ‘to call out from a larger group.’Ekklesia, in turn, meant only ‘that which is called forth, an assembly’.” As J. Y. Campbell comments in this context,58 "as so often, etymology proves to be here misleading rather than helpful." LSM’s repeated assertions about ekklesia have served to perpetuate an etymological error which ought to have been dispelled long ago.

Invalid Word-Dissections
The etymological fallacy derives in part from59 “the assumption that a word always derives its meaning from ...components of which it is made. This says that a word’s meaning, regardless of its other parts, always can be determined by its root.” Or, as Robert Bradshaw puts it,60 “The root fallacy is the mistaken belief that a word's meaning is the sum of its components. While this is sometimes true in the majority of cases it is not.” Word studies by Vincent, Vine and their peers often divide compound Greek words into their component parts, which are interpreted separately, then reassembled to yield a compound meaning. The definition of ekklesia as a called-out congregation illustrates this strategy. However contemporary scholars warn that “It would not be legitimate to build theology by dissecting Greek words.”61 Applying this axiom to ekklesia defined as a ‘called out assembly’ they state, “We cannot assume that the word is being used with that etymology in mind. It is simply the word for church.” A few English examples illustrate this fallacy. Defining the ‘grapefruit’ (Citrus × paradisi) as ‘grape’ plus ‘fruit’ is misleading; it not related to the grape (genus: vitis). It is a hybrid of the Jamaican sweet orange (Citrus sinensis), and the Indonesian pomelo (C. maxima). Similarly parsing ‘pineapple’ (Ananas comosus) into ‘pine’ plus ‘apple’ obscures, rather than enlightens; it is not an apple produced by a pine-tree! Returning to the Greek word, ekklesia, Prof. Craig Blomberg compares this term to the English word, ‘butterfly.’ He observes that,62 “There is no reason to imagine that people often thought of the etymology of the term [ekklesia] when they used it, any more than English-speakers regularly muse of the etymology of ‘butterfly’ (as a piece of butter flying by) when they speak of the insects so named...” Such examples are instructive, since in New Testament Greek, as in English,63 “Word-constructions often take on their own meaning that is not the sum of the parts (e.g., ‘hot dog’ isn’t the sum of the meanings of ‘hot’ and ‘dog’!),” as Prof. Larry Hurtado points out. Hence scholars warn that,64 “We should not interpret [compound Greek words] as if the use of a compound word assumes knowledge of or carries the meaning of the parts.” The Greek word,65 “Parakletos (a compound of a preposition and verb) does not mean that we can understand the nature of the Spirit as ‘one called alongside’. With each of these words [ekklesia, parakletos, etc.] the meaning would be determined by how they are used in contemporary literature.” Let’s examine this last example.

Example #2: Invalid Word-Dissections--Parakletos—“One called to another's side to aid him”
NT scholars conclude that,66 “Parakletos does not mean ‘one called alongside’.” Yet W. Lee repeatedly gives exactly this definition; he says regarding,67 “the Greek word parakletos. This word is formed of two words: the preposition para (used here as a prefix) and the word kletos. Put together, these words denote someone called to our side...As the indwelling Spirit, [the Lord] is the ‘Paraclete with us’ (Jn. 14:16-17), the One alongside of us who is taking care of us.” Elsewhere he writes,68 “In Greek, parakletos denotes someone alongside who takes care of our cause, our affairs. It is composed of two words: a preposition that means with and a form of the word for call. In ancient times a paraclete was a helper, advocate, counsel, or intercessor. A paraclete was someone who served a particular person by taking care of his needs. As one who is always present, a paraclete may be considered a waiter, a helper...The Paraclete signifies one called to another’s side to help him. Hence, the Paraclete is a Helper.” Notice that W. Lee’s etymologizing leads him to assert that “a paraclete may be considered a waiter,” suggesting that the Holy Spirit responds to the believer’s every whim, like the ideal waiter. Yet the New Testament never likens the Holy Spirit to a waiter, subordinate to the believer. W. Lee’s dogmatic assertions on this topic contrast with other scholars’ more sanguine observations that,69 “The etymology of parakletos and its meaning [in John’s writings] have proved to be a baffling problem,” “John’s usage [of parakletos] departs from the standard understanding of the Greek term,” and “The linguistic background cannot help us,” says Dr. Gary M. Burge, New Testament scholar at Wheaton College, IL.

LSM’s exposition commits the exegetical fallacy of assuming that the Apostle John’s use of a compound word, parakletos carried with it the meaning of its components—“one who is called to another's side to aid him.” Plus it assumes both John and his readers were aware of this and intended this inference to be drawn. Witness Lee further adds the idea of a waiter, which reinforces this notion. Contrary to this view, NT Professor Grant R. Osborne observes that,70 “At one time the term [parakletos] did have a meaning similar to its root, ‘one called alongside to help’ and was used in Hellenistic circles for a ‘helper’ or ‘advocate.’ However, this is inadequate in John 14 & 16 because that sense is never used in that context. Moreover, the semantic field does not build upon that root.” Hence (contrary to W. Lee’s exposition) scholars conclude there’s no evidence in his gospel that John intended this inference to be drawn from his use of the term, parakletos.

Example #3: Reverse Etymological Fallacy—Dunamis--Dynamo
An associated exegetical error is the assumption that a New Testament word takes on a meaning that was not yet present in the author’s era. An example of this (so-called) “reverse etymological fallacy”71 occurs when the Greek noun dunamis [power] and the verb dunamai, are expounded in terms of the later English derivative ‘dynamite.’ It is a semantic anachronism to interpret the first century Greek word, dunamis by an appealing to the 19th century English word, ‘dynamite.’ The scientist Alfred Nobel inventedan explosivein 1867, naming it ‘dynamite’ based on the Greek word for power. It is invalid to retroactively appeal to dynamite with all its connotationsto expound the NT word dunamis. Yet W. Lee commits this same type of etymological error by interpreting this Greek word in terms of the dynamo. He says,72 “First Tim. 1:12 says, ‘I give thanks to Him who empowers me, Christ Jesus our Lord.’ The word empower in Greek comes from the root word for dynamo. It is the same root word used in Phil. 4:13, which says, ‘I am able to do all things in Him who empowers me’.” Michael Faraday (1831) & Dr. Werner Siemans (1867) developed the ‘dynamo-electric machine’ in the 19th century. Hence it is anachronistic to read ‘dynamo,’ with its connotations back into NT writings. “A modern metaphor can never be used to define” a New Testament Greek term, Prof. Osborne warns.73

Example #4: Illegitimate Totality Transfer—Proginosko--Foreknowledge
The fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer occurs when it is assumed that,74 “a word means everything it could mean in every place it occurs.” More exactly,75 “Many Greek words have a wide...semantic range. There may be numerous meanings for the same word; however context usually tells us which is correct. This fallacy is rooted in the idea that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows...”

As an example of this error, consider W. Lee’s exposition of God’s foreknowledge.’ He says,76 “Rom. 8:29a refers to the believers as those whom God foreknew. In eternity God foreknew us according to His fore-knowledge (1 Pet. 1:2a). In the New Testament the root of the words ‘foreknowledge’ and ‘foreknow’ is ‘know’ [Greek: ginosko]. To this root a prefix is attached. The Greek prefix pro means before or beforehand. In New Testament Greek, words such as foreknow and foreknowledge imply more than what we would understand from the English translations. The Greek root for these words includes the meaning of appreciation, approval, and possession. If we approve something, we shall appreciate it. Then we shall want to take possession of it and own it. The foreknowledge of God spoken of in 1 Peter 1:2 implies that in eternity past God approved us and appreciated us. It also implies that in eternity past He took us over, possessed us, owned us. We may even say that as Joseph married Mary, God in His foreknowledge ‘married’ us in eternity past... All this is included in the connotation of the word foreknowledge. God's fore-knowledge also includes His foreordination. In his expanded translation of the NT, Kenneth S. Wuest uses the word ‘foreordination’ in [1 Pet.] 1:2, saying that the believers are ‘chosen-out ones, this choice having been determined by the fore-ordination of God the Father.’ God's foreknowledge, therefore, means not only that He knew us in eternity past; it also means that He ordained us. We all were ordained by God the Father in eternity past.”

The Greek word rendered foreknow is proginosko, which W. Lee dissects into the prefix, pro and ‘know’ [Gk. ginosko]. Most lexicons offer ‘to know beforehand’ as a translation. Witness Lee however loads this word with additional freight. According to him, “The Greek root...includes the meaning of appreciation, approval, and possession...It also implies that in eternity past [God] took us over, possessed us, owned us. We may even say that God in His foreknowledge ‘married’ us in eternity past...All this is included in the connotation of the word foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge also includes His foreordination.” Thus Witness Lee piles meaning upon meaning, significance upon significance. All this based on a single word—proginosko! He even claims it includes foreordination, even though Rom. 8:29 mentions God’s predestination, using the distinct Greek term, prohorizo. A little consideration should lead readers without any knowledge of NT Greek to balk at W. Lee’s exaggerated claims. Why should foreknowledge imply that “God in His foreknowledge ‘married’ us in eternity past”? Perhaps Witness Lee makes this claim because the verb ‘to know” is sometimes used of the marriage relationship—e.g. “Adam knew his wife, Eve and she conceived” (Gen. 4:1). Hence a euphemistic meaning of the word, ‘know’ is imported into the interpretation of ‘foreknew” in Rom. 8:29. This is exactly what is meant by the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer --the assumption that a word means everything it could possibly mean. In response to the tendency of expositors to load Greek words with excess meanings, Dr. Eugene A. Nida asserts77 "Words do not carry with them all the meanings which they may have in other sets of co-occurrences." Therefore "The correct meaning of any term is that which contributes least to the total context." In the current context, applying that linguistic principle would mean that proginosko simply means ‘to know beforehand.’

Example #5: Oikonomia—LSM’s trademark “God’s Economy”
‘God’s economy’ is LSM’s trademark. The word, ‘economy’ appears in titles to 15 LSM books. Regarding this W. Lee says,78 “Oikonomia is God’s household administration...it is God’s administration...It is best to translate this word into ‘economy,’ the anglicized form of the Greek word oikonomia...Hence, in the English Recovery Version we use the word economy. Other English versions use dispenation instead of economy. For instance, the ASV uses dispensation in Eph. 1:10 & 3:9. Such a rendering does not clearly express the original meaning of the word...” W. Lee argues that ‘economy’ is the best translation for oikonomia. However, this translation incurs the ‘reverse etymological fallacy;’ it suggests modern connotations of ‘economy’ apply to its biblical use. This pitfall is evident when people ask “Does ‘God’s economy’ mean God is interested in stocks, bonds, interest rates & unemployment rates, imports & exports, GDP & National Income?” The 21st century term, ‘economy’ has a very different meaning than oikonomia in the 1st century; hence it is not necessarily the best translation. Dr. Thanos Zartaloudis of the Univ. of London, makes this point, saying79 “Oikonomia is distinguished from mere financial matters in the sense in which economy is understood in late modern times: household management is not concerned with matters like the mere acquisition of funds or the art of making money...”

What is God’s economy? In his “high peak of the divine revelation,” it is man becoming God; W. Lee says,80 “God's economy is God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature (but not in the Godhead)...” More often he says,81 “God's economy...is His household administration to dispense Himself in Christ into His chosen people so that He may have a house, a household, to express Himself.” Expressed succinctly,82 “In God's economy the main item is to dispense God Himself into His chosen people.” ‘Dispensing’ is a crucial concept here; it is distinct from ‘dispensation.’ W. Lee asserts that,83 “Dispensation and dispensing refer to two different things. Dispensing means giving, distributing, or imparting.” Yet he concedes,84 “The word economy is in the Bible, but the word dispensing is not.”

The term ‘dispensing’ is not in the Bible, so where did W. Lee get this notion? An obvious source is W. Lee’s85 early years among the ‘Plymouth Brethren,’ who taught dispensationalism. It is a short step from dispensations to dispensing, a step suggested by etymology. As Prof. Jewel Spears Brooker explains86 “Important aspects of dispensationalism emerge through attention to etymology. A dispensatio (from Latin dispensare, to weigh or to spend) is an administration, a management of resources. The analogous word in Greek, oikonomia (from oikos, house and nomos, management), in English, an ‘economy,’ is used by New Testament.” Hence the Latin term dispensatio, translating the Greek oikonomia, comes from the Latin verb, dispensare to dispense. From these diverse sources—NT Greek oikonomia, the Latin dispensatio/dispensare, the Brethren’s “dispensation” and today’s term, ‘economy’-- it appears that W. Lee has weaved together his notion of “God’s economy.”

Motivated perhaps by the absence of ‘dispensing’ in the Bible, W. Lee turns to etymology for assistance. He examines the etymology of oikonomia, saying,87 “If you trace the root of this word, it goes back to a word that refers to the parceling out of food, the distributing of food as in parcels. This root word also means to distribute food to the cattle for grazing. It is God's economy to parcel Himself out to us as our life and as our life supply.” Elsewhere he states,88 “The Greek word [oikonomia] means householdlaw,implying distribution (the base of this word is of the same origin as that for pasturein John 10:9, implying a distribution of the pasture to the flock).” It seems that here, in the etymology of oikonomia, W. Lee has found dispensing—in the distribution of fodder to cattle and pasture to the flock! However, for 50 years bible scholars have emphasized that,89 “the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but [merely] about its history.” Plus the fact that “the base of [oikonomia] is of the same origin as that for pasture,” does not imply these words’ meanings are related —that is another ‘root fallacy.’ Hence, it is invalid to deduce, based on etymology, that “God's economy to parcel Himself out to us.” W. Lee attributes more meaning to oikonomia than it contains. Granted, oikonomia “denotes a household management (administration, or government) and, derivatively...a plan, or an economy.” But, the word oikonomia itself does not tell us what that plan or arrangement is. And it certainly does not imply that God’s economy is to “dispense Himself into man to make man God...”

Dissection: Oikonomia (Economy) = Oikos (House) + Nomos (Law)
W. Lee proceeds to dissect oikonomia into its components. He asserts that to90 “know the deep and complete significance of this Greek word...we need to realize [it] is composed of two words—oikos, meaning house or household, and nomos, meaning law. Economy, therefore, is a ‘house law,’ a household administration...This household has an economy, a household law. Here ‘law’ means regulations and these regulations refer to a household administration.” However, this dissection violates basic tenets of exegesis. Prof. Grant Osborne says, “It is erroneous to take a compound word, break it into its component parts and read the resultant meanings in that light.”91 But this is exactly what W. Lee does. The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible warns,92 “It would not be legitimate to build theology by dissecting Greek words” and “We should not interpret [compound words] as if the use of a compound word...carries the meaning of the parts.” Yet, W. Lee parses oikonomia into ‘house’ (oikos) plus ‘law.’ ‘Law’ (nomos) often refers to the Ten Commandments. Hence this dissection describes God’s Old Testament economy, better than the new. In that era, Israel was God’s house/ household (oikos) and Moses’ covenant prescribed the Law (nomos). W. Lee’s dissection of oikonomia would have played into the hands of the Apostle Paul’s Judaic opposition. They could argue, “Yes Paul, we agree with God’s oikonomia. Israel is God house (oikos) and nomos is the Law. So Gentile believers should keep the Law”! We ask: would the Apostle Paul have used the term, oikonomia if it carried these connotations? Surely not!

We know the New Covenant is a matter of grace, not of Law. Perhaps to avoid these associations W. Lee talks about ‘regulations,’ rather than ‘law.’ Dr. Will Adam is more forthright addressing this point; he says “The word economy (oikonomia) itself has a root oikos (house) and nomos (law). However, the use and application of the word does not have legal overtones.”93 So, (in W. Lee’s view) ‘nomos’ here does not mean ‘law,’ even though that is its common meaning elsewhere. This exposition is “cherry-picking;” W. Lee picks up ‘oikos’ (house) and extrapolates to imply that94 “God's economy...is...to dispense Himself...so that He may have a house [oikos], a household...which household is the church...” The awkward point about ‘nomos’/Law is finessed..

Witness Lee’s Theological Lexicography
The problem is that words—oikonomia, oikos, etc--are being over-loaded with more ‘theological freight’ than they can carry. This is an exercise in “theological lexicography,” a discredited approach, which, as Professor Stanley Porter explains,95 “attempts to link theological concepts with individual words in the language with the unfortunate result that, often, particular words are said to have special theological meaning in and of themselves and in virtually all contexts.” In W. Lee’s case the theological concept is his notion of God’s economy and the ‘individual words’ are oikonomia, oikos, etc. But scholars96 “have shown that there are persistent logical and linguistic flaws in trying to get meaning out of the history or supposed theological essence of a word and trying to transfer one theological meaning to all uses of the word.” Yet Witness Lee attempts to extract “the deep and complete significance of this Greek word”—oikonomia; he is “trying to get meaning out of the...supposed theological essence of a word [oikonomia] and trying to transfer that theological meaning to all [NT] uses of the word.” Yet this effort, Dr. Porter reminds us, is logically & linguistically flawed.

Example #6: LSM’s Etymologizing—Revelation’s 7 Churches
W. Lee’s etymologizing is manifest in his treatment of the seven local churches in Revelation. He asserts that,97 “In Greek the names of the 7 cities are full of significance, each name exactly matching the spiritual condition of the church in that particular city. Ephesusin Greek means desirable.This signifies that the initial church at its end was still desirable to the Lord...” For each of the 7 churches W. Lee expounds the church’s condition in terms of the root meaning of the city’s name. The 7 etymological root meanings proposed by LSM are:

Ephesusin Greek means desirable.This signifies the initial church...was still desirable to the Lord... (2:1)
Smyrna: The Greek word meansmyrrh,[which] signifies suffering...Smyrna was a suffering church. (2:8)
Pergamos: The Greek word meansmarriage(implying union) &fortifiedtower...The church in Pergamos ...entered into a marriage union with the world & became a high fortified tower (2:12)
Thyatira: The Greek word meanssacrificeofperfume,orunceasingsacrifice...The church in Thyatira prefigures the Roman Catholic Church, (2:18)
Sardis: The Greek word meanstheremains,theremainder,ortherestoration...Th e church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant church, from the...Reformation (3:1)
Philadelphia: The Greek word meansbrotherlylove...The church in Philadelphia prefigures the church life recovered by the brothers (3:7)
Laodicea: The Greek word meansopinion,judgment,ofthepeopleorofthelaymen...T he church in Laodicea prefigures the degraded recovered church. (3:14)

The validity of this exposition should be challenged. Were the author (the Apostle John) and his original readers aware of the etymology of their cities’ names? What evidence is there that John intended his readers to draw inferences from these root meanings? Why should the church’s condition be directly linked to the name of the city in which it is located? There are serious leaps in logic here. Professor Paul Treblico notes with regard to the seven churches that,98 “John does not see an automatic correlation between the city and the Christian community there.” However, W. Lee assumes an automatic correlation between the root meaning of the city’s name and the condition of the church located there. For example he assumes that because the church was located in Philadelphia it must of necessity be characterized by brotherly love. W. Lee writes,99 “The word Philadelphiais composed of twoGreekwords, one based onphileo,which means ‘love,’ and the other on adelphos,which means ‘brother.’ Therefore,Philadelphiameans ‘brotherlylove.’ The church in Philadelphia was full of brotherly loveand was therefore approved by the Lord.” Yet Christ doesn’t commend the church in Philadelphia for its brotherly love; he approved it for keeping His word and not denying His name (Rev. 3:8,10)

For each of the 7 churches we should ask—what is alleged link between the root meaning of the city’s name and the condition of the church located there? How do we know the readers were supposed to decode the hidden message in the etymology of the city’s name? How can we substantiate the alleged ‘encoded message’ to the church in Ephesus that it was “still desirable to the Lord”? Where is the proof that the Lord approved the church in Philadelphia because it was “full of brotherly love” (rather than for other reasons)? Without evidence these claims are mere conjecture. On the other hand, if the ‘encoded message’ implicit in city’s name matches the Lord’s explicit message to the church, then that implicit, encoded, message is redundant.

Consider a contemporary example. It is widely held that Chicago is named after a wild onion and means ‘bad smell.’ On this basis are we justified in asserting that the Church in Chicago has a ‘bad odor’? More extensive investigation led researchers to conclude that Chicago bears the name of the native garlic, chicagoua.100 This might seem more positive than ‘bad smell.” However, W. Lee stigmatized Christianity as a ‘garlic room’ tainted with idolatry, division and tradition. He also asserts that garlic represents101 “worldly things, such as dancing and gambling.” Given these associations, based on the etymology of “Chicago,” can we attribute these traits to the LSM-affiliated church in that city? Is it valid to assert that, since “Chicago” is related to garlic, therefore LSM’s Church in Chicago is tainted with idolatry, division and tradition? Surely the answer is ‘No.’ Yet LSM’s publications feature this type of speculative exegesis. Consider deductions drawn from the name “Laodicea.”

Example #7: Laodicea--‘Devilish’ Degraded Democracy in the Church
In LSM’s publications the term “Laodicea” is pejorative, especially compared to “Philadelphia.” Consider W. Nee’s exposition; he says,102 “Laodicea is a distorted Philadelphia. When brotherly love is gone, Philadelphia immediately turns into the opinions of many. This is the meaning of the word Laodicea... Lao [sic] in Greek means ‘many people’ and dikea or dicea means ‘opinion.’ As soon as Philadelphia becomes degraded, the ‘brothers’ become the ‘many people,’ and its ‘brotherly love’ becomes ‘the opinions of the many.’ ...The opinion of the Lord is lost, and the only things left are the vote of the majority, ballots, and the show of hands. Once Philadelphia falls, it becomes Laodicea.” Notice that these deductions are based solely on the cities’ names, which are interpreted etymologically to refer to the churches.

Watchman Nee infers that Laodicea’s problems are related to its democratic practices—“the vote of the majority, ballots, and the show of hands”--but there is nothing explicit in the biblical text itself (Rev. 3:7-22) to support this view.
W. Nee interprets the name “Laodicea” negatively. However, other expositors put a “positive spin” on its meaning. For example, Lynn Hiles, writes,103 “The word Laodicea literally means ‘the justice of the people’ coming from the root in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon meaning to deal with a suit at law, a judicial hearing or sentence. It also infers a condemnation or execution of a sentence or punishment. I believe that the primary thought to this church is that, in Christ, their judgment has already been met.” So, according to this exposition, the church in Laodicea is justified, approved by God! This ‘creative interpretation’ would receive a knee-jerk rejection by LSM-adherents because it doesn’t match LSM’s “interpreted word.” Yet both this interpretation and LSM’s rely on illegitimate etymological reasoning; both ought to be rejected.

As expected W. Lee adopts W. Nee’s exposition. He asserts,104 “democracy should not exist in the church life.” W. Lee makes this assertion based on similar reasoning; he alleges,105 “The main meaning of the Greek name Laodicea is the opinion, the judgment, of the people. When a local church is full of peoples' opinions, it surely will become neither cold nor hot.” Again, based solely on the etymology of the name, “Laodicea,” the church is said to be lukewarm due to peoples’ opinions. On this basis democratic practices in the church are denounced. W. Lee asserts,106 “It is a shame to have democracy in the church...A local church that practices democracy is like the church in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14). ‘Laodicea’ in Greek means the opinion of the people. The church in Laodicea typifies the church in degradation. The ‘germs’ of democracy have come into some of the churches. This teaching of democracy in the church is a wind of teaching, a devilish blowing of the evil one.” Witness Lee reserves his harshest criticism for “democracy in the church;” it is denounced as a “wind of teaching, a devilish blowing of the evil one [Satan].” Yet what is the Biblical basis for this critique? Only the etymological root of “Laodicea.” Yes, the Lord critiques this church on many points, but democracy (peoples’ opinion) is not one of them! Neither is there any indication in the biblical text that the Apostle John expected his readers to draw this implication from his writing. These inferences are based upon invalid etymologizing. Skeptics would ask whether, in this case, an Asian cultural concept—antipathy to democracy—has not been clothed with a Scriptural garb so it can masquerade as “biblical truth.”

Example #8: The Nicolaitans
The deviant group called “Nicolaitans” appear only in Revelation (2:6, 15). This poses a problem for expositors since they are not identified elsewhere in the NT or extra-biblical literature. Most interpreters limit themselves to what can be directly inferred from the text of Scripture. Rev. 2:14-15 suggests the Nicolaitans attempted to seduce God’s people into idolatry and sexual immorality, perhaps disguising such license as freedom in Christ.107 W. Nee and W. Lee however, make further assertions based upon the etymological dissection of the term. W. Nee alleges that,108 “The word ‘Nicolaitans’ is composed of two words in the original language. The first word, ‘Nico,’ means to conquer and to subdue. The second word, ‘laitan,’ means the people or the common man. The two words are combined to form ‘Nicolaitans,’ which means those who conquer the people or those who subdue the common man. Hence, the Nicolaitans are none other than those who oppress, control, and subdue other brothers in the church because they are found in the church. The teaching of the Nicolaitans says that there should be hierarchy in the church and there should be a distinction between the rank of the clergy and the laity. As far as the meaning of the word goes, there is another significance which is very obvious: [Rev. 2:14-15] mentioned the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans together. Balaam is a Hebrew word, while Nicolaitans is a Greek word. We have seen that in Greek, the word ‘Nicolaitans’ has the sense of subduing the people, but in Hebrew, the word ‘Balaam’ also has a similar meaning. The word ‘Balaam’ means ‘those who devour the people’! As Balaam taught Balak to induce the Israelites to join themselves to the world, the Nicolaitans in the same way turned the church organization into a worldly community.”

Once again these assertions are based solely on the etymological roots of names ‘Nicolaitan’ and ‘Balaam.’ This is another instance of the root fallacy. The text of Scripture itself gives no indication that the underlying problem is hierarchy. Rather the text points towards idolatry and immorality. Prof. Paul Treblico examines this etymological hypothesis, but rejects it, since “It is not clear that readers of Revelation would have understood this etymological derivation.”109 Dr. Treblico concurs with Prof. Richard “Bauckham [who] has another suggestion which better explains the name. He notes that the name ‘Nicolaitan’ shows they are followers of Nicolaus...‘the name Nicolaus is aptly explained by that of Balaam (Rev. 2:14)...who destroyed many Israelites ...by idolatry and fornication’.”110 We note that these scholars find the significance of the “Nicolaitans,” not in its etymology, but in its association with Balaam’s teaching mentioned explicitly in John’s writings.

Predictably Witness Lee adopts W. Nee’s notion of hierarchy, asserting that,111 “The word ‘Nicolaitans’ is an equivalent of the Greek word nikolaitai, the root of which is nikolaos, composed of two Greek words—niko and laos. Niko means conquer or above others. Laos means common people, secular people, or laity. So Nikolaos means conquering the common people, climbing above the laity. Nicolaitans, then, must refer to a group who esteem themselves higher than the common believers. This was undoubtedly the hierarchy formed and established by Catholicism and Protestantism.” We note that Witness Lee’s dogmatic assertions–“must... undoubtedly”—are based solely on etymologizing.

This dubious exposition gives W. Lee grounds for denouncing other Christian Churches. He says,112 “In both Roman Catholicism and the Protestant denominations, there is a hierarchical organization...The teaching of the Nicolaitans is that only the clergy are qualified and positioned to preach, to speak for the Lord. The others are so-called laymen. This is hierarchy.” Plus, he asserts that,113 “The teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans are the teachings of today's Protestant churches. These teachings build up the organized system of Christianity. If we are going to be an overcoming believer, we have to conquer the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans.” All these implications are based on,114 “the root fallacy [which] presupposes that every word[‘s]...meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word.”But “all this,” says Dr. D. A. Carson “is linguistic nonsense.”These deductions are fallacious on two counts: [1] As D. A. Carson states, “The meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology.”115 [2] As Dr. Moises Silva states, “We cannot presume that an author would necessarily be aware of a word’s etymology. And if he was, we cannot assume, without some evidence, that he intended his readers to grasp the connection.”116 In the present context no such evidence exists.

Invalid Implications for Church Governance
By combining their expositions of ‘Laodicea’ and ‘Nicolaitans,’ LSM draws strong implications about church governance. Hence W. Nee observes that,117 “In Revelation 2 and 3, the Lord specifically pointed out His rejection and hatred of both Laodikeia and Nikolaos. It is wrong to...resort to the principle of the majority...It is wrong for church affairs to be determined by one person or a few persons...This is the work of the Nicolaitans.” Based on this, W. Nee concluded that,118 “The way to conduct business in the church is not by dictatorship. Neither is it by...democracy. Decisions in the church are not arrived at through voting or the consensus of a few. Rather the responsible brothers make the decisions. But the responsible brothers must see ...there is the order of spiritual leadership. In the church there is no democracy and there is no dictatorship ...Among the 17 deacons, one must be the leader. Among the five elders, one must be responsible...” Note the phrase “no democracy...no dictatorship...[but] one must be the leader.” Such teachings provided a ‘Scriptural basis’ for Watchman Nee and Witness Lee (in their respective eras) to be revered as “the one responsible leader,” endued with spiritual authority, through whom God exercised His theocracy in the “Lord’s Recovery.” From this perspective LSM’s etymological errors are far from innocuous; their influence continues today
.
Example #9: Over-emphasizing Distinctions between Synonyms—Oida vs. Ginosko
LSM’s publications frequently draw distinctions between Greek terms rendered by the same English word. A prime example is the verb, ‘to know.’ W. Nee states,119 “There are two words in theGreeklanguage that mean ‘ to know’:ginoskoandoida. The former is objective, whereas the latter is subjective.” W. Lee expounds this difference in the context of Heb. 8:11, “They shall by no means teach each one...his brother, saying,Knowthe Lord, for all shallknowMe...” He says,120 “In this verse two Greek words are used for know:the first is ginosko,which signifies the outward, objective knowledge; the second is oida,which refers to the inward, subjective consciousness. In John 8:55 the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees that they did not know (ginosko)God the Father (even in the outward, objective knowledge), and that He did know (oida)the Father (in the inward, subjective consciousness).” Evidently W. Nee derived this notion from121 John N. Darby and W. Lee followed him. W. Nee & W. Lee then proceed to apply this distinction to many NT passages--Matt. 26:70; Mark 4:13; Luke 12:39; 13:22-30; John 1:26, 31; 8:19, 55; 13:7; 21:17; Rom. 6:6, 9, 18; 1 Cor. 8:1-5, 7, 10; 12:2; 16:15; 2 Cor. 5:16; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:12; 3:14-15; 1 John 2:29 cited by W. Nee &/or W. Lee. This creates the impression there is a clear distinction between these two Greek words which applies across the entire New Testament.

Selective Presentation—Tampering with Biblical Evidence
LSM’s presentation gives the appearance that an invariant principle exists whereby ginosko always signifies outward, objective knowledge, whereas, oida,regularly refers to an inward, subjective consciousness. However this misleading impression is generated by a biased selection from all the NT occurrences of these verbs. No instance which violates this distinction is ever presented; all the cases discussed support this hypothesis. But is this presentation intellectually honest? Duval & Hays denounce such selective presentations, saying,122 “When we cite just the evidence that supports our favored interpretation...we commit the selective evidence fallacy. This error is particularly dangerous because here we are intentionally tampering with the biblical evidence.” Yet counter-examples to LSM’s ginosko-oida distinction abound. In Mark an unclean spirit tells Jesus, “I know [oida] who you are—the Holy One of God” (1:24). We ask, do unclean spirits really have an “inward, subjective consciousness” [oida] of Jesus? In John 17 while praying to the Father, Jesus declares “eternal life is to know [ginosko—an outward, objective knowledge of] the only true God...and Jesus Christ” (John 17:3, RcV.).Yet, wouldn’t we expect an “inward, subjective, experiential knowledge” [oida] to be linked with eternal life?

In John chapter 9 Jesus heals a man blind from birth. In John’s narrative the verb “know” occurs eleven times. Strikingly, in every case the Greek verb is oida, never ginosko. However, applying W. Nee’s and W. Lee’s distinction between subjective and objective knowing, we would expect ginosko to be used in some cases. The blind man is asked, “Where is he [Jesus]?” He answers, “I do not know (oida).” (John 9:12). They are merely asking for objective information—what’s his location? This is not an inner, subjective knowledge! Likewise the Pharisees say: “We do not know (oida) where he [Jesus] is from. The man answered..., ‘Here is an amazing thing, that you do not know (oida) where He is from, andyetHe opened my eyes’!” (John 9:29-30) Again, knowing where Jesus is from is objective information; what’s his home town? We expect the verb, ginosko since this is not a matter of inner, subjective knowledge!

W. Nee appeals to the Greek OT for support, saying,123 “The Old Testament also speaks ofoida(1 Sam. 3:7). Samuel already objectivelyginoskoed Jehovah, but he did not subjectivelyoidaHim.” However, the Greek OT also uses the verb, “know” in other contexts—e.g. “Adam knew Eve, his wife, she conceived...” (Gen. 4:1). Here the verb is ginosko, but, in this case, Adam’s “knowing” of Eve, his wife, was surely subjective and experiential!

Regarding such distinctions Prof. Moises Silva warns,124 “The greater the weight placed on distinctions among synonyms, the more likely it is that such distinctions are being overstated. For example, the Greek verbs oida and ginosko can both be translated ‘know’....This claim...does not fully take into account the many passages where such a distinction is not present.” Yet we note that W. Nee and W. Lee never point to an instance where these two verbs are used interchangeably, with no distinction in meaning. Hence they leave the impression there is always a meaningful distinction between the two Greek verbs. Thus they over-emphasize the difference between these synonyms. Dr. Douglas Moo observes,125 “There has been a long history of over-emphasizing these kinds of distinctions. Some interpreters wrongly assume that two Greek words with similar meanings in English always have a different nuance. Especially, then, when the biblical writer shifts from one of these words to another it is automatically assumed that he intends a difference in meaning...But, as contemporary linguistic studies have shown, words with a similar meaning (i.e., synonyms) may have distinct nuances, but are sometimes used with exactly the same connotation.”

These scholars agree that the Greek verbs, oida and ginosko may have different nuances in some biblical contexts. However, the majority of commentators argue that the difference (when it exists) is the reverse of that claimed by W. Nee & W. Lee. Thus Prof. Moises Silva says,126 “The most frequent suggested distinction between these verbs is that the latter [ginosko] can more easily be used in contexts that deal with the acquisition of knowledge. Accordingly, oida is often found where such acquisition is not in view...Some scholars proceed to argue that ginosko refers specifically to experiential knowledge, that is something acquired through experience as opposed to innate or intuitive knowledge.” Notice that these expositors argue that ginosko refers to experiential knowledge, whereas oida relates to “innate or intuitive knowledge.” An explicit example is Gregory C. Carlson who states that,127 “Two words from the Greek NT are translated ‘know.’ One, oida, often means to ‘know with certainty.’ The other, ginosko, means to ‘know experientially’.” Moreover, Kenneth S. Wuest—one of W. Lee’s resources--commenting on 2 Tim. 1:12 “I know [oida] whom I have believed...” says,128 “The word ‘know’ is not ginosko, ‘experiential knowledge,’ but oida, ‘absolute, beyond...a doubt knowledge’... The knowledge here [oida] is not personal knowledge gained by experience...” We note that W. Lee’s sources—Darby129 & Wuest--contradict each other in terms of which verb represents subjective, experiential knowledge.

We conclude that W. Nee & W. Lee overemphasize the distinction between these Greek words and that the nature of the distinction (when it exists) is uncertain, given the contradictory conclusions of scholars (e.g. Darby vs. Wuest). We ask, in this situation, given W. Nee’s and W. Lee’s rudimentary knowledge of biblical languages, how much confidence can be placed in their pronouncements on this issue and similar issues?

Example #10: Word-Concept Fallacy--Apapao vs. Phileo
The Word-Concept fallacy arises from “confusing word with concept (failing to recognize that ideas are rarely expressed at the word level alone),”130 says Professor David Alan Black. More specifically this discredited approach “attempts to link theological concepts with individual words in the [Greek] language with the unfortunate result that, often, particular words are said to have special theological meaning in and of themselves and in virtually all contexts,” says Professor Stanley E. Porter.131 This flaw was common in Gerhard Kittel’s TDNT and it was a major point of Prof. James Barr’s critique. Bible scholars now recognize that a complex relationship exists between theological concepts and biblical words. “We cannot assume a one-to-one correspondence between [theological] concepts and [Greek NT] words,”132 notes Dr. Ben Cooper.

Consider, for e.g., W. Lee’s definition of agape, a Greek term rendered ‘love.’ Commenting on 2 Peter 1:7, he says, “The Greek word [agape] is used in the New Testament for the divine love, which God is in His nature (1 Jn. 4:8, 16). It is nobler than human love...It is stronger in ability and greater in capacity than human love.”133 W. Lee contrasts agape with phileo, another Greek term for love, defined as “to have affection for...aloveof delight and pleasure.” He says,134 “TheGreekwordforlovein [2 Pet. 1:7] isagape,thewordused in the New Testament for thedivine love, which God is in His nature (1 John 4:8, 16)...Agapeis nobler thanphileo.In quality and perhaps also in quantity agapeis greater than phileo...Agape,[is] the deep and noblelovewith which God the Fatherlovesall mankind, both believers and sinners.” Two major points emerge: First, W. Lee posits a clear distinction between these two Greek terms for love—“agape,” he asserts “is nobler thanphileo.In quality and perhaps also in quantity agapeis greater than phileo.” Second, he identifies “agape [as]theword used in the New Testament for thedivine love...with which God the Father lovesall mankind.” Hence a theological concept—God’s love--is linked to a particular Greek word, agape. Whenever this word occurs in the New Testament text W. Lee asserts that God’s love is involved. Hence, the believers’ ‘love feasts’ (Greek: agape) in Jude 12 are described as, “Feasts of love motivated by God's love (the higher love).”135

Once again LSM gives a biased presentation of the biblical evidence. Only those cases which ‘fit’ Witness Lee’s hypothesis receive comment in his writings and footnotes. Counter-examples are never noted. Bock & Fanning regard this “selective evidence fallacy” as “perhaps the most serious error...wherein one only cites the evidence that favors the interpretation one wants to defend.”136 Yet, significant counter-examples exist: 2 Peter 2:15 tells us Balaam “loved (agapao) the wages of unrighteousness,” 2 Tim. 4:10 says that Demas “loved (agapao) the present world.” In these cases, how can this be the “higher, nobler love”? Plus agapao and phileo are both used to denote the Father’s love for the Son-- John 5:20 says, “the Father loves (phileo) the Son...” The phrase, “the disciple Jesus loved” occurs four times in John’s Gospel, three times the verb is agapao, once it is phileo (20:2)

What are we to make of this? Professor Darrell L. Bock points out that agape is used nine times in 1 Cor. 13. In this context, he says, it refers to the137 “deep, genuine, selfless love, a love characteristic of God, a divine love. Yet this meaning is not intrinsic to the noun agape or its cognate verb, agapao. This is contrary to much popular exposition, which suggests that this word is used in the NT, because...only this word can capture something of the meaning of divine love. However, such an understanding will not stand up under scrutiny. In the Greek OT agape/agapao are used of Ammon’s incestuous love for his sister, Tamar, a love that ultimately ends in rape. Agapao is used for Shechem’s ‘love’ for Jacob’s daughter, Dinah (Gen. 34:3). In the NT 2 Pet. 2:15 says Balaam ‘loved (agapao) the wages of unrighteousness,’ 2 Tim. 4:10 says Demas ‘loved (agapao) the present world.’ Agapao and phileo are used interchangeably to denote the Father’s love for the Son (John 3:35 agapao, John 5:20 phileo)...‘It is not the word itself that conveys the sense of divine love but the context’138.”

