Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Yes Will it is! Many a young man have went off to "cemetary" to have their faith in God's pure word(KJB) destroyed..Sad.. </font>[/QUOTE]don't kid urselves.

u've simply exchanged faith in God's pure Words w an arrogant faith in KJBO's scholar's union, which specialises in 2 things:

1. rejecting all other scholarship (incl. the KJB's Anglican scholarship of 1611!) except the worship of one's own KJBOistic mind, n

2. hissing "Yea hath God said" at all other bibles.


cemetary? woo hoo, what a Joke!

 

Not only do I reject their "work",I reject the Papal mss. they try to pawn off as the word of God.

By conviction of the Holy Spirit,that is the authority I claim.....

 

No.But many on this board think they are....You know,"a better reading would be" or "that is a poor translation of..." or "Those poor Anglican scholars were....." "all translations of God's word are......" "Those goofy KJBO's are...."


Who are you trying to kid??? </font>[/QUOTE]o puhlease!

all this after calling the scholarly view of ur KJB's own translators of 1611 "mythological"?


c'mon, who's REALLY trusting in Modern Scholarship?!

 

Yes Will it is! Many a young man have went off to "cemetary" to have their faith in God's pure word(KJB) destroyed..Sad.. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I was one of those from a cemetary in a church with so many unanswered questions to seminary. I would even ask those who would claim a particular belief only to find out that they simply stated what they had been told and when I further examined them they simply told me they really didn't know. Well when I went to seminary I found out that what I had been taught previously was nothing more then the ignorance of other men. But did I ever get a surprise when I started in my Greek and Hebrew studies. I was challenged to do some thorough study. I was miserable for a long time. But finally I was like a train coming into the light after being in a dark tunnel. I have never been the same since. To this day many pastors have come to me asking about what I believe because the cemetary that they thought was a seminary was really a place where they were fed what the parents wanted them to eat and diet on.

 

Ah, so the KJV *isn't* your final authority. You also assert your own personal, subjective conviction of the Holy Spirit is also authoritative for us to determine doctrine.

Excuse me while I cough, sputter and gag.

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it: KJV-onlyism ultimately eats its own tail.

 

Mr. Kinney,

I read your post and it looks to me as though the data that you posted does not very well represent the facts. You write that the “Vaticanus actually reads BABES (or infants - neepios), and the newer Nestle-Aland 27th, and UBS 4th have now put this ridiculous reading into their Greek texts.” Although it is true that the Vaticanus does read neepios, so do, for the most part, the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek text. And the 3rd edition of USB Greek text also reads neepios, but they label it {C}, meaning “that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading.” The apparatus includes a list of many important manuscripts for both readings, giving us an abundance of proof that neither reading is “ridiculous.” Modern scholarship has not failed us here! Rather it has given the Christian community very important and relevant data so that each individual Christian can look at the data and make up his/her own mind.

Leon Morris, in his commentary of First Thessalonians and Second Thessalonians, writes, “There is a first-class textual problem in this verse, namely whether we should read “gentle” or “babes.” He then goes on to present an excellent discussion of the issue and comes to the conclusion that “the balance of probability seems to favor “babes,” and we adopt this reading. The meaning of it will then be that the apostles became as simple as possible, as simple as babes as they preached. It is a strong expression for the extreme lengths to which they went to meet the needs of the hearers.”

 

If I held your posititon,I wouldn't see the point either.. </font>[/QUOTE]The last time that I heard Jack Hyles preach he said that he still had not learned how to read Greek because it would be a waste of his time. It seems strange to me that a man would preach thousands of messages on the New Testament having never read it! Can you imagine lecturing on the writings of Shakespeare if all you had ever read was a translation in Bantu!

Jack Hyles preaches against every translation that he has ever heard of but never read! Why listen to a man who doesn’t know anything about what he’s talking about?

 

Yes Will it is! Many a young man have went off to "cemetary" to have their faith in God's pure word(KJB) destroyed..Sad.. </font>[/QUOTE]AA, at first when I read your post I was offended, even though I have never had the chance to go to seminary. But I know plenty men who by the GRACE of God has had that chance. Why don't you and all that call seminary, "cemetary" tear out the verse that says to study to show thyself approved. AA with your insane arguments built on ignorance I'd say you have definately met God's disapproval, Or will someday.
Then, after reading all your posts so far, even the ones where you shoot off your feet. And then the one where you bit off your tail by making the Charismatic statement that the HOly Ghost is your final authority, I actually understand why you make such *uninformed* statements.

 

Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Here's another one:
Check out Brandplucked's rantings and ravings on
onlinebaptist.com!!!

If I believed scholarship like that, my brains would be in my big toes! Too many double standards for me.

 

These are absolutely false statements and libelous slander, the very slippery rocks upon which the KJVO Cult is founded. False statements such as these can never further the cause of Christ, they only further ignorance and weaken the Church.

