Scholarship

The issue of texts and translations is a matter of scholarship, not of doctrine. There is no verse in the bible which says one text is superior to another or that one translation is superior to another.

However, good scholarship can attempt to determine which text is superior and which translation is superior.

The main reason KJVOs are so adamantly against scholarship is two fold. 1. They are not scholars, nor even educated beyond the secondary level and not only are incapable of the scholarship necessary to learn the biblical languages and decipher and evaluate them, but they fear those who can. 2. Their faith is so fragile they cannot stand the truth. They demand absolute certainty when no such certainty, in the realm of texts and translations, exists. So they fear their fragile faith will be shattered by the facts of the history of textual transmission. So they plug their ears and yell "La la la la la la" any time anyone says anything they can't accept.

 

Askjo,

I'll say something similar to what Skan said - only I'll be a little more gentle!!


"Scholarship", in my mind, is the ability to apply language, history, science, logic, etc to a given area of study in order to learn more about it. As such, it is not INHERENTLY BAD. I have always resented then use of "scholar" as a pejorative term when referring to those who disagree with "traditional" doctrines.

We as (imperfect) humans have some ideas and beliefs about how God's word should be approached and interpreted. The application of "scholarship" to this task is not a BAD THING. Now one who approaches the Bible irreverently with ill intent is to be chastised. On the other hand - certainly we can LEARN more about God's word through study, if it is done in a way that respects what the Bible IS; namely God's word.

Here's the thing:

If we apply the tools of "scholarship" to biblical study WE WILL FIND some things that are different than that which we had initially believed - that's a given, since we are in fact fallible humans.

Let's look at thde preservation of God's word. The manuscripts we have are different from one another, as are even the individual versions of the KJB (although much less so). True there is reason to suspect that tampering could have occurred in the Alexandrian manuscripts (since this was a weird place with many protognostic leanings) - but this has not been PROVED - and in truth it cannot ever be proved or disproved. As such we see that God has apparently not preserved the LITERAL WORD FOR WORD autographs of His word. Whether we like that or not, whether or not it differs from what we think, it simply IS the case. Thus "scholarship" has taught us something about God's revelation to us. Not a BAD thing. The KJB, while a fine translation (and my favorite), cannot lay proven claim to exclusivity - mo matter if we want it to or not.

Now one can take the stance of GrannyGumbo and choose to ignore the "scholarship" - that's OK. Really - there is nothing wrong with that. Scholarship must ALWAYS take a back seat to faith. But if one chooses to interact with scholarship then he/she must realize that some perceptions may be shaken a little - not the truths of God's word, but rather some of the perceptions WE HAVE as to how things are.

I think the problem comes in when we let our opinions get in the way of fellowship - like a bible version debate or a disagreement over women in pants splitting a church.

 

Charles Meadows: //Scholarship", in my mind, is the ability to apply language, history, science, logic, etc to a given area of study in order to learn more about it. As such, it is not INHERENTLY BAD. I have always resented then use of "scholar" as a pejorative term when referring to those who disagree with "traditional" doctrines. //

But i see more and more former Fundamentals falling away from
the old Fundamentals falling into the anti-fundamental
quagmire which believes:

1. the KJB is the only Bible (anti- everything but KJV1769)
2. anti-scholarship, anti-education
3. anti-success
4. anti-women
5. anti-Semetic

As you can see, these anti-fundamentals are probably
also anti-Christ, but i'm not ready to say that quite yet.
Recall that "apostasy" requires a former correct stand
that is later gone.

By contrast, Real Fundamentalists still teach:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

 

As for Scriptural approval of scholarship:

2 Timothy 2:15, KJV "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Whether one renders "spoudazo" as "study" or "work diligently", the meaning is the same. Do we not work diligently to learn as we study? No scholar was BORN with his/her knowledge.

Plainly, God wants us to apply ourselves to learn more about Him.