Witness Lee’s exegetical error lies in identifying God’s own love with a particular Greek term, agape. He says, “The Greek word [agape] is used in the New Testament for the divine love...”139 This is the Word-concept fallacy. However, as John H. Hayes points out,140 “Generally individual words or phrases are not in themselves the bearers of special theological meaning...The NT word for love, agape, should not automatically be taken to mean some special form of self-giving concern [e.g. God’s love].” Dr. D. A. Carson concurs, saying,141 “There is nothing in the words agape and agapao themselves to suggest that the love of which John speaks is invariably spontaneous, self-generated, without reference to the loved one [i.e., God’s love]...This does not mean that for John there is no such thing as spontaneous, self-generated love, only that it is not tied to a single word-group.” Again Prof. Carson concludes,142 “there is nothing intrinsic to the verb [agapao] or the noun [agape] to prove that its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love--[e.g. the divine love].”

Peter’s Love for the Lord
The two Greek terms for love also occur in Jesus’ interaction with Peter in John 21:15-17. In this context Witness Lee emphasizes the distinction between the two verbs. He points out that, when Jesus asks about Peter’s love, “agapaois used in the Lord’s question, andphileois used in Peter’s answer. This indicates,” W. Lee asserts 143 “that Peter did not dare to say that helovedthe Lord Jesus with ahigher, noblerlove.” This exposition assumes there is a meaningful distinction between the two terms, of which both the Lord and Peter were aware. Evidently, Peter could only affirm a lower, less-noble love for Christ.

However, given the considerable overlap in meaning between agapao and phileo, plus John’s interchangeable use of these terms, modern expositors reject this distinction. Prof. Craig Blomberg, observes,144 “Despite many popular sermons distinguishing between Jesus’ word for love (agapao) and Peter’s (phileo), this is probably mere stylistic variation. John also uses two different words for ‘sheep’ in this passage and two for ‘tend,’ without implying any significant distinctions. While in certain contexts biblical writers use agapao for a divine love and phileo for a brotherly love, in other places the distinction is not observed (e.g., 2 Sam. 13:4; Jn. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:15). With nothing in this context [John 21] to demands the distinction, it is risky to assume it is present.” Contemporary handbooks also reject LSM’s hypothesis; BDAG’s Greek-English Lexicon, comments concerning John 21 that,145“[Agapaoandphileo]seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the frequent interchange of synonyms elsewhere in the same chapter...” Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, says146 “Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between [agapao and phileo], it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in John 21:15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition.” Hence contemporary scholars reject W. Lee’s interpretation of Jn. 21 as an unwarranted overemphasis on a distinction between synonyms. They view it as merely a stylistic variation characteristic of John’s narrative.

Example #11: Logos vs. Rhema —‘Constant Word’ vs. ‘Instant Word’
A further example of LSM’s overemphasis on the distinction between synonyms is provided by two Greek terms, both translated as ‘word’ in English—logos vs. rhema. W. Lee posits a clear and definite distinction between them. He says,147 the “two classifications of thewordin the New Testament arelogosand rhema.The Greekword logos refers to theconstantword(Col. 3:16). What is revealed and written in the Holy Scriptures is theconstantword, the writtenword, the remainingword, thewordthat stands for eternity. The Greek word rhema refers to theinstantword(Eph. 6:17)...By reading the Bible, we can receive the constant wordof God. Theconstantword [logos], however, is not so powerful, living, working, energizing, or operating within us until it becomes theinstantword [rhema]. When theconstantword [logos]becomes theinstantword [rhema], it becomes living, and it works or operates to accomplish God's purpose in us and with us.” Hence W. Lee clearly distinguishes between the two types of ‘word’—logos and rhema, the ‘constant and instant word’ (respectively).

Moreover, in W. Lee’s view the two terms are related in a particular way; He says,148 “The writtenwordin the Bible is the logos. But when you read thelogos, the Spirit will use a sentence, a phrase, or even a singlewordto inspire you, and that wordwill become theinstantword...By this we see how theconstantwordbecomes the instant word, how the logos becomes therhema.” Moreover he suggests rhema ranks above logos, since logos “is not so powerful, living, working, energizing, or operating within us” as rhema. No doubt most Christians have the experience described, whereby “the Spirit will use a sentence, a phrase, or even a singleword[of Scripture] to inspire you.” But note that Witness Lee is more definitive; he links this type of experience to specific Greek words, logos and rhema.

LSM’s Recovery Version notes that rhema, the ‘instant word,’ occurs in Matt. 4:4; John 6:63, 68; 15:7; 17:8; Acts 5:20, 32; 10:37; Eph. 5:26; 6:17; Heb. 1:3; 6:5; 11:3; 1 Pet. 1:25. Once again LSM is guilty of selective evidence bias—only cases that appear to support this distinction are presented. Cases which don’t fit are ignored. Thus the impression is given that this distinction is always meaningful; the two terms are never used interchangeably. Yet counter-examples exist. Compare Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of Peter’s denial:
“Peter remembered the word (rhema) which Jesus had said, ‘Before a rooster crows, you shall deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matt 26:75, RcV)

“…Peter remembered the word (logos) of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went outside and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:61, 62, RcV)
The two accounts are virtually identical, yet Matthew uses the term, rhema, while Luke uses, logos. Surely in this case, no reputable expositor would suggest a significant difference in meaning is intended or implied! Consider also the function of God’s Word as a sword. Eph. 6:17 links the Word to “sword of the Spirit.” W. Lee comments,149 “The Greekwordfor wordin Eph. 6:17 isrhema,theinstantwordspoken at any moment by the Spirit in any situation. When thelogos, theconstantwordin the Bible, becomes therhema...Thisrhema,which becomes the Spirit, is the swordthat cuts the enemy to pieces.” This suggests God’s rhema-word is the sword, not the logos-word. However, Heb. 4:12 says God’s Word is sharper than any two-edged sword. LSM’s note says,150 “The Greek word denotes theconstantword [logos] of God. Here it refers to the word...quoted from the Old Testament...That word is living, operative, and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We conclude from this that both God’s rhema-word and His logos-word function as a sword. Rhema is not superior to logos. Due to such cases Dr Gary Shogren labels as “Myth,” the proposition “the two words for ‘word’ (rhema, logos) don’t overlap.”151 Conversely, he labels as “Fact,” the statement “they often overlap and are used interchangeably.”

1 Peter 1:23-25 contains both logos & rhema. It says, “Having been regenerated...through the living & abiding word [logos] of God. For ‘all flesh is like grass...The grass has withered, & the flower fallen off, But the word [rhema] of the Lord abides forever.’ [Quoting Isa. 40:8] And this is the word [rhema]...announced to you as the gospel.” LSM notes that,152 “Wordin v. 23 refers to theconstantword [logos];wordhere (used twice [in v. 25]) refers to theinstantword [rhema]. When theconstantwordis spoken to us, it becomes the instant word.” This comment suggests the logos-rhema distinction is significant here. However, Professor Thomas R. Schreiner observes that,153 “The word of God is identified as logos in [1 Pet. 1] v. 23 and rhema in [1 Pet. 1] v. 25. The latter is likely used in v. 25 because it occurs in the citation from Isaiah 40:8. Therefore we should not try to establish a different meaning for the two terms. They are synonyms, both referring to the gospel.” Dr. Schreiner’s suggestion is appealing; Peter used rhema because that is the term used in the Greek OT in Isaiah 40:8, which Peter quotes (in v. 25a). Logos and rhema are used interchangeably here.

A more thorough analysis of the relation between rhema and logos is offered by David L. Allen. He observes,154 “Rhema has three semantic categories: word, statement, and event. The first two are sub-categories under the general semantic umbrella of communication. When rhema is used in the first sense, it connotes a minimal unit of discourse, sometimes a single word. When it is used in the sense of ‘statement,’ it connotes something stated or said with primary focus on the content of the communication. In this sense it is indistinguishable from logos in meaning and employment of either noun would be a matter of stylistic preference. The third sense of ‘event’ indicates a matter, thing or happening to which we may refer. Of these three semantic categories, it would appear that logos is not used in the first sense of a minimal unity of discourse or a single word, but is a synonym of rhema in the other two uses.” Dr. Allen concludes that in two of the three cases—“statement and event”—rhema & logos are synonyms and indistinguishable. As with other synonym pairs—agapao/phileo and oida/ginosko—Witness Lee exaggerates the difference between these two terms.

Example #12: Unwarranted Associative Fallacy—‘Holy, holy, holy’ because God is Triune
Our last example is the “unwarranted associative fallacy.” This error “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.”155 William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament at The Master’s Seminary, illustrates this pitfall, saying,156 “What the Bible student must do is to focus on what the Scriptures say, not on what he thinks the Scriptures imply. One example of this fallacy is the trinitarian interpretation of the four living creatures’ crying out ‘Holy, holy, holy’ in Rev 4:8.21.” These scholars conclude that it is fallacious to assert that the threefold praise--‘Holy, holy, holy’--proves that God exists in Trinity, that God’s three “Persons” are implied by the threefold repetition of the term, ‘holy.’ Yet Witness Lee makes exactly this assertion.

W. Lee states emphatically,157 “in Isaiah 6:3...the seraphim in the heavens give threefold praise toGod, saying, ‘Holy,holy, holy.’ The reason they praiseGodby repeating the word ‘holy’ three times is, without any doubt, because theGodwhom they praise is one-in-three.” Plus he asserts,158 “Rev. 4:8 says, ‘The four living creatures …have no rest day and night, saying,Holy,holy,holy, LordGodthe Almighty...’ The mentioning of ‘holy’ three times, as in Isaiah 6:3, implies the thought ofGodbeing triune...the Triune God is holyand is triplyholy...”

Witness Lee extrapolates this exposition one step further by relating the Trinity’s three ‘Persons’ to the OT priests’ threefold blessing upon Israel and the NT believers’ threefold request in the ‘Lord’s prayer.’ He says,159 “According to the record in Num. 6:24-26,Godtold the priests to bless the children of Israel with 3 requests. The first request would be carried out byGodthe Father, the second request byGodthe Son, and the third request byGodthe Spirit. In Isaiah 6:3, when praisingGod, the seraphim also say consecutively, “Holy, holy, holy.” In the New Testament in Matt. 6:9-10 there are also 3 requests in the Lord's prayer. The first request is carried out byGodthe Father, the second request byGodthe Son, and the third request byGodthe Spirit. Furthermore, in Rev. 4:8, when praisingGodthe four living creatures also say consecutively, ‘Holy,holy,holy.’ Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, prayer on the earth always consists of 3 requests, and praise in the heavens always consists of 3holys. Thus, by inference, we can conclude thatGodis trulytriune.” All these triplets, W. Lee asserts, are “because theGodto whom we petition, pray, and praise istriune.”160 But, all this is unwarranted extrapolation; there is nothing in Num. 6 or Matt. 6 that implies “The first request would be carried out byGodthe Father, the 2nd request byGodthe Son, and the 3rd request byGodthe Spirit.” In the ‘Lord’s Prayer,’ all three requests are explicitly addressed to God the Father, “Our Father...”

Triplets in Scripture do not automatically imply the Trinity! Prof. William D. Barrick explains their significance and points out biblical counter-examples. He says,161 “One example of this fallacy is the trinitarian interpretation of the four living creatures’ crying out ‘Holy, holy, holy’ in Rev 4:8.21. The multiple adjectival declaration [‘Holy, holy, holy’] is actually an emphatic Semitic triplet. Other such triplets include ‘a ruin, a ruin, a ruin’ (Ezek. 21:27) or ‘land, land, land’ (Jer. 22:29). What kind of threefold existence might the creative interpreter dream up for these occurrences? This fallacy falls into the category of logical fallacies…” The fact of the Triune God is testified adequately in Scripture (e.g. Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). Efforts to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity by finding “additional proofs” in Scripture’s threefold declarations are unwarranted.

Conclusions
By conventional standards Witness Lee was an ‘amateur’162 in biblical languages—OT Hebrew and NT Greek. He had only a rudimentary, self-taught knowledge of New Testament Greek. He knew no Hebrew. He relied on outdated word studies, lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine & Kittel). These traits plus a dismissive attitude towards scholarship & boundless self-confidence made W. Lee liable to etymological errors and exegetical fallacies. Meanwhile he was blissfully ignorant of the revolution in biblical linguistics which began with Prof. James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) and was continued by other notable scholars. This revolution exposed the numerous errors and fallacies inherent in the earlier word studies on which W. Lee relied. For example, the etymological fallacy assumes the original linguistic root denotes the word’s “true meaning’ which is embodied in all subsequent cognates of a word. Yet we know from English that etymology is often misleading. For example, the word ‘robot’ derives from the Czech word ‘robota,’ meaning ‘forced labor’ or ‘slavery.’ Yet today it has no connotation of human serfdom. The same principle holds for Greek words. As Gene L. Green says,163 “Word meaning cannot be determined by etymology or examination of the root of any particular word...Barr’s cautions have become axiomatic, and no commentator worth their salt would dare engage such practices in the exegesis and exposition of the biblical text.” Evidently Dr. Green is unaware of LSM’s local churches where biblical exposition remains trapped in the “dark ages” of etymological error, and where the obsolete word-studies & dictionaries of Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine and Kittel are still quoted as final authorities in LSM Recovery Version footnotes & Life-study publications.

Invalid dissections of Greek words also occurred because “The root fallacy [led to] the mistaken belief that a word's meaning is the sum of its components.”164 However, in both English and Greek, dissecting a compound word into its components is often misleading. The word ‘ladybug,’ could be parsed into ‘lady’ plus ‘bug,’ suggesting they are always female insects—a false deduction. The error is obvious to native English-speakers. However, unfamiliarity with NT Greek leaves the reader vulnerable to such pitfalls in that language. In this case (as in others) a little knowledge of Greek is dangerous. Witness Lee’s rudimentary knowledge of Greek and obsolete linguistic resources, plus the fact that his ‘helpers’ with greater language facility served as ‘cheer-leaders’ instead of correctives, left him highly vulnerable to such exegetical fallacies and etymological errors.

W. Lee failed to detect etymological errors in The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–65). This book165 asserts that key Roman Catholic icons originated 4,000 years ago in primeval Babel with Nimrod. Witness Lee cited Hislop’s Two Babylons repeatedly in his scathing critique of Catholicism. This work is “Hislop’s Fables;” it takes myth as historical fact and weaves a web of etymological error. Professor F. F. Bruce illustrates Hislop’s “etymological inventiveness;” “for him ‘cannibal’...was Aramaic kahnā Ba‘al, ‘priest of Baal’.” Hence, Nimrod’s priests were cannibals! This is naïve phonetics—‘cannibal’ sounds like the Aramaic kahnā Ba‘al. He claims “Easter” derives from “Ishtar,” an Assyrian goddess, since they sound similar. Dr. Bruce notes, “This kind of argument...has been invalid for something like three-quarters of a century...Philology no longer depends on fortuitous similarities. The laws of...language have been...recorded, and etymologies must conform to these.” W. Lee failed to detect such etymological errors. Worse still he promoted Hislop’s outdated & discredited views.

Examining LSM’s publications we have illustrated cases of the etymological root fallacy, invalid word-dissections, the reverse etymological fallacy, illegitimate totality transfer, the selective evidence fallacy, the word-concept fallacy and the unwarranted associative fallacy. Illustrative examples include key Greek words—ekklesia, parakletos, oikonomia, dunamis, proginosko, Laodicea, Nicolaitans, oida/ginosko, logos/rhema & agapao/phileo. These cases are merely the ‘tip of the iceberg;’ we could add many more examples. W. Lee’s exposition of Revelation’s 7 churches is rife with etymologizing. The etymological root meaning of each city’s name is used to characterize the church in that city—a tenuous expositional procedure. Moreover this case demonstrates that such errors are far from innocuous. LSM’s diatribe against democracy in the church is based largely on the etymology of the names “Laodicea & Nicolaitans.” Based on this W. Lee asserts,166 “democracy in the church is a wind of teaching, a devilish blowing of the evil one.” Yet there is nothing in the biblical text to suggest that the Apostle John intended his readers to draw these inferences. These exegetical fallacies and etymological errors undermine the value of LSM’s NT Recovery Version and Life-study commentaries. Readers are advised to treat every comment by LSM regarding Greek words with a high degree of skepticism..

Lastly, some might ask—“what about the non-LSM local churches in the Great Lakes Area?” Are these GLA churches in the same situation as LSM’s “local churches”? The short answer is: Yes, (sadly) the situation is the same. In this aspect, “the apple has not fallen far from the tree.” The same kinds of etymological errors are committed and similar exegetical fallacies are perpetuated in ministry to regional gatherings of GLA churches. Too often the standard set of outdated word studies & dictionaries--Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine, Kittel, etc.--are treated as a “buffet” from which the desired definition is selected which “fits our vision” or is “consistent with our historical commitment.” However, this practice involves a further fallacy—“Appealing to an unknown or unlikely meaning of a word, due to the interpreter’s theological presuppositions...”167 A full analysis of non-LSM, Great Lakes’ churches’ situation requires another article, which may be forthcoming in due course.

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
August, 2014

Notes: “LSM’s Etymological Errors & Exegetical Fallacies” would be a more descriptive title; “LSM’s Etymological Errors” should be taken as a short form. Thanks to those commenting on earlier drafts. The author alone is responsible for the contents of this piece. The views expressed here are solely the author’s and should not be attributed to any believers, elders, co-workers or churches with whom/which he is associated. In view of the topic, the author wishes to emphasize that he claims no more than a rudimentary personal knowledge of NT Greek. He has sought therefore to rely on primary & secondary sources and to quote the findings & views of qualified scholars. Lastly he admits committing his share of etymological errors & exegetical fallacies in the past and hopes to do better in the future.
W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap 7, Sect. 2. We quote these statements with no intention to disparage W. Lee or W. Nee. Our purpose is merely to provide the appropriate context for evaluating W. Lee’s statements about biblical languages. Concerning Watchman Nee, W. Lee says in his biography, “Watchman Nee did not attend a theological school or Bible Institute. Most of what he learned...was acquired through studying the Bible and reading the books of spiritual men.” [W. Lee, Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation..., p. 23]
W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 8, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2
W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning...the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 11, Sect. 2. “The sentence reads: “We did not study Greek, yet we had dictionaries, lexicons, & concordances to help us in our study.”
W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2, emphasis added. The quote, in context, reads: “Although I am not a Greek scholar, my explanation of the New Testament Greek is based on the study of past Greek scholars. The Greek commentaries of the New Testament that I regularly use are the best and the most authoritative. When I look up a word, I get into all the reference books. Many footnotes in the Recovery Version of the New Testament are the extracts of the best reference books.” [W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2] Note the phrase: “the best reference books.”
LSM’s Recovery Version of the NT footnotes contain 13 references to John N. Darby (1800-1888), 15 references to Henry Alford (1810 – 1871), 18 references to Marvin Vincent (1834--1922); 3 references to Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687 – 1752), 1 citation of Kenneth Wuest (1893 – 1962), zero references to W. E. Vine, D. M. Panton, R. Govett & G. Kittel. LSM’s English publications have over 600 references to John N. Darby (1800-1888), approx. 125 citations of David Morrieson Panton (1870 – 1955), over 100 references to Henry Alford (1810 – 1871), over 100 citations of George Hawkins Pember (1837--1910), approx. 80 references to Marvin Vincent (1834--1922), over 70 citations of Robert Govett, (1813 –1901), 23 citations of Kenneth Wuest (1893 – 1962), 10 references to Gerhard Kittel (1888 – 1948), 10 references to Fredrick Lewis Godet (1812—1900), 5 references to W. E. (William Edwy) Vine (1873 - 1949) [W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words was first published ~1940] There are 2 references to Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687 – 1752) in LSM’s publications. We note that LSM’s publications also have 19 references to The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–65), first issued as a pamphlet in 1853, expanded in 1858, and finally published as a book in 1919. [This is a discredited work, which ought to be entitled “Hislop’s Fables,” nevertheless LSM continues to cite it as an authoritative source.] The life-spans of these author give an indication of the publication dates of their works—weighted by frequency, the mean date would fall in the 19th-century! Only Wuest’s works & Panton’s writings were first published in the post-World War 2 era! W. Lee’s use of these sources is illustrated by the following quotes: “We have to learn to use the appropriate reference books and concordances. For example, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible has numbered and identified more than 5,600 Greek words which are used in the New Testament. At present, almost all the Bible expositors and those who pursue the truth use this book. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament written by Gerhard Kittel and the New Testament word study of Henry Alford both contain deep analysis on the meaning and usage of every significant word in the New Testament. We have to know how to use these reference books.” [W. Lee, Truth, Life, the Church, & the Gospel—The Four Great Pillars in the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 8, Sect. 4] “We need to study every word of every verse. For this, we need the Greek text. Even if we do not know Greek, we can use reference books, such as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, an interlinear Greek and English New Testament, and a Greek dictionary. We can also compare different versions, such as the American Standard Version, Darby's New Translation, the Amplified Bible, and Wuest's Expanded Translation. These references will render much help to us.” [W. Lee, Crucial Elements of God's Economy, Chap. 1, Sect. 4] “To study a book of the Bible word by word and according to different topics, we need the help of reference books such as Greek and Hebrew lexicons and concordances. The best two concordances are Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is a great help to us. Wuest's Expanded Translation, the Amplified Bible, and Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament also are helpful.” [W. Lee, Crucial Principles for the Christian Life & the Church Life, Chap. 8, Sect. 5] “The Greek word for truth is aletheia. In studying this word, I consulted a number of lexicons & concordances. I was especially helped by the article on truth in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, Chap. 9, Sect. 2]
There are 10 references to Gerhard Kittel (1888 – 1948) in LSM publications (English), notably to his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Gerhard Kittel edited the first 3 volumes in German of NWNT 1933-38. The English versions appeared 30 years later; the English translation of Vol. 1 was pub. 1963/64. The 10 volume English translation of TDNT was finished in 1976. In the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that G. Kittel was an ardent supporter of the German Nazi party. William F. Albright wrote that, "In view of the terrible viciousness of his attacks on Judaism and the Jews, which continued at least until 1943, Gerhard Kittel must bear the guilt of having contributed more, perhaps, than any other Christian theologian to the mass murder of Jews by Nazis.” Witness Lee emphasizes his use of Kittel’s works. For e.g. he says, “In my home there are close to 100 sets of books by different writers who are authorities on the Bible. For instance, there is a German writer named Gerhard Kittel whose work, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, specializes in New Testament word studies. He expounded, word for word, the Greek words used in the New Testament. There are ten volumes in this set. One Greek word can have eight to ten pages of explanation, expounding in detail the classic usage of the Greek word, how it was used during the time of the Lord Jesus on the earth, its fundamental usage in the Bible, and its common usage by the Greeks.” [W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap 7, Sect. 2] W. Lee commends Kittel’s TDNT highly saying, “There is a very good Greek dictionary—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament—which explains every word in the New Testament. It was written in German by a German brother whose last name was Kittel. The entire New Testament uses more than 7,600 Greek words, and Kittel’s research puts them into 10 big volumes, clearly indicating the usage of every Greek word. He explains the changes in their meanings from their most ancient uses to their classical usages. He also gives clear explanations of how the words were used when the Greek language pervaded the Mediterranean region. Not only so, in these volumes he also discusses the meanings of each word as used in the New Testament writings, as well as their meanings in ordinary usage outside of the biblical writings. From this book we see that Greek words have different usages according to 5 periods of time. Kittel points out all these usages for us. Because of this book we can get to the depths and carefully study every book of the New Testament.” [W. Lee, Speaking for God, Chap. 6, Sect. 5]
Witness Lee tells of receiving books from Watchman Nee, “He had given me Dean Alford's 4-volume work entitled The New Testament for English Readers. Dean Alford was an authority on the Greek words of the New Testament. This 4-volume set rendered me great help in knowing the Bible. The other books given to me by Brother Nee were John Nelson Darby's 5-volume Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. His synopsis of the Scriptures can be considered as the best among all the expositions.’ [W. Lee, History of the Church & the Local Churches, Chap 4, Sect 3]
W. Lee, Guidelines for the Propagation of the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 1, Sect. 2. Elsewhere W. Lee makes a similar comment, stating: “Very few spiritual publications of weight have been put out over the past 39 years. Many publications have been put out, but not one of them has spiritual weight and value. For the more than 20 years that I have been living in America, I have been observing the books put out in Christianity; some of the brothers have been helping me. It is difficult to find a book or a message that contains the light of truth or the supply of life. However, a group of scholars have done an excellent work over the past 10 years and put out several lexicons for the Greek New Testament. These books have helped us tremendously...All the Greek lexicons published in the past cannot compare to the quality of the Greek lexicons that were published during the past 10 years in America.” [W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 3: The Future of the Lord's Recovery & the Building Up of the Organic Service, Chap. 7, Sect. 3] Note W. Lee’s observations regarding Greek resources—That “scholars have done an excellent work over the past 10 years and put out several lexicons for the Greek New Testament.” However these statements are paradoxical, since W. Lee makes no explicit reference to contemporary Greek NT resources—lexicons, etc. All the Greek resources referenced by W. Lee date back decades in the past. Where is the evidence that W. Lee used the “Greek lexicons that were published during the past 10 years in America”? This author hasn’t found any such evidence. We also note W. Lee’s disparaging attitude towards theological education: “Today’s seminaries train their people to study all the old publications. They study church history, the historical study of theology, and the writings of the church fathers. They have degrees in theology, Hebrew, Greek, church history, and other items. The seminaries give people doctor’s degrees, but these degrees are in the old things. What they are actually doing is holding the Lord back. Today’s theological teachings hold the Lord back from going on in His recovery. I am not saying that all the books in the past are not good. Some of them may be good, but they are old. Some of you who graduated from a seminary can testify that you did not receive anything advanced or improved there. All you received were the old things.” [W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 1, Sect. 3, emphasis added] The following quotes are along the same lines: “For the past thirty or more years there has been no real progress in Christianity....Even though Christianity has not published any spiritual books of weight for the past 39 years, the Lord has released many riches among us. We received many riches when Brother Nee was alive, but the light we received in the Life-study messages has become even brighter.” [W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 3: Future of the Lord's Recovery & the Building Up of the Organic Service, Chap. 7, Sect. 4, emphasis added] “Since World War II, for 39 years, there has not been one publication that is weighty concerning Bible exposition, the divine life, or the truth. However, in the Lord's recovery, the 27 books of the New Testament have been clearly expounded and published in about 1,200 hundred Life-study messages with 12,000 pages.” [W. Lee, Guidelines for the Propagation of the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 1, Sect. 3, emphasis added]
W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 3: Future of the Lord's Recovery & the Building Up of the Organic Service, Chap. 7, Sect. 3
W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap 7, Sect. 2. By conventional standards, W. Lee was an ‘amateur” in terms of biblical languages. He writes “A person who studies the truth but does not know Greek can be considered an amateur...I never took a Greek class; neither was I taught...I am not a Greek scholar.” [W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2, emphasis added]
The quote, in context, reads: Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language “shook the foundations of the many attempts to do theology in the form of word studies, most notably the [G. Kittel’s] TDNT.” [Max Turner, “Modern Linguistics & the NT” in Joel B. Green (ed.) Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, p. 153] Dr. Max Turner was (until 2011) Professor of NT at London School of Theology, London, UK.
W. Lee, Truth, Life, the Church, & the Gospel—The 4 Great Pillars in the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 8, Sect. 4. W. Lee recommends Kittel’s work along with Alford’s saying: “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament written by Gerhard Kittel and the New Testament word study of Henry Alford both contain deep analysis on the meaning and usage of every significant word in the New Testament.” [W. Lee, Truth, Life, the Church, & the Gospel—The 4 Great Pillars in the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 8, Sect. 4]
Kenneth A. Cherney Jr., General Linguistics & Some Exegetical Fallacies, p. 179
Stanley E. Porter “The Basic Tools of Exegesis,” in S. E. Porter (ed.) Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT, p. 33
W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 8, Sect. 1. The quote in context reads: “I regularly consult Greek dictionaries and Bible concordances. One of these works, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, is a ten-volume set by a German brother, Gerhard Kittel. This dictionary lists and explains every Greek word according to its usage in the ancient times, in the New Testament times, and in modern times. I consult this set of books the most. As a result I can cut straight the word of the truth according to the Greek language when I expound the New Testament.” [W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 8, Sect. 1]
Prof. James L. Boyer writes, “The dictionary says Etymology is ‘that branch of philology which treats of the derivation of words.’ It usually is thought of as the ascertaining of the original meaning, or the meaning of the primitive basic root from which a word is derived, in the parental language. Basically it is an historical pursuit; practically it is a very complex, technical scientific investigation of comparative philology, one which is safe only in the hands of experts.” [James L. Boyer, SEMANTICS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, Grace Journal 3.2 (1962) p. 25]
Acts 26:22, note #1 RcV.
Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, pp. 80-81
Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, p. 76. The quote, in context, reads: “Semantic study at this period, however, was seriously hampered by a number of mistaken assumptions, some of which still find their way into the outlook of some interpreters of the New Testament even today. These false assumptions include the following: (1) that the word, rather than the sentence or speech-act. constitutes the basic unit of meaning to be investigated; 6 (2) that questions about etymology somehow relate to the real or ‘basic’ meaning of a word; (3)....” [Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, p. 76, emphasis added]
W. Lee, Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chap. 3, Sect. 1, emphasis added.
Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium, p. 39
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 64. Grant R. Osborne is Professor of NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 69
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 67
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 65, emphasis added
Robert Cara, Word-Study Fallacies, Dr. Robert J. Cara is Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, pp. 80-81
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) pp. 67-8
Stanley E. Porter, & Andrew Pitts (eds.), The Language of the NT: Context, History, & Development, p. 1. The quote in context, reads: Kittel’s TDNT “frequently indulged in...the root fallacy and what Barr labeled ‘illegitimate totality transfer,’ involving the tendency of many contributors to Kittel’s dictionary to transfer the entire lexical meaning of a term into a single usage.” [Stanley E. Porter, & Andrew Pitts (eds.), The Language of the NT: Context, History, & Development, p. 1] We refer to the fallacy of ‘illegitimate totality transfer’ later in this piece.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies,p. 33
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 66
David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, p. 121
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 33. Over 50-years ago Prof. James Barr (1961) argued that, “The etymology of a word is not a reliable guide to its meaning.” [Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of Biblical Criticism & Interpretation, p. 33]
Moises Silva & Walter Kaiser Jr., Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 57
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, p. 200
Robert Cara, Word-StudyFallacies. Dr. Robert J. Cara is Professor of New Testament at the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, N. Carolina.
Gordon D. Fee, Handbook of New Testament Exegesis, (1993) p. 27, emphasis original. Clearly what is most relevant to sound exegesis is a word’s meaning (in its context) at the time when the NT documents were being written. In understanding the NT text, that ‘synchronic’ meaning ought to have priority over the word’s etymology in centuries & generations preceding the New Testament.
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 518 emphasis added.
W. Lee, Triune God's Revelation & His Move, Chap. 12, Sect. 4 The quote, in context, reads: “All the groups in Christianity have been stranded on their own sands, like a boat stranded on sands in shallow water. The Catholic Church is stranded on their sands of superstitions. Most of the Protestant churches are stranded on the sands of superficiality. They are not deep; they are too shallow, on the surface. Nearly all the Protestant churches are stranded in their kind of lukewarm theology... Many have been stranded on the sands of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology.” [W. Lee, Triune God's Revelation & His Move, Chap. 12, Sect. 4, emphasis added]
Arthur Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic, 2nd ed., Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, p. 3.
Max Turner, “Modern Linguistics & the NT” in Joel B. Green (ed.) Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, p. 153. The quote, in context, reads: Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language “shook the foundations of the many attempts to do theology in the form of word studies, most notably the TDNT.” [Max Turner, “Modern Linguistics & the NT” in Joel B. Green (ed.) Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, p. 153] Dr. James Barr servedas Professor of Old Testament Literature & Theology in the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1955-61, followed by appointments in the University of Manchester (UK), Oxford University (UK), & Vanderbilt University (US). He was a Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, & the American Philosophical Society.
Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “The Semantics of Biblical Language Redux,” in Robert James Victor Hiebert (ed.), "Translation is Required": The Septuagint in Retrospect & Prospect, p. 41
Michael J. Wilkins, Concept of Disciple in Matthew's Gospel: As Reflected in the Use of the...p. 3. Dr. Craig Blomberg also refers to this ‘revolution’, when he points out that, since the German originals date from the 1930s, Kittel’s TDNT is characterized by a “lack of awareness of a virtual revolution in the field of linguistics during the past 60 years or so.” [Craig L. Blomberg, Handbook of New Testament Exegesis, p. 128]
Claire S. Smith, Pauline Communities as 'scholastic Communities': A Study of the Vocabulary... p. 32
Kenneth A. Cherney Jr., General Linguistics & Some Exegetical Fallacies, p. 179. Kittel’s work has been critiqued from numerous angles. Gregory P. Fewster says G. Kittel’s “TDNT fails to draw a necessary distinction between word and concept, while placing a great deal of emphasis on etymology.” [Gregory P. Fewster, Creation Language in Romans 8: A Study in Monosemy, p. 29] Profs. Porter & Pitts state that Kittel’s TDNT “frequently indulged in...the root fallacy and what Barr labeled ‘illegitimate totality transfer,’ involving the tendency of many contributors to Kittel’s dictionary to transfer the entire lexical meaning of a term into a single usage.” [Stanley E. Porter & Andrew Pitts (eds.), The Language of the NT: Context, History, & Development, p. 1]
Stanley E. Porter “The Basic Tools of Exegesis,” in S. E. Porter (ed.) Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT, p. 33
W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 8, Sect. 1
James L. Boyer, SEMANTICS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, Grace Journal 3.2 (1962) pp. 25-26
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 205-220), Chap. 3, Sect. 1
LSM, Lesson Book, Level 5: The Church— Vision & Building Up of the Church, Chap. 3, Sect. 1, emphasis added
“Common Exegetical Fallacies,” 01/09/2012, NT Greek Studies, emphasis added
J. P. Louw & E. A. Nida, 1996, c1989.Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains(electronic 2nd edition.) United Bible Societies: New York. Eugene A. Nida(1914 – 2011) was one of the greatestlinguistsof the last century. He developed the‘dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation’theory, one of the founders of the modern discipline of Translation Studies. Dr. Nida was a charter member of Wycliffe Bible Translators.
Robert Cara, Word-Study Fallacies, Dr. Robert J. Cara is Professor of NT at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 85
David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, p. 121
Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium, p. 38
F. J. A. Hort,The Christian Ecclesia(London: Macmillan and Co., 1898), p. 5, as cited by Roy Bowen Ward, “Ekklesia: A Word Study,” Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 4 (1958): pp. 164-79 from which we quote. Together with B. F. Westcott (1825-1901), F. J. A. Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors
J. Y. Campbell, "The Origin & Meaning of the Christian Use of the WordEKKLESIA," Journal of Theological Studies, 49 (1948), p. 131, emphasis added as cited by Roy Bowen Ward, “Ekklesia: A Word Study,” Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 4 (1958): pp. 164-79 from which we quote.
“Common Exegetical Fallacies,” 01/09/2012, NT Greek Studies
Robert I. Bradshaw, Language
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, p. 201
Craig L. Blomberg, Handbook of NT Exegesis, pp. 136-7
Larry Hurtado, “50th Anniversary of Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language” (Oct. 2011)
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, p. 201
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theol. Interp. of Bible, p. 201
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theol. Interp. of Bible, p. 201
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 388-403), Chap. 6, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Fulfillment of the Tabernacle & the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chap. 44, Sect. 4. Elsewhere W. Lee states “The Greek word rendered Advocate is parakletos, and it denotes one who is called to another's side to aid him, hence, a helper; one who offers legal aid or one who intercedes on behalf of someone else, hence, an advocate, counsel, or intercessor.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, Chap. 13, Sect. 2, emphasis added.) On yet another occasion W. Lee says, “Paraclete is the anglicized form of the Greek word parakletos, which denotes one alongside who takes care of our cause, our affairs.” (W. Lee Fulfillment of the Tabernacle & the Offerings in ....John, Chap. 43, Sect. 3.
Gary M. Burge, Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, pp. 6, 7, 8
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 67
Robert Cara explains and illustrates this fallacy, saying: “The reverse etymological fallacy occurs when the later historical usage of a word is considered primary for determining the earlier meaning of that word. Of course, this does not make sense logically, but sometimes the manner in which a pastor explains a Greek word may encourage some in the congregation to fall into thistrap. For example,...[to] explain that the Greek word for power in the New Testament isdynamis, and in the 1860s, Alfred Nobel named his invention “dynamite” based on the Greek worddynamis. This is true and interesting. However, this does not give the interpreter of the New Testament more insight into the meaning ofdynamisin Scripture. In fact, one may wrongly assume that the “power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13) must be explosive power like dynamite as opposed to constant power like electricalpower.” [Robert Cara, Word-StudyFallacies] Dr. Robert J. Cara is Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC
W. Lee, General Sketch of the NT in the Light of Christ & the Church, A - Part 2: Romans thro’ Philemon, Chap. 14, Sect. 4, emphasis added.
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, (1991) p. 70
Andrew H. Trotter, Jr., Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 9
“Common Exegetical Fallacies,” 01/09/2012, NT Greek Studies
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 114-134), Chap. 3, Sect. 1, emphasis added
Quoted by Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, p. 84. A similar point is made by Martin Joos who says that what he calls "semantic axiom number one" is that in defining a word it must be made to "contribute least to the total message desirable from the passage where it is at home, rather than e.g. defining it according to some presumed etymology or semantic history." [Quoted by Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, p. 84] Again, relying on etymology is something to be avoided.
W. Lee, Economy of God & the Mystery of the Transmission of the Divine Trinity, Chapter 2, Section 4 Elsewhere W. Lee says, “In Eph. 1:10, 3:9, and 1 Tim. 1:4, the main verses in which the Greek word oikonomia is used, some versions of the Bible rendered this word as dispensation. Dispensation is not a wrong translation, but its denotation has been spoiled. A better translation of the word oikonomia is administration or economy.” (W. Lee, Central Line of the Divine Revelation, Chap. 5, Sect. 1, emphasis added)
Thanos Zartaloudis, Giorgio Agamben: Power, Law & the Uses of Criticism, p. 58
W. Lee, Life-study of 1 & 2 Chronicles, p. 75 ...”
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 21-33), Chap. 4, Sect. 1, emphasis added
W. Lee, Central Line of the Divine Revelation, Chap. 5, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Divine Dispensing for the Divine Economy, Chap. 1, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Central Line of the Divine Revelation, Chap. 5, Sect. 1 Elsewhere he states that “when we use the word dispensation, we mean God’s household management, God’s arrangement, God’s plan. This is different from dispensing, which is the act of God’s dispensing Himself into us.” (W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 221-239), Chap. 13, Sect. 3)
For example, W. Lee recounts: “In my own Christian life I have had this experience. At the very beginning of my salvation, I was very living. Immediately following a person’s salvation, he is living and desires to pray and know the Word. A young brother especially likes to obtain more knowledge. Accordingly, I was brought into contact with a Brethren group which was particularly strict in the study and exposition of the Word. For seven years I studied at the feet of the Brethren teachers. I attended almost every one of their meetings during this time. I listened to more than a thousand messages concerning all the types, prophecies, and expositions of book after book of the Bible. The Brethren spent a great deal of time studying Daniel chapters two, seven, nine, and eleven, especially the end of chapter nine concerning the seventy weeks and the second half of the last week, the last three and a half years of this age. During those seven years with the Brethren I was really “addicted” to their teachings.” [W. Lee, General Sketch of the NT in the Light of Christ and the Church, A - Part 2: Romans through Philemon, Chap. 6, Sect. 2]
Jewel Spears Brooker, Mastery & Escape: T.S. Eliot & the Dialectic of Modernism, p. 24. Jewel Spears Brooker is Professor Emerita of Literature at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 2: Vision of the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 1, Sect. 5, emphasis added
W. Lee, 1 Tim. 1:4, RcV. note #3, emphasis added
Anthony C. Thiselton, SEMANTICS & NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, pp. 80-81
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 189-204), Chap. 1, Sect. 1
Grant R. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 85
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, & N. T. Wright (eds.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, p. 201
Revd Dr Will Adam, Legal Flexibility & the Mission of the Church: Dispensation & Economy in Ecclesiastical Law, (2011) p. 7, emphasis added
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 21-33), Chap. 4, Sect. 1
Stanley E. Porter “The Basic Tools of Exegesis,” in S. E. Porter (ed.) Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT, p. 33
Stanley E. Porter “The Basic Tools of Exegesis,” in S. E. Porter (ed.) Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT, p. 34
Rev. 2:1, note 2, RcV. The following root meanings are those presented by W. Lee in the RcV footnotes.
Paul Treblico, Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, p. 437, note 135
W. Lee, Service for the Building Up of the Church,Chap. 1, Sect. 4 The quote, in context, reads: ““Of the seven churches in Asia, only the church in Philadelphia was approved by the Lord (Rev. 3:7-13). ThewordPhiladelphiais composed of twoGreekwords, one based onphileo,which means “love,” and the other onadelphos,which means “brother.” Therefore,Philadelphiameans “brotherlylove.” The church in Philadelphia was full ofbrotherly loveand was therefore approved by the Lord.” [W. Lee, Service for the Building Up of the Church,Chap. 1, Sect. 4, emphasis added] W. Lee asserts that the Lord’s approval of the Philadelphian church was due to their being “full of brotherly love”— a deduction based entirely on etymology of the city’s name.
John F. Swenson, “Chicagoua/Chicago: The Origin, Meaning, & Etymology of a Place Name,” ILLINOIS HISTORICAL JOURNAL Vol. 84 (Winter, 1991)
W. Lee, Kernel of the Bible, Chap. 4, Sect. 1. Plus he says, “Many Christians have been in the garlic room so long they can no longer sense the odor of garlic that is all around them. Day after day, many unconsciously worship idols, actually thinking they are worshipping God. Today's Christianity is not only full of divisions and confusion; it is also full of idols. Furthermore, it is full of traditions...” (W. Lee, Kernel of the Bible, Chap. 9, Sect. 2)
W. Nee, Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chap. 11, Sect. 10, It also appears in Collected Works Vol. 50: Chap. 11, Sect. 10
Lynn Hiles, Revelation of Jesus Christ: An Open Letter..., pp. 225-6, emphasis added. We don’t commend this interpretation as preferable to LSM’s; we regard both as equally tenuous and unsubstantiated in the absence of supporting evidence from the biblical text.
W. Lee, Life-Study of Acts, Chap. 41, Sect. 4
W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership & the God-Ordained Way (2), Chap. 5, Sect. 17. It also appears in Intrinsic Problem in the Lord's Recovery Today & Its Scriptural Remedy, Chap. 3, Sect. 12.
W. Lee, Organic Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ to be the Organism of the Processed & Dispensing Triune God, Chap. 5, Sect. 3
The ESV Study Bible is typical of contemporary evangelical versions. It says, “Nicolaitans. Obviously a heretical Christian sect, but not identifiable with certainty from NT or extra-biblical evidence. Like the prophet Balaam, they seduced God’s people to participate in idolatry and sexual immorality (2:14-15), perhaps disguising antinomian [law-free] license as freedom in Christ.” [ESV footnote on Rev. 2:6] It also says, “As the Israelites migrated through the wilderness, the prophetBalaam, prevented from cursing them, advised Moab’s king to seduce them into both sexual and spiritual adultery (Num. 25:1-2; 31:16). Likewise theNicolaitans, though opposed in Ephesus, were spreading sexual and spiritual infidelity at Pergamum.” [ESV footnote on Rev. 2:14-16] Footnotes on Revelation by Dr. Dennis E. Johnson of Westminster Seminary, CA.
W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 4: The Christian (2), Chap. 5, Sect. 6
Paul Treblico, Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, p. 318
Paul Treblico, Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, pp. 318-9 quoting Prof. Richard Buackham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, (1993) p. 124
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 221-239), Chap. 5, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation & the Divine Economy for the New Creation, Chap. 3, Sect. 8
W. Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation & the Divine Economy for the New Creation, Chap. 4, Sect. 4
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 33
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 33
Moises Silva & Walter Kaiser Jr., Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 57
W. Nee, Collected Works Vol. 62: Matured Leadings in the Lord's Recovery (2), Chap. 15, Sect. 1
W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 62: Matured Leadings in the Lord's Recovery (2), Chap. 15, Sect. 4
W. Nee, Collected Works Vol. 15: Study on Matthew,Chap. 27, Sect. 5
Heb. 8:11, note #1, RcV.
John N. Darby’s footnote on 1 Cor. 8:1 says, “Two Greek words are used for 'to know' in the New Testament - ginosko and oida. The former [ginosko] signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression 'being acquainted with' perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the thought of what is inward, the inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external...”. Yet, as we shall see, most contemporary commentators (when they perceive a meaningful difference) take the opposite view.
J. Scott Duvall & J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, & Applying the Bible
W. Nee, Collected Works Vol. 15: Study on Matthew,Chap. 27, Sect. 5
Moises Silva & Walter Kaiser Jr., Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 61
Douglas J. Moo, Romans: NIV Application Commentary, p. xxviii
Moises Silva & Walter Kaiser Jr., Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 61
Gregory C. Carlson, Rock Solid Teacher: Discover the Joy of Teaching like Jesus, p. 110
Kenneth S. Wuest, Pastoral Epistles in the Greek NT, p. 123 quoted by Dana Gould, Shepherd's Notes: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus
Darby writes: Two Greek words are used for 'to know' in the New Testament--ginosko and oida. The former signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression 'being acquainted with' perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the thought of what is inward, the inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external. The difference between the two words is illustrated in John 8:55, 'ye know (ginosko) him not, but I know (oida) him,' in John 13:7, 'What I do thou dost not know (oida) now, but thou shalt know (ginosko) hereafter,' and in Heb. 8:11, 'they shall not teach. . .saying, Know (ginosko) the Lord; because all shall know (oida) me.' The word oida is used of Christ as knowing the Father, & as knowing the hypocrisy of the Scribes & Pharisees, of Paul's knowledge of 'a man in Christ,' & of the Christian's knowledge that he has eternal life. 'I know whom I have believed,' 2 Tim. 1:12 - I have the inward conscious knowledge of who the person is: see also 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Tim. 3:14 & 15 - all of these refer to inward conscious knowledge. The difference between the significance of the two words is often slight & objective knowledge may pass into conscious knowledge, but not vice versa. The Greek for conscience is derived from oida: see ch. 4:4, 'I am conscious of nothing in myself,' that is, not conscious of any fault. In the present passage, 'We know that an idol is nothing' is conscious knowledge: 'we all have knowledge' & 'knowledge puffs up' is objective knowledge. 'If anyone think he knows (conscious knowledge), he knows (objectively) nothing yet as he ought to know it (objectively):' 'he is known (objectively) of him,' so 'knowledge,' ver. 10. [ J. N. Darby footnote on 1 Cor. 8:1]
David Alan Black, Using NT Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students & Ministers, p. 99. David Alan Black(DTheol., University of Basel) is professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Scot McKnight refers to this error as the ‘Word-idea fallacy,’ which he describes as assuming “that the study of a term is the study of an idea.” (Scot McKnight, Introducing New Testament Interpretation (Guides to NT Exegesis), p. )
Stanley E. Porter “The Basic Tools of Exegesis,” in S. E. Porter (ed.) Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT, p. 33
Ben Cooper, Incorporated Servant-hood: Commitment & Discipleship in the Gospel of Matthew, p. 4
W. Lee, 2 Pet. 1:7, RcV., note 2
W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Peter,Chap. 6, Sect. 2
Jude 12, RcV., note 2, emphasis added
Darrell L. Bock, Buist M. Fanning (eds.) Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art & Science of Exegesis, p. 152. The quote, in context, reads: “Perhaps the most serious error is the selective evidence fallacy wherein one only cites the evidence that favors the interpretation one wants to defend.”
Darrell L. Bock (ed.), Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts-Ephesians, p. 295
The interior quote is from Dr. Craig Blomberg, who says in this context: “‘Love’ in 1 Cor. 13 is agape. But we must beware of over-exegeting this term. It is not the word itself that conveys the sense of divine love but the context. In 1st-century Greek agape was coming more and more into use, as the philia word-group (often used for ‘brotherly’ or ‘friendship’ love) increasingly came to mean ‘kiss’ in certain contexts. Thus the word agapao can be used inter-changeably with phileo (e.g. in Jn. 21:15-17) while in the LXX agapao can even refer to Ammon’s incestuous love/lust for his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1).” [Craig Blomberg, NIV Application Commentary 1 Cor., p. 261, emphasis added]
W. Lee, 2 Pet. 1:7, RcV., note 2
John Haralson Hayes, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, p. 65
D. A. Carson (ed.), Gospel According to John, pp. 204-5, emphasis added
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 50
W. Lee, Fulfillment of the Tabernacle & the Offerings in the Writings of John,Chap. 62, Sect. 1
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus & the Gospels: An Introduction & Survey, p. 418
Bauer, Danker, et. al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). It says, “[Agapaoandphileo]seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the frequent interchange of synonyms elsewhere in the same chapter[boskein - poimanein, arnia - probatia, elkuein - surein].”
Louw J. P. & Nida Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains
W. Lee, God-ordained Way to Practice the NT Economy,Chap. 8, Sect. 1
W. Lee, Life-Study of John,Ch. 39, Sect. 4
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 323-345),Chap. 22, Sect. 3
W. Lee, Heb. 4:12, RcV, note #1
Gary Shogren, “But the Greek REALLY says…” Why Greek and Hebrew are not needed in the pulpit, Part 2, by Gary Shogren, PhD in New Testament Exegesis.
W. Lee, 1 Pet. 1:25, RcV., note #1
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude: An Exegetical & Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, p. 97
David L. Allen, Hebrews: An Exegetical & Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, p. 123, emphasis added
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 117 (perhaps an “unwarranted associative jump”) quoted by William D. Barrick, “EXEGETICAL FALLACIES: COMMON INTERPRETIVE MISTAKES EVERY STUDENT MUST AVOID,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19/1 (Spring 2008) pp. 15-27
William D. Barrick, “EXEGETICAL FALLACIES: COMMON INTERPRETIVE MISTAKES EVERY STUDENT MUST AVOID,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19/1 (Spring 2008) p. 21
W. Lee, Concerning the Triune God—the Father, the Son, & the Spirit,Chap. 1, Sect. 5, emphasis added.
W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 001-020),Chap. 9, Sect. 1, emphasis added. The quote, in context, reads: “Revelation 4:8 says, ‘The four living creatures…have no rest day and night, saying,Holy,holy,holy, LordGodthe Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is coming.’ The mentioning of ‘holy’ three times, as in Isaiah 6:3, implies the thought ofGodbeingtriune, as the mentioning ofGod’s existence with three tenses does. The emphasis here is that theTriuneGodisholyand is triplyholy, referring to the quality ofGod’s nature—God’s being.”
W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible,Chap. 1, Sect. 1, emphasis added. Along the same lines, W. Lee writes, elsewhere: “’Holy,holy,holy, Jehovah of hosts’(Isa. 6:3, 8). According to the Old Testament, the priests referred to Jehovah three times in succession when they blessed the people. In a similar fashion, the seraphim in the heavens say ‘holy’ three times in succession when they praiseGod. When they praiseGod, they say, ‘Holy,holy,holy,’ because theGodwhom they praise istriune. In verse 8 theGodwhom they praise refers to Himself in the plural with the wordUs.... Holy, holy,holy’(Rev. 4:8) Just as there are verses in the Old Testament that refer to the nameJehovahand to the word holythree times in succession, there are verses in the New Testament that refer toYourand to the wordholythree times in succession. In the Old Testament the priests on earth blessed the people in the name of Jehovah three times, and the seraphim in the heavens praisedGodthree times, referring to Him asholyeach time. In the New Testament the believers on earth refer toGodas ‘Your’ three times in their prayer, and the four living creatures in the heavens praiseGodthree times, referring to Him as ‘holy’ each time. This is revealed because theGodto whom we petition, pray, and praise istriune.” [W. Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 4,Chap. 1, Sect. 2]
W. Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 4,Chap. 1, Sect. 2, emphasis added. The quote in context reads: “In the Old Testament the priests on earth blessed the people in the name of Jehovah three times, and the seraphim in the heavens praisedGodthree times, referring to Him asholyeach time. In the New Testament the believers on earth refer toGodas ‘Your’ three times in their prayer, and the four living creatures in the heavens praiseGodthree times, referring to Him as ‘holy’ each time. This is revealed because theGodto whom we petition, pray, and praise istriune.” [W. Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 4,Chap. 1, Sect. 2]
William D. Barrick, “EXEGETICAL FALLACIES: COMMON INTERPRETIVE MISTAKES EVERY STUDENT MUST AVOID,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19/1 (Spring 2008) p. 21
W. Lee says, “A person who...does not know Greek can be considered an amateur...I never took a Greek class; neither was I taught...I am not a Greek scholar.” [W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2, emphasis added] The phrase “does not know Greek,” ought to be understood as “does not know Greek up to a certain level of proficiency.” Since W. Lee admits “I am not a Greek scholar,” he is an ‘amateur’ in this field. He proceeds to recount his progress, saying, “I first learned the Greek alphabet and then read Greek grammar books...My knowledge of Greek gradually progressed from the alphabet, to the grammar with the language structure, and eventually to the study of different reference books.” [W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 14, Sect. 2] Nevertheless, he remained (by conventional standards) an ‘amateur.’ I say this, not to denigrate W. Lee, but to provide an accurate assessment of his linguistic abilities in the biblical languages.
Gene L. Green, “LEXICAL PRAGMATICS & BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,” JETS 50/4 (Dec. 2007) p. 809
Robert I Bradshaw, Language. The quote, in context, reads: “The root fallacy is the mistaken belief that a word's meaning is the sum of its components. While this is sometimes true in the majority of cases it is not.”
When Hislop wrote The Two Babylons, the study of Assyria & Babylonia was in its infancy. “Great tracts of Babylonian life and history that were unknown in Hislop’s day have since been brought to light,” Prof. Bruce writes. “We now know that the original language of Babylonian religion, far from being what Hislop and his contemporaries called ‘Chaldee’ (which was really Aramaic), was not a Semitic language at all, not even the Semitic tongue now called Akkadian…but Sumerian, a language with no certain affinity to any other known language.” Sumerian, not Chaldee, was the language of primeval Babylon. Hence Hislop’s “etymological inventiveness which traced words…to ‘Chaldee’ roots,” is irrelevant in establishing linguistic links to Nimrod’s Babylon & Assyria. They are pseudo-science not science. “Hislop’s argument stands in need of radical revision,” Dr. Bruce concludes. It comes as no surprise then that modern Assyriology does not cite Hislop’s Two Babylons; it is a discredited source. Yet LSM & W. Lee cited it repeatedly. [F. F. Bruce, “Babylon & Rome,” The Evangelical Quarterly 13 (Oct. 15, 1941): p. 244 Dr. F. F. Bruce was Univ. of Manchester Professor of Biblical Exegesis] For more on this topic see my piece: “AN LSM MYTH DEBUNKED—NIMROD, MADONNA & THE TWO BABYLONS” (Jan. 2011)
W. Lee, Organic Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ to be the Organism of the Processed & Dispensing Triune God, Chap. 5, Sect. 3
Dr. Craig Blomberg includes this among “Definitional Fallacies,” one of which is: “Making an appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning of a word, due to either the interpreter’s theological presuppositions or reliance on out-of-date or idiosyncratic secondary literature.” [Craig L. Blomberg, A Handbook of NT Exegesis, p. 136]

