Flaws in Critical GNT known 100 years ago

I think Carson would recognize this:

"How are you able to believe,
honour from one another receiving,
and the honour coming from the true God
you do not seek?" (John 5:44)

 

Its a sad day when the reputation of a University graduate is held higher than the word of God,
and academics imagine in their arrogant blasphemy
they are worthy to 'edit' it on God's behalf:

 

You're just making it worse for Warfield.
The Holy Scripture still applies, and now applies more so:

"How are you able to believe,
receiving honour from one another,
while the honour coming from the true God
you do not seek?" (John 5:44)

University degrees and honours aren't worth the toilet-paper they're printed on:

"...because that which is exalted among men
is an abomination before the Lord God." (Luke 16:14)

But why stop to honour dead men at all, whether good or evil,
even if they were your own father?

And He said to another, "Follow Me.". But he said,
"Lord, please let me first go and bury my father."
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury the dead.
But you go and preach the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:59-60)

 

No. Men are idiots.

 

Pot calling the kettle black?
Looks like the old standard
unproven and demonstrably false ad hominem attack to me.

 

yes. The Jews (Judaeans) did honor Abraham.
The result was they rejected the Messiah.

Remember this little exchange?

They answered and said to Him,
"Abraham is our father."
Jesus said to them,
"If you were Abraham's children,
you would do the works of Abraham.
"But now you seek to kill Me,
a Man who has told you the truth
which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.
You do the deeds of your [real] father." (John 8:39-41a)

 

Read again, and think again.
I don't respect Mr. Scrivener. I respect the work he did.
For all I know he could be a serial killer.

I think I expressed myself on Scrivener quite well here:
Educating Scrivener

you assume too much.

I'm responding to you, aren't I?
Q.E.D.

Thats how to prove someone's an idiot.
Go practice.

 

"the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified as the question to solve — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration. The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof." (wikipedia, modified slightly)