 

Yes, but there's something in so-called scholarship that tends to human pride and vain (used in the best Biblical sense) intellectualism. Not that one should be anti-intellectual but it's the attitude of thinking that one is intellectual. BTW, most that passes for scholarship ain't. Also, there's a vast difference between scholarship and hard-headed thinking. Scholarship is coloring within the lines that someone else has drawn. Furthermore, scholarship is not an avenue to Truth and it may not even be true. So much for scholarship. Read Solomon's conclusion on the whole mess.

 

So what? Who buries us has nothing to do with whether we saved or not.

Erasmus was an outcast from the RCC because he exposed clergy abuses. He was appreciated by protestants for his scholarship.

I would certainly hope that if a Catholic in your area died with no one to care for his body, your church would help bury it.

 

Without scholarship, we would have no English translations of the Bible.

Where was the "heart" of some of the KJV translators as they supported the persecution of Baptists? It wasn't toward the Word of God.

 

The KJVO's drive a car manufactured upon scholarship. They put gasoline and oil in it based upon scholastic research. Those in Iraq depend upon scholarship for their very life in that war. The bombs were made upon scholarship.

The KJVO's that hunt also use ammunition based upon scholarship.

But why will they utilize the scholarship of others in their everyday life and then throw it out when it comes to the Bible?

 

I don't know the answer to your
question -- my pastor hasn't told me yet

 

This is so far over the line that I cannot believe that it is tolerated by the moderators. Brother Ed you should be ashamed. Your sarcasm is funny and I appreciate it at times but this is nothing less than gross railing and I find it offensive. It does neither "side" of the debate any Christian good to act like this.

If you are saying that KJVO's don't believe these things then you are bearing false witness.

I believe it might be time for a reboot on the rules of this forum. I have experienced more bile and venom here (from both sides)under the guise of supposed Christian debate than I would expect to find on an athiest message board. I love all of you, my Christian brothers. We need to treat each other like blood bought brothers.

Lacy


Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

 

I'm sorry you have such a negative reaction, bro. Lacy.
I described a shoe.
You apparently chose to put it on yourself.
I really don't feel responsibe if it hurt your foot,
you put it on.

However, i shall restate trying to avoid the
sensitivities of some:

------------------------------------
But i see (on boards other than Baptist Board /BB/ )
more and more former Fundamentals falling away from
the old Fundamentals falling into the anti-fundamental
quagmire which believes:

1. the KJB is the only Bible (anti- everything but KJV1769)
2. anti-scholarship, anti-education
3. anti-success
4. anti-women
5. anti-Semetic

As you can see, these anti-fundamentals are probably
also anti-Christ, but i'm not ready to say that quite yet.
Recall that "apostasy" requires a former correct stand
that is later gone.
--------------------------------------

 

Paidagogos:Yes, but there's something in so-called scholarship that tends to human pride and vain (used in the best Biblical sense) intellectualism.

While WE tend to play, "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar".


Not that one should be anti-intellectual but it's the attitude of thinking that one is intellectual.

That's why I took the time & effort to follow up on the assertions made by many KJVO authors & many non-KJVO authors instead of simply taking their word for it. While many an author from each side is an accomplished wordsmith, "readability" doesn't always mean "factual".


BTW, most that passes for scholarship ain't. Also, there's a vast difference between scholarship and hard-headed thinking. Scholarship is coloring within the lines that someone else has drawn.

In other words, scholarship is the collating of facts from many sources for a given subject.

Furthermore, scholarship is not an avenue to Truth and it may not even be true. So much for scholarship. Read Solomon's conclusion on the whole mess.

Wisdom is the application of scholarship to produce something better. For example, some original thinkers invented several types of engine, some scholars collated the facts about the various engines, while other scholars had collated some facts about kinetic energy, and some wise people figured out how to apply the kinetic energy produced by an engine to propel a conveyance. Thus, steamboats, railroad trains, & autos were invented.

Thus, one should see, by hunting for the veracity on both sides of the BVs issue, that Onlyism-not just KJVO-is WRONG.

 

I did not hurt my foot brother, I was just very suprised that's all, and disappointed. Those shoes don't always fit and they never turn anyone into a prince or princess.

Lacy