[Cal]

An interesting and enlightening study. Tomes makes a strong case that Lee and LSM's approach to the language of the Bible was and is flawed.

One item he does not mention is that it was not only Lee's approach to the language that lead to his conclusions, it was his whole approach to the Bible. Lee plainly believed that the Bible contains hidden messages that were encoded into the Greek, messages that the original writer may not have been aware of nor intended. Precise distinctions of the meanings of words and license to find them is necessary with this sort of approach. One example is Lee's distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God," which is built on nothing more than that Matthew uses the word "heaven" while Mark and Luke used "God" when quoting what are clearly the same historical utterances. Why Matthew (or Mark and Luke) chose to do this we don't know. But it's important to realize that Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic. Other than a few instances, all records of Jesus's words are translations of Aramaic to Greek. So we have no idea what he actually said. All we know is what he said translated into Greek.

So the question becomes a philosophical one: Do you believe that God used writers to encode messages into the Bible based on the meaning of words that go beyond what the writers intended to convey, or even what the original speaking meant to convey. We know that God's sovereignty is present in the numbers of words and letters in, for example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. And God is surely capable of doing this in other ways if he wanted to.

So the question becomes, do you believe he did. Tomes's report shows that the approach of modern biblical scholars implicitly holds that we should not suppose he did.

But if like Lee you think we should, then finding messages in words like "Nicolaitans" and "Laodicea" might make sense to you. The downside to that, however, is deciding where to stop. Lee went all out finding hidden meanings in the Bible. The potential for subjectivity and insertion of personal bias in such an approach is obvious. Although tempting, to go down that path is to jump down the rabbit hole and join Alice in Wonderland, where anything is possible, nothing is provable, and imaginations can run wild.

My personal view is stick to the plain word and the main message of the Bible. If you can't find truth there you aren't going to find it in some Bible Code.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So the question becomes a philosophical one: Do you believe that God used writers to encode messages into the Bible based on the meaning of words that go beyond what the writers intended to convey, or even what the original speaking meant to convey. We know that God's sovereignty is present in the numbers of words and letters in, for example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. And God is surely capable of doing this in other ways if he wanted to.

So the question becomes, do you believe he did. Tomes' report shows that the approach of modern biblical scholars implicitly holds that we should not suppose he did.

Tomes' study not only assaults the ministries of Lee and Nee, but also centuries of of the best of Christian research.

I guess I am not buying it today.

That does not mean I disagree with all of Tomes or all of Lee. I still agree with the etymology of ekklesia, the "called out" assembly.

I have to disagree, however, with Lee's interpretation of the "Nicolaitans." I have seen far more oppression coming out of Lee's "band of brothers," aka full-timers and co-workers, than that from the "pastors." If Lee's interpretation is correct, then he must be the consummate NOTA, the "Nicolaitan of the Age."

Originally Posted by Igzy

But if like Lee you think we should, then finding messages in words like "Nicolaitans" and "Laodicea" might make sense to you. The downside to that, however, is deciding where to stop. Lee went all out finding hidden meanings in the Bible. The potential for subjectivity and insertion of personal bias in such an approach is obvious.

LSM operatives have proven that once you start down this slippery slope, there is no turning back. This was abundantly clear when LSM assaulted the Midwest LC's. Their justification for destroying churches and filing lawsuits was based on obscure Levitical passages about "replastering the walls" and "tearing down the houses" of known lepers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Lee's interpretation is correct, then he must be the consummate NOTA, the "Nicolaitan of the Age."

Good one!

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Examples of LSM’s Etymological Errors
Example #1 Ekklesia—“Called-out Assembly” ...It [ekklesia] simply means congregation or assembly and refers to a gathering of people, really any people, yet in the NT that group of people happens to be Christians...

I have written on this so many times that it bores me, but Tomes apparently has not paid attention. The NT ALSO uses the word 'ekklesia' when talking about a group of people who happen to NOT be Christians.

See in Acts 19:41. "and with these word he dismissed the assembly" This was an assembly of people who were NOT Christians but the physician Luke called them an 'ekklesia'. Why? Because it was a gathering, a meeting, an assembly. It was a bunch of people stuck together, temporarily, for some purpose. In this case it was a mob, a near-riot, but no matter (and I've been in Pentacostal meetings that could have been mistaken for riots).

Jesus said, "On this rock I will build MY ekklesia." There are other ekklesia (meetings), too, but the ones that gather in Jesus' name are HIS ekklesia.

Lastly, Tomes' stressing the "out" part of "called-out" seems to be much ado about very little. It is well known that Lee got paid by the word, so of course he's going to make hay out of "called-out". Every meeting, or gathering, is "called out" of something else. It is a tautology; it is irrelevant. Lee talked about it to make some messages to sell to the gullible public. But who cares?

A football crowd in Denver Colorado is perforce called "out of" the city of Denver and environs, to "gather into" a stadium and watch the Broncos play. Who cares? Only someone like Lee who gets paid by the word.

The guy was an amateur (I am too, but I write for free). He would use all kinds of tricks to make "filler" to flesh out his messages. One of his tricks was to say what the writer said, usually about 3 times, then say, "If I was writing this, I wouldn't say that "repeats the phrase for the 4th time", but rather I would have said "X"; but the writer was led by the Holy Spirit of God to write it that way." See how much ink he just spilled? Just to say nothing. Just what to tell us what he, Lee, would have written if he had written the Bible. Which he didn't. Well guess what? I didn't write the Bible either, and I'm not going to convene meetings, and print messages and sell them, telling the public what I would have written but did not.

So we are left with:

1. Lee was an amateur.
2. He got paid by the word (Message).
3. Therefore Lee did a lot of storytelling, and pretended it was authoritative.

Thank you Mr. Tomes for telling us what we already knew. Do you have an alternative to Mr. Lee's Just So Stories? Anything interesting to say, or positive? Or are you just going to continue sniping at Mr. Lee?

I am sorry that I didn't read the whole essay but I didn't see it going anywhere useful.

[Cal]

Again I think the question is how we think God expects us to read the Bible. Does he expect us to read it simply with the view that all is being said is what the writer and speakers were trying to say? Or is that God includes messages in the Bible based on the meaning and associations of words that even the writer wasn't aware of? Or which were intended not for the immediate audience but secondary audiences perhaps centuries in the future?

A good example might be the origins of Satan supposedly existing in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 behind references to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. Assuming we believe these are references to Satan, do we believe that the writers knew they were writing about Satan, or that they did not? If the latter then we are supporting the "hidden message" theory that Lee so readily employed and that the scholars cited in Tomes's study seem to implicitly deny access to, at least in some cases.

Again if there are hidden messages in the Bible (and if you believe in this origin of Satan theory you believe there are to some extent) then they could be anywhere and so the possible meaning of any word beyond what the writer knew or understood is in play.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again I think the question is how we think God expects us to read the Bible. Does he expect us to read it simply with the view that all is being said is what the writer and speakers were trying to say. Or is that God include messages in the Bible based on the meaning and associations of words that even the writer wasn't aware of?

Well, given the fact that we still don't see everything in the universe subject to Christ, and the Rebellion of Satan still rages, we cannot assume that the writers and speakers of the Bible knew everything. Because if they did, arguably, the battle would be over. The triumph of God would have been final. So we pick up the mantle, find meaning, and soldier on.

Secondly, if the writers of the NT were true and "Christ is in you" and "we see Jesus" then we the readers also have an active role to play in finding meaning and associations of words. I can read the text and say that this means such-and-such to me, or that I see Jesus in such-and-such a way.

All of which happens in the church meeting, and if I go off the rails the crowd is expected to pull me back in. So our reading, and interpreting, is supposed to be a kind of "holy madness" just as the original vision was. And the crowd, assembled (the ekklesia) is supposed to restrain the madness of the prophet.

Unless you go to the LSM meetings. Then "the oracle" belongs to "the chosen vessel of this age", and the rest of us are supposed to be "one". And both the speaker and the crowd go into a ditch.

I prefer the Podunk Community Church. There, I'm the wild-eyed guy in the back, muttering to himself about "visions" and "dreams".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you Mr. Tomes for telling us what we already knew. Do you have an alternative to Mr. Lee's Just So Stories? Anything interesting to say, or positive? Or are you just going to continue sniping at Mr. Lee?

I am sorry that I didn't read the whole essay but I didn't see it going anywhere useful.

This is a little harsh, aron. Though I'm sure you knew that.

Tomes feels led to point out the errors LSM has committed as self-pronounced biblical experts, and to do so in an at least attempted scholarly fashion. Thank God someone is doing it. There are very few real scholars in the ranks of those writing about LSM errors.

Tomes is simply saying that LSMers aren't what they claim to be. He is trying to do so by mounting arguments that cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. I don't think he is sniping at LSM anymore than you are. I think he feels led to say, hey, let's hold these guys accountable, and I'm glad he is.

I pointed out that I think he must address this idea of hidden messages, because his etymological study does not really speak to that. But I still think his study is important and useful.

Everyone knows Lee was an amateur? If only.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I pointed out that I think he must address this idea of hidden messages, because his etymological study does not really speak to that. But I still think his study is important and useful.

Everyone knows Lee is an amateur? If only.

I like Tomes' writing, and his scholarly approach, and wish he would put it to better service. There is a lot of positive stuff to write about, and feed the sheep, instead of simply telling them that Lee was a flim-flam man.

Maybe I am only getting a small portion of Tomes' output. Maybe some people who are "on the fence" about Lee will be helped. But I just see him going over, in a very careful and thorough fashion, something that really doesn't deserve the effort.

As far as hidden codes I've never gotten into that subject. Hidden meanings. What part of "love your neighbor" needs secret codes?

Sorry if I'm in a dismissive mood today. It probably tells more about my moodiness than the material at hand. But my point remains that Tomes is capable of much better. Perhaps he is doing much better, elsewhere, and I've missed it. Perhaps this is just his side hobby, when he gets moody like some of the rest of us. Because if this is his main focus, then he is mis-aiming.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I like Tomes' writing, and his scholarly approach, and wish he would put it to better service. There is a lot of positive stuff to write about, and feed the sheep, instead of simply telling them that Lee was a flim-flam man.

Maybe I am only getting a small portion of Tomes' output. Maybe some people who are "on the fence" about Lee will be helped. But I just see him going over, in a very careful and thorough fashion, something that really doesn't deserve the effort.

As far as hidden codes I've never gotten into that subject. Hidden meanings. What part of "love your neighbor" needs secret codes?

Sorry if I'm in a dismissive mood today. It probably tells more about my moodiness than the material at hand. But my point remains that Tomes is capable of much better. Perhaps he is doing much better, elsewhere, and I've missed it. Perhaps this is just his side hobby, when he gets moody like some of the rest of us. Because if this is his main focus, then he is mis-aiming.

It's possible he is just studying for his own clarity, and then publishing the results. LC leaders were more heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed that the rest of us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's possible he is just studying for his own clarity, and then publishing the results. LC leaders were more heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed that the rest of us.

So he's still de-programming? When does the re-programming begin, and an alternative to Lee begin to emerge? Perhaps patience is necessary, as we've been out of the system longer than he has.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

So he's still de-programming? When does the re-programming begin, and an alternative to Lee begin to emerge? Perhaps patience is necessary, as we've been out of the system longer than he has.

There is no deprogramming without reprogramming.

[awareness]

Synchronic:

What a synchronicity. On the 15:45 thread I pointed out that the Corinthians had special speakings from Paul's visits that we aren't privy to. And now, Nigel brings up synchronic, which means the meanings the words had back when the scripture was written.

This strikes me as funny? (Not that all this isn't funny. It is.) In Example #3: Reverse Etymological Fallacy—Dunamis--Dynamo, Nigel points out an error Lee made called: An associated exegetical error. That's an error of "the assumption that a New Testament word takes on a meaning that was not yet present in the author’s era."

Example: The Greek noun dunamis [power]. He quotes Lee as interpreting the word as dynamo, when dynamo was invented in the 19th century.

So why is this funny. Cuz Nigel, and the Greek Textual Scholars he references, that define this error, are using the word synchronic. A word that:

Etymology:
Synchronic (adj.) "occurring at the same time," 1775, shortening of synchronical (1650s), from Late Latin synchronus "simultaneous" (see synchronous). Linguistic sense is first recorded 1922, probably a borrowing from French synchronique (de Saussure, 1913). Synchronal "simultaneous" is from 1650s. Related: synchronically.

"When fighting monsters make sure you don't become one" - Nietzsche paraphrased ....

And when I break the word synchronic into components, like Lee liked to do with Greek words, I come up with:

Sin & kronic. We all know what sin means, and kronic is a name for potent strain of marijuana, so, thinking like Lee, it must actually mean: sinful marijuana.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe I am only getting a small portion of Tomes' output. Maybe some people who are "on the fence" about Lee will be helped. But I just see him going over, in a very careful and thorough fashion, something that really doesn't deserve the effort.

As far as hidden codes I've never gotten into that subject. Hidden meanings. What part of "love your neighbor" needs secret codes?

Obviously Tomes is not writing for you.

His audience has been steeped in hidden meanings for generations, so he is struggling to bring them ... Firstly ... To read the plain words of scripture.

Secondly, his church in Toronto did not leave individually, like you did one day by the Spirit's leading, but stayed because they felt others .. Namely the Blendeds .. Had deviated from their original mission, and were attempting to have dominion over their church too.

The task of shepherding these wonderful folks, who still operate under the "good Lee, bad blended" paradigm, is to move them slowly, carefully, and scholarly, back to green pastures and still waters.

[zeek]

Thanks for posting Tomes' treatise, UntoHim.

Examining LSM’s publications we have illustrated cases of the etymological root fallacy, invalid word-dissections, the reverse etymological fallacy, illegitimate totality transfer, the selective evidence fallacy, the word-concept fallacy and the unwarranted associative fallacy. Illustrative examples include key Greek words—ekklesia, parakletos, oikonomia, dunamis, proginosko, Laodicea, Nicolaitans, oida/ginosko, logos/rhema & agapao/phileo. These cases are merely the ‘tip of the iceberg;’ we could add many more examples. W. Lee’s exposition of Revelation’s 7 churches is rife with etymologizing. The etymological root meaning of each city’s name is used to characterize the church in that city—a tenuous expositional procedure. Moreover this case demonstrates that such errors are far from innocuous. LSM’s diatribe against democracy in the church is based largely on the etymology of the names “Laodicea & Nicolaitans.” Based on this W. Lee asserts,166 “democracy in the church is a wind of teaching, a devilish blowing of the evil one.” Yet there is nothing in the biblical text to suggest that the Apostle John intended his readers to draw these inferences. These exegetical fallacies and etymological errors undermine the value of LSM’s NT Recovery Version and Life-study commentaries. Readers are advised to treat every comment by LSM regarding Greek words with a high degree of skepticism..

Tomes demonstrates that much of Lee's Bible scholarship is fallacious. Thus, his treatise provides a detailed though not comprehensive answer to HERn's question , "How much to throw out? and suggests that the question ought to be whether there is anything we should keep.

Tomes also opens a can of worms. For he "evaluates LSM’s works in terms of recent linguistic research." We have entered the land of linguistics! And what are linguistics but the scientific study of language. Like all science, linguistics is a matter of probability, not absolute truth.

So it's not surprising that,"50 years ago a revolution occurred which “shook the foundations of…attempts to do theology in the form of word studies." That's a paradigm shift which is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science.

" The standard reference tools used in New Testament studies were written before the advent and certainly before the development of modern linguistics”. As a science, modern linguistics is progressive. It's methods change over time.

Even now, different methods in the hands of different experts lead to different results. So it's not like you can expect a unanimity of expert opinion on these issues. It's a land of dueling expert opinions.

With linguistic analysis Tomes has brought Lee out of the LRC where he was the absolute authority and last word on Bible truth, into the land of more or less, where absolute certainty is unattainable and the next big paradigm shift may shake the foundations of the way they are doing Bible interpretation today yet again. And he has brought us with him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously Tomes is not writing for you.

His audience has been steeped in hidden meanings for generations, so he is struggling to bring them ... Firstly ... To read the plain words of scripture.

Secondly, his church in Toronto did not leave individually, like you did one day by the Spirit's leading, but stayed because they felt others .. Namely the Blendeds .. Had deviated from their original mission, and were attempting to have dominion over their church too.

The task of shepherding these wonderful folks, who still operate under the "good Lee, bad blended" paradigm, is to move them slowly, carefully, and scholarly, back to green pastures and still waters.

Our brother Nigel is great, whether right or wrong, with his well thought out and researched pieces. I love 'em, even if they sometimes wear on the brain muscle to work thru. It's good exercise.

But I don't know if this piece brings more answers than questions.

With all these questions about the real meaning of the Greek words I'm just more confused. If I can't figure out what the words mean then how can I trust that I'm getting at the words of God, with no traces of doubt to disturb it? To heck with synchronic's. Sure it would be nice to know what the author meant by a word, but I want more to know what God means(t) by it.

Now it seems I have to play eeny meeny miney mo, catch a Greek Textual Scholar by the toe, My momma told me to pick the very best one.

How else am I to know who is right? Some words are easy. Like Ekklesia. Sometime ago I came across that the gathering of Roman politicians were referred to as an ekklesia. They certainly weren't "'the called out ones,' from the world."

But more words are much harder than ekklesia, to get to the bottom of. And again, which scholars are right?

Why does it seem that God can't write without suffering ambiguity?

And why can't we find a sense of humor about it ... for goodness sake ... instead of fighting over the Bible?

Witness Lee's interpretation of the Bible was just one opinion among many. Grow up. Get over infantile dependencies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously Tomes is not writing for you.

His audience has been steeped in hidden meanings for generations, so he is struggling to bring them ... Firstly ... To read the plain words of scripture.

Point taken, and this brings us to the question, to whom did John the apostle intend meaning and understanding in the epistles to the Asian assemblies in Rev. 2 & 3?

Lee attempted to provide meaning for the post-Protestant assemblies of Nee's flock. But this was a newly manufactured meaning, and crudely done at that, as Tomes rather easily demonstrates.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Even now, different methods in the hands of different experts lead to different results. So it's not like you can expect a unanimity of expert opinion on these issues. It's a land of dueling expert opinions.

But there is consensus. There is shared base of meaning today, just as there was 2,000 yr ago. That's why it's called a paradigm.

The points of common understanding are usually much more broad and firm than the areas of uncertainty and disagreement.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

With linguistic analysis Tomes has brought Lee out of the LRC where he was the absolute authority and last word on Bible truth, into the land of more or less, where absolute certainty is unattainable and the next big paradigm shift may shake the foundations of the way they are doing Bible interpretation today yet again. And he has brought us with him.

The LC has never respected contemporaries, because doing so would make Lee one of many, instead of one of a kind. But by dissing the present for the past they made themselves into anachronisms. First it made them look strange. Then it made them look backward. Now it makes them look ignorant.

Now they are in limbo. Their whole culture is built on Biblical study ideas that are no longer respected. Sooner or later they are going to have to become humble and say, uh, we have some adjustments to make. They can't just keep doing the Don Quixote forever. Even Sancho Panza is going to get bored and leave.

The current joke of our YouTube-driven age is that everyone thinks history started twelve minutes ago. The LC thinks history started with Lee, and ended with him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

But there is consensus. There is shared base of meaning today, just as there was 2,000 yr ago. That's why it's called a paradigm.

The points of common understanding are usually much more broad and firm than the areas of uncertainty and disagreement.

As I understand it the consensus is quite broad in linguistics. Language is viewed as a human product where meanings change as culture does. Thus, interpretation of the texts across 2000 years will be based on our limited knowledge of the times and circumstances. Meaning is derived from context in other words it is... get ready for the hated word... relative to the context. Tomes says so himself. Of course, Tomes self excludes the liberal wing of linguistic analysis so some linguistic opinion is forbidden. That will leave a greater appearance of consensus then can be arrived at then by linguistics alone. But, today's consensus could be tomorrow's old paradigm. And there is nothing to prevent the LCR or anybody else from rallying around the old paradigm with or without Lee. After all, it's more conservative then the new conservative linguistic wing. "Gimme that old time religion!" they could sing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LC has never respected contemporaries, because doing so would make Lee one of many, instead of one of a kind. But by dissing the present for the past they made themselves into anachronisms. First it made them look strange. Then it made them look backward. Now it makes them look ignorant.

Now they are in limbo. Their whole culture is built on Biblical study ideas that are no longer respected. Sooner or later they are going to have to become humble and say, uh, we have some adjustments to make. They can't just keep doing the Don Quixote forever. Even Sancho Panza is going to get bored and leave.

The current joke of our YouTube-driven age is that everyone thinks history started twelve minutes ago. The LC thinks history started with Lee, and ended with him.

I suspect they are more likely to dig in then throw the founder under the bus. Of course that could entail more splits. If they stick to their guns and survive, in a couple hundred years they might look the Amish relative to whatever is going on then. But how is the numbers game going for them? Are they growing? thriving? stagnating, shrinking?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

how is the numbers game going for them? Are they growing? thriving? stagnating, shrinking?

Irrelevant. Babylon looked great, until one day it collapsed in a heap. The only thing that endures is reality. A pinhole of reality is greater than a universe of illusion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Meaning is derived from context in other words it is... get ready for the hated word... relative to the context.

Which is why I repeatedly pointed out that 'ekklesia' was used in the NT in other contexts than a purely Christian one. And this was a reflection of, or was relative to, how it was at that time being used outside scripture as well. There was the ekklesia, and then there was the ekklesia of Jesus, being developed in the NT setting. Two different things. We miss the first and then we misunderstand the second.

One of the things which I began to ask myself many years post-LSM was what the words and sentences might have meant to the writer, and what the writer might have expected them to mean to their contemporary readers, and not to some Bible expositor 2,000 years later. The Nee & Lee meanings were partly a result of the Great Schism, and then the Protestant reformation 500 years after that. People like Calvin and Melanchthon were largely left with the text at hand, and their logic, to derive meaning. "What does this mean to me, today, with my reason and logic (and faith)" became the interpretive standard. They had lost the original context.

This has benefits: Luther realized that salvation was by grace, and through faith, and not by works. Why? Because the words of scripture said so, right in front of him. So this method worked relatively well for the basics. But some of the deeper stuff eventually gets into amateurish "Bible code" nonsense like what is found in "The Two Babylons". What this means for me today is not necessarily what God wants it to mean to all people at all times. LSM people, are you listening? I'll repeat myself if you need me to.

When I began to look into scholarly literature, written by people who understand Greek and Hebrew, as they write to each other, I realized that there's a lot of assumed understanding, as they ferret out the unknown. Sure there are a lot of gray areas, and many hypotheses, lacking new texts, may remain largely unresolved. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient works, greatly aided this process. Yes there has been a revolution of sorts, a paradigm shift. My own started when I first confessed "Jesus is Lord". Why stop now? Keep going. Jesus is still the Lord. God's throne is never shaken. The only things we have to lose are our chains.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Point taken, and this brings us to the question, to whom did John the apostle intend meaning and understanding in the epistles to the Asian assemblies in Rev. 2 & 3?

Lee attempted to provide meaning for the post-Protestant assemblies of Nee's flock. But this was a newly manufactured meaning, and crudely done at that, as Tomes rather easily demonstrates.

I do believe that the Spirit of God had inspired the entire NT for the entire church age, in contrast to those who declare that we should not read "someone else's mail." So John's letters were to us, regardless of what some have taught.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe that the Spirit of God had inspired the entire NT for the entire church age, in contrast to those who declare that we should not read "some else's mail." So John's letters were to us, regardless of what some have taught.

I would definitely agree with this proposition. John said, "Blessed is that one who both reads and keeps the words of this prophecy." (Rev 1:3) So there was a universal character delineated at the outset. And Paul told the Colossians to read his epistle to the Laodiceans, as vice versa (4:16). Paul was already "looking beyond" his recipients, and writing to posterity. As with the gospels, obviously; they are deliberately and openly universal in character. See e.g. John 11:52, and 17:20.

