My responses

Since my name has been inserted into this discussion I will also contribute.

The first mention of B.B. Warfield I found in the thread 'Slandering God' was at the end of stilllearning's post (#56 on 10/5/2008 at 1:45am as part of a reply to C4K). Stilllearning furthers his Warfield accusations in post #61. Then stilllearning posts 13 times throughout the day of 10/6/2008 (starting with #63 at 12:19am) and presumably finally 'calling it quits' when he posts #101 (at 1:42am on 10/7/2008). After that marathon, it is not surprising that he essentially took the next 29 hours off (although, stilllearning did post #105 at 9:20am on 10/7/2008 making the statement "I was not heard from again" incorrect).

I will not duplicate in full #130 which is his response to EdSutton here, but there really isn't much (if any) evidence in it. Stilllearning basically divides his post in four sections: a brief greeting/recap, he mentions Chapter One of the Westminster Confession of Faith and CRTA web address, then another website link with Warfield information, and finally stilllearning's speculative conclusion (that Warfield's problem was "a lack of faith").

I chose to ONLY address stilllearning's misuse of the WCF in my post #132. He quotes the interpretation of WCF 1:8 by unidentified "other great men" and summarizes with his own paraphrase: "In other words, the copies, were as inspired as the original." To show the error of this interpretation of the WCF, I provided the first part of WCF 1:8 (my underline) --

At that time I wrote "the WCF never states that the copies are as inspired as the original." To the contrary, the WCF statement only seems to indicate that the originals are inspired (with the use of the word "immediately").

I never tried to get into the Warfield subject. Stilllearning didn't really respond to my post #132 other than to briefly state that those "other great men" (although some one was quoted) didn’t need to be identified "because this was the general consensus about the Bible" in post #144. He post two more times and then thread closed at #150.

But be assured that there was nothing upsetting for me about what stilllearning had posted. Stilllearning should be very concerned for his credibility here because he is frequently wrong about facts, wrong in assumptions, and wrong with conclusions.

 

Was John Gill (1697-1771) a modern scholar? --

"To the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and judged, and to be corrected and amended; and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by."

(A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or, a System of Evangelical Truths, [London: Mathews & Leigh, 1839; Sovereign Grace reprint,1971; The Baptist Standard Bearer reprint, 1984 ], p. 13)



"Fourthly, This [inspiration] is to be understood of the Scriptures, as in the original languages in which they were written, and not of translations..."

(from A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity [Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 1, pp.13-14])
​

 

I suggest that more likely, this shows what can and does happen when one "hacks and 'wallpapers'" something from some dubious web-site (which site exists for its own self-fulfilling purpose), in order to 'prove' one's point, as opposed to actually checking out what one is citing, from a relatively reliable source.

You know, one has to really be careful to avoid those 'junky outfits' such as Bible Gateway, studylight.org, and biblos.com.

I mean, after all, they collectively see absolutely no problem in presenting >50 English translations and versions of Scripture, 25 additional commentaries, dictionaries, notes, etc., and > 80 versions in other languages!

Still, it really takes a lot of gall to reference such pedestrian sorts, as the JFB (Who has time to read three giant volumes, anyway?), John Gill (What did he ever do beside become the only individual to write commentary on every single verse in the Bible?), Matthew Henry (If I can't read 3 in JFB, how am I supposed to get through 6 volumes?), Adam Clark and John Wesley (6K pages from Clark? Hmmph! 40K Sermons, and 10K pages from J. Wesley? This took over 40 years for each of them? Well, they were both Methodists, I guess. But I still say if John hadn't had his little brother, Charles, around writing a few songs, and George Whitfield to preach a few sermons, no one would have even remembered who he was, aside from those few million Methodists!); 5 Bible Dictionaries?? (Who has time to read even one??); Treasury of Scripture Knowledge [Who needs half a million (by count) references?]; John Nelson Darby (He was only interested in what some teen-age girl dreamed up! Who cares that he translated the Bible into three different languages, and wrote many books, plus 1000 letters?); and A. T. Robertson [Well, he might have been halfway decent in Greek and a fair Bible teacher (He did write 40 books), if he war'nt a Baptist, and insisted on pastoring churches, as well as teaching in Seminary!]; and on and on, I could go, but [Sigh!] thankfully, even they had to stop somewhere, I guess!

It's just too bad they don't list anybody who knows what is the REAL Bib...

Ed

P.S. I will now be away from the BB for awhile, for a short trip to the Emergency Room, at my local hospital. I seem to have a problem, and cannot get my tongue unstuck from my cheek, for some reason.

 

For the record, I did NOT just give an "Amen" to Dr. Bob's 'warning'. I actually, went to the link for this 'great book' and read the introductory portion for myself. This is very evident from the details included in my post. I gave a very specific reason for my disfavor of this book.