 

The KJV has errors in it. To claim that the KJV is inerrant is divisive, and it is heresy. Your insistence upon 'certainty' has blinded you to adhere to nothing close to the truth. Instead of dealing with BrianT's facts about the errors of the KJV (although it is a great translation), you have continued with incessant and vile rantings that indicate your level of immaturity.

You readily admit the faults of the KJV translators, yet condemn the 'scholars' of our day. This is again shooting yourself in the foot! Both the KJV scholars who translated the KJV from Hebrew and Greek have deep faults. This did not preserve them from making errors! God did nothing to supernaturally 'preserve' or protect the KJV or its Greek text, the TR, to keep it from errors. To deny that God continues to give translators any 'revelatory knowledge' is also saying that the Charismatics are correct in asserting that tongues is also for today. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 describes the ceasing of the use of tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge. To say that God has supernaturally and providentially preserved the Bible from errors through the TR and and English translation based on the TR is heresy. Even the TR had conflicted readings within it, and the KJV has 13 references in the NT where the readings of the TR differ from one another. If God had preserved the KJV to be perfect, then I say, which KJV??

If my automobile were based on the pride of intellect and unbelief, then we are all in serious trouble. The Berean Christians were commended for searching the scriptures (a.k.a. scholarship!) and so should we. Those of us who hold to the Historic Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility have our beliefs based on others who used God-given scholarship. My understanding of the Bible and its languages is like standing on the shoulders of giants, and some of those giants are the KJV translators themselves! I sense that you, Will Kenney, have a pride of ignorance rather than a humble spirit.

Then you are defending a schismatic, deviant, and heretical doctrine. Do you know what inspiration means? Do you know what inerrancy means? Do you know what infallibility means? I had a friend of mine ask me that when I was like yourself, a staunch KJV-onlyist. When I discovered the true and biblical meaning of these essential doctrines, it can be said that KJV-only doctrine was found to be disrespectful to the Bible. God did not inspire the KJV, nor is it inerrant. The KJV is infallible so long as it faithfully conveys the Word of God from the original language it was translated from. If you want to be absolutely certain that your KJV is as you say it is, then you are absolutely wrong. Instead of pursuing truth, you have pursued the idol of being 'certain' about your divisive and heretical beliefs regarding the KJV.

We most certainly are! KJV-onlyists are also concerned about making the fast buck by selling their filth and vile heresy, and by professing themselves to be wise, they made themselves to be fools. Your true 'final authority' is your self-asserting lack of knowledge of the truth, and have set yourself up for a great fall. If you are truly saved (and I say this because I did not know the Lord while I was following the KJV-only idol-- beware that you are not worshipping the KJV rather than the Lord Himself!), then you will pursue the truth and examine for yourself that KJV-only propaganda has blinded you to what God has truly revealed in His Word. God has not promised to perfectly preserve His Word in any manuscript, group of manuscripts, text, or translation. Period. KJVOnlyism = heresy.

[ January 25, 2004, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Preach on!!!

 

Actually Will, most people choose to believe their direct and written testimony rather than someone second-guessing them almost 400 years later.


HankD

 

but why izzit that KJBOs reject the KJB1611 translators' belief in the Septuagint (LXX)?

weren't they smarter than the modern KJBO scholar's union view that the LXX is all a myth?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158%5F09.asp </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, Chick Publications - my favorite 1769 Revision worshippers. I am especially fond of Dr. Gipp, who would be the embodiment of this discussion's subject line.


From &lt;Follow This Link&gt;:

Oh, really?

From &lt;Follow This Link&gt;

Wait a minute: how did they possess "the Bible in English" when the Bible could only be found "in the available Antiochian manuscripts?" Actually, the Word of God was available in the English language, and had been for several years. This is either a blatant disregard for the facts, or willful misrepresentation.

Would this qualify as "modern scholarship?"

 

Come on Will, cut the games. The preface tells us what the translators thought, and that's all I'm using it for. As well, I DON'T reject the text of the KJV as being riddled with errors. I can't believe that after all this time, you are STILL confused about this.

I have a clue. The point was that AA rejects modern Bibles because he disagrees with the "scholarship" behind them. I was pointing out a *double standard*, and I was NOT arguing that you must defend everything the translators stood for. I was simply saying that you are inconsistent.

Yes, sweeping generalizations are always a convenient way to give the illusion that you have substance in your argument.

That's nice.

Yet you are unable to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? By what authority should we believe this doctrine? Why are you contradicting yourself, when you say the KJV is the "final authority" for doctrine yet must rely on a second authority to make that claim in the first place? And why can't you explain how it is perfectly preserved if it is not identical to anything prior to it, including the very texts it was translated from?

But the "prefactory remarks" prove your inconsistency.

If that's what you think, then you are less knowledgeable about the subject than you let on.

 

Not only that,but I reject the mss. behind them too...

 

Yes, yes, we KNOW already.

 

That was just in case you forgot;and to inform those who dont....thats all....no biggie.