But at the same time the letters were conveying meaning within a shared context, which we should attempt to recognize and respect. One of my main arguments is that Lee came from a tradition which missed this "contextual, historical" view. He came from the tradition "Protestant rationalism", which birthed the Brethren and many other independent, separatist thinkers. Ironically, Lee's rationalism eventually positioned himself as the posessing the ministry of the age, which then superseded all need for context! So he could even go into the NT and over-ride Paul, and John, and ignore Jesus' teachings and example. Remember the poor? What? The hermeneutic, the "interpreted word" was now the king. And obviously Lee had no use for new word studies. Whatever book he had once used was "the best". Why? Because it was the one he used. And he said it was the best, so it was.

Like I said, when you begin to poke at this stuff critically, it tends to fall apart pretty rapidly. The only thing really holding it together was Lee telling us it was so, and the constant warnings telling us not to be "negative" and to "question"... maybe it's too easy to be impatient with the deprogramming of the GLA assemblies, not sharing the degree of their "historical context" (ha-ha). I did note Tomes' mention of this issue, at the end of his essay. Still, I'm interested to see where, if anywhere, his critique goes. Where is mention of the alternative(s)? Where does his critique lead, if anywhere? I don't really even see any hints.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

...there is nothing to prevent the LCR or anybody else from rallying around the old paradigm with or without Lee. After all, it's more conservative then the new conservative linguistic wing. "Gimme that old time religion!" they could sing.

One thing that helped me was realizing that today's "old time religion" was at one point shockingly new. When Isaac Watts began freely paraphrasing the Psalms instead of translating them metrically, it opened up new melodic possibilities but it also upset the traditionalists. Some of current "reformed" groups still think Watts went too far! Most of today's traditionalists, of course, would think of Watts as the epitome of "the old time religion".

That also goes for Luther, Wesley, Edwards, etc. etc... at the time they were unconventional. Only with time did the new position and vision become accepted. For instance, in 1727, the "Old Lights" of Boston were bothered that the Holy Spirit could move in the hinterlands of the Connecticut River Valley, without their "fellowship"... Jonathan Edwards and the "New Lights" constantly had to reassure the "elders in Jerusalem" that they were still "one" with them, even as they attempted to follow the anointing Spirit, as it moved on the ground.

But at the time it was revolutionary, and began to sow the conceptual seeds of the American Revolution 50 years later. Every man a king, and free to follow his own dictates!?! Shocking! Independence? Freedom? Unheard of!

And let's not even get into Jesus, how unconventional, how revolutionary He was, in every way. Paradigms dissolved before Him like chaff in the wind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

One thing that helped me was realizing that today's "old time religion" was at one point shockingly new. When Isaac Watts began freely paraphrasing the Psalms instead of translating them metrically, it opened up new melodic possibilities but it also upset the traditionalists. Some of current "reformed" groups still think Watts went too far! Most of today's traditionalists, of course, would think of Watts as the epitome of "the old time religion".

That also goes for Luther, Wesley, Edwards, etc. etc... at the time they were unconventional. Only with time did the new position and vision become accepted. For instance, in 1727, the "Old Lights" of Boston were bothered that the Holy Spirit could move in the hinterlands of the Connecticut River Valley, without their "fellowship"... Jonathan Edwards and the "New Lights" constantly had to reassure the "elders in Jerusalem" that they were still "one" with them, even as they attempted to follow the anointing Spirit, as it moved on the ground.

But at the time it was revolutionary, and began to sow the conceptual seeds of the American Revolution 50 years later. Every man a king, and free to follow his own dictates!?! Shocking! Independence? Freedom? Unheard of!

And let's not even get into Jesus, how unconventional, how revolutionary He was, in every way. Paradigms dissolved before Him like chaff in the wind.

Yes and as you may recall if you were around during the days of Lee, God Himself was directing him as the Minister of the Age to use the etymological method to unearth [recover] the deep truths and high peaks of God's Holy Word. Is God personally directing the modern linguists now? Or are they merely following "scientific" fallen human trends that are here today and gone tomorrow like all scientific paradigms that have gone before? Expect the LSM to back Lee's methods to the end. If they lose their MOTA they lose their Mojo.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But at the same time the letters were conveying meaning within a shared context, which we should attempt to recognize and respect. One of my main arguments is that Lee came from a tradition which missed this "contextual, historical" view. He came from the tradition "Protestant rationalism", which birthed the Brethren and many other independent, separatist thinkers. Ironically, Lee's rationalism eventually positioned himself as the possessing the ministry of the age, which then superseded all need for context! So he could even go into the NT and over-ride Paul, and John, and ignore Jesus' teachings and example. Remember the poor? What? The hermeneutic, the "interpreted word" was now the king. And obviously Lee had no use for new word studies. Whatever book he had once used was "the best". Why? Because it was the one he used. And he said it was the best, so it was.

I basically would agree with this. We regularly were taught to yank verses and fragments of verses out of context and strung along with other fragments to support whatever the speaker desired. But, to be fair, I have seen other preachers take far more liberties doing this than Lee.

Originally Posted by aron

Like I said, when you begin to poke at this stuff critically, it tends to fall apart pretty rapidly. The only thing really holding it together was Lee telling us it was so, and the constant warnings telling us not to be "negative" and to "question"...

Case in point was the so-called "ground of locality" doctrine of exclusive oneness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes and as you may recall if you were around during the days of Lee, God Himself was directing him as the Minister of the Age to use the etymological method to unearth [recover] the deep truths and high peaks of God's Holy Word.

But this is not how Nigel paints it, er. ah Lee paints it. He quotes Lee:

“We did not study Greek, yet we had dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances to help us....” W. Lee alleged he used the “best reference books.” He asserted,4 “Although I am not a Greek scholar, my explanation of the NT Greek is based on the study of past Greek scholars. The Greek commentaries...I regularly use are the best & the most authoritative.”

So God Himself must not have been directing him. Or why seek out the scholars? Do these "authoritative" scholars speak for God? And how would Lee even know what's, or who, are, is, authoritative?

Let's face it. Lee was no dummy. Sooner or later, along the way, Lee had to have at least one moment of being honest with himself. That, he was full of bull excrement.

And yet he carried on. Methinks cuz he was a profit, and he depended upon it for the survival of him and his.

He was a failure at all other methods of making a living. LSM and the local church donations were his bailiwick.

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks cuz he was a profit...

Ouch!!!!!!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ouch!!!!!!

1. Lee admitted to being an amateur, without formal training.
2. His "ministry" got paid by the word, by the message, book, pamphlet. Volume of output = $$$
3. He'd already tried selling motor homes, tennis rackets, men's suits, or folding chairs.
4. But, then Lee made a career being a bible teacher. How many of his books did LSM publish? 200? 300?
5. So what are we to think? That he merchandised the gospel. Another American success story.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

1. Lee admitted to being an amateur, without formal training.
2. His "ministry" got paid by the word, by the message, book, pamphlet, etc. In other words, volume of output.
3. He wasn't very successful at selling motor homes, tennis rackets, men's suits, or folding chairs.
4. But he eventually made a good living being a bible teacher. How many of his own books did LSM publish? 200? 300?
5. So what are we to think? He was a merchandiser of the gospel.

I look at him like a used cars salesman, without the plaid jacket ... Without formal training he's like a used Jesus salesman, if you will.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Thanks Nigel for taking the time and study to write this.

I think that we in the Great Lakes churches need to examine brother Lee's and LC teachings and decide what to keep and what is wrong. As it is now, we all pretty much agree to reject "Minister of the Age", "One Pub", "the Oracle", "The Acting God", "high peak truth" & to some extent "One with the Ministry" and "all local churches should be the same". That's all I can think of right now that we have agreed to reject, mainly because Titus spoke against these.

There are many other teachings that are wrong and many that are right.

I would like to take the many points from Nigel's paper, and just say what I think as to whether it is a wrong or right LC teaching.

1. Being dismissive of modern scholarship - I agree with Nigel's constructive criticism, but I think Nigel goes to far in the other direction, swallowing whatever the consensus of modern conservative scholars think, just because they consense on it. Of the 2 errors, I prefer to err on the side of being less trusting of modern scholars.

I do not know Greek, but I consider that I know Hebrew as a mostly self taught amateur. I think the best Old Testament translation is Darby's, even though it has a lot of room for improvement. Darby improved KJV slightly. ASV took 1 step forward from KJV and 3 steps backward. Recovery Version OT is an improvement on ASV, but since it seems to be based mostly on ASV, it is in general not as good as KJV.
If modern scholars know so much more than their counterparts in the late 1800's, why have OT translations gotten worse rather than better?

2. Use of etymologies to understand the meaning of words - Brother Lee overdid it, and Nigel throws them all away. I am a long time member of Toastmasters, an organization to improve members' communication skills. At every meeting we have a Word of the Day to enlarge our speaking vocabulary. We find etymologies of English words very helpful in understanding the subtle differences between meanings of synonyms. It is important to understand the difference between Bible synonyms. Expounding the Bible is to rightly divide it, and dividing it includes differentiating between synonyms. For the most part brother Lee's use of etymologies was limited by what the rest of the Bible says.

I want to cover all Nigel's points of constructive criticism one by one to fellowship on them. I think this is needed. But it is past my bed time now, so I hope I'll be able to continue tomorrow.

Thanks again to Nigel for all his work.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But this is not how Nigel paints it, er. ah Lee paints it. He quotes Lee:

So God Himself must not have been directing him. Or why seek out the scholars? Do these "authoritative" scholars speak for God? And how would Lee even know what's, or who, are, is, authoritative?

Let's face it. Lee was no dummy. Sooner or later, along the way, Lee had to have at least one moment of being honest with himself. That, he was full of bull excrement.

And yet he carried on. Methinks cuz he was a profit, and he depended upon it for the survival of him and his.

He was a failure at all other methods of making a living. LSM and the local church donations were his bailiwick.

No. It was God Himself.

In "W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning...the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 11, Sect. 2." WL states:

Then the Lord brought us into contact with some top missionaries. Through them we were brought into the Christian books, including the classical books, church history, and biographies from the second century until that time. All these writings further confirmed us.

and furthermore:

Brother Nee took the lead to say that since the Lord had given us the truths in this age, we must go out and send this truth to the denominations. I was the one who probably did this work the most.

It seems that the Christian books they read simply confirmed what they received directly from God.

The later books, apparently did not, since W. Lee said

“Since 1945 until the present there has not been a publication with spiritual weight in English or in Chinese. Many Christian publications are being printed, but they...lack content concerning the divine life, the truth, & Bible exposition.”

The subsequent linguistic analysis, apparently lacked the spiritual substance that God had directed them to and Lee had come to rely on in the earlier works .

[awareness]

From Zeek:

Originally Posted by Lee

Then the Lord brought us into contact with some top missionaries. Through them we were brought into the Christian books, including the classical books, church history, and biographies from the second century until that time. All these writings further confirmed us.

Brother Nee took the lead to say that since the Lord had given us the truths in this age, we must go out and send this truth to the denominations. I was the one who probably did this work the most.

Interesting. And full of intrigue.

After reading Nigel's treatise does anyone else see the humor here? It strikes me as funny, or as something funny going on.

Remember in the Old Testament where God says:

"I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." 1 Kings 22:22 & 2 Chronicles 18:21

Nigel has certainly done a yeoman's job at assessing what WL has presented over the years. However, WL was viewed as God's Apostle of the day which gave him some license to do things his way. During the migrations because of WL's personal request to me while we were riding in a car together (I was not in LA) I left one LC on the west coast and went to another in the Midwest to build it up so obviously at the time I gave a lot of credence to what he had to say along with many others. Voice in the Wilderness from the Great Lakes indicates that they have rejected certain things because Titus taught them to do so. Of course, Titus was kicked out the LC along with John Engels, Bill Mallon among others for various reasons some of which went back to the poor judgment of Lee regarding his son. That Lee cut corners regarding Greek and Hebrew translations doesn't surprise me. His book of Hebrews training in Anaheim was amazing which I attended along with Song of Songs which I did not attend but we went through it at our LC. There were some great moments but in the overall picture it left many disillusioned asking the question, "what just happened?" I like zeek's question about what is going on today if any one knows...are they growing, shrinking etc?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Guest said that Titus was expelled along with John Ingalls and Bill Mallon. Ingalls and Mallon were expelled in 1988. Titus and Nigel were expelled around 2007, after brother Lee went to be with the Lord, because they spoke against the new doctrine of One Publication.
-----------------------

Continuing my previous post:

I am covering Nigel's points in order, but the important ones to me are Oikonomia, Ginosko, Laodicea & Logos/Rhema.

3. Ekklesia - I agree with Nigel because of the way the word is used in the NT when not referring to the church.

4. Hebrews - I think the word does mean what WL said it means, and that it is relevant to us today because our God said he is the God of the Hebrews. I think WL's use of etymology here, and in most places, brings out more richness of meaning, and brings out a truth that may be overlooked otherwise.

5. parakletos - Nigel's criticism seems unfair too me. Brother Lee did not say the Holy Spirit was like a waiter in a restaurant answering our every whim. He said that in some aspect the HS is like a waiter. Also, I personally, don't care for statements like, "NT scholars conclude that, “Parakletos does not mean ‘one called alongside’.” Some NT scholars say that and some disagree. I understand that BDAG is the top NT Gk lexicon. BDAG gives the original meaning of word as ‘one who is called to someone’s aid’. The main meaning it gives is "one who appears in another’s behalf, mediator, intercessor, helper"

6. dunamis - I agree with Nigel. I found Nigel's description of the reverse etymological fallacy helpful because I think I have been guilty of it.

7. proginosko - I agree with Nigel and appreciate his description of "Illegitimate totality transfer".

8. Oikonomia - I agree with Nigel and appreciate his explanation. The problem here is not use of etymology but of "cherry picking" what one wants from an etymology. God's dispensing of Himself into us is prominent in the Bible, but WL used this cherry picked etymology to over-emphasize it as the only thing God cares about, to the extent that if something doesn't have to do with God's dispensing of Himself into man, drop it. I think most of WL errors are in the over-emphasis of some things.

9. 7 churches. - I agree with WL and WN. The meaning of the city names are meaningful. Revelation is a book of prophesy, and prophesy is often given as a puzzle. The interpretation of the city names should not be as strong as the actual words to the churches, but the city names add meaning to the direct words. I think WL observed this rule except for Laodicea, which is covered separately.

10. Laodicea - A terrible teaching in LR is that no one should have an opinion except the human leader. Where is this in the Bible? Laodicea does mean "opinion" or "judgment of the laity". It can be + or -, but from the context of the epistle, it is clearly negative. It means an absence of leadership. There may be a supreme leader at the top, but no leader in the local church thinking for himself and giving constructive criticism. According to the epistle to Laodicea, what was the opinion of the laity? It was that everything is great, we are rich and have need of nothing. No one is pointing out that they may be blind, naked, wretched and poor. This kind of fellowship requires leadership. 1Cor14, which is what we base our meetings on, says that the prophets should judge what the others say, and not just confirm it. WL's problem here was not the use of etymology, but making it supersede what the actual text says.
There are LC leaders who seem to think that they should not listen to any constructive criticism. To do so, they think would be Laodicea. If you say anything out of the flow, they raise their voice and don't let you talk. They think they should only listen to God, but do they hear God? How do you know if someone loves God? He loves those begotten by God. How do you know if someone listens to God? He listens to those begotten by God.


11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

12. Oida vs Ginosko - This is another of the worst teachings in LR, the despising of knowledge. It is right to differentiate synonyms, but in this case WL did not do it fairly. This is an especially terrible teaching for young people. Ginosko is usually a positive word in the NT, but WL taught that it was bad, ignoring the + verses in the NT, which is the majority of them.

13. Apapao vs Phileo - I agree with WL based on 2Pet 1:5-7.

14. Logos vs Rhema - This is another very damaging teaching in LR. WL simplified the difference between these 2 words, and over emphasized the importance of Rhema over Logos. The thought here, which was implied rather than expressly taught by WL, is that you don't need to obey every word of God, but only that which is instantly spoken to you by the Spirit. To do otherwise would be to follow the law or to put someone under the law. But the apostle John in his mending ministry emphasized that we need to keep God's commandments. "Commandment" means not optional.
In the church in Detroit we had at 1 time 2 parties: LSM and non-LSM. Our leadership was non-LSM. Before the actual split, my good friend in the church was of the LSM view. Every Lord's day he would come to the church meeting very angry that the church was not one with the ministry enough. So I shared with him some verses from Ps 37 that we should drop anger lest it lead to evil. He replied, How do you know that these are the right verses for me at this time? In other words, his concept was that, I only have to obey the words of the Bible that are the right ones for me at this time. This is not an isolated example.
This teaching is also very damaging to young people.

15. Holy, holy, holy implies the Triune God. I agree with WL.

Thank you again, Nigel, for your diligent service.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Guest

I like zeek's question about what is going on today if any one knows...are they growing, shrinking etc?

Having lived almost exclusively in the Western United States, my view is skewed. In the Pacific NW, I would say growth is addition by subtraction.
In the locality I was spent many years of my youth, growth is by the young people having families of their own.
In principle it's not much different than any other congregation or denomination; where you meet is according to your comfort zone. If you were raised as a Baptist, you're going to meet with a Baptist assembly. Those raised in the local churches are more likely to meet with a Local Church assembly.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thank you again, Nigel, for your diligent service.

Amen VoiceInWilderness. Each of Nigel's writings, I am thankful he hasn't remained idle.
Myself in particular would have wanted Nigel to write something on the practices that has resulted in division, but I receive Nigel's writings coming from a high level view. He sees something I ordinarily would not see.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Amen VoiceInWilderness. Each of Nigel's writings, I am thankful he hasn't remained idle.
Myself in particular would have wanted Nigel to write something on the practices that has resulted in division, but I receive Nigel's writings coming from a high level view. He sees something I ordinarily would not see.

That would be a good topic, Terry. Nigel covered that a bit on the ground of the church - a doctrine that was supposed to be God's unique way of preserving the oneness. One topic I would like to see is the human spirit and the Holy Spirit.

I realized the difference in dates when John and Bill were kicked out and when Titus was kicked out. The material on the web is extensive. I have heard of Nigel but was unfamiliar with his relationship with the "brothers'. I knew John and Bill but I never met Titus although many brothers I worked with in the LC knew him well. Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas. The two who migrated to Detroit in 1971 (Ron Kangas and the other escapes me) became two of the three elders in Detroit. I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background. The elders in Detroit were more heavy handed (mostly from the Anaheim influence) than I had experienced elsewhere but I never desired to be a part of the inner circle myself since I was more involved in "recruitment" on campuses and of other groups in the area to put it in its simplest terms. I read some of what Nigel said about the Song of Songs and I quite agree although it kinds of breaks my bubble of what I experienced back in the day.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

10. Laodicea - A terrible teaching in LR is that no one should have an opinion except the human leader. Where is this in the Bible? Laodicea does mean "opinion" or "judgment of the laity". It can be + or -, but from the context of the epistle, it is clearly negative. It means an absence of leadership. There may be a supreme leader at the top, but no leader in the local church thinking for himself and giving constructive criticism. According to the epistle to Laodicea, what was the opinion of the laity? It was that everything is great, we are rich and have need of nothing. No one is pointing out that they may be blind, naked, wretched and poor. This kind of fellowship requires leadership. 1Cor14, which is what we base our meetings on, says that the prophets should judge what the others say, and not just confirm it. WL's problem here was not the use of etymology, but making it supersede what the actual text says.
There are LC leaders who seem to think that they should not listen to any constructive criticism. To do so, they think would be Laodicea. If you say anything out of the flow, they raise their voice and don't let you talk. They think they should only listen to God, but do they hear God? How do you know if someone loves God? He loves those begotten by God. How do you know if someone listens to God? He listens to those begotten by God.


11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

Of course, this assumes we are to take meaning and guidance from these words. I agree with ViW that these words have meaning. There is just too much of a logical pattern in the names of the cities, and if we don't interpret the meaning of Nicolaitans then we can extract little if any meaning from its usage at all.

But trying to extract meaning from the etymology of every word in Bible seems overboard. Again, stick to the plain, clear message. Everything else is a bonus. I think anyone can mount a great Christian life just sticking to the basics. There are going to be lots of overcomers who didn't have a clue about the names of these cities but had the reality because they understood and obeyed the basics.

We spend a lot of time here worrying about graduate school subjects, which when you get right down to it are often superfluous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I realized the difference in dates when John and Bill were kicked out and when Titus was kicked out. The material on the web is extensive. I have heard of Nigel but was unfamiliar with his relationship with the "brothers'. I knew John and Bill but I never met Titus although many brothers I worked with in the LC knew him well. Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas. The two who migrated to Detroit in 1971 (Ron Kangas and the other escapes me) became two of the three elders in Detroit. I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background. The elders in Detroit were more heavy handed (mostly from the Anaheim influence) than I had experienced elsewhere but I never desired to be a part of the inner circle myself since I was more involved in "recruitment" on campuses and of other groups in the area to put it in its simplest terms. I read some of what Nigel said about the Song of Songs and I quite agree although it kinds of breaks my bubble of what I experienced back in the day.

Hey Dave. The elders back then in Detroit were Ron Kangas, Harry Ahlers, and Tim Scroggins. They replaced the elders that had taken the ground in Detroit, who had come out of The Assemblies of God.

I hung with 'em all, including RK, in his living room, who I loved dearly. I saw up close that his wife didn't love him like I did. She obviously saw him differently than I. I wonder why?

It was then, when I discovered that Lee had sent in his elders, that pushed out the existing elders, that I saw Witness Lee was acting hypocritical to his own teaching on the autonomy of the local ground.

But I was so gong-ho back then I just shelved that in the back of my mind.

Then Lee ordered migrations. And another one was added to the shelf.

There were more revelations of Lee hypocrisies along the way. My self was getting heavy.

The one that resulted in me getting the boot was the claim that Lee was The One And Only Apostle on the earth. And that's okay, the cognitive dissonance built up til I couldn't take it any more. My shelf was about to break, anyway. And I needed to throw it all out, and use my mental shelf for better, more true, things, perchance.

So thinks Nigel for lending a hand, to that end.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas.

Here's part of the problem. When there's an "in-crowd", the result is almost always factions and parties. A particular in-crowd of Texas and Anaheim may have a certain agenda that is to the exclusion of other co-workers and elders. This where brothers such as John, Bill, and Titus became persona non-grata. They did not conform to the agenda of the in-crowd.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

Right, Lee and the church elders were clergy in everything but name. Still, interpreting the passage in terms of etymology is doubtful in view of the historical facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes#Attribution

[OBW]

I can appreciate that people have different ideas about things. But on these two I find either no basis to understand your agreement, or little reason to care. In order, they are:

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

Hard to agree with such targeted, but unstated, error that would seem to fly in the face of the very system of order and structure that the church was born into and then was more directly commented on by both Jesus and Paul.

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership. He even instructed his disciples in how they were to be as leaders. Just because they were to be servant leaders did not remove their place as leaders. When Jesus complained about the Pharisees wanting to be exalted and demanding the best places, he did not say to his disciples to not be leaders, but to not be as the Pharisees. Jesus never said that the actual teachings of the Pharisees were bad. In fact, he seemed to suggest that they should be followed.

In the meantime, most of the kinds of "clergy" that Nee and Lee complained about were essentially equivalents to apostles, evangelists, elders, etc. I would agree that there is the potential for problems with hieracrchies of leadership, just as was effectively instituted just a generation later, but the potential for problem was never the reason provided for avoidance. Jesus did not tell his disciples to not be leaders because it was a slippery slope that would get them to be like Pharisees. He pointed to the errors of the Pharisees and said point-blank what was wrong.

Now he gets really heated about it in the midst of talking about the deeds of Balaam and then covers this old item in code?

I seriously doubt it. Seems more like a specific and localized problem that there was no reason to clarify for everyone else. Given the nature of all the other problems for all of the 7 churches, it is relatively safe to say that none of the others were anything actually new or unexpected. They were problems that were spelled-out and would have been understood as in contradiction to the living of Christ's followers.

So the omniscient God of the universe gave us a coded message for the one thing that Lee was sure was the biggest problem of modern-day Christianity? Doesn't add-up.

Seems that if this was about bossy leaders ordering people around, they would have been likened to Pharisees. If there was ever a class of Israelites lording it over the rest of them, it was the Pharisees. Creating some phrase that never otherwise meant what Lee claims it to have meant is a stretch when nothing in the vicinity provides any such hint at the problem he wants to find.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

15. Holy, holy, holy implies the Triune God. I agree with WL.

"Implies" is such a weak word that it is hard to disagree that it could be true. God is triune. So many things are in threes. Probably a decent chance of being right.

But what does it mean if it does imply the Trinity? That there is a symmetry in much of the writing surrounding the person of God? If it does or does not imply the Trinity, is there anything of real importance in it that should change our living here and now? That is one of the most important things for us to be finding in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership. He even instructed his disciples in how they were to be as leaders. Just because they were to be servant leaders did not remove their place as leaders. When Jesus complained about the Pharisees wanting to be exalted and demanding the best places, he did not say to his disciples to not be leaders, but to not be as the Pharisees. Jesus never said that the actual teachings of the Pharisees were bad. In fact, he seemed to suggest that they should be followed.

Lee's teachings on the clergy-laity system now rank right up there with the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

Both Christianity and the Recovery have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership.

...

So the omniscient God of the universe gave us a coded message for the one thing that Lee was sure was the biggest problem of modern-day Christianity? Doesn't add-up.

OBW, who said anything about there being no need for leadership? The kind of leadership the discused interpretation of Nicolaitans is talking about is exactly the kind Jesus and Paul warned us against. Nicolaitans is the antithesis of servant-leadership.

The message about not lording over laity is not just in the Nicolaitans references in Revelation. It's all through the NT. Jesus spoke about it, so did Paul.

Revelation is full of coded messages. If you are going to get bothered about interpreting Nicolaitans you might as well get bothered about interpreting beasts out of the sea, prostitutes named Mystery, and horses and riders and cisterns.

[awareness]

Okay I've let this slide long enough.

Originally Posted by Me

But this is not how Nigel paints it, er. ah Lee paints it. He quotes Lee:

So God Himself must not have been directing him. Or why seek out the scholars? Do these "authoritative" scholars speak for God? And how would Lee even know what's, or who, are, is, authoritative?

Originally Posted by Zeek

No. It was God Himself.

In "W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning...the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 11, Sect. 2." WL states:

Quote Lee:
"Then the Lord brought us into contact with some top missionaries. Through them we were brought into the Christian books, including the classical books, church history, and biographies from the second century until that time. All these writings further confirmed us.
End Quote

and furthermore:

Quote Lee:
Brother Nee took the lead to say that since the Lord had given us the truths in this age, we must go out and send this truth to the denominations. I was the one who probably did this work the most.
End Quote

Originally Posted by Zeek

It seems that the Christian books they read simply confirmed what they received directly from God.

That's true if Lee was telling the truth. And we know Lee's word(s) can't be trusted.

If you ask me Lee was BSing. Cuz if the Lord was leading Nee and Lee to faulty missionaries, and then to faulty and outdated Bible scholars, then the Lord was playing funny games with them, at their expense, and in the end, with us too, and me, at our expense.

Is that the way the Lord moves? Of course not. Lee just said the Lord was moving them just to trick us into thinking it was the Lord that designated him the MOTA.

Or Nee and Lee, when thinking the Lord was leading them (down the proverbial primrose path, or rather, down the garden path), were just delusional. That is more likely the truth.

Next Nigel, and his linguistic work ...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's teachings on the clergy-laity system now rank right up there with the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

Both Christianity and the Recovery both have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

yeppers Ohio! And that's why I stopped going to 'church'.. I had to go for a time to get the LC gar bash out of me. But THEN i fell into the clergy-laity Nicolaetan trap !.. UGH.. that's what I get for listening to people tell me "YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH!!"

LIVE AND LEARN !!!

HOLY SPIRIT IS MY TEACHER/OUR TEACHER... JESUS IS FATHER GOD'S WORD...AND YOU GUYS are the hands and legs of the Lord's Body. I'm the stomach... cause I stomach a lot that is said here.

All that said, I welcome all good Spirit Filled teaching from whomever the Lord uses to wake me up !

LOVE Y'ALL!
Carol

[awareness]

BTW, Besides this LCD version Nigel sent this pdf to me in email. Synchronicity led me to discover that my copy didn't match this one on LCD.

Plus the copy here, if you haven't noticed, doesn't number the footnotes. So it's nigh to impossible to follow Nigel's references.

So last night I sent email about it to Nigel. He responded pretty quickly, and sent the latest greatest copy. It matches this one here, but with numbered footnotes.

I encourage anyone seeking to research Nigel's treatises to download it. And maybe Untohim can clean up the one in the OP of this thread.

It really helps when seeking the context of a quote.

Get it, read it, or download it here:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Christianity and the Recovery have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

I would take it a step further and say Christinaity elders for example in a Community Church, the elders are accountable to the assembly as is the pastor. In some cases pastors are removed and elders resign.

In the recovery there is no accountability. This probably stems from the Deputy/Delegated Authority doctrine and practices that isn't prevalent in Christianity. When you're the delegated authority there can be an aura of superiority that presumes there is no relationship of deference nor accountability to the rest of the assembly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background.

So you were one of the ones I was hangin' with in Detroit. I know you, and knew you quite well. Ha ... cool.

So maybe you can tell us about Nigel's elephant in the room, that maybe only Ohio gets, or has expressed somewhat, in his initial response to this Etymological treatises.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

yeppers Ohio! And that's why I stopped going to 'church'.. I had to go for a time to get the LC gar bash out of me. But THEN i fell into the clergy-laity Nicolaetan trap !.. UGH.. that's what I get for listening to people tell me "YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH!!"

LIVE AND LEARN !!!

HOLY SPIRIT IS MY TEACHER/OUR TEACHER... JESUS IS FATHER GOD'S WORD...AND YOU GUYS are the hands and legs of the Lord's Body. I'm the stomach... cause I stomach a lot that is said here.

All that said, I welcome all good Spirit Filled teaching from whomever the Lord uses to wake me up !

LOVE Y'ALL!
Carol

Sister Carol,
the Holy Spirit does not teach differently than the word.
I think you know the verses that say you need to meet with other Christians and remember the Lord with them as He commanded.

We need to obey what the Lord commanded.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey Dave. The elders back then in Detroit were Ron Kangas, Harry Ahlers, and Tim Scroggins. They replaced the elders that had taken the ground in Detroit, who had come out of The Assemblies of God.

I hung with 'em all, including RK, in his living room, who I loved dearly. I saw up close that his wife didn't love him like I did. She obviously saw him differently than I. I wonder why?

It was then, when I discovered that Lee had sent in his elders, that pushed out the existing elders, that I saw Witness Lee was acting hypocritical to his own teaching on the autonomy of the local ground.

But I was so gong-ho back then I just shelved that in the back of my mind.

Then Lee ordered migrations. And another one was added to the shelf.

There were more revelations of Lee hypocrisies along the way. My self was getting heavy.

The one that resulted in me getting the boot was the claim that Lee was The One And Only Apostle on the earth. And that's okay, the cognitive dissonance built up til I couldn't take it any more. My shelf was about to break, anyway. And I needed to throw it all out, and use my mental shelf for better, more true, things, perchance.

So thinks Nigel for lending a hand, to that end.

Awareness,
Here is a different take on the church in Detroit history.

Titus said that Harry Ahlers was never appointed as an elder. Harry assumed the leadership due to the leadership vacuum.
Brother Lee probably never intended to replace the original leaders of the church in Detroit, but to add RK to bless them with the rich word that he had at that time.

Paul Onica, Sr. was one of the original leaders. Paul told me that he did not like that brother Lee had sent Harry Ahlers to Detroit, and told me how Harry ordered him around. Paul submitted to Harry because he thought that WL had sent him to be a leader there, but never was told anything about that. Harry one day ordered Paul to pick up a young sister and drive her to the meeting. Paul refused to do that because his wife could not go with him. Harry did not like Paul valuing his own integrity higher than submitting to authority and told Paul he may as well leave then. Paul said, Fine, I've been kicked out of better. So Paul left.

I told Paul what Titus had said about Harry, and Paul said that makes a lot of sense. He was very happy to know that. He also asked me about Tim Scroggins, but I didn't know, and he said that was fine, it doesn't matter. He said that it was really the main leader's failure to let things happen like that. I understood he meant RK.

Regarding the migration of Detroit to Ft. Lauderdale, Titus said that brother Lee was against it. It didn't make sense. Harry was the one promoting it.
RK said pretty much the same thing. In messages in the trainings, RK said that when Detroit migrated to Ft Lauderdale, he was the only one who asked bro Lee what he should do, and bro Lee told him to come to Anaheim.
He implied that the others went to Ft Lauderdale without seeking bro Lee's will.
(RK didn't seem to think that as the leader he should have thought about more than just himself.)

I know the church in Detroit had a phone conference with bro Lee. Most of the saints think that bro Lee was encouraging them to migrate, but I haven't heard a quote or an approximate quote to that effect. What they recall is wild stuff said by Harry.

Alta Shakespeare wrote to Titus after the church migrated and told him that if he had sent Dick Coleman instead of Harry Ahlers to Detroit, the church would still be there. Dick was a level-headed, plain-spoken, virtuous, down-to-earth, mature human Christian. Titus apparently listened because when we tried to retake Detroit in 1976 and then successfully in 1979, Titus send Rick Coleman, Dick's son, both times.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Awareness,
Here is a different take on the church in Detroit history.

Titus said that Harry Ahlers was never appointed as an elder. Harry assumed the leadership due to the leadership vacuum.

When I first came to Detroit we met in Harry's basement. And I lived at Harry's in a cot in that basement. Harry and Jan played a major role in arranging my marriage, to a Chinese sister from Santa Cruz, for the purpose of gaining more young people in Detroit, which Detroit was severely lacking in. Turns out that was the purpose of our marriage.

Originally Posted by VIW

Brother Lee probably never intended to replace the original leaders of the church in Detroit, but to add RK to bless them with the rich word that he had at that time.

Well Kangas was the most spiritual leader, by far ... unless you spoke to his wife. She considered him a phony, and even "exposed" him as one in at least one meeting, that I remember.

Originally Posted by VIW

Regarding the migration of Detroit to Ft. Lauderdale, Titus said that brother Lee was against it. It didn't make sense. Harry was the one promoting it.
... RK said pretty much the same thing.

Sounds to me like Titus wanted to seem to be on the inside of what was going on. Five localities migrated to Ft. Lauderdale. Did they all just decided to do that on their own? Was Harry behind them as well? Not likely. We were told, and maybe Zeek and can ring in, certainly others I'm close to could, if they weren't against rehashing their cult past, that it was Witness Lee that ordered the migrations, to capture the young people; in this case, the spring breakers to Ft. Lauderdale. Kangas was silent on the matter when it was happening. But it more than seemed he was following Witness Lee's lead. How could Harry override Kangas?

But I can't speak with certainty, as we little potatoes were pretty much kept in the dark ... and just went along with whatever we were told. And we were told Lee was behind it. Was Harry lying? It would have been Kangas, not Harry, that would have been in touch with Lee.

Originally Posted by VIW

(RK didn't seem to think that as the leader he should have thought about more than just himself.)

That's for sure. When we got to Ft. Lauderdale, I was certain RK would be the lead elder there. But he was gone in a flash, on to greener pastures, and Lee appointed Mel Porter as lead elder. A man devoid of any resemblance of spirituality, or maturity.

Originally Posted by VIW

I know the church in Detroit had a phone conference with bro Lee. Most of the saints think that bro Lee was encouraging them to migrate, but I haven't heard a quote or an approximate quote to that effect. What they recall is wild stuff said by Harry.

It was a mass migration, from Detroit, and other localities, and we all, as far as I knew, were migrating because Lee wanted it.

Originally Posted by VIW

Alta Shakespeare wrote to Titus after the church migrated and told him that if he had sent Dick Coleman instead of Harry Ahlers to Detroit, the church would still be there. Dick was a level-headed, plain-spoken, virtuous, down-to-earth, mature human Christian. Titus apparently listened because when we tried to retake Detroit in 1976 and then successfully in 1979, Titus send Rick Coleman, Dick's son, both times.

Well why didn't Kangas put a stop to it? He was lead elder, not Harry. Was he not a "level-headed, plain-spoken, virtuous, down-to-earth, mature human Christian?" Or was he so heavenly minded he was no earthly good? Or was he on his way seeking fortune and fame?

[zeek]

I met with the Church in Detroit in 1973 and migrated to Ft. Lauderdale with them the following year. Harry Ahlers was fully accepted as an elder by elders Ron Kangas and Tim Scroggins as evidenced by the fact that they prayed together and conferred with one another regularly and stood together whenever they made a decision concerning the members during that time. I saw no evidence of dissension among those three.

Five local churches migrated to Fort Lauderdale not just the "Church in Detroit." Harry Ahlers lacked the authority to make that happen. Ask yourself who had the authority and you will have your answer. There was only one man in the so called Recovery in the US that I know of who could snap his fingers and move five churches. The "move" was called the "Consolidation." Who was it that liked to have catchy titles like that for everything he did in the name of the Lord? So Witness Lee's footprint was all over that move.

It's sad that someone scapegoated Harry Ahlers for what was probably later viewed as a failure by Witness Lee when 1) it didn't produce the numbers he was after and 2) he was forced to relieve Mel Porter of his eldership in Miami several years later. If Witness Lee blamed him, it seems plausible that it was because he did not want to take responsibility himself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Awareness,
Here is a different take on the church in Detroit history.

Titus said that Harry Ahlers was never appointed as an elder. Harry assumed the leadership due to the leadership vacuum.
Brother Lee probably never intended to replace the original leaders of the church in Detroit, but to add RK to bless them with the rich word that he had at that time.

Paul Onica, Sr. was one of the original leaders. Paul told me that he did not like that brother Lee had sent Harry Ahlers to Detroit, and told me how Harry ordered him around. Paul submitted to Harry because he thought that WL had sent him to be a leader there, but never was told anything about that. Harry one day ordered Paul to pick up a young sister and drive her to the meeting. Paul refused to do that because his wife could not go with him. Harry did not like Paul valuing his own integrity higher than submitting to authority and told Paul he may as well leave then. Paul said, Fine, I've been kicked out of better. So Paul left.

I told Paul what Titus had said about Harry, and Paul said that makes a lot of sense. He was very happy to know that. He also asked me about Tim Scroggins, but I didn't know, and he said that was fine, it doesn't matter. He said that it was really the main leader's failure to let things happen like that. I understood he meant RK.

Regarding the migration of Detroit to Ft. Lauderdale, Titus said that brother Lee was against it. It didn't make sense. Harry was the one promoting it.
RK said pretty much the same thing. In messages in the trainings, RK said that when Detroit migrated to Ft Lauderdale, he was the only one who asked bro Lee what he should do, and bro Lee told him to come to Anaheim.
He implied that the others went to Ft Lauderdale without seeking bro Lee's will.
(RK didn't seem to think that as the leader he should have thought about more than just himself.)

I know the church in Detroit had a phone conference with bro Lee. Most of the saints think that bro Lee was encouraging them to migrate, but I haven't heard a quote or an approximate quote to that effect. What they recall is wild stuff said by Harry.

Alta Shakespeare wrote to Titus after the church migrated and told him that if he had sent Dick Coleman instead of Harry Ahlers to Detroit, the church would still be there. Dick was a level-headed, plain-spoken, virtuous, down-to-earth, mature human Christian. Titus apparently listened because when we tried to retake Detroit in 1976 and then successfully in 1979, Titus send Rick Coleman, Dick's son, both times.

So much human manipulation. So little Spirit of God.

You can always tell when LC leaders like WL and TC write history .. They alone come out smelling like a rose.

No offense to Voice in Wilderness, but "Miller's Church History" doesn't match the facts. Same ole spin I have heard for decades.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I met with the Church in Detroit in 1973 and migrated to Ft. Lauderdale with them the following year. Harry Ahlers was fully accepted as an elder by elders Ron Kangas and Tim Scroggins as evidenced by the fact that they prayed together and conferred with one another regularly and stood together whenever they made a decision concerning the members during that time. I saw no evidence of dissension among those three.

Five local churches migrated to Fort Lauderdale not just the "Church in Detroit." Harry Ahlers lacked the authority to make that happen. Ask yourself who had the authority and you will have your answer. There was only one man in the so called Recovery in the US that I know of who could snap his fingers and move five churches. The "move" was called the "Consolidation." Who was it that liked to have catchy titles like that for everything he did in the name of the Lord? So Witness Lee's footprint was all over that move.

It's sad that someone scapegoated Harry Ahlers for what was probably later viewed as a failure by Witness Lee when 1) it didn't produce the numbers he was after and 2) he was forced to relieve Mel Porter of his eldership in Miami several years later. If Witness Lee blamed him, it seems plausible that it was because he did not want to take responsibility himself.

That doesn't sound like the WL I remember. He was always willing to take responsibility for anything good that happened.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So much human manipulation. So little Spirit of God.

But no matter. As long as they follow the letter of the NT, as read to us by WN & WL, it is the normal Christian church life.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Titus apparently listened because when we tried to retake Detroit in 1976 and then successfully in 1979.

Think how funny this sounds, to an average person, Christian or not: "we tried to retake Detroit in 1976..."

Thank God the Recovery eventually took Detroit, right -- I mean, look at what a mess it is now, you can imagine what it would be like if they hadn't taken it! Seriously, though, ask every single person living there, and nobody I mean nobody is going to pay any attention to this self-obsessed religious group, and its la-la terminology. It has no bearing on reality, except to captivate the attention of Lee's troops. Like Don Quixote, marching off to fight imaginary wars. Hey, let's all migrate to Ft Lauderdale! Yeah, we'll take the city and the earth!

"Do you see the saints migrating?
Praise the Lord the move is on
For the church in every city
That our blessed Lord may come!"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That doesn't sound like the WL I remember. He was always willing to take responsibility for anything good that happened.

Apparently he didn't think what happened in the Consolidation was good. Probably that's because it was intended to result in increased numbers. But what actually happened was that not only did new converts not join but many members became disillusioned and left. The church in Ft. Lauderdale actually shrunk. There were at least 10 former elders competing for the top slot. Harry Ahlers and Tim Scroggins didn't have a prayer. The former elders that weren't selected found themselves without a function. Early in the process Lee called Ron back to home base because Mel Porter was going to be head honcho and he could use Ron's skills for the life study project. The rest weren't so lucky. They became bitter and left. It wasn't pretty to watch. These former elders, who had been all rah rah rah absolute,when they were side-lined, became disillusioned, stopped coming to meeting, fell by the wayside or moved away.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, who said anything about there being no need for leadership? The kind of leadership the discused interpretation of Nicolaitans is talking about is exactly the kind Jesus and Paul warned us against. Nicolaitans is the antithesis of servant-leadership.

So you agree that Lee was right to turn this obscure reference into a diatribe on clergy laity? Why the coded message when the subject had been discussed in detail out loud for the disciples by Christ himself?

Why create a named term for something like that? I recall that there has been found some evidence of a person named Nicolas that was leading people into some forms of idolatry or something like that. (It's been too long to recall the details.) It may not have been some huge thing, but it makes sense. If it is instead a reference to leadership lording it over the flock, it takes too few words to be explicit. Everything else is pretty well stated in clear terms. Why hide this one?

Besides, when some of us did some digging into the various commenters on this passage a few years back, my memory is that virtually every one of those who claimed it was about "clergy-laity" were generally declaring that only people who were true apostles should be leaders (always them, just Like Nee and Lee), and they were leading yet another exclusivist, extremist, remnant-theology group or something like that. The scholars of repute over the years have basically shunned this teaching.

Of course, everyone, no matter how they come down on this argument, agree that there needs to be leadership. Just seems odd that the ones that claim it is about leadership are almost unanimously in violation of the rule they claim it states. They also want leadership. Theirs. And only theirs. They need to invalidate all other leaders so that all other groups which are shepherded by those leaders will become disbanded (theoretically) and only their little sect with them at the helm be left.

It is the fact that only those who violate the alleged rule so strongly work so hard to declare that it is there that makes the finding hard to accept.

It is much easier to accept that there was something unusual going on in Pergamum that did not require open discussion for the rest of the world. Besides, the errors of the Nicolaitans are "in the same way" as the teaching of Balaam (putting up a stumbling block, eating things sacrificed to idols, and committing acts of immorality). That does not mean identical to, but it does imply (to me) a connection beyond the fact that something bad was being taught. I would need some hint of how to call "clergy-laity" as being "in the same way."

I honestly believe that we have been bracketed into accepting this. It was the first time anyone said anything about this to us and so it is the standard that must be dethroned. Never really proved. Just inferred. No context. No evidence that it was anything like true. Just a raw word study by the best cherry-picker around. Well, that particular cherry had already been picked by others before. But their methods were not much better. And the cherry that was picked fit their theology. And kept them in charge. Meanwhile, people not trying to be in charge don't find it credible. I trust people who are not gaining from their interpretation above those who are.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you ask me Lee was BSing. Cuz if the Lord was leading Nee and Lee to faulty missionaries, and then to faulty and outdated Bible scholars, then the Lord was playing funny games with them, at their expense, and in the end, with us too, and me, at our expense.

Is that the way the Lord moves? Of course not. Lee just said the Lord was moving them just to trick us into thinking it was the Lord that designated him the MOTA.

I feel a Princese Bride moment coming on:

"Fezzik, you just did something right"

"Don't worry. I won't let it go to my head."

Just kidding. You do/say plenty right all the time. But this one was really good.

As many off-center, out-of-favor, unaccelpted teachings as Nee and Lee kept coming up with, why do we think that they would actually read good stuff and find that it agreed with them? Either they weren't really reading the good stuff, but stuff that was already of their flavor, they were delusional about how consistent with their teachings those books were, or they were feed us horse manure.

Doesn't matter which one. The result is the same. The stuff they teach is still off-center, out of favor, and unacceptable.

[HERn]

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Think how funny this sounds, to an average person, Christian or not: "we tried to retake Detroit in 1976..."

Some in the C. in Detroit weren't able to migrate to Ft. Lauderdale. I know cuz I hugged them and cried when we left them.

Yes the elders migrated, so Lee didn't leave any of his cohorts there. But there was still a C. in Detroit, as represented by those that remained.

After arriving in Ft. Lauderdale Kangas ran off to be with Witness Lee. And look at him now. Talk about ambition.

But Harry and Scroggins became nothing ... just ordinary brothers. Harry was the most tender of the three. Scroggins, who was a military type, I hard suffered a mental breakdown. That makes sense to me. Tim was way too tightly wrapped. His orders had to be followed. I witness him physically abuse one of his sons at the dinner table. Kangas knew better than to put Tim and I together. That would have produced fireworks.

Speaking of fireworks. When I was going thru troubles in Ft. Lauderdale, when Mel Porter and I were bumping heads, Kangas called me from Anaheim, trying to get me to come to Anaheim. He cared for me so much that he, we, broke down and cried. He must have known more about Mel Than me. He told me he feared that if I stayed in Ft. Lauderdale I wouldn't stay in the church. He was right.

He would have been successful at getting me to move except for one reason. He told me about a new flow in Anaheim, that he wanted me to come and be a part of. His mistake was to inform me that some in Anaheim weren't part of that flow. In my mind I thought, if it were a real flow from the Lord all brothers and sisters would have been swept up by it. So I didn't move to Anaheim, even tho I loved RK dearly. I might still be in the LC if I had listened to RK. Who knows. But I wouldn't have discovered, thanks to Mel Porter, that I was in a cult.

And now Ron Kangas is a leader of that cult. And knowing RK, that blows my mind. I thought RK was sharper than that. But then again, he's successful at being a scribe for Witness Lee, making top dollar at LSM, with all the LC cult members looking up to him, like he's now the MOTA. Go figure.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

I was waiting for someone to point out that one.

Brethren. Whether or not exclusive, they were of a peculiar teaching. It is true that many of their teachings have influenced the teachings of Evangelicals in general. And out of that came a rather exclusive group led by an iron-fisted man — Darby.

Don't know which side Scofield was on, but the link to the exclusivist theology is still there. He didn't dream these up on his own. They came mostly from Darby.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Well he probably wouldn't buy Nike shoes ... I don't know. But good catch HERn.

Still, Scofield is prolly in the list of Lee's outdated Bible scholars, that Nigel mentions.

I'm keeping an eye open. I have yet to see anyone touching upon Nigel's fatal error.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Scofield took his Nicolaitan teachings right out of the exclusive Brethren playbook.

You know where we are all "brothers," but some are more "brotherly" than others. John Darby loved such theology, which he could manipulate as needed. George Muller and Henry Craik, the two elders in Bristol who stood up to Darby's abuses, stood solely on God's word to resist his advances. As a result, George Muller became the most hated man in all the Darby Brethren kingdom.

Darby hated all church offices because they placed restrictions and boundaries on his power structure. Nee and Lee were the same. Historians have said that Darby had become a far worse pope than the one in Rome he regularly condemned. His lineage of successors -- Raven, Taylor Sr, Taylor Jr, Symington, Hales -- have definitely proven that. They call Hales "the first among equals." Only the exclusives could invent such hypocritical expressions to fool the faithful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't know which side Scofield was on, but the link to the exclusivist theology is still there. He didn't dream these up on his own. They came mostly from Darby.

Don't think Scofield ever met with the Brethren, but he was raised Episcopalian / Anglican like Darby was. Scofield, however, was heavily influenced by the exclusive Brethren writers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I wouldn't have discovered, thanks to Mel Porter, that I was in a cult.

There you go again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They call Hales "the first among equals."

I was eating lunch when I read this. I nearly lost it.

Awareness...that Mel Porter quote is a hoot. I didn't know you were so tight with RK. He never called me and asked me to come to Anaheim. Been a long time since you and I spoke. Hope you are doing well. Interesting stuff you and VoiceintheWilderness gave regarding the history of the Church in Detroit. I am sure you know that I brought in a bunch of my relatives to the Detroit church who then all migrated to Ft. Lauderdale and are dispersed all over the place now although most of them or their children are friends on facebook. I always thought Harry was the sane one of the bunch whereas the other two were a little spacey. They were certainly obsessed with WL and his teachings. I remember when I first met Tim and he told me he had been directly trained by WL which gave him certain inside knowledge that the rest of us lacked.

Didn't realize they tried to reclaim Detroit a couple times until they finally did in 1979. The Ft. Lauderdale experience was a disaster and I moved to Miami which wasn't much better. Everything seemed like it was going downhill at that time. There were just so many things going on in Anaheim with the RV business having gone down the tubes with people having donated money to it etc.

The LC was certainly in some upheaval in the late 70s but I think it started with the Revelation training which I attended. Basically because of the notion of the overcomers and unless you were in the top echelon you were short of achieving this superior state. You needed to do more and more to arrive at some spiritual pinnacle. Otherwise you would end up in some kind of purgatory. Kind of like reaching for perfection that the Buddhists try to achieve to get out of the six cycles of ghosts, semi-gods etc.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Here is the Recovery Version note on Revelation 2:6 for comparison:

The Greek word is composed of two words, one meaning conquer or be victorious over and another meaning common people, secular people, or laity. Thus , it means conquering the common people, being victorious over the laity. Nicolaitans, then, must refer to a group of people who esteem themselves higher than common believers. This was undoubtedly the hierarchy adopted and established by Catholicism and Protestantism. The Lord hates the works, the behavior, of these Nicolaitans, and we must hate what the Lord hates. God in His economy intended that all His people be priests serving Him directly. In Exo. 19: 6 , God ordained the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests. This means that God wanted them all to be priests. However, because they worshipped the golden calf ( Exo. 32: 1-6 ), they lost the priesthood, and only the tribe of Levi, because of its faithfulness to God, was chosen to replace the whole nation of Israel as priests to God ( Exo. 32: 25-29 ; Deut. 33: 8-10 ). Hence , there was a mediatorial class between God and the children of Israel . This became a strong system in Judaism. In the New Testament, God has returned to His original intention according to His economy, in that He has made all believers in Christ priests ( 1: 6 ; 5: 10 ; 1 Pet. 2: 5 , 9 ). But at the end of the initial church, even in the first century, the Nicolaitans intervened as the mediatorial class to spoil God’s economy. According to church history, this became a system that was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and has been retained by the Protestant churches. Today in the Roman Catholic Church there is the priestly system, in the state churches there is the clerical system, and in the independent churches there is the pastoral system. All these are a mediatorial class, spoiling the universal priesthood of all believers. Thus, there are two distinct classes — the clergy and the laity. But in the proper church life there should be neither clergy nor laity; all believers should be priests of God. Because the mediatorial class destroys the universal priesthood in God’s economy, the Lord hates it. Among the seven serving ones in Acts 6: 5 , one was named Nikolaos (Gk.). There is nothing in church history to indicate that this Nikolaos was the first of the Nicolaitans.

... said the MOTA, Oracle of God, Pope and Chief Clergyman of the "Lord's Recovery" a church of his own conception and control who broached no other doctrine, teaching or opinion under his domain but his and his alone. He was the last of the Nicolaitans, at least for me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here is the Recovery Version note on Revelation 2:6 for comparison:


... said the MOTA, Oracle of God, Pope and Chief Clergyman of the "Lord's Recovery" a church of his own conception and control who broached no other doctrine, teaching or opinion under his domain but his and his alone. He was the last of the Nicolaitans, at least for me.

Like bro Ohio pointed out: The NOTA - The Nickelodeon Of The Age.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

The LC was certainly in some upheaval in the late 70s but I think it started with the Revelation training which I attended. Basically because of the notion of the overcomers and unless you were in the top echelon you were short of achieving this superior state. You needed to do more and more to arrive at some spiritual pinnacle. Otherwise you would end up in some kind of purgatory.

More or less, not much has changed.

[awareness]

Hey Dave, nice to bump into you again. It's been awhile. Hope you and yours are well.

Originally Posted by Dave

Awareness...that Mel Porter quote is a hoot.

The Mel Porter quote that's really a hoot is what he told me when he gave me an ultimatum. This is what he said that opened my eyes to being in a cult :

"You have to take my personality as your own, and if you want to blow your nose, you have to ask me which side first. Or get out."

That was an eye opener. Actually it pretty much caused my jaw to drop, and eyes to pop out. Mel had some big brass ones. Take his personality as my own? I may as well have checked into a mental hospital. After that statement, a mental hospital looked to be a step up. I was already in crazy town.

Originally Posted by Dave

Interesting stuff you and VoiceintheWilderness gave regarding the history of the Church in Detroit. . . . . I always thought Harry was the sane one of the bunch whereas the other two were a little spacey. They were certainly obsessed with WL and his teachings. I remember when I first met Tim and he told me he had been directly trained by WL which gave him certain inside knowledge that the rest of us lacked.

Seemed to me the only training Tim got was military training. He was lacking any noticeable spiritual mojo, as far as I could see, and so had to borrowed some from Witness Lee, to impress you. Were you impressed?

Originally Posted by Dave

Didn't realize they tried to reclaim Detroit a couple times until they finally did in 1979.

And then, bro Ohio can testify, years later they were quarntined by LSM, along with Titus, and his following. Maybe "Voice" can chime in on that.

Originally Posted by Dave

The LC was certainly in some upheaval in the late 70s but I think it started with the Revelation training which I attended. Basically because of the notion of the overcomers and unless you were in the top echelon you were short of achieving this superior state. You needed to do more and more to arrive at some spiritual pinnacle. Otherwise you would end up in some kind of purgatory.

Was there. Carried a constant knot in my gut trying to be an overcomer. Didn't even know what it meant, or what to do. That overcomer stuff was impossible. Turned out it was a cattle driver.

Originally Posted by Dave

Kind of like reaching for perfection that the Buddhists try to achieve to get out of the six cycles of ghosts, semi-gods etc.

I'd like to hear more about that. Just not here. Don't want UntoHim to pop a cork. And I'm not sure how many out here have any interest in Buddhism. Hey Carol E. wife of Jim E. in Detroit and Ft. Laud. is a Buddhist now (I love her dearly and am still close with her). Others too. Are you a Buddhist now?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

And then, bro Ohio can testify, years later they were quarntined by LSM, along with Titus, and his following. Maybe "Voice" can chime in on that.

At first it was just 3 Great Lakes leaders who were quarantined, Titus, Nigel, and Frank Lee, because they wrote against the edict of 1 publication, although LSM never gave that as the reason. They never really gave a reason that made sense, and came up with different reasons afterwards.

Each of us was individually served with quarantine papers telling us that Titus was quarantined and that we were not to fellowship with him under penalty of spiritual death. Since the LSM side of our church split had very few brothers, the papers were served by older sisters who either did not have husbands or whose husbands did not meet with them.

A couple years later a brother who meets with LSM told me that the whole church in Detroit had been quarantined also at a training. We were never officially told that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At first it was just 3 Great Lakes leaders who were quarantined, Titus, Nigel, and Frank Lee, because they wrote against the edict of 1 publication, although LSM never gave that as the reason. They never really gave a reason that made sense, and came up with different reasons afterwards.

Each of us was individually served with quarantine papers telling us that Titus was quarantined and that we were not to fellowship with him under penalty of spiritual death. Since the LSM side of our church split had very few brothers, the papers were served by older sisters who either did not have husbands or whose husbands did not meet with them.

A couple years later a brother who meets with LSM told me that the whole church in Detroit had been quarantined also at a training. We were never officially told that.

Voice, you don't know how ridiculous this sounds after being apart from the program for some time.

Here are LSM operatives entering the home of Nigel Tomes to properly serve him with his quarantine ...



Looks like his home could use a little replastering!

[Ohio]

Here is another victim from the LC in Toronto being taken away after being infected by the deadly Nigel Tomes virus ...

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Voice, you don't know how ridiculous this sounds after being apart from the program for some time.

Here are LSM operatives entering the home of Nigel Tomes to properly serve him with his quarantine ...


Looks like his home could use a little replastering!

It was absurd to us at the time also, as it is now.
That's funny. Thanks for sharing, Ohio.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

It was absurd to us at the time also, as it is now.
That's funny. Thanks for sharing, Ohio.

It foolishness. But it does leave the churches as autonomous ... as they should be ...

Finally, LSM, becomes true to their own doctrine, that the local ground is not subject to a headquarters.

And bro Ohio, thanks for the laughs. We should have a sense of humor about all this ... else we'll break down and cry.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

It foolishness. But it does leave the churches as autonomous ... as they should be ...

Finally, LSM, becomes true to their own doctrine, that the local ground is not subject to a headquarters.

And bro Ohio, thanks for the laughs. We should have a sense of humor about all this ... else we'll break down and cry.

I was at church today, so I looked up the original incorporation papers for the church in Detroit. May 2, 1972.
The signers were RK as President, Tim Scroggins and Harry as Secretary.
Tim was probably VP as the only officer slots on the form are for Pres and Secretary.
It says:
We recognize no higher ecclesiastical body as an authority.
Additional Provisions:
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is formed are as follows:
1. to conduct worship services in the manner prescribed i the NT
2. To edify Christians with teachings of the scriptures.
3. To preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. To seek universal fellowship with Christians for the testimony of God.
5. To minister spiritual and temporal needs of the poor, sick, orphans, and widows according to brethren love inspired by God.
6. We engage in home and foreign missionary activities in cooperation with affiliated churches

[Ohio]

That's really funny. Thanks for sharing ViW.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

We recognize no higher ecclesiastical body as an authority.
Additional Provisions:
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is formed are as follows:
1. to conduct worship services in the manner prescribed i the NT
2. To edify Christians with teachings of the scriptures.
3. To preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. To seek universal fellowship with Christians for the testimony of God.
5. To minister spiritual and temporal needs of the poor, sick, orphans, and widows according to brethren love inspired by God.
6. We engage in home and foreign missionary activities in cooperation with affiliated churches

Not the Church in Detroit specifically, but the Local Churches in general, this may have been in the vision in the 1970's but these points indicate how much the vision has changed.
In 1988 when a core of elders from the Church in Anaheim resigned, they went into further detail to show how the vision has changed.
Of points above the two that have been distinctly lacking from the recovery for many years:

4. To seek universal fellowship with Christians for the testimony of God.
(in the ministry LSM publishes, fellowship indicates according to the One Publication. More or less.)
5. To minister spiritual and temporal needs of the poor, sick, orphans, and widows according to brethren love inspired by God.
(Sadly, this been deferred to non-LSM affiliated Christianity and non-profit organizations to fill this need. From my experience, the primary concern is to appear in the meetings and if you speak, speak according to a LSM publication. How could "the brothers" know spiritual and temporal needs if they don't visit the poor, sick, etc? There's a certain regimin in the so-called churchlife, but it doesn't include contacting or visiting brothers and sisters. Only maintaining the meetinglife.)

[UntoHim]

There are some points in this piece that have not been highlighted which could generate useful discussion. For e.g. (from note #6)

There's more on Kittel & the Nazi party in Wikipedia:
Gerhard Kittel was an ardent supporter of the German Nazi party. William F. Albright wrote that, "In view of the terrible viciousness of his attacks on Judaism and the Jews, which continued at least until 1943, Gerhard Kittel must bear the guilt of having contributed more, perhaps, than any other Christian theologian to the mass murder of Jews by Nazis.”

Yet Witness Lee emphasizes his use of Kittel’s works:

“In my home there are close to 100 sets of books by different writers who are authorities on the Bible. For instance, there is a German writer named Gerhard Kittel whose work, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, specializes in New Testament word studies. He expounded, word for word, the Greek words used in the New Testament. There are ten volumes in this set. One Greek word can have eight to ten pages of explanation, expounding in detail the classic usage of the Greek word, how it was used during the time of the Lord Jesus on the earth, its fundamental usage in the Bible, and its common usage by the Greeks.” [W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap 7, Sect. 2] W. Lee commends Kittel’s TDNT highly saying, “There is a very good Greek dictionary—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament—which explains every word in the New Testament. It was written in German by a German brother whose last name was Kittel. The entire New Testament uses more than 7,600 Greek words, and Kittel’s research puts them into 10 big volumes, clearly indicating the usage of every Greek word. He explains the changes in their meanings from their most ancient uses to their classical usages. He also gives clear explanations of how the words were used when the Greek language pervaded the Mediterranean region. Not only so, in these volumes he also discusses the meanings of each word as used in the New Testament writings, as well as their meanings in ordinary usage outside of the biblical writings. From this book we see that Greek words have different usages according to 5 periods of time. Kittel points out all these usages for us. Because of this book we can get to the depths and carefully study every book of the New Testament.” [W. Lee, Speaking for God, Chap. 6, Sect. 5] W. Lee commends Gerhard Kittel’s multi-volume work saying, “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament written by Gerhard Kittel...contain[s] deep analysis on the meaning and usage of every significant word in the NT.” W. Lee declares, “I consult this set of books the most. As a result I can cut straight the word of the truth according to the Greek language when I expound the New Testament.”

[zeek]

Interesting information, UntoHim. Kittel's alleged actions against Jews make him a despicable character. Do you have evidence that his Nazism or antisemitism tainted his exposition of Greek words used in the New Testament?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There's more on Kittel & the Nazi party in Wikipedia:
Gerhard Kittel was an ardent supporter of the German Nazi party. William F. Albright wrote that, "In view of the terrible viciousness of his attacks on Judaism and the Jews, which continued at least until 1943, Gerhard Kittel must bear the guilt of having contributed more, perhaps, than any other Christian theologian to the mass murder of Jews by Nazis.”

One day we will all find out Obama's true colors, and then learn how many contemporary Christian leaders supported him. Not much different.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Interesting information, UntoHim. Kittel's alleged actions against Jews make him a despicable character. Do you have evidence that his Nazism or antisemitism tainted his exposition of Greek words used in the New Testament?

If Kittel was a Christian so was Hitler:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Christians have a long history of killing the Jesus killers. But the Jews as Jesus killers is a myth. Jews didn't kill on crosses, they stoned to death. Jesus wasn't stoned to death. Therefore the Jews didn't kill Jesus.

Moreover, just because Kittel could expound NT Greek words doesn't make him a Christian. Kittel may have had a great mind but there was no Christian heart in him.

He's no Christian I want to be associated with. If Lee was fine with such an association he was an idiot. Obviously Lee's heart wasn't right either. To Lee high peak doctrine was so important that it didn't matter if Kittel was a Christian or not. Head was more important than heart. And that was reflected in his movement.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If Kittel was a Christian so was Hitler:



Christians have a long history of killing the Jesus killers. But the Jews as Jesus killers is a myth. Jews didn't kill on crosses, they stoned to death. Jesus wasn't stoned to death. Therefore the Jews didn't kill Jesus.

Moreover, just because Kittel could expound NT Greek words doesn't make him a Christian. Kittel may have had a great mind but there was no Christian heart in him.

He's no Christian I want to be associated with. If Lee was fine with such an association he was an idiot. Obviously Lee's heart wasn't right either. To Lee high peak doctrine was so important that it didn't matter if Kittel was a Christian or not. Head was more important than heart. And that was reflected in his movement.

Straw man fallacy. I never claimed Kittel was a Christian. That's irrelevant. I inquired about the accuracy of the book he wrote that Witness Lee referred to. As far as that issue is concerned your entire post is a fallacious ad hominem argument. Werner Von Braun was a Nazi, but that fact is irrelevant to validity of his scientific worked which helped the USA be the first to put men on the moon. I'm asking about Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament that Lee used. I don't know that Kittel's Nazism influenced his exposition of words. Tomes argued that Kittel failed to "distinguish adequately between a word and a concept; an over-reliance on etymology, including the ‘root fallacy;’ the errors of ‘illegitimate identity transfer’ and ‘‘illegitimate totality transfer’; deciding the meaning of words independently of their use in sentences and discourse; and identifying theological thought in words, rather than word-combinations or sentences...” Those sound like technical problems. Did Tomes present evidence that Kittel's book was corrupted by Nazism? I missed that.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by awareness

Our brother Nigel is great, whether right or wrong, with his well thought out and researched pieces. I love 'em, even if they sometimes wear on the brain muscle to work thru. It's good exercise.

But I don't know if this piece brings more answers than questions.

With all these questions about the real meaning of the Greek words I'm just more confused. If I can't figure out what the words mean then how can I trust that I'm getting at the words of God, with no traces of doubt to disturb it? To heck with synchronic's. Sure it would be nice to know what the author meant by a word, but I want more to know what God means(t) by it.

Now it seems I have to play eeny meeny miney mo, catch a Greek Textual Scholar by the toe, My momma told me to pick the very best one.

How else am I to know who is right? Some words are easy. Like Ekklesia. Sometime ago I came across that the gathering of Roman politicians were referred to as an ekklesia. They certainly weren't "'the called out ones,' from the world."

But more words are much harder than ekklesia, to get to the bottom of. And again, which scholars are right?

Why does it seem that God can't write without suffering ambiguity?

And why can't we find a sense of humor about it ... for goodness sake ... instead of fighting over the Bible?

Witness Lee's interpretation of the Bible was just one opinion among many. Grow up. Get over infantile dependencies.

Awareness, you are hilarious. Just have to say. But in all sincerity I love your concern about just knowing what God says! My recommendation: Ask Him. Everytime. And listen for an answer.
Many other good points. You all are well worth reading. Glad you're looking out for us (You are, aren't you? Lol).
Wish I could keep up with you all...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Tomes argued that Kittel failed to "distinguish adequately between a word and a concept; an over-reliance on etymology, including the ‘root fallacy;’ the errors of ‘illegitimate identity transfer’ and ‘‘illegitimate totality transfer’; deciding the meaning of words independently of their use in sentences and discourse; and identifying theological thought in words, rather than word-combinations or sentences...” Those sound like technical problems.

To hear Lee tell it Kittel's Dictionary suffered from none of the fallacies claim by Tomes. So, so far, at this point, all we have is Tomes' word against Lees' ; he said she said.

And I'm not interested or willing enough to spend $150.00 to determine who's right.

This is my crucial realization: While in the LC I thought Lee was getting the meaning of NT Greek words by revelation from the heavenly realm.

Now I learn that, like everybody else he came by them from the earthly realm ; or in this case below that -- think the abyss -- if he came by them from a Nazi Jew hater.

[UntoHim]

Just so ya'll know, what I posted in #86 was from a lurker, and not myself. Not saying I totally agree with, or totally disagree with, Nigel's footnote here....but just trying to kind of sort of extricate myself. Ok, so I'll just speak for myself by way of commenting on the following:

Originally Posted by zeek

Interesting information, UntoHim. Kittel's alleged actions against Jews make him a despicable character. Do you have evidence that his Nazism or antisemitism tainted his exposition of Greek words used in the New Testament?

I have absolutely no idea. But I might just do some checking into this matter when I get some time. Of course, it's all just Greek to me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One day we will all find out Obama's true colors, and then learn how many contemporary Christian leaders supported him. Not much different.

Way, way different....for now. Last I checked, the Obama administration is not putting people to death (Christian or otherwise).

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians have a long history of killing the Jesus killers. But the Jews as Jesus killers is a myth. Jews didn't kill on crosses, they stoned to death. Jesus wasn't stoned to death. Therefore the Jews didn't kill Jesus.

Come on Harold, you're way better than this. Read the Bible. Or, if you want to reduce it all down to a Hollywood movie - The Passion of the Christ - even Mel Gibson got it right. The Jewish leaders of the day used the "civil" system to condemn and eventually crucify the Lord Jesus. As the poignant line of the Lord Jesus to Pontius Pilate:Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin. The responsibility was laid square upon the shoulders of the Jewish leaders of the time.

Moreover, just because Kittel could expound NT Greek words doesn't make him a Christian. Kittel may have had a great mind but there was no Christian heart in him.

Agreed!

[OBW]

Whether Kittel's word studies are good is based on the word studies, not his status as a Christian or as a Nazi.

One thing that has bothered me about so many words used in the NT (and in the whole Bible for that matter) is the number that are given special meaning in a Christian context. They would be meaningful if left at common usage of the day, but have instead been imbued with special meaning that is deemed layered-on by the fact that it is in the Bible. Now there are clearly passages (mostly OT, and to some extent the NT parables) that are full of imagery. But even there, it is not about special meaning of words, but of the images that the passages as a whole provide. Even the types are mainly plain words. It is the parallel with something else that gives it the additional meaning.

But we come along and determine that "zoe" is exclusively "God's life" everywhere it is used when the word was not created by the biblical writers to have a special meaning, but already had a primary meaning that was quite meaningful for the things being written by them. And surely that word had a link to the divine because it was the connection with Christ that was said to make it more fully accessible to man. But it did not need a different, special, new meaning to convey what I continually see as the truth of the passages in question.

As an example, it has been suggested that the word that we translate "sin" carries with it the meaning of an archery term that means to simply miss the mark. Aimed at it, hit the target, but not quite the center, therefore a "sin." But the Greek word from which it comes does not appear to carry such a meaning at the time of writing. It meant to do what is wrong. (Hard to say that not quite hitting the center of the target is wrong.) But instead, it seems we have taken a meaning of the English (Old English?) word it was translated into and back-dated it to the original writing.

Just one simple example. But these word studies are full of such words. And when you look up words in regular dictionaries, how many have a special meaning in a religious context. And how many of those meanings were created over time and not by the original writers of the texts.

Add to that the constant further redefinition of words by people like Lee. Such as when he says that a particular word is "simply" one of many actual potential meanings. And often one of the more obscure ones. Or one that he somewhat made up. Jesus was full of grace. Grace came with Him. But the Bible never defines grace as "simply Christ." That is a Leeism. And it somewhat obliterates the actual use of the word. The word no longer has a specific meaning that is tied to its roots. Instead, it is a word that puts our focus on something other than the actual characteristics of grace.

Maybe Kittel's word study does not do this. But sometimes I think the more people try to dig and dig into words trying to find something more than what is at or near the surface, the more they are going to find nonsense, but convinced they have found gold. (Or be selling whatever it is they found as gold.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Awareness, you are hilarious. Just have to say. But in all sincerity I love your concern about just knowing what God says! My recommendation: Ask Him. Everytime. And listen for an answer.
Many other good points. You all are well worth reading. Glad you're looking out for us (You are, aren't you? Lol).
Wish I could keep up with you all...

Thanks sis.

But if I go to God for the meaning of NT Greek words why do I then need the Greek words? I'm at the horse's mouth, so to speak, and He's now speaking English. Ha.

And yes sis Dancing, I'm lookin out fer ya. So look out. Ha again.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kittel's alleged actions against Jews make him a despicable character. Do you have evidence that his Nazism or antisemitism tainted his exposition of Greek words used in the New Testament?

This from the same lurker:

The answer is Yes, some scholars who have examined this issue claim Kittel's racist views influences his publications, incl. TDNT

Some quotes from scholars on this question
“Very few users of [G. Kittel’s TDNT] are aware of ...the fundamentally anti-Jewish structure of TDNT itself” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, pp. 513-4]
“Kittel and his colleagues in the TDNT project put [their] confused theory of language to work...to support the negative role of Jews...” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, p. 537]
Maurice Casey “argues that the TDNT [edited by Kittel]...is a very dangerous book...Since the editor-in-chief Gerhard Kittel and a number of major contributors were Nazis, users of the TDNT should be aware of their prejudices and assumptions. For example, K. G. Kuhn projected the ‘Jewish Problem’ back to the ancient world where he portrayed Judaism as being responsible for Jew-hatred. ...Walter Gundermann attempted to claim that Jesus was ‘Aryan’ (‘a Galilean’). Even non-Nazi contributors to the TDND are shown to have suffered from traditional German Christian anti-semitism.” [Maurice Casey, “Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the TDNT” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, No. 3, (July 1999) pp. 286-291, Abstract in Susan Sarah Cohen (ed.) Anti-Semitism Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 16, #0461, p. 157]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One day we will all find out Obama's true colors, and then learn how many contemporary Christian leaders supported him. Not much different.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Way, way different....for now. Last I checked, the Obama administration is not putting people to death (Christian or otherwise).

Think about Bengazi bro. To say that Obama did not kill Ambassador Stevens is to say that David never killed Uriah the Hittite.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think about Bengazi bro. To say that Obama did not kill Ambassador Stevens is to say that David never killed Uriah the Hittite.

As much as I dislike Obama, there is a rather large difference between a strategic decision to do things a certain way that turns out to be very bad and willfully putting someone into a battle with the hope that they are killed.

Have the security strategies related to our embassies been poor? Almost certainly. Should someone be called to task for sloppy intelligence or ignoring clear threats? Probably.

But it is not the same as David sending Uriah the Hittite to the front lines so he would be killed. Let's at least try to keep the rhetoric rational. If you want to accuse Obama, go after something solid. There is plenty.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This from the same lurker:

The answer is Yes, some scholars who have examined this issue claim Kittel's racist views influences his publications, incl. TDNT

Some quotes from scholars on this question
“Very few users of [G. Kittel’s TDNT] are aware of ...the fundamentally anti-Jewish structure of TDNT itself” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, pp. 513-4]
“Kittel and his colleagues in the TDNT project put [their] confused theory of language to work...to support the negative role of Jews...” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, p. 537]
Maurice Casey “argues that the TDNT [edited by Kittel]...is a very dangerous book...Since the editor-in-chief Gerhard Kittel and a number of major contributors were Nazis, users of the TDNT should be aware of their prejudices and assumptions. For example, K. G. Kuhn projected the ‘Jewish Problem’ back to the ancient world where he portrayed Judaism as being responsible for Jew-hatred. ...Walter Gundermann attempted to claim that Jesus was ‘Aryan’ (‘a Galilean’). Even non-Nazi contributors to the TDND are shown to have suffered from traditional German Christian anti-semitism.” [Maurice Casey, “Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the TDNT” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, No. 3, (July 1999) pp. 286-291, Abstract in Susan Sarah Cohen (ed.) Anti-Semitism Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 16, #0461, p. 157]

Thank you UntoHim and thanks to the "lurker". These are serious allegations that a text that Lee referred to frequently and endorsed enthusiastically was corrupted by antisemitism. I intend to look into the texts that you provided to see for myself what evidence Kittel's critics based their conclusions on. So far, the closer Lee's methods are scrutinized, the more flaws that appear in them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

... there is a rather large difference between a strategic decision to do things a certain way that turns out to be very bad and willfully putting someone into a battle with the hope that they are killed.

But it is not the same as David sending Uriah the Hittite to the front lines so he would be killed.

Actually there was little to no difference at all. In both cases the dead men were abandoned, and soldiers around them were told to retreat or stand down. In both cases the murderer used enemy combatants to do his work for him. In both cases, the only ones who really knew what transpired were soldiers who were under orders to say nothing.

In the first case we all know why Uriah was killed. In the second case, a massive coverup is preventing us from knowing why Stevens was murdered.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Come on Harold, you're way better than this.

Well I have to respectfully disagree. But thanks. I love you too.

Originally Posted by Un2Him

Read the Bible.

"His blood be on us, and on our children"

Pharisees = "children of the devil".[John 8:44]

Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin.

But was handed over to Pontius Pilate (a Roman), who crucified him on a cross, as, King of the Jews (a insurrectionist against the Roman Empire).

Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king."

Originally Posted by Un2Him

The Passion of the Christ - even Mel Gibson got it right.

Mel has shown himself to be an Anti-Semite. Like Kittel and Hitler.

Originally Posted by Un2Him

The Jewish leaders of the day used the "civil" system to condemn and eventually crucify the Lord Jesus. As the poignant line of the Lord Jesus to Pontius Pilate:Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin. The responsibility was laid square upon the shoulders of the Jewish leaders of the time.

And we're indebted to them for the salvation of the cross. They were agents of God's purpose. We should thank them, not condemn them. And Jews today had nothing to do with any of it. Most of them have no blood ties to Abraham, or those of 2000 yrs ago anyway.

Bottom line: If the Spirit led Lee to Kittel it(He) led him to a Nazi Anti-Semite.

And that's laughable.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Whether Kittel's word studies are good is based on the word studies, not his status as a Christian or as a Nazi.

Wrong. See post #96.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually there was little to no difference at all. In both cases the dead men were abandoned, and soldiers around them were told to retreat or stand down. In both cases the murderer used enemy combatants to do his work for him. In both cases, the only ones who really knew what transpired were soldiers who were under orders to say nothing.

In the first case we all know why Uriah was killed. In the second case, a massive coverup is preventing us from knowing why Stevens was murdered.

Are you suggesting that the death of Stevens was in inside job? Or that the uprising was US-inspired to cause a US death?

Or are you suggesting that the fact that after it all went south that the fact that a bunch of Marines (or whoever was security) did not simply stand and die and did not fight their way back into the part of the compound where Stevens was killed amounts to intent on the part of Obama, Clinton, or any other person not present at the event (sounds like a sales seminar when you say "event").

If Obama and company had strengthened their political standing through the incident, I would be looking for signs that something about is was not on the up-and-up. But since they have been backpedalling endlessly ever since, it is hard to find willful intent in it.

And that is the most important difference between what David did and what happened in Bengazi. Under your assessment making judgments that turn out to have been poor is a criminal offense.

And the fact that there is a coverup does not implicate Obama in the thing being covered-up. It was the same with Nixon. So far as we know, the fact that his zealous backers broke into the Watergate hotel was strictly their own doing. But Nixon got caught up in trying to help hide it and it cost him (had to look it up to make sure that RMN was not in the know before it happened). Could be this is the same kind of thing for Obama. Not personally repsonsible for the event, but guilty of hiding it so that his image is not further tarnished by it. Don't confuse the two.

Look. I don't like Obama. I dislike him enough that I would rather have seen Hillary as president (and that took a lot of soul searchnig to come to that conclusion). But somehow birth certificates were never the way to dispute him. Neither is blaming him as being up-front repsonsible for the Bengazi debacle to the extent that he should have been considered as signing a death warrant for one or more of the people in that Embassy.

We have to do better than that or anything we say becomes questioned even when it shouldn't. (And Obama has done and said enough to put him in that position with a lot of us.)

Talk about how he ignores the separation of powers. They called Reagan the Imperial president, but I think Obama is the real deal. He just has his cabinet order their departments to do what he wants. Congress won't pass it, so just do it anyway.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wrong. See post #96.

Yeah. I read that. And it is technically an ad hominem.

However, once there is evidence that they were willful in their selection of outcomes based on hatred of the Jews (or anything else other than trying to get the scripture right), then it truly becomes a "dangerous book."

[OBW]

Ohio,

Don't take me personally. But I have heard this kind of talk from all kinds of people, including my dad at times. My goal is to talk people off of cliffs of anger over things that they need to concern themselves with a little less.

I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the sand. But the way that we go forward with our personal, religious, political, sports, or other speaking should be consistent with a person representing God as his righteousness and love to be seen by the people around us. And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

[awareness]

Ohio. OBW. Obama. Y'all share "O" in common.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bottom line: If the Spirit led Lee to Kittel it(He) led him to a Nazi Anti-Semite.

And that's laughable.

It may be, but you're not going to get very far with the LSM crowd along this line of logic because it doesn't matter who a person is or does as long as he is the MOTA. Just call Kittel a mini-MOTA raised up by God and you're good to go.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

As for me OBW political preference aside, I see too much common characteristics regarding Obama and our blended brothers.

[awareness]

Tell lurker that checking his/her references would cost a fortune. Ask if any help can be offered.

Thanks...
Awareness/Harold

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This from the same lurker:

The answer is Yes, some scholars who have examined this issue claim Kittel's racist views influences his publications, incl. TDNT

Some quotes from scholars on this question
“Very few users of [G. Kittel’s TDNT] are aware of ...the fundamentally anti-Jewish structure of TDNT itself” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, pp. 513-4]
“Kittel and his colleagues in the TDNT project put [their] confused theory of language to work...to support the negative role of Jews...” [Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi NT Professor Reads His Bible: the Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel” in James L. Kugel, Judith H. Newman, Judith Hood Newman (eds.) The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, p. 537]
Maurice Casey “argues that the TDNT [edited by Kittel]...is a very dangerous book...Since the editor-in-chief Gerhard Kittel and a number of major contributors were Nazis, users of the TDNT should be aware of their prejudices and assumptions. For example, K. G. Kuhn projected the ‘Jewish Problem’ back to the ancient world where he portrayed Judaism as being responsible for Jew-hatred. ...Walter Gundermann attempted to claim that Jesus was ‘Aryan’ (‘a Galilean’). Even non-Nazi contributors to the TDND are shown to have suffered from traditional German Christian anti-semitism.” [Maurice Casey, “Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the TDNT” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, No. 3, (July 1999) pp. 286-291, Abstract in Susan Sarah Cohen (ed.) Anti-Semitism Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 16, #0461, p. 157]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ohio. OBW. Obama. Y'all share "O" in common.

Genius. Just brilliant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Ohio,

Don't take me personally. But I have heard this kind of talk from all kinds of people, including my dad at times. My goal is to talk people off of cliffs of anger over things that they need to concern themselves with a little less.

I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the sand. But the way that we go forward with our personal, religious, political, sports, or other speaking should be consistent with a person representing God as his righteousness and love to be seen by the people around us. And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

My initial point was simple. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to Kittel. So what if he was a Nazi. Don't you understand that Hitler was a great leader and hero to the German people. Most of them had no clue concerning all the evil we now know. Kittel was just going along with the flow, so to speak. They all were captivated by the charismatic rhetoric of their great leader. Likewise most Americans view Obama with similar love, having little understanding of what is really happening.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not the Church in Detroit specifically, but the Local Churches in general, this may have been in the vision in the 1970's but these points indicate how much the vision has changed.
In 1988 when a core of elders from the Church in Anaheim resigned, they went into further detail to show how the vision has changed.
Of points above the two that have been distinctly lacking from the recovery for many years:

4. To seek universal fellowship with Christians for the testimony of God.
(in the ministry LSM publishes, fellowship indicates according to the One Publication. More or less.)
5. To minister spiritual and temporal needs of the poor, sick, orphans, and widows according to brethren love inspired by God.
(Sadly, this been deferred to non-LSM affiliated Christianity and non-profit organizations to fill this need. From my experience, the primary concern is to appear in the meetings and if you speak, speak according to a LSM publication. How could "the brothers" know spiritual and temporal needs if they don't visit the poor, sick, etc? There's a certain regimin in the so-called churchlife, but it doesn't include contacting or visiting brothers and sisters. Only maintaining the meetinglife.)

As the Lord said to the church in Ephesus, You have left your 1st love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the 1st works.

We can repent and do the 1st works.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Think how funny this sounds, to an average person, Christian or not: "we tried to retake Detroit in 1976..."

Thank God the Recovery eventually took Detroit, right -- I mean, look at what a mess it is now, you can imagine what it would be like if they hadn't taken it! Seriously, though, ask every single person living there, and nobody I mean nobody is going to pay any attention to this self-obsessed religious group, and its la-la terminology. It has no bearing on reality, except to captivate the attention of Lee's troops. Like Don Quixote, marching off to fight imaginary wars. Hey, let's all migrate to Ft Lauderdale! Yeah, we'll take the city and the earth!

"Do you see the saints migrating?
Praise the Lord the move is on
For the church in every city
That our blessed Lord may come!"

Thanks for pointing that out Aron. Yes it is a proud terminology. I won't use it any more.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My initial point was simple. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to Kittel. So what if he was a Nazi. Don't you understand that Hitler was a great leader and hero to the German people. Most of them had no clue concerning all the evil we now know. Kittel was just going along with the flow, so to speak. They all were captivated by the charismatic rhetoric of their great leader. Likewise most Americans view Obama with similar love, having little understanding of what is really happening.

And based on this post, I don't understand the thought to parallel Obama and Bengazi with David and Uriah.

Here you seem to say that Kittel was enamored with a flashy leader and got sucked in (like most of us did with the LRC at some point). That does not automatically make his book bad (though it may be for other reasons). And similarly there are a lot of people who are enamored by Obama. But that does not make him a Hitler. Just and attractive leader.

Yes, too many people have no idea what kind of junk they are eating from the Obama food bank. Probably Soylent Green.

But none of this explains the connection to David other than the weak connection that Obama was the leader when Bengazi went down. The only way I see a connection is that Obama personally knew that that likelihood of dying at that Embassy was really high and sent Stevens there with the intent that he die. And as much as it would be expedient to pin that on him, I don't see it. And once you say it so strongly as if it is true, then when you back down to the truth, it is suspect because the source is suspect.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

It may be, but you're not going to get very far with the LSM crowd along this line of logic because it doesn't matter who a person is or does as long as he is the MOTA. Just call Kittel a mini-MOTA raised up by God and you're good to go.

I think you're right sis HERn (if you are a sis???). Lee going to Kittel may be a laughing matter to me but I'm sure making it public here isn't a laughing matter to bro Ron Kangas.

And I'm burdened for my bro Ron. I'm very concerned about him. I still love him.

And I believe (I say believe cuz I'm not certain) that his hard outer shell has to be cracked from within, by laughter. Laughter is one of God's secrets in the cosmos.

So I should be working my posts in such a way that will crack him up when reading them (pun intended).

But I don't think I can top our bro Nigel, with this Etymological Error treatise.

Bro Ron has to be rollin on the floor.

Thanks Nigel.

[Ohio]

The Greek word Ekklesia is a prime example of the error of etymologizing. Prof. James L. Boyer exemplifies the logical process which embodies this error. He writes, “We may illustrate the [flawed] etymological approach to the study of words...The Greek word ‘church’ in the New Testament is ekklesia. This word is formed of two parts, the preposition ek meaning ‘out of’ and the root connected with the verb kaleo, ‘to call.’ Therefore, the etymology of the word suggests ‘a called-out assembly.’ From this point on the [interpretive] process...may go as far as the interpreter's sense of good judgment will let him. It is a select group, called out from among the rest of the world. Therefore also it is a separatist group. It is composed of those who are called, so it is involved in the doctrine of election. Since the calling involved a caller, and an actual call issued, therefore the church is an official constituted body rather than a heterogeneous mass of separatists. Perhaps you can go on further.”

Nigel Tomes uses ekklesia as a primary example of the failed principles of etymolological word meanings, but I still don't see the "problem" here. Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly? So what's the problem? Obviously, at times, the emphasis in the usage of this word is on the "assembly" aspect. But like any word, multiple meanings are available to be determined by the context. Tomes study here seems to be saying, "here is an exception, so let's throw out the rules." I see no revolution here, rather academics trashing old research, just to sell their new books.

I have used "little" Kittel for many years. He never obsessed over etymologies, rather he compiled exhaustive uses of each word in the whole of Greek literature. That's why his initial work is ten volumes. What's the big deal about his being an anti-Semite? So was Luther, the first MOTA.

This forum has discussed Lee's errors at great length. Using word-studies is not one of them. Tomes has not only "pulled the rug out" on Lee, but on the whole evangelical body of Christ. He seems to overly value contemporary scholarship, at the expense at that which has been thoroughly vetted and time-tested by the body of Christ.

One of the things Tomes' study seems to be missing is that the NT writers needed to "convey spiritual things with spiritual words," (I Cor 2.13) by using existing Koine vernacular and at times expanding its semantics. Another missing item is God's sovereignty, inspiring the writers and perhaps preparing a foundation of words long before the coming of His Son. Consider John's Gospel's opening line, "In beginning was the Logos." Was this not inspired by the Spirit of God? Centuries earlier this word had been introduced into the Greek language, and decades after Jesus walked on earth, John initiated something absolutely new by calling God's eternal Son, who walked on earth with him, the Logos. How does logos synchronicity adequately explain to us what that means?

Of course, we have discussed the tendencies of Lee to use hyperbole and allegorize without limitation, but to move to extremes in the opposite direction does the same disservice to the body of Christ.

It's too bad the author never comes on board to discuss his papers with us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes uses ekklesia as a primary example of failed principles of etymolological word meanings, but I still don't see the "problem" here. Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly? So what is the problem? Obviously, at times, the emphasis in the usage of this word is on the "assembly" aspect. But like any word, multiple meanings are available to be determined by the context. Tomes study here seems to be saying, "here is an exception, so let's throw out the rules." I see no revolution here, rather academics trashing old research, just to sell their new books.

I have used "little" Kittel for many years. He never obsessed over etymologies, rather he compiled exhaustive uses of each word in the whole of Greek literature. That's why his initial work is ten volumes. What's the big deal about his being an anti-Semite? So was Luther, the first MOTA.

This forum has discussed Lee's errors at great length. Using word-studies is not one of them.

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

Lee was anti-christianity

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee was anti-christianity

Lee was anti-anything-but-his-thing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy tagline

Reason without wonder is like a child without a childhood. Reason + Wonder = Faith

I really love this line Igzy.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

WL was very pro Israel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

WL was very pro Israel.

Of course. Lee's whole paradigm hung on the preparation of the bride for the coming bridegroom. And Israel and the third temple was/is central to his whole scheme and systematized eschatology. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be Anti-Semitic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course. Lee's whole paradigm hung on the preparation of the bride for the coming bridegroom. And Israel and the third temple was/is central to his whole scheme and systematized eschatology. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be Anti-Semitic.

I never once heard anything from Lee anti-Semitic. I don't think we ought to focus on the what-ifs and could-have-beens.

[OBW]

Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly?

Yes to the second part. But not so clearly to the first part. I think that the most direct statement on that question says (in so many words) "in the world but not of the world."

Now that does mean we should live as if not part of the world. And that might be construed as not being in the world. But the task of the Christian in this life is to live as the image of God, demonstrating His love and life in this world. Not at a distance, removed from the world.

I admit that there is a way to understand "called out of the world" that does not avoid that particular task. But most understand "out of the world" as becoming isolationists. Those who tolerate the need to work in the world just enough not to gag when they are forced to be in it, then retreating to the isolation of a meeting where they can "be spiritual." It is not just an LRC phenomenon. But it definitely is an LRC phenomenon.

[zeek]

Meeks states that Kittel's The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. avoids explicit antisemitism, but the book contains mistaken word expositions. http://pibbethel.no-ip.org/bibliotec...rpretation.pdf Kittel's erroneous word expositions were adopted by Lee and he in turn taught them to us. If we haven't gotten them out of our system, we may still be driving under their influence.

[OBW]

One additional comment on ekklesia. There has been much made in the word studies about the root parts including "out of" but little about the actual understanding of the word at the time as being simply "assembly." That is being pushed by those of us who either sort of like Lee's teaching on this subject (with or without liking the link to Lee). But if the purpose was to press the "out of" part of the roots, why does it, buried in a study of the past roots of the word, stand in opposition to the directly-stated directive that we be in the world — just not of it?

I think if you simply go through a dictionary and look at the part where they show the pieces of root Anglo-Saxon, German, Latin, French, etc., words that are thought (or known) to have been pieced-together in our modern word that you will find many in which some aspect of at least part of the root creates a "huh?" or may just an "interesting; but it doesn't appear in the meaning today unless you go 9 definitions into it."

The church is not of the world, but it is in it. The letters to the various churches were about the things that damaged the testimony of God's righteousness — both to other Christians and to the world. Jesus prayed that we would be one as the Father and Son are one so that the world would see. Can't see much of what is not in its vision. And a church that is only about what happens in its "out of the world" meetings isn't much of a church. And it is not coming in contact with the gates of Hell.

Yeah. We like to think about the gates of Hell in terms of intercessory prayer for a person dying of cancer. Or someone that we think really needs to come to Christ. What about that driver that cut you off and is inviting you to toss your testimony aside and shout and give them a one finger salute? Or cut them off in return. (While not in every way, this is one of the places that I fall down at times.) As just another individual, my "testimony" as being part of the body of Christ might be invisible. And when I fall prey to my more base instincts, there is no testimony. I am presumed to be just one of them. But when I respond differently, they may just think I am a wimp. Or "learned my place." Or they may wonder how it is that someone could let that go so easily. If they ask, the answer is Christ. And when a church full of such people invades the space around them, some will take note. (And I don't just mean a single assembly of them, but the body of Christ.)

Besides, what does adding "out of " do for us or instruct us about the church that is important to our living and not just more head knowledge (that is of uncertain importance or benefit)? Is our Christian living really impacted by the uplifting of thinking that we have been "called out of" the world? We are what we are. It is because of Christ. And he left us in the world. Rather than looking for more reasons to be "up" about everything, we probably should be more sober as we engage in the world. The sober person is probably better equipped to deal with the guy who cut them off on the road. Emotional states are easily shattered because they are based upon stimuli and your interpretation of them.

As I recall, the things that were identified as things to "think on" did not include the special status of the church. There could be some truth in it. But if it is true, then it is true. What does it do for you that it does not do without you knowing it? But where your mind is relative to the things you are currently facing is very important. Pursue righteousness, not better theology. Walk according to the Spirit, not have a higher thought about what the church is.

[Friedel]

Kittel was antisemitic. Lee was a Zionist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes to the second part. But not so clearly to the first part. I think that the most direct statement on that question says (in so many words) "in the world but not of the world."

The church is not "of the world" because she was called out. Then she is directed to go back to the world with "good news."

There is no contradiction here.

[zeek]

Ekklesia was what the ancient Athenians called their democratic assembly during their golden age from 480 to 404 BC. So, an exposition of the word that makes being called out of the world essential to the word's usage implies that the ancient Athenians would have understood it that way. Historical evidence shows that is a gross anachronism. The NT writers fluent in Greek as they were would have known the general usage of the word in the time. Therefore, if they intended to imply ekklesia to have a special meaning of "ones called out of the world" as Lee claimed, they would have to specify that somewhere. Where in the NT testament is that teaching? Nowhere. That ekklesia was intended to have that special meaning is an extra-biblical teaching of Witness Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ekklesia was what the ancient Athenians called their democratic assembly during their golden age from 480 to 404 BC. So, an exposition of the word that makes being called out of the world essential to the word's usage implies that the ancient Athenians would have understood it that way. Historical evidence shows that is a gross anachronism. The NT writers fluent in Greek as they were would have known the general usage of the word in the time. Therefore, if they intended to imply ekklesia to have a special meaning of "called out ones" as Lee claimed, they would have to specify that somewhere. Where in the NT testament is that teaching? Nowhere. That ekklesia was intended to have that special meaning is an extra-biblical teaching of Witness Lee.

The Lord Jesus himself selected this word when He said, "I will build My church." Did He have some Athenian assembly in mind?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Kittel was antisemitic. Lee was a Zionist.

That's graphic. Thanks for that Friedel. It does look to fit.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

As the Lord said to the church in Ephesus, You have left your 1st love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the 1st works.

We can repent and do the 1st works.

VoiceInWilderness, amen!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus himself selected this word when He said, "I will build My church." Did He have some Athenian assembly in mind?

Wasn't Jesus speaking in Aramaic? So then, what did the Aramaic word mean? Aramaic wasn't Greek. It was Semitic. So we can't actually know the etymology of the word Jesus was using. We're seeing thru a Greek filter. And in those days ekklesia did not mean the called out ones. It meant any gathering.

But what the word meant that Jesus used in Aramaic we can't know. And neither could Lee.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus himself selected this word when He said, "I will build My church." Did He have some Athenian assembly in mind?

I sort of doubt Jesus chose the word "ekklesia." I further doubt they spent the time talking in Greek. More likely Aramaic.

So we have yet another word not spoken by anyone at the time that is now provided as the one we will source back to for our scripture. Do we presume that the writers were parsing words by core meanings, or using Greek equivalents that were understood to mean what the original Aramaic (or even Hebrew when you consider the Septuagint). Do we presume that the decision that a particular English word being chosen as the word for some Greek word (which was translated from an Aramaic word) should be studied for its root meaning?

And so we arrive at the old question of inerrancy that talks about the original autographs. To the extent that this was guys writing down what they heard (or dictating it for someone else to write down), then if it is not in Greek it gets translated to Greek, what weight do we give to the core meaning of the various words? While Luke may have recorded his accounts in Greek, much of it (or at least the gospel and the early parts of Acts) probaby derives from Aramaic. I don't give much credibility to residents of Judea, especially the ones who were fishermen, learning enough Greek to be that choosy about their Greek words. More likely to use the ones they (and everyone else) understood. And they weren't studying the history of words to help write a great book of code. As Paul said, "to make known . . ." not "to better obscure and hide . . . ."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wasn't Jesus speaking in Aramaic? So then, what did the Aramaic word mean? Aramaic wasn't Greek. It was Semitic. So we can't actually know the etymology of the word Jesus was using. We're seeing thru a Greek filter. And in those days ekklesia did not mean the called out ones. It meant any gathering.

But what the word meant that Jesus used in Aramaic we can't know. And neither could Lee.

That is the core of the problem with word studies. They are relying on the fiction that Greek is the source. Greek was only the source for what is likely very little of the epistles (if any). I mean, it could be that Paul wrote a letter to the Romans using Greek . . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I sort of doubt Jesus chose the word "ekklesia." I further doubt they spent the time talking in Greek. More likely Aramaic.

And this is where both Lee and Tomes, and all their textual scholars, fall down with Greek word studies.

We can't get at the Greek autographs, so forget getting at the Aramaic autographs.

Originally Posted by OBW

And so we arrive at the old question of inerrancy that talks about the original autographs.

Those that believe in inerrancy don't know what they are talking about.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never once heard anything from Lee anti-Semitic. I don't think we ought to focus on the what-ifs and could-have-beens.

I agree.
Also, I don't think it is possible to be pro Israel and anti-Semitic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And this is where both Lee and Tomes, and all their textual scholars, fall down with Greek word studies.

We can't get at the Greek autographs, so forget getting at the Aramaic autographs.

Those that believe in inerrancy don't know what they are talking about.

Without original autographs, how do we know anything has ever happened?

How do we really know what George Washington said? Perhaps he never existed. How can we know for sure that he was our first president? Perhaps none of it really happened. Maybe it is all a fairy tale.

Beam me up Scotty.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Those that believe in inerrancy don't know what they are talking about.

Harold, what do you mean by that statement? Do you not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Without original autographs, how do we know anything has ever happened?

How do we really know what George Washington said? Perhaps he never existed. How can we know for sure that he was our first president? Perhaps none of it really happened. Maybe it is all a fairy tale.

Don't we have archaeology to prove all this?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Harold, what do you mean by that statement? Do you not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

That depends upon how we determine inerrancy? Hasn't Nigel shown us that we can't determine the meaning of Greek words undisturbed by doubt?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus himself selected this word when He said, "I will build My church." Did He have some Athenian assembly in mind?

The preponderance of evidence indicates that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek so your first statement is factually incorrect, as several people have already stated and you have neither denied not affirmed. The Greek word ekklesia meant a gathering or assembly. Etymologically it referred to being called out of homes to a meeting. To make it say more than that is to use it denotatively or metaphorically. While that is possible, nowhere in the New Testament is that explicitly taught. In the absence of that, how could a person who claimed to preach "the pure word of God" be certain that that was the intended meaning? Easy when that person is the minister of the age with a special anointing from the God of the universe. But, since I don't have that kind of supernatural connection, I have to go by what is written and what is known about the history and culture of the times.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's graphic. Thanks for that Friedel. It does look to fit.

Gerhard Kittel, who regarded himself as a "good" Nazi, is best remembered for his speech in June 1933 entitled Die Judenfrage (“The Jewish Question") which was later published as a booklet with the same title. His being a "good" Nazi purportedly came from his suggestion that Jews be granted "guest status" in Germany but we know what eventually transpired regarding the Jews. After the war he was arrested, stripped of his academic position and he lost his pension. When I discovered what Kittel did and how he was very active regarding the so-called "Jewish Question" and that they got rid of him after WWII, I got rid of my Little Kittel.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by awareness

Those that believe in inerrancy don't know what they are talking about.

This sounds very much like the Mormons who "believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly". Correctly? On whose authority.

This use of "inerrancy" sounds very similar to the kind of reasoning by the Mormons. And it is very dangerous. Whether the Lord Jesus spoke in Aramaic and whether it was recorded in Greek is not for you to debate and criticize. There is the matter of faith and the matter of the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

How about just believing the Word instead of questioning it at every turn? It seems to me some here might already be on the slippery slope of a modern higher criticism, a pernicious kind of new modernism.

The first and best description of the "church" is found in Acts 2 yet the word "ekklesia" or "church" is not even used: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."

They remained in their houses and did not go to a central meeting place. This was written by Luke who had the best literary command of Greek of all the New Testament writers. Do you believe it was inspired by God? It describes what we used to call "the church life" yet nowhere does Luke use "ekklesia" (church).

Elsewhere on this forum I picked up a discussion of Witness Lee and his often preferred use of "Jehovah". He was not the first. The translators who had worked on the Revised Version of 1886 disagreed so much on this that the American scholars on that revision committee put out their own version in 1901 (American Standard Version), stating that one of the main reasons happened to be strong disagreement over the use of "Jehovah" or not.

[Cal]

The basic question in interpretation is do you believe the message is only in the words as understood by the writers, or are there messages inserted by a sovereign, inspiring God that the writers didn't even know about?

If you believe the latter then all manner of diagnoses, Greek word exposition, cross-referencing, pattern-searching and type evaluation may be appropriate. The problem with this kind of approach is knowing when to stop. Witness Lee definitely believed in this approach to the Bible and ended up with a theology that eclipsed some of the clear, plain commandments (e.g. living a life of service) with those which at best are hidden and perhaps imaginary (e.g. focusing on "God's economy").



Put in layman's terms, Lee got so "cute" with his Bible approach that he erred.

I believe in the Bible's plain word, but I also believe that God is completely capable of inserting inspired messages that the writers weren't even aware of. Evidence of this is the heptactic structure of the New Testament revealing patterns of the numbers of words and vowels which when taken together could not have been planned by the writers.

On the other hand, though we can consider the Bible fully inspired, it's clear that it doesn't bother to be accurate in the way we usually define accuracy. This is shown by the variations in the reportage of the same incidents and dialogue in the different gospels. For example, Matthew reports Jesus using the phrase "kingdom of heaven," while Luke and Mark report the same incidences of speaking as using the phrase "kingdom of God."

Lee took this variation as an excuse to create a new doctrine about the differences between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Whether or not he was correct is not the point. The point is why major in these types of speculations when we have the plain word speaking clearly to us?

Lee tried to hear whispers so much that he missed the shouting. Is it reasonable to do that? The person who saw the patterns that swallowed the wall of his office in the image above thought so. And in a weird way the patterns made sense. But then again he was crazy.

[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.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

That depends upon how we determine inerrancy? Hasn't Nigel shown us that we can't determine the meaning of Greek words undisturbed by doubt?

Nigel says that we should just use the meanings of the Greek works at the time of the NT, and not consider the etymology, history or future use of the word. He doesn't say that we can't be sure of the meaning of the Greek words.

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

On the other hand, though we can consider the Bible fully inspired, it's clear that it doesn't bother to be accurate in the way we usually define accuracy. This is shown by the variations in the reportage of the same incidents and dialogue in the different gospels. For example, Matthew reports Jesus using the phrase "kingdom of heaven," while Luke and Mark report the same incidences of speaking as using the phrase "kingdom of God."

Igzy, I agree with what you said previously, but not with this. I think Jesus used both terms in his speaking.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee took this variation as an excuse to create a new doctrine about the differences between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Whether or not he was correct is not the point. The point is why major in these types of speculations when we have the plain word speaking clearly to us?

Brother Lee was right to investigate the difference in meaning between the 2 terms. The problem with Lee's studies is that once he reaches a conclusion, he seems to ignore opposing data, or at least did not present it to us.

[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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

That is one definition put out under the teaching of inerrancy.

But there is nothing that insists that words are "true" in the sense that in each case it is the only word that could have been used to convey the meaning intended. The problem with looking at inerrancy at the word level is that it is where you get the growing need to parse each word for its precise meaning. What about what the sentence says. In its most straightforward way? What if it had been written slightly differently yet provided the same information?

If each Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc. word is importantly specific and must be studied to arrive at the real meaning, then we should be seeking with all our being to create the single English translation that faithfully translates each word or phrase as necessary to be exact and precise. Word by word (or phrase by phrase where word pictures are involved).

And every time someone goes in to analyze the Greek, they conclude something different somewhere relative to someone. So there is a difference in the scripture as far as the two readers are concerned.

But when it says that Jesus went up to Jerusalem, it could have said that he travelled to Jerusalem. Or that he walked to Jerusalem. Or . . . . But what is it telling us? He went to Jerusalem. Did the word used change the meaning?

I agree with Igzy that God is capable of inserting things that the writer may not have had any idea had been pushed into the text. But a whole lot of it is the telling of events. And the events described are the important thing. Not the nonsense of what we parse out of the individual words.

That, coupled with other hermeneutic tools is how craziness comes to town. Someone insists that certain words can only mean a single thing. For example, there can only be one spirit that gives life. You know where that one goes.

I fully believe in what the Bible tells me. I now tend to not put much stock in the special teachings that come from isolating words and phrases from their context and parsing them to death. That's how we got the ground of dirt, God's economy (Lee's teaching, not the real thing) being simply God dispensing himself into man, and even line-in-the-sand "decision" salvation that is all you need (not Lee's creation). But it is only as inerrant as the interpretation that is put on it. And virtually everyone that used the word is trying to insist that their interpretation is simply the word of God and not another interpretation.

So I don't put much stock in the term "inerrant" or "inerrancy" because, the only way in which it is true is not the way in which it is used.

[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?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Nigel says that we should just use the meanings of the Greek works at the time of the NT, and not consider the etymology, history or future use of the word. He doesn't say that we can't be sure of the meaning of the Greek words.

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

Voice, I grew up from diapers indoctrinated that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. And that didn't change in the local church.

But since then I've learned that there are more variations in the Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. And to me just one variation is enough to call its inerrancy into question.

Yet I'm told by my Southern Baptist family that God protected His word down thru the ages.

But the evidence in the over 5000 manuscripts prove that fails to hold true.

[zeek]

Is every thread on this board going to be hijacked by a discussion of inerrancy? I thought that Tomes made it clear that his article does not attack the fundamentals. Inerrancy is one of the fundamentals, so it is off topic as far as this thread goes. Besides there's already a thread devoted to that subject. Isn't there enough to consider here already between etymology and linguistics? Tomes has called Lee's etymological method into question. If that's the case, every single Lee exposition of Biblical words should be re-examined. Yes? No?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Tomes has called Lee's etymological method into question. If that's the case, every single Lee exposition of Biblical words should be re-examined. Yes? No?

Well let's get down to brass tacks then. I think we've beat horses Example #1 & Example #8 to death but how about the rest?

Example #1 Ekklesia—“Called-out Assembly”
Invalid Word-Dissections

Example #2: Invalid Word-Dissections--Parakletos—“One called to another's side to aid him”

Example #3: Reverse Etymological Fallacy—Dunamis--Dynamo

Example #4: Illegitimate Totality Transfer—Proginosko--Foreknowledge

Example #5: Oikonomia—LSM’s trademark “God’s Economy”
Dissection: Oikonomia (Economy) = Oikos (House) + Nomos (Law)
Witness Lee’s Theological Lexicography

Example #6: LSM’s Etymologizing—Revelation’s 7 Churches

Example #7: Laodicea--‘Devilish’ Degraded Democracy in the Church

Example #8: The Nicolaitans
Invalid Implications for Church Governance

Example #9: Over-emphasizing Distinctions between Synonyms—Oida vs. Ginosko
Selective Presentation—Tampering with Biblical Evidence

Example #10: Word-Concept Fallacy--Agapao vs. Phileo
Peter’s Love for the Lord

Example #11: Logos vs. Rhema —‘Constant Word’ vs. ‘Instant Word’

Example #12: Unwarranted Associative Fallacy—‘Holy, holy, holy’ because God is Triune

Let's start with Parakletos. Let's see our choice between Lee and Tomes, and the supposed "excluded middle."

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

God's Economy was Lee's Holodeck.

I have never been convinced that Lee's "economy of God" is deleterious to the faith. It's a unique view, not without some merit. What is worse was Lee's excessive promotion of it to the discredit of all other views and ministries.

With so ministries out there obsessing every tangent known to man, we should afford Lee the same liberties that we give others.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have never been convinced that Lee's "economy of God" is deleterious to the faith. It's a unique view, not without some merit.

Overall, I find it to have little merit.

But the most deleterious thing about it was that it was the reason supplied for many dismissal of the plain reading of scripture in favor of something that you just couldn't find there. I recall a thread that Steve I started back at the other forum concerning all the teachings of Lee that he agreed with. Seems that everyone of them invovled a novel reading, or ignoring of scripture to get there. When asked why, there was something in a Life Study Message where Lee said it was because of God's Economy.

Toss James. Reinterpret the early verses in Colossians. Pan major portions of the Psalms. All in the name of God's Economy.

And his source was one of these word games in which he essentially dismissed the plain meaning of the term, coupled with a logic error in which he insisted that it was God's economy that was the thing Paul instructed to be taught.

But it was not. It was the result of good, healthy teaching. It was not a construct or idea (or one ring) that would rule all others. It was the outcome of right teachings. But Lee used it as the rule to dismiss right teaching. So his teaching on the subject can hardly be seen as not deleterious. It is part of the system of error.

In fact, it is ultimately one of the primary tools of his system of errors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overall, I find it to have little merit.

But the most deleterious thing about it was that it was the reason supplied for many dismissal of the plain reading of scripture in favor of something that you just couldn't find there. I recall a thread that Steve I started back at the other forum concerning all the teachings of Lee that he agreed with. Seems that everyone of them invovled a novel reading, or ignoring of scripture to get there. When asked why, there was something in a Life Study Message where Lee said it was because of God's Economy.

Toss James. Reinterpret the early verses in Colossians. Pan major portions of the Psalms. All in the name of God's Economy.

And his source was one of these word games in which he essentially dismissed the plain meaning of the term, coupled with a logic error in which he insisted that it was God's economy that was the thing Paul instructed to be taught.

But it was not. It was the result of good, healthy teaching. It was not a construct or idea (or one ring) that would rule all others. It was the outcome of right teachings. But Lee used it as the rule to dismiss right teaching. So his teaching on the subject can hardly be seen as not deleterious. It is part of the system of error.

In fact, it is ultimately one of the primary tools of his system of errors.

That's why I explained that the danger was in its excessive promotion and not the teaching itself.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Igzy, I agree with what you said previously, but not with this. I think Jesus used both terms in his speaking.
.

In order to believe this you have to believe that the Lord participated in roughly identical circumstances and said basically the same thing only changing one word. This is not likely give the fact that there are other instances where the wording of quotes is changed. The most likely explanation is that he is quoted differently and that there is therefore no theological difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, i.e. the phrases are interchangeable. The fact that 99% of theologians believe this as well should be taken into consideration.

You also have to consider the value of considering them as different. Lee envisioned some obscure reasons which were speculative, and which really added no value to Christian knowledge. So what's the point?

I'm all for study. But I do not believe God expects us to squint at the Bible. Lee was a squinter. He held the Bible a inch from his nose and saw all kinds of patterns in the pixels. I say hold the Bible at normal reading length and then tell me what you see. What you will see is the common gospel, faith and commission, not all this bric-a-brac and Gnostic-like knowledge.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why I explained that the danger was in its excessive promotion and not the teaching itself.

I think that the teaching itself, while remotely possible as an explanation of the use of the term in the preferred setting (in the letter to Timothy), is too suspect in that setting, and further, is not supported by the remainder of the passage which describes it as something unlike Lee's dispensing theory. It is forced through tricks of rhetoric. It is part of the system by which we learned not to step out in faith and walk by the spirit. It was a reason by which we could skip reckoning ourselves as anything but a child of God. It was the excuse to not worry about being righteous because we did not yet have enough dispensing.

As taught, it was a nice-sounding ruse. It was enough like something actually true that we didn't see the error that it was wrapped in. We were taught not to obey and be righteous, but to claim that we have been declared righteous and skip the obedience part.

To the extent that we actually are declared righteous, it was not so that we did not have to actually be righteous. Since our living is supposed to be the witness to the world, any claim that actual righteousness visible to the people around us is of no use is not teaching the gospel of Christ. It is another gospel.

And that is where Lee should be found. Teaching a different gospel. Dismissing the one that Jesus actually taught. Dismissing the righteousness of the law by declaring that the law is now abolished.

It is not. That is not true so that we will become legalistic authoritarians, but so that we will take care for ourselves to hunger and thirst for that righteousness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overall, I find it to have little merit.

But the most deleterious thing about it was that it was the reason supplied for many dismissal of the plain reading of scripture in favor of something that you just couldn't find there. I recall a thread that Steve I started back at the other forum concerning all the teachings of Lee that he agreed with. Seems that everyone of them invovled a novel reading, or ignoring of scripture to get there. When asked why, there was something in a Life Study Message where Lee said it was because of God's Economy.

Toss James. Reinterpret the early verses in Colossians. Pan major portions of the Psalms. All in the name of God's Economy.

And his source was one of these word games in which he essentially dismissed the plain meaning of the term, coupled with a logic error in which he insisted that it was God's economy that was the thing Paul instructed to be taught.

But it was not. It was the result of good, healthy teaching. It was not a construct or idea (or one ring) that would rule all others. It was the outcome of right teachings. But Lee used it as the rule to dismiss right teaching. So his teaching on the subject can hardly be seen as not deleterious. It is part of the system of error.

In fact, it is ultimately one of the primary tools of his system of errors.

Ohio, it depends on what you mean by God's economy. If you mean that God does things by his Spirit, and trying to do Christian things without the Spirit is an error, then I agree 100%.

If Lee had left it at that bit of advice it would have been fine. But he took that and ran off the cliff with it--leading to several major errors, including de-empasizing or downright denying the plain word of the Bible in favor of "God's economy," and creating a culture which did the same. This in turn led to other errors, such as doubting one's reasoning capabilities for the "feeling of the Body," and so forth. Add to that all the speculative details about spirit, soul, conscience, fellowship, intuition, heart, inner man, yada yada, which were more cases of Nee and Lee squinting at the Bible and seeing things that actually made them and us myopic. We thought we had an understanding of this "inner life/God's economy" thing that we really didn't have. We were hearing music that wasn't being played.

Christianity today has no issue with understanding that we need the leading of the Spirit. Maybe it once did, but that isn't an issue anymore. The teaching of "God' economy" was a bad fix for an old problem that has been better addressed by others. Time to move on and forget about it, except the hard lessons it taught.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have never been convinced that Lee's "economy of God" is deleterious to the faith. It's a unique view, not without some merit. What is worse was Lee's excessive promotion of it to the discredit of all other views and ministries.

With so ministries out there obsessing every tangent known to man, we should afford Lee the same liberties that we give others.

Mea Culpa you are right. We should see all the various Holodeck's as equal, and entertain them all ... if we seek to be open to all of God's blessings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, it depends on what you mean by God's economy. If you mean that God does things by his Spirit, and trying to do Christians things without the Spirit is an error, then I agree 100%.

I understand God's economy as His eternal plan to dispense Himself into us until Christ is formed in us. It's just different terminology for what Christians already believe. Instead of "dispensing," we can use the terms born again, grow in Christ, feel His love, be graced in His presence, etc.

It does mean that God does things by His Spirit and we must struggle to walk by the Spirit. It precludes the thought that God is only in heaven far from us as an object of worship.

A lot of things which are considered part of God's economy, I would not include, such as the "feeling of the body," etc. That nonsense teaching serves only to manipulate God's people for Lee's own personal gains.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is where Lee should be found. Teaching a different gospel. Dismissing the one that Jesus actually taught. Dismissing the righteousness of the law by declaring that the law is now abolished.

I disagree with this extreme view of Lee. Perhaps it's just because in the GLA we received a "sanitized" version of Lee, like a "Lee-Lite."

Paul exclusively used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought. We should not indiscriminately throw that judgment at others.

[zeek]

Kittel's racism fit right into Lee's system. Lee taught us that we were a kind of master race, a different species from mere mortals. We were God-men! Hallelujah!

The God-men, as the chosen race of God, consummate the New Jerusalem, as God’s eternal expression, with the glorifying life. (The God-Men, Chapter 1, Section 2)

God-man living is God living. This kind of teaching is much higher than the teaching concerning how to be holy or victorious. In my early days as a believer, I saw many books on how to live the Christian life, but these books did not really reveal the way. How can you be holy? You can be holy by living a God-man life. How can you be victorious? It is only by living a God-man life. Never forget that you are a God-man, born of God and belonging to God's species.(The God-man Living, Chapter 1, Section 4)

You heard the man: ""Never forget it!" Nothing extreme about that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree with this extreme view of Lee. Perhaps it's just because in the GLA we received a "sanitized" version of Lee, like a "Lee-Lite."

Paul exclusively used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought. We should not indiscriminately throw that judgment at others.

Might it be more accurate to say that "Paul used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought"? On what basis are we certain that it had a unique and exclusive domain as a label?

That the term was not actually used in another context does not mean that it had not other potential use, or that the one supplied was "exclusive." The only thing exclusive about it (for sure) is that it was not actually used with respect to anything else. To say that it is exclusive in meaning is to assert it from silence.

Now don't think that I am picking on you in particular. I think that I have recently gotten a glimpse of how we do this all over the place. (All of us — even people who never heard of Lee or the LRC.) For example, we say that we are saved by grace alone. Some take it further and assert that we don't even have our own faith — it is supplied for us. Yet some argue that we must have faith for Christ's salvation to be applied. I am beginning to think that saying that me having faith is a work for salvation is an overreach. Me having faith is a necessity. Based on that, God applies salvation. But the salvation is not because I believed, but because of the work of Christ. I did no works to become saved.

So if I assert that I must believe, do you say that I have done a work, therefore I cannot be saved? That is what some people seem to think.

And they somehow determine that this applies to everything after that. But there is no such prohibition in scripture.

Neither is there some edict that preaching a "get more dispensing" theology is not "another gospel." It clearly stands in contradiction to Peter's claim that we have all we need for life and godliness. So while that is not Paul talking, it is part of the scripture. And it stands in opposition to Lee's "get more dispensing" theology.

I will say that I am a little concerned about the emphasis on the law by another poster. But I am not sure that it is not at least mostly warranted. (Of course, coming from me, that is not entirely unexpected.) Grace provides a shift from darkness to light. It is the basis for our salvation. But after that, grace teaches us to obey (I think that is found in Titus). Mean time we are expected to begin to live the righteousness that was always the intent of our existence as the bearers of God's image. That is not an excuse to beat the heathen over the head with our version of righteousness. It is the basis upon which we live righteousness in the sight of the world. That is what Jesus was praying about when he prayed that we would be one as the Father and the Son are. (And I note that essentially no one has caught on that this statement hints that God, in terms of person(s) is not singular because we cannot be one as God is one if that is the standard.)

And to blame a lack of dispensing as the reason that we are not living that righteousness seems to be a cop-out. I realize that we always find oursleves failing. But that should not cause us not not try. There is no prohibition against this kind of work. To suggest otherwise is to gut the meaning of obedience.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kittel's racism fit right into Lee's system. Lee taught us that we were a kind of master race, a different species from mere mortals. We were God-men! Hallelujah!



You heard the man: ""Never forget it!" Nothing extreme about that.

In the years before I left the LC, whenever I came across Philippians 2:5-6 it always disturbed me how much it contradicted this "proud to be a God-man" spirit that seemed to be pervaded every other church meeting.

Philippians 2:5-6
"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to."

I'm thankful that Jesus emphasized our identity as sons of God, highlighting our relationship to God as our Father and we as his children. Even humanly speaking I'm sure most people would rather be known as the sons of their father as in many middle eastern cultures, rather than being labeled as a member of a species such as homosapien.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Might it be more accurate to say that "Paul used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought"? On what basis are we certain that it had a unique and exclusive domain as a label?

So if I assert that I must believe, do you say that I have done a work, therefore I cannot be saved? That is what some people seem to think.

Firstly, I said not to use the expression "another gospel" indiscriminately.

Second, "Jesus answered him, This is the work of God -- that you believe in Him whom God has sent." John 6:29

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, I said not to use the expression "another gospel" indiscriminately.

And I would agree. Justyn over at the Bereans was big on throwing that around.

But a gospel in which sin is never confronted is not the gospel I see in the "gospels" or in the epistles. There was a reason Lee hated James and it was because it confronted sin rather than just dismissing it as having been covered by God's grace. It is covered, but it is also something that continues, and we are not told to just keep applying grace, but to confront it. Waiting for the dispensing is avoidance of that confrontation. That is not the gospel that Jesus taught.

Unless the gospel is just about initial salvation. About making that decision.

And I don't think you believe that. You believe that the gospel is the whole thing. The good news is not just salvation and heaven. It is changed lives right here on earth.

And lives unworried about righteousness — that are putting off that problem until there is enough dispensing — are not followers of Jesus in that aspect. I do not think it makes them unsaved. But it does mean they are following a different gospel. Either altered or incomplete. Yes, the salvation of Christ is the center and the starting point. But the LRC's gospel really skips this life — at least the part that you live in the world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And lives unworried about righteousness — that are putting off that problem until there is enough dispensing — are not followers of Jesus in that aspect. I do not think it makes them unsaved. But it does mean they are following a different gospel. Either altered or incomplete. Yes, the salvation of Christ is the center and the starting point. But the LRC's gospel really skips this life — at least the part that you live in the world.

Lee was quite concerned about the kingdom of God and righteousness. This was evident from his books, but, and I say BUT, this was eclipsed by his megalomaniac notions of deputy authority and MOTAism.

But In this regard he also has lots of company. The airwaves are filled with preachers who stress morality, yet have affairs, and stress sowing your last farthing, yet have epic homes.

We need to honor those who preserve a servant-heart their whole life.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In the years before I left the LC, whenever I came across Philippians 2:5-6 it always disturbed me how much it contradicted this "proud to be a God-man" spirit that seemed to be pervaded every other church meeting.

Philippians 2:5-6
"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to."

I'm thankful that Jesus emphasized our identity as sons of God, highlighting our relationship to God as our Father and we as his children. Even humanly speaking I'm sure most people would rather be known as the sons of their father as in many middle eastern cultures, rather than being labeled as a member of a species such as homosapien.

So, do I have this right, you think Lee's attitude was wrong, but you agree with him that we are a different race and species than homo sapien?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, do I have this right, you think Lee's attitude was wrong, but you agree with him that we are a different race and species than homo sapien?

I'm actually not sure how I feel about this God-man business anymore but I don't know if I care very much. Even if it was true I don't think it is something to proclaim. Jesus never trumpeted his equality with God though he implied it many times, instead it seems he was wanted to let others come to that revelation for themselves. Regarding our status he said we could call God our Father, or Daddy/Abba even and he paid a very heavy price for taking that stand.

Peter says we are a chosen race and royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9, but his point in saying this was so we could give God the glory. The God man doctrine seems to emphasize glorifying ourselves rather than God who gives us much more than we ever deserve.

I think whether or not we are God's species would maybe depend on if we are sons of God via adoption or life. I think I lean towards adoption because scripture says Jesus was God's only begotten son. However Jesus talks about our new birth by being born again by the Holy Spirit. So I guess you could say I'm undecided.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee was quite concerned about the kingdom of God and righteousness. This was evident from his books, but, and I say BUT, this was eclipsed by his megalomaniac notions of deputy authority and MOTAism.

You are not the only person who has said this. But I can't really see it other than generic references. I think that this is a little like what was emphasized v what can be found in a book to keep the cult police at bay.

He was big on he kingdom of God, but what did he mean by it? Was it really about the living in the world as if part of the kingdom of God, or was it about being the kingdom of God because we have been saved, ordained to it, predestined, deemed, etc.? In other words, is it the "positional kingdom" that awaits the dispositional kingdom? Possibly even in the next life?

Was the righteousness because we are deemed righteous by His blood? Or righteousness that was supposed to arrive because we got enough dispensing? (And when things were clearly not righteous, then we could blame it on lack of dispensing and sit around and wait for more/enough?)

Was righteousness a goal that was achieved by turning to your spirit more? I don't recall Jesus suggesting that the great commandment(s) were optional, or could be deferred until we had enough dispensing.

It seems that Lee's version of righteousness was semi-optional. Mostly because there was always an excuse for failure to stack-up. And wanting to be rid of James was probably because that little letter did not let you off the hook. Lee wanted to be spiritual without righteousness, but James said it was a lie. Or a self-deception. And this is where I think Lee goes off the rails. He was self-deceived about so much. Not just his special status. Also his theology of Christian living. He seems to almost not care about it. Oh, he and Nee wrote about it and spoke about it. But there was always an out. You had to sit before you could walk. You have to walk before you can stand. And while Nee didn't say "wait for the dispensing" in that book, the groundwork was there. It was evident that there was a necessary groundwork required before you started trying to walk the Christian walk. There was an order.

And when so many (Nee, Lee and many evangelical preachers) talk about the Christian life, it is too often more about "serving in the church," or being called to ministry or to be a missionary, or to go door knocking. It is seldom about living out the righteousness of God in the midst of the world in a manner that is seen by the world so that they have to consider why these people are not hampered by all the moral problems that the rest of us are caught up with. That is the biggest part of living as a Christian that most of us will ever do. Yet it was semi-optional according to dispensing theology (which means according to Lee's version of God's economy). It is the thing that you just "turn to the Lord" (in the LRC way or according to so many other ways) and ask forgiveness for.

Oh, you should ask for forgiveness when you fail. But you should not live your Christian life expecting that one day it will simply change because of some miraculous intervention. If you take some of John and put it together (and I think legitimately), if you believe and obey, God comes to abide with you. If you obey, then you will know the truth that will set you free. To me dispensing theology is based on getting the truth that will set you free so that you can then obey.

Entirely backwards. The truth and being free are results for those who obey.

[bearbear]

Reading what OBW wrote earlier and this discussion of truth vs. attitude got me thinking:

Just because something is true and aligned with God's word doesn't mean it is beneficial. If truth is wielded with the wrong spirit or intent, it can be used as a weapon for evil.

In Luke 4:41, demon possessed men proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God, stating a divine revelation, yet they were clearly working for the kingdom darkness so Jesus cast them out. The irony is heavy because the Pharisees who were immersed in scripture all their life could not bring themselves to believe Jesus was Messiah, yet these demon possessed folks were readily testifying of who Jesus was.

Similar thing happens again in Acts 16 when Paul encountered a demon possessed woman who testified that they were the servants of the most high God and here to proclaim the gospel. The words the demon spoke were truth but the literal spirit behind the words were wrong.

Witness Lee could have done a lot of accurate or inaccurate word studies and written a lot of things that were either true or a little off, but if the heart and intent behind his writings were not right, then it does seem to make the whole discussion of whether he parsed Greek words correctly moot.

I think it's genius that the Apostle Paul likens the word of God to a sword in Ephesians 6. Many unfortunately have wielded this sword for evil instead of good.

What was Witness Lee's intent behind much of his writings? It's hard to read the life-studies without getting the sense that he certainly had an agenda that was not pure.

Perhaps God's economy and being a God man are divine facts, but if these doctrines are being wielded to establish superiority among an elite sect and his status as MOTA thereby causing division in the body of Christ and a false idol for people to unwittingly worship then that should invalidate his ministry from its root.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Perhaps God's economy and being a God man are divine facts, but if these doctrines are being wielded to establish superiority among an elite sect and his status as MOTA thereby causing division in the body of Christ and a false idol for people to unwittingly worship then that should invalidate his ministry from its root.

Very well put BB. I think this is what causes a cognitive dissonance to the breaking point ; that after years, of hearing the doctrine of dispensing to become God-men, nothing happens. Getting to that breaking point, of a sudden ahaa, requires a moment of honesty. You have to admit that dispensing, in actuality, isn't/wasn't really happening.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm actually not sure how I feel about this God-man business anymore but I don't know if I care very much. Even if it was true I don't think it is something to proclaim. Jesus never trumpeted his equality with God though he implied it many times, instead it seems he was wanted to let others come to that revelation for themselves. Regarding our status he said we could call God our Father, or Daddy/Abba even and he paid a very heavy price for taking that stand.

Peter says we are a chosen race and royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9, but his point in saying this was so we could give God the glory. The God man doctrine seems to emphasize glorifying ourselves rather than God who gives us much more than we ever deserve.

I think whether or not we are God's species would maybe depend on if we are sons of God via adoption or life. I think I lean towards adoption because scripture says Jesus was God's only begotten son. However Jesus talks about our new birth by being born again by the Holy Spirit. So I guess you could say I'm undecided.

Undecided is a reasonable place to be on these matters. The issue of race is by no means clear. There is no such thing as racial purity from a genetic standpoint. Race is a social construct. Peter was speaking metaphorically and paradoxically. We aren't a different species from homo sapiens. Different species can't copulate and produce offspring. There are plenty of cases of Christians copulating with non Christians and producing children. So no need to worry about that. It doesn't say God-man or God-men in the Bible. Witness Lee even admitted that. That Jesus was/is in some sense God is completely a matter of faith. We also can have a faith relationship with God and "be followers of God as dear children and walk in love as Christ also loved us" and I highly recommend it. But, making claims about these things as if they were concrete facts the way Witness Lee did is balderdash and psychologically harmful to sensitive people who take his claims seriously and actually try to live by them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The preponderance of evidence indicates that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek so your first statement is factually incorrect

I don't agree about this "preponderance of evidence."

Recently I heard a preacher endorsing tongue-speaking using the Lord's words at His death recorded in Matt. 27.46, "Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani?" to inform us that on a few occasions Jesus also spoke in tongues.

Really now!?!

Actually we really don't know what language the Lord spoke at each moment. Obviously He knew every language, past and present, including Shakespearean English. I suppose that's why those KJV-only proponents are so convinced of their position that only the KJV is the word of God.

If the Lord only spoke Aramaic while on earth, then why did no one at the cross understand what He was saying? All of those around Him thought He was calling for Eli the prophet because "lama, sabachthani" made no sense to any of them. There are 7 recorded sayings of Jesus on the cross. Six of them were well understood by all, including those other two in agony also about to die. Why was this one saying in Aramaic not understood?

Realistically it would seem that the Lord spoke Aramaic (probably in Galilee,) Hebrew (probably in Judea,) and Greek too (when He quoted verses from the Septuagint.) Perhaps He spoke Latin to Pilate. Palestine in the first century had become multilingual, like many parts of the world then and now.

The concept of monolingualism is 20th century American only. We should not project this concept on other peoples in time or space.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't agree about this "preponderance of evidence."

Recently I heard a preacher endorsing tongue-speaking using the Lord's words at His death recorded in Matt. 27.46, "Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani?" to inform us that on a few occasions Jesus also spoke in tongues.

Really now!?!

Actually we really don't know what language the Lord spoke at each moment. Obviously He knew every language, past and present, including Shakespearean English. I suppose that's why those KJV-only proponents are so convinced of their position that only the KJV is the word of God.

If the Lord only spoke Aramaic while on earth, then why did no one at the cross understand what He was saying? All of those around Him thought He was calling for Eli the prophet because "lama, sabachthani" made no sense to any of them. There are 7 recorded sayings of Jesus on the cross. Six of them were well understood by all, including those other two in agony also about to die. Why was this one saying in Aramaic not understood?

Realistically it would seem that the Lord spoke Aramaic (probably in Galilee,) Hebrew (probably in Judea,) and Greek too (when He quoted verses from the Septuagint.) Perhaps He spoke Latin to Pilate. Palestine in the first century had become multilingual, like many parts of the world then and now.

The concept of monolingualism is 20th century American only. We should not project this concept on other peoples in time or space.

.
Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem. The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities. According to Hebrew historian Josephus, Greek wasn't spoken in first century Palestine. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek. Ephphatha, abba, mammon, rabbuni, maranatha, korban, sikira are all Aramaic words that Jesus used according to the Gospels. That's what I meant by "preponderance of evidence". There's more actual evidence to support that he spoke Aramaic then other languages. He might have done all kind of things we have no evidence for. If you want to argue that he was omniscient and therefore spoke every language known to man, my response would be the same. Could be, but the preponderance of evidence shows that he spoke Aramaic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

.
Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first century AD, . . . the preponderance of evidence shows that he spoke Aramaic.

There's no dispute among scholars that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples.

Where the scholars don't agree is that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. However, the Assyrian Church of the East claims to have and use the original NT in Aramaic.

This has to be disturbing to those that hold that the Bible is inerrant, cuz we can't then get to the original to prove that what we have today is inerrant. If the NT was first written in Aramaic inerrancy can't be proven.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's no dispute among scholars that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples.

Where the scholars don't agree is that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. However, the Assyrian Church of the East claims to have and use the original NT in Aramaic.

This has to be disturbing to those that hold that the Bible is inerrant, cuz we can't then get to the original to prove that what we have today is inerrant. If the NT was first written in Aramaic inerrancy can't be proven.

There's a theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew but then translated to Greek. The book contains many idioms that only make sense in Hebrew. Here's a long but interesting video on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y

This is my current understanding of inerrancy according to my research:

It's true that there are many textual variations in the NT manuscripts but most of the errors are minor enough and don't convey anything earth shattering that would challenge the fundamentals of Christian faith. Most of the variations just paraphrase one another like this one:

Matthew 10:14
εκ των ποδων υμων (out of your feet) — א C 0281 33 892 lat
απο των ποδων υμων (away from your feet) — \mathfrak{P}110
των ποδων υμων (of your feet) — rell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual..._New_Testament

There's enough repetition of concepts and doctrine in the NT that makes up for the lacks and addition between the five major groups of manuscripts or between the Critical Text and the Received Text. Also because Greek grammar is so precise, some of the copyist errors can be deduced away. There are also quotes of scripture by early church fathers that lend credence to certain manuscripts over others.

Interestingly enough the OT is a different story because the dead sea scrolls confirm the textual accuracy of the Hebrew in the OT we use today almost word for word. The early church only had the Old Testament available to them and they did pretty well because they have the same Holy Spirit with them as we do today.

John 10:35
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But In this regard he also has lots of company. The airwaves are filled with preachers who stress morality, yet have affairs, and stress sowing your last farthing, yet have epic homes.

And as true as this is, it only gives Lee company in being a charalatan. It does nothing to rehabilitate his ministry. Just puts it in the dustbin with those others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And as true as this is, it only gives Lee company in being a charalatan. It does nothing to rehabilitate his ministry. Just puts it in the dustbin with those others.

I have rehabbed many an old home. Am I now a rehabber of old ministries? lol

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's no dispute among scholars that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples.

Where the scholars don't agree is that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. However, the Assyrian Church of the East claims to have and use the original NT in Aramaic.

This has to be disturbing to those that hold that the Bible is inerrant, cuz we can't then get to the original to prove that what we have today is inerrant. If the NT was first written in Aramaic inerrancy can't be proven.

Actually it has to be MORE disturbing to those who believe the NT is NOT inerrant. Because if could get to the "original" they might be able to show some disparity. Without it, they can't.

But, regardless, the debate would then shift to the inerrancy or lack thereof of the Aramaic version. Inerrantists would simply say they were always referring to the true original, whatever it is.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by bearbear

There's a theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew but then translated to Greek. The book contains many idioms that only make sense in Hebrew. Here's a long but interesting video on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y

This is my current understanding of inerrancy according to my research:

It's true that there are many textual variations in the NT manuscripts but most of the errors are minor enough and don't convey anything earth shattering that would challenge the fundamentals of Christian faith. Most of the variations just paraphrase one another like this one:

Matthew 10:14
εκ των ποδων υμων (out of your feet) — א C 0281 33 892 lat
απο των ποδων υμων (away from your feet) — \mathfrak{P}110
των ποδων υμων (of your feet) — rell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual..._New_Testament

There's enough repetition of concepts and doctrine in the NT that makes up for the lacks and addition between the five major groups of manuscripts or between the Critical Text and the Received Text. Also because Greek grammar is so precise, some of the copyist errors can be deduced away. There are also quotes of scripture by early church fathers that lend credence to certain manuscripts over others.

Interestingly enough the OT is a different story because the dead sea scrolls confirm the textual accuracy of the Hebrew in the OT we use today almost word for word. The early church only had the Old Testament available to them and they did pretty well because they have the same Holy Spirit with them as we do today.

John 10:35
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--

Excellent research. And I love that last line.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's no dispute among scholars that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples.

Where the scholars don't agree is that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. However, the Assyrian Church of the East claims to have and use the original NT in Aramaic.

This has to be disturbing to those that hold that the Bible is inerrant, cuz we can't then get to the original to prove that what we have today is inerrant. If the NT was first written in Aramaic inerrancy can't be proven.

Once again the thread goes off the rails onto the inerrancy track. It's irrelevant to Tomes' thesis which is what this thread is supposedly about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

.
According to Hebrew historian Josephus, Greek wasn't spoken in first century Palestine. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek.

So ... let me get this straight ... not one writer of the NT could speak Greek, but they could all write Greek.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... let me get this straight ... not one writer of the NT could speak Greek, but they could all write Greek.

No, there were two or three that could speak Greek according to Josephus. Do you think Jesus was one of them? What are the odds, especially in view of the likelihood that Jesus was uneducated? Here are Josephus' words:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.
—Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

Do you suppose that when Jesus "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" as it says in Philippians that he retained his omniscience and therefore miraculously spoke all languages? If he spoke all languages it seems like at least one of the gospel writers would have commented on it as that would have been a miracle. I don't recall that they did, so it seems unlikely to me that he used the Greek word ekklesia. I admit I'm not certain. I'm willing to entertain whatever thoughts or evidence you have on the subject. I'm glad we can talk about things like this openly instead of having to accept whatever the MOTA says as the Alpha and the Omega on every subject. It's not like we are being compelled to agree on everything or I think I have the final answer. Maybe you do.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If Lee had left it at that bit of advice it would have been fine. But he took that and ran off the cliff with it--leading to several major errors, including de-emphasizing or downright denying the plain word of the Bible in favor of "God's economy," and creating a culture which did the same. This in turn led to other errors, such as doubting one's reasoning capabilities for the "feeling of the Body," and so forth. Add to that all the speculative details about spirit, soul, conscience, fellowship, intuition, heart, inner man, yada yada, which were more cases of Nee and Lee squinting at the Bible and seeing things that actually made them and us myopic. We thought we had an understanding of this "inner life/God's economy" thing that we really didn't have. We were hearing music that wasn't being played.

I neglected to point out that Witness Lee's so-called fallacies are not uniquely his. Do a search of websites and blogs about the "new" Greek (post-1960) and the same list of fallacies crop up on almost all of them, somewhere between 12 and 15. So the basic "errors" are not in dispute.

My problem is the result and we cannot blame his Greek errors for that since many other expositors made exactly the same mistakes.

He managed to attract a wide range of people to follow him and his teachings, from astrophysicists to treehuggers, and all turned out the same: without natural love for other believers, suspicious of other believers, enemies of other believers, opposers of other believers …

Now what then is the reason for that, seeing that we have eliminated Greek etymological fallacies as the source?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Friedel

He managed to attract a wide range of people to follow him and his teachings, from astrophysicists to treehuggers, and all turned out the same: without natural love for other believers, suspicious of other believers, enemies of other believers, opposers of other believers …Now what then is the reason for that, seeing that we have eliminated Greek etymological fallacies as the source?

I'm not so sure that Nigel was claiming that Lee's etymological errors are what has led to the dynamic you have so aptly described here, however your point is well taken...at least by me.

"Without natural love for other believers". So sad, so true. Many of our forum members have lamented how it took them years after leaving the movement to even begin to have open fellowship with other believers. Speaking of myself only, it took me several years before I felt comfortable with other believers. Even to this day, none of the Local Churches make even the slightest effort to reach out a hand of fellowship to any Christian churches in their respective cities. Non of the LC Elders ever attend the many prayer breakfasts or pastor's get togethers, much, much less would a Local Church ever participate in a mult-church or para-church gospel outreach.

So, where does this kind of spirit of non-cooperation come from? It does go much deeper than simple teaching methods, heremeneutics and interpretive techniques and such. This is probably a question for a whole new thread.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not so sure that Nigel was claiming that Lee's etymological errors are what has led to the dynamic you have so aptly described here, however your point is well taken...at least by me.

I am sorry I came across in the wrong way. I never would argue that this is what Nigel Tomes had suggested.

My point is exactly what you have described.

It is abundantly clear that it was not his errors in his Greek exposition and exegesis that turned his followers into people without natural love for other believers. So what was it in Witness Lee's ministry that made them to be like this?

Why do you not find the same attitudes in the followers of other teachers who make the same Greek etymological mistakes?

Yes. Maybe you should start a new thread on this topic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Without natural love for other believers". So sad, so true. Many of our forum members have lamented how it took them years after leaving the movement to even begin to have open fellowship with other believers. Speaking of myself only, it took me several years before I felt comfortable with other believers. Even to this day, none of the Local Churches make even the slightest effort to reach out a hand of fellowship to any Christian churches in their respective cities. None of the LC Elders ever attend the many prayer breakfasts or pastor's get togethers, much, much less would a Local Church ever participate in a mult-church or para-church gospel outreach.

Are you serious Bro?

Being a so-called "Pastor" is the Recovery's version of the "unforgivable sin." I had an elder totally and unexpectedly exploded all over me one time, "Don't make me a pastor." You'd think I just called him a "liberal."

Adultery, murder, theft, false witness, etc. are all forgivable (even excusable for certain leaders) but not if one becomes a Pastor. God forbid!

I have heard from numerous sources, from those still in and those who are now out of the LC's, that John Myer's worst fault was that, "John wanted to be a Pastor." Imagine that! Ultimate anathema, no doubt!

Pastor John. Crucify him!

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So, where does this kind of spirit of non-cooperation come from? It does go much deeper than simple teaching methods, heremeneutics and interpretive techniques and such. This is probably a question for a whole new thread.

Can we focus here? Can we try to answer this question, please? This gets at the root of it. If we can learn from the answer(s) to this question we can be rescued from rehashing and reliving old wounds and offenses and go forward. I think that's what everyone here really wants, right?

Where does this kind of spirit of non-cooperation come from?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not so sure that Nigel was claiming that Lee's etymological errors are what has led to the dynamic you have so aptly described here, however your point is well taken...at least by me.

"Without natural love for other believers". So sad, so true. Many of our forum members have lamented how it took them years after leaving the movement to even begin to have open fellowship with other believers. Speaking of myself only, it took me several years before I felt comfortable with other believers. Even to this day, none of the Local Churches make even the slightest effort to reach out a hand of fellowship to any Christian churches in their respective cities. Non of the LC Elders ever attend the many prayer breakfasts or pastor's get togethers, much, much less would a Local Church ever participate in a mult-church or para-church gospel outreach.

So, where does this kind of spirit of non-cooperation come from? It does go much deeper than simple teaching methods, heremeneutics and interpretive techniques and such. This is probably a question for a whole new thread.

OK. If Tomes analysis of Lee's putative errors is superfluous as Friedel claims, why did you bother to post it in the first place?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. If Tomes analysis of Lee's putative errors is superfluous as Friedel claims, why did you bother to post it in the first place?

"as Friedel claims"....I have claimed no such thing. I post Nigel's writings as a personal favor to him, but mostly because I think they are important material to post on this forum. As with anything that is posted on this forum (except for what is posted directly from me) they are the thoughts, feelings and opinions of each individual poster, and I may or may not agree with anything, whole or part. I wish I had time to comment on and/or react to each post, but that just isn't going to happen.

As to my comments on Friedel's post, I was really commenting on his wider point of the attitude of Local Churchers towards other Christians, and not on his specific reference to Lee's errors as discussed in Nigel's writing.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have rehabbed many an old home. Am I now a rehabber of old ministries? lol

No. Not you. But I keep running into a few here and there.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... let me get this straight ... not one writer of the NT could speak Greek, but they could all write Greek.

Probably few if any wrote any Greek. It means that whatever they said, whether written down in Aramaic or simply retold verbally, was eventually translated.

That is not a problem to me. But for those who need these word studies to be really meaningful, the fact that Greek is not the original language is probably something they do not want to be heralded.

BTW. Over 20 years ago I was invovled in a small Bible study in which someone pointed out that those three Greek words that we make so much out of where Jesus questioned Peter, then told him to feed the sheep, was not spoken in Greek. So we have no idea what importance to lay on the variance. It could be real. It could have been the understanding that those who were present got from it and that was translated into the differences we now read (in Greek). But it may not have been. No way to be sure.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I agree.
Also, I don't think it is possible to be pro Israel and anti-Semitic.

"Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ." (Witness Lee, The Stream Magazine, vol. 14, no. 4, November 1976, p. 12)

"In overcoming the degradation of the churches, we need to overcome three 'isms'—Satanic Judaism (Rev. 2:9-10), demonic Catholicism (2:24-28), and dead and Christless Protestantism (3:1-5, 20-21)." (Witness Lee, The God-Men, 1995, p 40)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As with anything that is posted on this forum (except for what is posted directly from me) they are the thoughts, feelings and opinions of each individual poster, and I may or may not agree with anything, whole or part.

So Nigel's hard work turns out to be just another opinion? So why all the footnotes and such? Is Nigel's work just an exercise in futility, or maybe a struggle in his own mind, still trying to get free it from Witness Lee?

No wonder no one wants to deal with it.

So rename the thread so that it's honest. Name it something like : Nigel's Opinions of Lee's Etymological Errors.

What's so great about Nigel's opinions anyway. May as well be my opinions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Nigel's hard work turns out to be just another opinion? So why all the footnotes and such? Is Nigel's work just an exercise in futility, or maybe a struggle in his own mind, still trying to get free it from Witness Lee?

No wonder no one wants to deal with it.

So rename the thread so that it's honest. Name it something like : Nigel's Opinions of Lee's Etymological Errors.

What's so great about Nigel's opinions anyway. May as well be my opinions.

Actually, in a world in which there is always a level of opinion involved, it is often the result of the findings of the many that is meaningful relative to the findings of the few (or the one). Not always, but often.

As for Lee, he seems to mostly have argued that the few is always the right way, seldom agreeing with the common findings. His version of the Bible is full of footnotes that reference almost no one but his own opinion. Meanwhile, Nigel references many other authors.

It is true that a lot of it has a level of uncertainty. But it should be that those who diligently seek will be convinced of truth as they seek and discuss among themselves. It takes a lot of gumption to declare that everyone else that is seeking (and coming to relatively common understanding and conclusions) is wrong and only the outliers are right.

It takes a special set of colored glasses that are adjusted to make the rare finding right and the mainstream of understanding wrong. Those who seek will find. But we are warned of those who teach differently. And there is no argument that Lee taught differently. The only argument is how different it was and whether he was the one who was right and everyone else was wrong. Since he seemed to find his "truth" on his own, as did Nee before him, I think it safe to generically assert that it was Lee who failed to find the truth where his version differs from that of others.

[OBW]

One more thought (a little off topic).

I have this vague recollection of Lee using statements like "the gospel is foolishness" to refer to a distinction between the LRC and other Christians. Say it as if it is a basis for having such a strong distinction between the LRC and all other Christians. His version of the true gospel is rejected by Christianity as foolishness, and since the real gospel is rejected as foolishness by the world, then Christianity must just be dead and in the world.

And what is his evidence that this is true? Pews. Long prayers (which were common in the LRC until the late 60s). Having the Lord's table with separate cups and crackers with leaven in them. (And I believe that the single cup is now long gone due to health issues.) Having a preacher who (according to Lee) lords it over the assembly. (I guess in a different way than so many of the elders that we often mention here ruled their assemblies.) Denominations — being governed from afar. (Like the LSM does now, setting up and dismissing elders at their whim. Excommunicating members from across the country.)

Most of what Lee accused Christianity concerning was not real. At least not a real item for which condemnation was due. Pews. At times, I wished that the LRC used pews while I was there. Then I wouldn't have the brother in front of me leaning forward in his chair just daring me to inadvertently slide my foot into the wrong place just before he suddenly shifts back and brings the chair leg down on my foot. Or separate cups and leavened bread. Where is the edict that the ritual (yes; Jesus-ordered ritual) had to be undertaken as if part of the Passover, therefore with unleavened bread?

How about "rock" bands? Like the style of music is important. Yet some of those hymns he would rather we sing were written to tavern tunes. In a different way, that music was part of "the world" in a different time and place. And using multi-voiced choirs was the mode of the era. Then later it was organs. Then pianos. Sometimes a single acoustic guitar.

Now it is many instruments. All kinds. Lyres. Harps, Timbrels. Tambourines. Cymbals. "Organs." Wow! Sounds like a rock band. Or folk/bluegrass. Maybe C&W (not my thing — maybe I should declare C&W to be of the devil).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, in a world in which there is always a level of opinion involved, it is often the result of the findings of the many that is meaningful relative to the findings of the few (or the one). Not always, but often.

As for Lee, he seems to mostly have argued that the few is always the right way, seldom agreeing with the common findings. His version of the Bible is full of footnotes that reference almost no one but his own opinion. Meanwhile, Nigel references many other authors.

It is true that a lot of it has a level of uncertainty. But it should be that those who diligently seek will be convinced of truth as they seek and discuss among themselves. It takes a lot of gumption to declare that everyone else that is seeking (and coming to relatively common understanding and conclusions) is wrong and only the outliers are right.

It takes a special set of colored glasses that are adjusted to make the rare finding right and the mainstream of understanding wrong. Those who seek will find. But we are warned of those who teach differently. And there is no argument that Lee taught differently. The only argument is how different it was and whether he was the one who was right and everyone else was wrong. Since he seemed to find his "truth" on his own, as did Nee before him, I think it safe to generically assert that it was Lee who failed to find the truth where his version differs from that of others.

Good response OBW, and thoughts.

At this point, after all these years -- before, during, and after, the LRC -- Lee & Nee represent just another opinion to consider. Nigel too ... and all opinions included in that pesky "excluded middle."

And while I'm at it. Igzy, in reference to Aramaic and inerrancy, I doubt the non-inerrantists are as convicted and passionate about it as the inerrantists are. Non-inerrantists just admit to doubt about it. They don't have the same certitude in their position as inerrantists do.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Can we focus here? Can we try to answer this question, please? This gets at the root of it. If we can learn from the answer(s) to this question we can be rescued from rehashing and reliving old wounds and offenses and go forward. I think that's what everyone here really wants, right?

Where does this kind of spirit of non-cooperation come from?

Dancing, check out the quotes in post #208. "Spirit of non-cooperation" is quite an understatement when we look at the attitudes Witness Lee expressed toward other groups.

Maybe it's just that simple? That the spirit of non-cooperation in the Recovery came from the uncooperative leader at the top, whose legacy it is now "indebted to".

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

"Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ." (Witness Lee, The Stream Magazine, vol. 14, no. 4, November 1976, p. 12)

"In overcoming the degradation of the churches, we need to overcome three 'isms'—Satanic Judaism (Rev. 2:9-10), demonic Catholicism (2:24-28), and dead and Christless Protestantism (3:1-5, 20-21)." (Witness Lee, The God-Men, 1995, p 40)

This is stunning to see in such blatant, overly simplistic, cavalier style.

Lord, save me from such blindness and naivité ever again. Let me never again entrust my heart to anyone but You, Abba.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

"Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ." (Witness Lee, The Stream Magazine, vol. 14, no. 4, November 1976, p. 12)

"In overcoming the degradation of the churches, we need to overcome three 'isms'—Satanic Judaism (Rev. 2:9-10), demonic Catholicism (2:24-28), and dead and Christless Protestantism (3:1-5, 20-21)." (Witness Lee, The God-Men, 1995, p 40)

Thanks for the memories rayliotta. Like any good propagandist Lee knew how to frame a memorable slogan to be repeated by his mindless followers. For all the hyperbole, he wasn't able to transcend Protestantism. His group was just more divisive than most of the protestants are. And, by rejecting love, less loving then many.

Meanwhile, Tomes ought to stoop down and see the fruition of his article here. We are lost in a wilderness of opinions here. The only thing we more or less agree on is that Lee was off. We need Tomes and his team of Bible experts to come in and play MOTA for us

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Meanwhile, Tomes ought to stoop down and see the fruition of his article here.

I don't know. Maybe Nigel is like Lee was: unaccountable.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks for the memories rayliotta.

Oh, the pleasure is mine. I heard many times in high school and college, that my friends and I should be "Witness Lee tape recorders". So Recovery members should be happy that I post Witness Lee quotes here!

Originally Posted by zeek

Meanwhile, Tomes ought to stoop down and see the fruition of his article here. We are lost in a wilderness of opinions here. The only thing we more or less agree on is that Lee was off. We need Tomes and his team of Bible experts to come in and play MOTA for us

I have to say, I still don't quite understand why we spend so much time on these forums discussing matters of doctrine, or potential doctrinal errors. A number of the regular posters here have acknowledged that it was/is Recovery practice that has caused so much more heartache for members, than Recovery doctrine. Orthopraxy vs orthodoxy. (We used to have this perennial discussion over on the old Bereans forum, w/Justyn, the moderator there.)

And yet...doctrine so easily becomes the focus of these discussions...sigh...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I have to say, I still don't quite understand why we spend so much time on these forums discussing matters of doctrine, or potential doctrinal errors. A number of the regular posters here have acknowledged that it was/is Recovery practice that has caused so much more heartache for members, than Recovery doctrine. Orthopraxy vs orthodoxy. (We used to have this perennial discussion over on the old Bereans forum, w/Justyn, the moderator there.)

And yet...doctrine so easily becomes the focus of these discussions...sigh...

The problem with practice is that it is hard to prove. Hard to assess. The original God-Men book found out. You talk to someone who provides their experience and the group goes out and sweet-talks them into coming back and joining the fold. Suddenly your evidence vanishes. We saw it happen live, right here on the Forum when Jane told of an account provided by someone who had lef the LRC some years back, partly due to the political fight over whether Texas/Oklahoma was going to be sending people to help a small group somewhere NE of OKC, or it was going to be Cleveland. A little way into some discussion of he event and suddenly this "new member" comes along, declares himself to be the person who talked to Jane and declared that he had never said those things.

So who is telling the truth? Jane? Or the guy who was wooed back to the fold so that he could be directed to refute what Jane had heard from him years earlier? From the outside it seems obvious. But to an insider (the ones who really need to see), they turn off things that seem so totally "out of character" (based on their shielded view of the "truth" from the LSM). Besides, "that is just that person, not the local churches." And they can't verify either side. They don't know Jane or anyone else that was there. Their only source from the "inside" has said their bit.

But just keep putting something that they can easily verify. Scripture. Speak about it the way that it really is. Not the way that Lee erroneously taught it. Doesn't mater that some of the errors might be considered spiritually benign. One day they might actually look at a verse and suddenly have the thought "it says something different than what I thought — than what I've been told."

Begin to get that foothold and those whose goal is really to follow God will begin to see the doctrinal problems. And with it, they will begin to believe that things they have been told — both spiritual and otherwise — might be suspect. I've seen it happen. What I saw took almost 5 years to begin to surface, and one more after that to really bear fruit.

And our experience of discussing the practices has been poor. I will say something now that will anger a few. But the two main threads that have gone deep into practices went somewhat berserk. We just barely got started and some were effectively ready to tar and feather anyone who was not in lock-step with them. In one case, there were a number of members who left over the fallout. In the other, we learned eventually that the story behind the whole thing was not entirely as published. Made us look pretty foolish.

I do not say that we cannot discuss the non-doctrinal problems. But it can be difficult.

Of course, the doctrinal discussions can be as well because many of us are ready to assert the answer and just run with it rather than take the time to show how it is that there is a problem and what it is that this problem means.

For example, this thread is about these word errors. And some of them are not necessarily that egregious. But there sure are a lot of them. And Lee did seem to go out of his way to take sides with the outliers. While we can somewhat yawn over many of the particular items as standalones, there is a pattern here that has an impact on the minds of the followers (and sometimes still on us). Until we really understand how it has affected them (and us) it is difficult sometimes to get rid of the system.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with practice is that it is hard to prove. Hard to assess. The original God-Men book found out. You talk to someone who provides their experience and the group goes out and sweet-talks them into coming back and joining the fold. Suddenly your evidence vanishes.

I agree, OBW. It reminds me of the Senate Hearing scene from The Godfather II. Here's an excerpt:

"SENATOR: Mr. PENTANGELI, you are contradicting a sworn statement that you previously made to me and signed. I ask you again sir -- you are now under oath -- were you at any time a member of a crime organization -- headed by Michael Corleone?

PENTANGELI: I don't know nothin' about that. Oh -- I was in the Olive Oil business with his father but that was a long time ago, that's all.

SENATOR: We have a sworn affidavit -- we have it -- your sworn affidavit that you murdered on the orders of Michael Corleone. Do you deny that confession, and do you realize what will happen as a result of your denial?

PENTANGELI: Look the FBI guys promised me a deal. So I made up a lot of stuff about Michael Corleone 'cause that's what they wanted -- but it was all lies -- uh -- everything. And I kept saying -- 'Michael Corleone did this and Michael Corleone did that' -- uh -- so I said, yea sure, why not?"

The stuff that's the most serious, and the most cause for raising red flags to new potential recruits, is probably - mostly - the stuff we would never be able to prove.

But that doesn't mean we can't raise those warnings flags, out of a desire that other people could avoid the same pitfalls that we did not do so well in avoiding ourselves. And we do that some here on the forum. Guess I just wish we could do it a little more.

Originally Posted by awareness

So Nigel's hard work turns out to be just another opinion? So why all the footnotes and such? Is Nigel's work just an exercise in futility, or maybe a struggle in his own mind, still trying to get free it from Witness Lee?

No wonder no one wants to deal with it.

So rename the thread so that it's honest. Name it something like : Nigel's Opinions of Lee's Etymological Errors.

What's so great about Nigel's opinions anyway. May as well be my opinions.

What?..what's so great about Nigel's....'opinions'?

They are hardly opinions, my friend, and even if so, they are based on meticulous and solid research and up to date linguistic theory that has been peer-reviewed for over fifty years.

I may well as have the infernal cheek to ask what was so great about Pythagora's 'opinion' that the world may not be flat after all, and may even actually be round? How dare I? What if I upset the faith of some who are so firmly set on their belief that the world is as flat as a pancake? It were far better that I leave them to wallow in their ignorance, right?

If you wish to, you can sail to the edge of the Scriptures and fall off the edge to God knows where!!!...I, on the other hand, like Columbus before me, shall set sail for India in the opposite direction, and maybe, just maybe, I may discover a New World.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And yet...doctrine so easily becomes the focus of these discussions...sigh...

When that happens I tend to tune out doctrinal discussions. However there is one that is doctrinal and a matter of orthopraxy. That being the teaching and practice of deputy/delegated authority.

[awareness]

Thanks for chiming in Unregistered. Finally someone cares.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What?..what's so great about Nigel's....'opinions'?

They are hardly opinions, my friend, and even if so, they are based on meticulous and solid research and up to date linguistic theory that has been peer-reviewed for over fifty years.

This was a response to UntoHim, who stated:
"As with anything that is posted on this forum (except for what is posted directly from me) they are the thoughts, feelings and opinions of each individual poster, and I may or may not agree with anything, whole or part."

It also came from frustration that no one seemed to want to deal with Nigel's hard work.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I may well as have the infernal cheek to ask what was so great about Pythagora's 'opinion' that the world may not be flat after all, and may even actually be round? How dare I? What if I upset the faith of some who are so firmly set on their belief that the world is as flat as a pancake? It were far better that I leave them to wallow in their ignorance, right?

Tell it to the Universal Zetetic Society, whose objective was "the propagation of knowledge related to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures." And to the Flat Earth Society ->http://theflatearthsociety.org/

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you wish to, you can sail to the edge of the Scriptures and fall off the edge to God knows where!!!...I, on the other hand, like Columbus before me, shall set sail for India in the opposite direction, and maybe, just maybe, I may discover a New World.

A New World that had already been discovered by the indigenous thousands of years before. Discovered a New World? How arrogant, presumptuous, and blind - we're the center of the earth - egotistical.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

When that happens I tend to tune out doctrinal discussions. However there is one that is doctrinal and a matter of orthopraxy. That being the teaching and practice of deputy/delegated authority.

I agree, Terry. The concept of "good building material" is a doctrine that can have serious implications for day-to-day practice, as well.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The concept of "good building material" is a doctrine that can have serious implications for day-to-day practice, as well.

True. Contrary to "good material" concept, Jesus did not go after "good material" in the gospels.

[Cassidy]

Dr. Nigel Tomes> "By conventional standards Witness Lee was an ‘amateur’162 in biblical languages—OT Hebrew and NT Greek. He had only a rudimentary, self-taught knowledge of New Testament Greek. He knew no Hebrew. He relied on outdated word studies, lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine & Kittel). These traits plus a dismissive attitude towards scholarship & boundless self-confidence made W. Lee liable to etymological errors and exegetical fallacies. Meanwhile he was blissfully ignorant of the revolution in biblical linguistics which began with Prof. James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) and was continued by other notable scholars. This revolution exposed the numerous errors and fallacies inherent in the earlier word studies on which W. Lee relied."


Dr. Tomes' paper on Etymology is a complicated yet at times a humorous attempt to discredit the voluminous works of Witness Lee that continue to provide inspiration to many dear followers of Christ. To address the fallacies of his paper point by point would not only be over taxing to both writer and reader but repetitive beyond what is necessary to reveal the fallacies of Dr. Tomes critique. The few observations that follow are mine and solely mine.

1) First, Tomes starts by casting Witness Lee as a comparatively (to Tomes' standards) unlearned Bible teacher who only "had only a rudimentary, self-taught knowledge of NT Greek" and knew "no Hebrew". Witness Lee never represented himself as such either and therefore relied on recognized Greek scholars as a basis for his studies and subsequent teachings.

2) Secondly, Dr. Tomes argues that the Bible scholars Witness Lee relied on were outdated in their understanding (and therefore so was Witness Lee's understanding).

3) Thirdly to support these notions he engages in the fallacy of "Proof by Assertion" by quoting snippets from a line up of of modern Greek scholars that arose in the middle of the last century. He characterizes those scholars as revolutionary in dismissing the approach of word studies used by other Greek scholars he attempts to discredit.

4) Fourth, Tomes objects to what he calls the dismissive attitude of Witness Lee towards contemporary christian scholarship, and therefore not to be outdone he doubles down by dismissing Witness Lee's teachings, the studying of the Bible through word studies, discrediting historical respected scholars in the field of Greek study, and discrediting word studies by using some modern examples that ultimately fail to prove his point.

5) Finally, as if the absence of a point is a victory unto itself, he appears self-satisfied with his presentation and sums up Witness Lee as an "amateur". Dr. Tomes is apparently, according to this paper, completely oblivious to the whole point of the Scriptures.


Personal Observations:

To the first point, Dr. Tomes would do well to familiarize himself with God's ordination in the New Testament. "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." The Priests were the learned ones and the ones who knew the Scriptures and, according to them, God's minsters were the "unlearned and ignorant". Tomes' argument fails to recognize that being with Jesus is the most important criteria for speaking for God. I appreciate those who know Greek and Hebrew but do not buy Tomes' elitist argument on this point.

To the second and third line of argument I disagree again. Dr. Tomes articulates the mistaken concept that word studies are not valuable and not useful to the Lord. In favor of more recent scholars he dismisses credible ones such as Vincent, Vine, Alford, Kittel, Darby. He wholeheartedly embraces modern scholars such as Barr who are not only antagonistic toward fundamentalism and conservative evangelism but attack their belief of inerrancy of the Bible. Perhaps God has revealed something more to these modern scholars (the errancy of the Bible?) but that does not validate a total disregard for the value and benefit of biblical word studies.

On the fourth point Tomes introduces some humorous modern terms to invalidate all word studies yet he fails to make a compelling point and overindulges in creating straw men to strengthen his argument. For instance, he argues that a word study on "hotdog" would not yield the true meaning, Nay, nay, not so. There was a belief that dog meat was in sausages and they were served so hot that they burned fingers and gloves were handed out to eat them . Another fallacy argument Tomes makes is of "Pineapples"... he argues that "it is not an apple produced by a pine-tree!" but a simple word study would have revealed that the pineapple was so called because it resembled the shape of a pinecone. Again for "grapefruit" he says a word study would be misleading because "it not related to the grape (genus: vitis)" apparently not recognizing that grapefruit grow in clusters like grapes and so named. Using Tomes' own examples show that word studies would be useful to understanding their meaning. For other examples such a automobiles, telecommunications, healthcare, coca-cola, a word study would reveal their literal meaning. Dr. Tomes argument that word studies are outdated is just his preference, perhaps so, because he is trying to find points of attack on Witness Lee's use of them. If that is the case, then his analysis is something worse than just misguided scholarship.

On the last point Tomes appears to have framed his argument on his preference for modern scholars who know Greek better than the ones that have gone before. This is similar to the line of argument that evolutionists take in the name of modern science.. that is, evolution is newer and enlightened by science so it must be better than the outdated creation view. In any case, a scholar's level of understanding Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldean are not the point of Scripture. The point of Scripture is "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,". To that end I would much rather read expositions of the Scriptures about God, the Person and Work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, Redemption, Salvation, Sanctification, Consecration, Transformation, Glorification, from the likes of ignorant amateur ministers like Witness Lee and Watchman Nee than the teachings from brilliant polemic professionals and their superior intellect of modern biblical study methods.... but that is just my personal preference.

[awareness]

Nice to hear from you Cassidy.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

but that is just my personal preference.

My personal preferences have never been static ...

And I guess we'll never know whether Nigel intended it or not, but I think it's been made clear already that, the final consequence of Nigel's treatise is that it pulls the rug out from under Bible inerrancy.

[Cassidy]

Hi awareness,

Good to see you.

It is clear Tomes intended to convey his beliefs refuting the inerrancy of the Bible. It was a central point of his argument........ the updated modern view based on Barr.

If he does not hold that belief but only used it as a point of attack on Witness Lee then that would be even worse.

My personal preferences are not static either.... but what matters is in which direction they are heading.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

It is clear Tomes intended to convey his beliefs refuting the inerrancy of the Bible.

I can't be certain that Tome's intended to pull the rug out from inerrancy. My impression of Nigel, tho I may be wrong, is that he's a Bible believer.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

It was a central point of his argument....

The central point? Could you please point it out to me, if it's not too much trouble.....

Originally Posted by Cassidy

the updated modern view based on Barr.

Barr is an indicator. I'll give you that. Tho not a checkmate of Tome's being firmly in Barr's corner.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

If he does not hold that belief but only used it as a point of attack on Witness Lee then that would be even worse.

Well it would mean Nigel has a huge blind spot. That undermines his whole treatise.

And prolly makes Ron Kangas split a gut laughing.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

My beliefs are not static either.... but what matters is in which direction they are heading.

Well I think we all wish to be heading in the right direction. The right direction is toward what is true.

And I wish that for you bro Cassidy ... as to myself also.

Blessings ...

[Cassidy]

Awareness> The central point? Could you please point it out to me, if it's not too much trouble.....

Sure. Tomes talks a few times about the revolution 50 years ago, the reconstruction of biblical linguistics, and that before that everything was prone to error.... meaning that from that point forward everything else was hunky dory according to Tomes.

Furthermore, Dr. Tomes refers to James Barr work as "landmark".. "This seismic change in the analysis of biblical languages is not a recent development. It began over 50-years ago with the publication of Prof. James Barr’s, Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford Univ. Press, 1961). Dr. Barr’s landmark study amounted to “a reconstruction of descriptive biblical linguistics.”40 Barr’s book “shook the foundations of…word studies, most notably the TDNT,”

Barr's views included "It is absolutely certain that 2 Tim 3:16 cannot be taken as a clearly delimited definition of the unique inspiration of the 66 books of the modern Protestant canon"

Landmark? Maybe. But what kind and why is Tomes advancing these teachings? Because he wants to disagree with Witness Lee and any contrary teaching will do? Or he really believes that stuff?

I'd say both.

[Ohio]

Cassidy,

I have faced some of the same difficulties concerning Tomes' latest work as you.

I have the same concerns about modern scholarship upending centuries of accepted word studies. If Lee had a problem, then so did every other Christian scholar.

You used the analogy of the "grapefruit." Where are the cataclysmic upheavals in Bible translations which follow the same pattern?

I understand Tomes etymological concerns, but where did the translators completely avoid context to pursue their misinformed course?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Dr. Nigel Tomes -- "By conventional standards Witness Lee was an ‘amateur’162 in biblical languages—OT Hebrew and NT Greek. He had only a rudimentary, self-taught knowledge of New Testament Greek. He knew no Hebrew. He relied on outdated word studies, lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. Alford, Darby, Vincent, Vine & Kittel). These traits plus a dismissive attitude towards scholarship & boundless self-confidence made W. Lee liable to etymological errors and exegetical fallacies. Meanwhile he was blissfully ignorant of the revolution in biblical linguistics which began with Prof. James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) and was continued by other notable scholars. This revolution exposed the numerous errors and fallacies inherent in the earlier word studies on which W. Lee relied."

I don't know Barr and what his work represents, but the point that WL relied on outdated scholarship is obvious. WL supposedly relied on revelation, to stay current on God's present speaking. Fine, but why was WL the only one on planet earth capable of receiving divine light? We were expected to ask God for guidance in life, but it seemed that only WL was capable when it came to the Holy Word.

[UntoHim]

I owe a big apology to Nigel and anyone reading the mess that I posted in the opening post of the thread. I thought I had transferred over the proper formatting back a long time ago, but when I looked this morning it is still the bunged mess I made out of it back when first posted back in August!

I also apologize to Cassidy for having to sort his way through this mess (if in fact you didn't find the original somewhere else.) In any event, I have attached the original document in PDF form here.

Maybe one day I'll figure out how to post PDFs and other docs with there original format. The Vbulletin software is great for the most part, but that is one of the little tricks I've yet to figure out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cassidy,

I have faced some of the same difficulties concerning Tomes' latest work as you.

I have the same concerns about modern scholarship upending centuries of accepted word studies. If Lee had a problem, then so did every other Christian scholar.

You used the analogy of the "grapefruit." Where are the cataclysmic upheavals in Bible translations which follow the same pattern?

I understand Tomes etymological concerns, but where did the translators completely avoid context to pursue their misinformed course?

Maybe this falls under the old Confucius adage:

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

Maybe Nigel is so after revenge against Lee, that he buries the Bible as well.

After all, Lee did claim that his whole theology was based upon the Bible. So ... bring that premise down, and you completely pull the rug out from under Lee.

So while burying Lee Nigel had to bury the Bible too. (Nigel needs to come out here and clear this up. Higher caliber Bible scholars than Tome's are participating on social media. Maybe Nigel is outdated.)

Thanks bro Cassidy for pointing out Nigel's central point.

But don't get me going on 2 Tim 3:16. I don't need Barr to tell me how that verse has been misapplied by inerrantists today. That would require a new thread ... on Alternative Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I owe a big apology to Nigel and anyone reading the mess that I posted in the opening post of the thread. I thought I had transferred over the proper formatting back a long time ago, but when I looked this morning it is still the bunged mess I made out of it back when first posted back in August!

I also apologize to Cassidy for having to sort his way through this mess (if in fact you didn't find the original somewhere else.) In any event, I have attached the original document in PDF form here.

Maybe one day I'll figure out how to post PDFs and other docs with there original format. The Vbulletin software is great for the most part, but that is one of the little tricks I've yet to figure out.

Until then you can get a clean copy at:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Nigel is so after revenge against Lee, that he buries the Bible as well.

After all, Lee did claim that his whole theology was based upon the Bible. So ... bring that premise down, and you completely pull the rug out from under Lee.

So while burying Lee Nigel had to bury the Bible too. (Nigel needs to come out here and clear this up. Higher caliber Bible scholars than Tome's are participating on social media. Maybe Nigel is outdated.)

I'm not buying this. Nigel is far too honorable and scholarly to act out of revenge against Lee.

[aron]

The scholars WL cited were conveniently dead; that way they wouldn't protest if he made a hash out of their work. He could claim their authority without the unpleasantry of actually having peers, and the give-and-take of that process.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying this. Nigel is far too honorable and scholarly to act out of revenge against Lee.

That's my impression of Nigel too. But it still doesn't mean that Nigel doesn't have an axe to grind with Lee, and is working thru mental disappointments with Lee and his ministry.

Nigel really needs to come out here and explain all this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's my impression of Nigel too. But it still doesn't mean that Nigel doesn't have an axe to grind with Lee, and is working thru mental disappointments with Lee and his ministry.

Nigel really needs to come out here and explain all this.

I have always thought that Nigel has written on behalf of the saints who left the program. I never agreed that we or he were ever required to, "walk away silently as a gentleman," as Lee and his cadre of Blendeds have always demanded.

Personally I felt there were other more pertinent and specific LC topics to address such as their para-church structure called "The Work," which strikes at the heart of all their problems.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally I felt there were other more pertinent and specific LC topics to address such as their para-church structure called "The Work," which strikes at the heart of all their problems.

Maybe Nigel is working on it. And he's too busy to come on this forum. Personally I've always liked Nigel's work.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's my impression of Nigel too. But it still doesn't mean that Nigel doesn't have an axe to grind with Lee, and is working thru mental disappointments with Lee and his ministry.

Nigel really needs to come out here and explain all this.

You can call it an axe to grind if you want, but I see it as speaking into a system in which the source of everything is Lee, therefore if you take exception to anything, it is an exception to Lee. You don't have to be targeting a person to point to the things that you see as being incorrect.

As for Cassidy's grasping at straws to refute the points Nigel makes on word studies, it is just that — grasping at straws. The kind of word analysis that insists upon the juxtaposition of two words meaning the literal thing — especially decades later — is really stupid. The word means what it means in the era in which it is written not when it is created.

As for the complaint about some "revolution," I recall my son mentioning that while he was in seminary, they were studying words and one of the things that had been troublesome for centuries was that there were some words and phrases that just did not seem to really make the kind of sense that had been pushed for those centuries. The words were typically the kind that were falling back on pre-Christ (by centuries) uses of words because the uses at the time did not make much more sense. Then they begin to discover a wealth of writings from the era of the NT that were not in what would have been the "high Greek" of the era, but more of the common people and suddenly things began to fit. It began to make sense.

And since the usage of the era was now known, the tendency toward harsh (and awkward) renderings based on literal juxtaposition of the translation of component word parts were discarded. Actually a very sound result. This claim that there was something new in the last 50 years is not really true, just the learning of old information.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So while burying Lee Nigel had to bury the Bible too.

For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.

Higher caliber Bible scholars than Tome's are participating on social media.

Really? According to what "calibration"? Or is it safe to say that the calibration is no more than your own subjective evaluation? Not that I have a problem with that. Just that if that is what it is i would like to be able to understand it as such.

But don't get me going on 2 Tim 3:16. I don't need Barr to tell me how that verse has been misapplied by inerrantists today. That would require a new thread ... on Alternative Views.

Oh let's do talk about it. Witness Lee usually used 2 Timothy 3:16 not to show that the Bible was infallible but rather spiritual as he does here:

For example, I would like to point out again that 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” The Scriptures are the breath of God, or the breathing out of God, God's breathing out of Himself. The Bible, therefore, is God's breath, and God's breath is the Spirit of God, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which is also the word for breath. Thus, we may say that the Holy Spirit is the holy breath (cf. 20:22). God is Spirit, and the Spirit is the holy breath. To say that all Scripture is God-breathed is to say that the Bible is the breath, the breathing out, of the very God who is Spirit. God has breathed Himself out, and this breathing out of God is the Bible. This is what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying when it tells us that the Scriptures are God-breathed.

Now, ironically, this interpretation is etymological and therefore, undercut by Tomes' thesis. Would Tomes' linguistic experts also undercut the standard inerrantist appropriation of the verse? I don't know. I am hopelessly lost on the matter according to Tomes' analysis. Far safer for me to stop reading the Bible and start reading the linguists so that hopefully someday I can begin to understand it correctly through them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Far safer for me to stop reading the Bible and start reading the linguists so that hopefully someday I can begin to understand it correctly through them.

Hopefully you are just being sarcastic here.

What I want to see are the scriptures where serious errors have been propagated by adhering to the old etymological translations.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hopefully you are just being sarcastic here.

Not exactly. It's a conclusion that seems to follow from Tomes' hypothesis that without the expertise of a linguist the Bible is incomprehensible. I don't accept that that is the only valid way to read the Bible.

What I want to see are the scriptures where serious errors have been propagated by adhering to the old etymological translations.

He has already undermined Lee's teaching concerning God's Economy. That's not serious enough for you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

He has already undermined Lee's teaching concerning God's Economy. That's not serious enough for you?

Serious enough?

Tomes has undermined every teacher and teaching before the mid 20th century.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

The kind of word analysis that insists upon the juxtaposition of two words meaning the literal thing — especially decades later — is really stupid. The word means what it means in the era in which it is written not when it is created.

I'm assuming you mean "coined." And yes words change meanings even within a hundred years. For example, if you want to know what words meant in the 19th century you need to get a 19th c. dictionary.

Witness Lee always had to sell that he had the divine lowdown on scripture. So of course to prove it he went hog wild on the etymology of Bible words, to forward that appearance.

So it is good that Nigel exposes Lee's etymological lunacy. Nigel also exposes that Lee didn't have a divine origin for his etymology. That he came by it thru human references.

But in the process Nigel removes certitude from the scripture. Now I'm dependent upon scholars to tell me what it means. And the right scholars. Not outdated ones. And I can't be certain about the scholars either.

Then inerrancy is not the question, or errancy the problem. Nigel doesn't even mention the manuscripts (none agree), or the autographs (that we don't have). He just points out that scholars disagree as to what Gods' words mean.

This leaves a lay person like myself lost.

Now I lost Lee, and that's a good thing.

But is losing my certitude about Gods' words a good thing? Doesn't it in the end mean that the Bible is a human book, that requires looking into the human meaning of the words, back when it was written, to understand it?

So Lee loses his divine origins, and so does the Bible. Lee is stripped of divinity, and so is the Bible.

Did Nigel intend to do that?

[rayliotta]

I remember hearing, when I was in the Recovery, that on certain words in the Recovery Version, the translators deferred to the word choice that Witness Lee preferred. Has anyone else heard the same thing?

If it's true, of course, it seems a bit serious, given that Witness Lee was not a Greek scholar.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I remember hearing, when I was in the Recovery, that on certain words in the Recovery Version, the translators deferred to the word choice that Witness Lee preferred. Has anyone else heard the same thing?

If it's true, of course, it seems a bit serious, given that Witness Lee was not a Greek scholar.

Sure ... I heard that on a few occasions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I remember hearing, when I was in the Recovery, that on certain words in the Recovery Version, the translators deferred to the word choice that Witness Lee preferred. Has anyone else heard the same thing?

If it's true, of course, it seems a bit serious, given that Witness Lee was not a Greek scholar.

Like good 'ol King James, that required the Greek word ekklesia to be translated as church. What did the King know?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

But in the process Nigel removes certitude from the scripture. Now I'm dependent upon scholars to tell me what it means. And the right scholars. Not outdated ones. And I can't be certain about the scholars either.

Before Nigel did what he did, you relied on other scholars. The ones who put the "common" knowledge that everyone grew up with prior to the newer analysis. We just think we got it on our own. We had a history from our earliest days as a kid. And that is what we accepted.

Then came Lee and we bought his.

But there is no more or less certitude in the scripture now than before. It is less anchored in the nuances of specific words as it is in the narrative that is understood just as well when told in very different words that could be derived from various synonyms and not needing a special lexicon to arrive at it.

In fact, the certitude that so many are concerned with is the fortune-cookie gospel of promises, factoids, incantations, etc., that so many sell as their alternative to real Christian life. If you don't needs those, then the minutia becomes less important. God spoke in the language understood, not coded words needing a decoder ring or a séance to figure out.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Serious enough?

Tomes has undermined every teacher and teaching before the mid 20th century.

I don't think that was his intention. Once you get away from dogma which is supported by some kind of authoritative structure, there are choices.

Linguistic-historical interpretation is always going to be more or less probable not absolute. So it will never be final in the way that dogma is. The catholic church has its creeds, Witness Lee made himself the one voice that could be heard in the Local Churches.

You have stated that it is all a matter of who you listen to. But, how does one decide that?

Anyway, it would be nice if we could get away from always having to depend on some expert to tell us what the Bible really means and get back to letting the words speak to us directly. Maybe what the experts tell us the Bible really means is less important than hearing God speak to us through it. Even though we don't have the original manuscripts or whatever, that still may be possible. Maybe we can get back to that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think that was his intention. Once you get away from dogma which is supported by some kind of authoritative structure, there are choices.

Linguistic-historical interpretation is always going to be more or less probable not absolute. So it will never be final in the way that dogma is. The catholic church has its creeds, Witness Lee made himself the one voice that could be heard in the Local Churches.

You have stated that it is all a matter of who you listen to. But, how does one decide that?

Anyway, it would be nice if we could get away from always having to depend on some expert to tell us what the Bible really means and get back to letting the words speak to us directly. Maybe what the experts tell us the Bible really means is less important than hearing God speak to us through it. Even though we don't have the original manuscripts or whatever, that still may be possible. Maybe we can get back to that.

See new thread in Alternative Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? According to what "calibration"? Or is it safe to say that the calibration is no more than your own subjective evaluation? Not that I have a problem with that. Just that if that is what it is i would like to be able to understand it as such.

Oh you know exactly what I meant/mean. You're just being cantankerous for the fun of it.

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh let's do talk about it. Witness Lee usually used 2 Timothy 3:16 not to show that the Bible was infallible but rather spiritual as he does here:

What constituted "all scripture" back when Timothy was written?

Originally Posted by zeek

Now, ironically, this interpretation is etymological and therefore, undercut by Tomes' thesis. Would Tomes' linguistic experts also undercut the standard inerrantist appropriation of the verse? I don't know. I am hopelessly lost on the matter according to Tomes' analysis. Far safer for me to stop reading the Bible and start reading the linguists so that hopefully someday I can begin to understand it correctly through them.

That's the way I felt after reading this work by Tomes.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

My point exactly.

No that was my point exactly. Yours was that he buried it.

Oh you know exactly what I meant/mean. You're just being cantankerous for the fun of it.

If you meant that it was nothing more than your opinion then I know exactly what you meant.

What constituted "all scripture" back when Timothy was written?

I suppose there were different opinions about that depending on who you talked to or what sect you were in...kind of like today only not quite as complex because there were less people and society was less complex.

According to the text, if a text wasn't God-inspired,useful for teaching, helping people, correcting them and showing them how to live, it wasn't scripture. Of course, it's always going to be a judgment call, which the church has demonstrated over and over throughout the course of its history.

[awareness]

Goodness! Geez!

Originally Posted by zeek

No that was my point exactly. Yours was that he buried it.

Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!

If you meant that it was nothing more than your opinion then I know exactly what you meant.

Okay be stubborn. What I meant was that I don't think Tomes runs with the top scholars of Christianity. And I was saying that Tomes is outdated because today top scholars are participating on social media. Do I really need to give you a list? Just how oblivious are you gonna pretend to be? The point is that Nigel needs to come on the forum and explain it all to us; like did he really intend to damage the certitude of Gods' words?

According to the text, if a text wasn't God-inspired,useful for teaching, helping people, correcting them and showing them how to live, it wasn't scripture. Of course, it's always going to be a judgment call, which the church has demonstrated over and over throughout the course of its history.

Interesting, but since Timothy was written before the rest of the NT it couldn't have meant the NT we have today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness! Geez!

Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!

You don't see a difference? OK

Okay be stubborn. What I meant was that I don't think Tomes runs with the top scholars of Christianity. And I was saying that Tomes is outdated because today top scholars are participating on social media. Do I really need to give you a list? Just how oblivious are you gonna pretend to be? The point is that Nigel needs to come on the forum and explain it all to us; like did he really intend to damage the certitude of Gods' words?

"Top" according to you. Participating in social media is convenient. It's not necessarily the top of anything. It is where the crowd or the herd are. Hey, the "Lord's Recovery" is doing social media. They must be at the top too.

Interesting, but since Timothy was written before the rest of the NT it couldn't have meant the NT we have today.

Feel free to go on refuting a proposition I'm not making. No problem.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.

Not sure that is the logical result of things. The idea that what the Bible basically says is my determination is to make it into something uncertain to everyone but me (from my perspective).

The ultimate example of that is Lee's dismissal of the words actually there because he had an overlay that said those words were not acceptable. But even if I reject Lee's overlays, if I lean strictly on my own understanding, I am still bringing an overlay. And it is one that is less outwardly declared and defined, but instead just makes it read like I think it should. And there are plenty of places where my version of what it says will not be truly what it says.

When you suggest that the Bible becomes out of your reach, what do you mean? Are you suggesting that it needs to be some kind of uncertain mass of words that you get to manipulate based on your personal biases and thoughts? That the only way it is accessible to you is that it be in a formless shape with no fixed meaning?

To me, if a somewhat large group of scholars from various backgrounds join to provide the best wisdom on the original languages as spoken and written at the time of the writing, then I have more certainty that what I read in whatever is my native tongue is more likely to bring the original writing to me. If left to my own devices, I may like what I create better than what the scholars would provides, but I have much less certainty that it is a faithful rendering of what was originally there.

In other words, relying on my own translation skills makes the actual Bible much less accessible than relying on the work of qualified scholars. While God surely can speak to us from either, he has to overcome our self-inflicted errors in what we think he has said that we need his speaking on. Since he tends not to speak in an audible voice, we don't have the opportunity for him to tell us "first, you translated it incorrectly and are therefore asking the wrong question."

And while I do not think that everything is where it should be in the overall scheme of things Christian, I do think that presuming that we should be second-guessing everything and presuming that we can do better than the scholars is a hold-over from our days in the LRC where everyone but the untrained Lee was getting it wrong. Somehow the little Chinaman doing better exegesis than well-trained biblical scholars seems more American because it has that rugged individualism, "by the bootstraps" feel to it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Feel free to go on refuting a proposition I'm not making. No problem.

Well whatever proposition you are making doesn't stand out. So try again, and this time make it stick out. Then maybe I'll refute it ... just to be cantankerous. Or maybe not, if unable to refute your brilliance.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

To me, if a somewhat large group of scholars from various backgrounds join to provide the best wisdom on the original languages as spoken and written at the time of the writing, then I have more certainty that what I read in whatever is my native tongue is more likely to bring the original writing to me. If left to my own devices, I may like what I create better than what the scholars would provides, but I have much less certainty that it is a faithful rendering of what was originally there.

In other words, relying on my own translation skills makes the actual Bible much less accessible than relying on the work of qualified scholars....

This is the genius of the assembly: no one has the ultimate voice. Eventually, in the give-and-take, with a spirit of mutuality and accord, a rough consensus can be ascertained, but nobody expects every last jot and tittle to be solved for each member's satisfaction. God has made us different, and that is okay. But we each have an opportunity, as we are able and interested, to take advantage of the skills of the trained linguists, as well as the experiences of our battle-tested veterans (the proverbial 'elders') as well as the fresh perspectives of the so-called 'newbies'. Each one can contribute to the dialog. Coming to some hard-and-fast "this means that" is not the end-all. The certainty that we have is not in one definitive meaning as much as the pleasure and comfort that we're in a mutually edifying, interesting, and satisfying exploration of something of shared relevance. Good enough.

Originally Posted by OBW

... presuming that we should be second-guessing everything and presuming that we can do better than the scholars is a hold-over from our days in the LRC where everyone but the untrained Lee was getting it wrong. Somehow the little Chinaman doing better exegesis than well-trained biblical scholars seems more American because it has that rugged individualism, "by the bootstraps" feel to it.

Lee did have a 'do-it-yourself' attraction to his work; if he could tackle the Bible armed with little more than Kittel and Alford and Vine and Wuest, then surely we could as well. And we did. But 20 years later that was gone. Then it had become, "Maximum Brother has spoken." The definitive word was in some footnote; why waste your time exploring? Especially if your exploration runs afoul of the Deputy Authority. Lee took advantage of the rugged American individualism and "do-it-yourself-ism" but he merged that into his culture of Asian conformity. It then became: the Bible says we are all one, and Lee has spoken, so we all have to be one (with what Lee has spoken). The only self left was the self of Lee (who according to RK didn't exist anymore).

Here are some of his main sources:

Gerhard Kittel 1888-1948
Kenneth Wuest 1893-1962
Henry Alford 1810-1871
W.E. Vine 1873-1949

As I said earlier, Lee used scholars who couldn't talk back. They were gone, and thus he wasn't subject to peer review from without. Certainly nobody could examine his work critically from within. Lee didn't have to be subject to the indignities of a conversation, and could continue his monologue uninterrupted. I remember hearing him say that nobody (else) had produced anything informative since 1945. It had become, "Witness Lee said," and the conversation in the assembly was effectively over.

[OBW]

aron,

I like the church-based analysis of scripture. But even the one case we are given was not simply the analysis by one assembly. While it was heavily Jerusalem, not all were simply from Jerusalem. It was a broader consensus. And that is how it should be. But the discussion was brought to those who were the leaders, not to the average "member." Their input was considered (assuming there was some), but it was the leadership (the nearest thing to the scholars they had) that made the decision.

We like to gripe about how the RCC does it. But at some level they have it right. Not entirely. There is no one person who can simply make statements and it is so, and just making up stuff, like the immaculate conception, praying to saints and Mary, etc., is an example of an ungrounded system. But the idea that the collective thought of the upper echelons is more in touch with the thoughts of God is somewhat sound, and is supported by the example in Acts. In Protestantism we are more enamored with me and my Bible and have created many divisions because we are unwilling to lay our thoughts at the feet of a larger group that may not conclude as we have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

aron,

I like the church-based analysis of scripture. But even the one case we are given was not simply the analysis by one assembly. While it was heavily Jerusalem, not all were simply from Jerusalem. It was a broader consensus. And that is how it should be. But the discussion was brought to those who were the leaders, not to the average "member." Their input was considered (assuming there was some), but it was the leadership (the nearest thing to the scholars they had) that made the decision.

We like to gripe about how the RCC does it. But at some level they have it right. Not entirely. There is no one person who can simply make statements and it is so, and just making up stuff, like the immaculate conception, praying to saints and Mary, etc., is an example of an ungrounded system. But the idea that the collective thought of the upper echelons is more in touch with the thoughts of God is somewhat sound, and is supported by the example in Acts. In Protestantism we are more enamored with me and my Bible and have created many divisions because we are unwilling to lay our thoughts at the feet of a larger group that may not conclude as we have.

If you remove the assumption that there is anything divine about the reasoning of the "divines" then what you are left with is something like a crowd of experts. You may find it prudent to follow their discourse, but they hardly command the kind of allegiance that might get you, oh I don't know... crucified. Isn't that what Jesus asked for? What the crowd produces is, at best a product of more or less. Is it any surer than the here-to-day-gone-tomorrow zeitgeist of Tomes' panel of linguistic experts? So, at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors. What is needed is subjective passion and that cannot be conjured. If anything is divine that's it. Call me a fideist but I call it faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you remove the assumption that there is anything divine about the reasoning of the "divines" then what you are left with is something like a crowd of experts. You may find it prudent to follow their discourse, but they hardly command the kind of allegiance that might get you, oh I don't know... crucified. Isn't that what Jesus asked for? What the crowd produces is, at best a product of more or less. Is it any surer than the here-to-day-gone-tomorrow zeitgeist of Tomes' panel of linguistic experts? So, at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors. What is needed is subjective passion and that cannot be conjured. If anything is divine that's it. Call me a fideist but I call it faith.

Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.

But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.

And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???

And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.

Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.

What does this mean?

Jesus then told the crowd and the disciples to come closer, and he said: If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me.

But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.

And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???

And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.

Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What does this mean?

Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html

Originally Posted by z

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

Originally Posted by z

Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.

Where's the rope?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

I think that there is a disconnect in here somewhere. The verse that was quoted concerning being a follower has a context. The context is of a rabbi with his followers (disciples) that will learn his teachings and spread them. Everyone who comes to "follow" those teachings is not necessarily a follower in the sense of those who literally trail behind the rabbi are.

I think that the disconnect is that we take the references to a kingdom of priests to an unsupported extreme. While the average Israelite prayed and brought sacrifices, the priest was, at least at some level, a mediator for the people. But we no longer have a mediator that is strictly of our kind (human without divinity). We clearly have access to God.

But from the very beginning, Jesus created circles of followers. There was the 12 (and probably the three within that). Then the 70. And then the others. We don't know how the whole thing broke down. But when he went among the people, he did not preach following, but belief and obedience. When some came wanting to follow, then he turned up the rhetoric to see if they were really ready to follow. "Go and sell all." "Let the dead bury the dead." And so on.

Surely we all have a part in the spread of the gospel. But a lot of our part is in being people who live in a manner that is worthy of consideration. And we do need to have something to say when asked. But I think there is a tendency for us to think that we are either preachers, missionaries, or at least giving away all of our free time to the "work of ministry" in a big way, and since we do not, we feel like failures and allow ourselves to miss our calling.

And that is where you correctly point out the number who continually fail and just confess they are sinners. Yes, any mob boss or prostitute can say that. What should be the difference is the will and desire, fueled by the Spirit, to reduce the sins and have less cause for repentance.

But even for the best among us, we will sin until the day we die. Anyone telling you otherwise is either deluded or a liar. Repenting will be a theme in our lives until the end. So on one hand, it is true that Christians continually sin. The problem is not that they sin, but whether there is any evidence of sanctification so that they are not simply falling into every sin they ever had without ceasing. There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. Only that there is now the way to move out of it. But we have to be involved. It is not just grace, or dispensing.

The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless.

Yes, Christians continue to sin. And some of them seem to never get past any of it. But that is not the measure of being a Christian. However, never getting past any of it begs the question of belief. If you can't even try to follow and obey, do you really believe? I didn't say that if you can't succeed today do you really believe. And there is the problem. There is a question mark for me on those who do not even try. But there is a charge for us to spur one another on. So those who have given up on church, although they may have contacts with other Christians, are they sufficiently connected to allow themselves to be spurred on?

Don't make sinless perfection the marker of a Christian. There are no such people. But have a question concerning those who claim to believe but have absolutely no evidence in their living and don't seem to think it is important. You seem to want it to be all or nothing when the only thing you will ever find is progress or nothing. And there is a large spectrum in progress.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html

I know what immolation is. What's your point?

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

I'm not at liberty to discuss it here. Let's take it up in Alternative Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I know what immolation is. What's your point?

It's not my point. It's your point. And I quote:

at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors.

You're the one pointing out that the Bible says God has a nose ... for barbecue ... and likes His followers: "Well done my good and faithful servant."

Originally Posted by Me

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

Alternative Views would be a great place to discuss it. But we're all exLCers here, and heard it from Lee that the early church was corrupted. So it can be discussed here on the open forum. Just maybe not on this thread.

Methinks that unless bro Cassidy has more to say, or Nigel comes out of the woodwork, this thread has petered out.

And we're

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

...There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. ...

The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless... there is a large spectrum in progress.

I appreciate OBW spelling this out. One parable on the idea of making progress is in Luke chapter 16 where the debtors owed 100 measures of wheat, or of oil, and at the end they owed 50. Or they owed 80, and then at the end they owed 40. They still owed something at the end, but their situation had improved. Who wouldn't feel some relief? In the "all or nothing" scenario, owing 50 or owing 100 is irrelevant: if you owe, you're doomed. But in real life it matters how much you owe, and Jesus' parable suggests to me that it matters, spiritually, as well. "You won't get out until you pay the last farthing" (Matt 5:26) -- don't you think that a God who numbers the hairs on your head also numbers the farthings you owe?

Another thing is this: whether you owe 50, or 100, or you have 2 talents or 5 talents, will the Master come and find you laboring at it? Or will you tell yourself that He delays, and give up? Wherever you are is where you are -- are you going to struggle forward, or quit? I think it's better if the Master finds you struggling on "that day", wherever you are on the scale of perfection.