Stuffed Undies Like Scholarship Onlyism Fallacy

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

In keeping with the tradition of attacking any Baptist who does not have an “accredited” degree from MyOwnGod University, the Stuff Fundies Like website pokes fun at a Baptist preacher in an “article” titled “Anti Scholar”.

Liberal groups like SFL have a habit of demeaning the educations of those who graduated from Bible colleges that are unaccredited. In their minds, a proper education and thus the only appropriate barometer for measuring ones intelligence is the inclusion of the academic standards of secular colleges and “higher learning” institutions. A Christian school can’t possibly know more about the Bible and Godly living standards than a state- sponsored accreditation entity.

It must have been such a shock to all the converts of the early church to find out that the apostles that Jesus chose were fishermen and tax collectors-ordinary people. The Pharisees themselves questioned the education of Jesus:

How knoweth this man letters having NEVER LEARNED” John 7:15

Aside from the fact that over 53% of college graduates in the US are unemployed [1] (“A college diploma isn’t what it used to be”, ibid) it is nothing short of pompous arrogance and foolishness to think that a state- sponsored accreditation agency can produce better education standards to learn the Bible and church ministry than a school/college that focuses on that particular subject exclusively.

And on another note, who goes to a Bible college to get a job in the auto industry? If you went to a Bible college and then complain that you can’t get a job curling hair, an accredited degree probably isn’t going to offer the kind of help you really need.

Unless you have an “accredited” education, you are not as smart as Dr. Harvard. Dr. Harvard is well versed in “equal rights” of homosexuals and Muslims, is an astute expositor of Marx, Benthem, Maslow, Descartes and Kant; and can demonstrate why Christians should not hold to an exclusive view of their religion over all others. Dr. Harvard can prove that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and no Christian can possibly be “educated” enough to prove otherwise unless they have obtained a degree from an  institution that demands a “balanced” approach and equal emphasis on alternative beliefs.

Of the numerous comments on the SFL article in support of the title, the tide seems to have turned toward the lack of “scholarship” in evaluating Biblical texts. One reader, “Bob” posts;

As others have pointed out, your analysis is absolutely backward. I don’t know who you have been listening to, but I spent the better part of 9 yers reading books and articles and researching textual criticism. Erasmus’ text was not even the Textus Receptus. That was a designation given later to a text that was based on Erasmus’ and had been corrected. The textual theory behind the original Greek New Testament that Westcott and Hort compiled is a far superior textual method than Erasmus. It does not matter how great the scholars were who translated the KJV, it was a horrendous Greek text compared to the most recent ones that other English versions are based on. The UBS and NA are excellent and produced by the most painstakingly accurate textual scholars. DO they have disagreements? Yes, but Erasmus had no one to help him, and he was in a rush to be the first Greet text printed, and he made some bad blunders. So, as another has said, please get your facts straight before you pontificate.

There is so much “scholarship” on SFL that many of them can’t agree with each other on the issues of textual criticism. We could write an entire book on the errors of just this comment. In fact, Dean Burgon has written an irrefutable book on the matters of the texts used by Westcott and Hort (The Revision Revised, and Causes of Corruption in the New Testament). And the scholarship of the “UBS” texts are so “scholarly” that they omitted the entire book of Revelation on most of their texts, even though “Bob” here would merely claim “do they have disagreements?”, I would have to say the omission of entire books of the Bible is a pretty big “disagreement”. And then of course, the NA didn’t just stop at NA1, or NA 20, or NA 27 (the most popular used  being NA28), the “scholarship” is so advanced that they have to keep revising NA (Nestle-Aland) texts every few years or so.

It is worthy of note that NASB scholar-even with his “accredited” degree-Frank Logsdon, said the following about his involvement in translating the NASB:

“I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”

Logsdon renounced his involvement in the translation of the NASB and began defending the KJV.

Other so-called scholars like James White have attempted to down-play Logsdon’s involvement by making accusations and straw-man arguments that KJVO proponents have never claimed for Logsdon. Regardless of the debate of whether Logsdon was “co-founder” of the Lockman Foundation, or NASB Committee (critics can’t make up their mind as to which accusations to stick to), there is no question Dr. Logsdon was an integral part of the process, that he was a recognized scholar in the field of Greek and Hebrew (with an ACCREDITED degree), and that he was formerly against the KJV and capitulated TO the KJV after objectively reviewing all of the evidence from David Otis Fuller, Dean Burgon et al, facts that all the KJVO critics are unwilling to admit.

What is equally ironic about the ensuing comments posted from the SFL article is that there is no evidence that any of the readers themselves have ANY degree, let alone accredited ones. So should their comments all be summarily dismissed for lacking the qualifications to critique the “unqualified” Bible scholars from “Non Accredited” schools?

Accreditation is nothing more than a group of fallible humans agreeing on what they believe should be taught in public institutions, and how they should be taught. Most accrediting agencies are biased by default against the exclusive claims of Christianity, and therefore are not even remotely “qualified” to make a judgment on what should and/or should not be taught in regards to matters of Biblical beliefs. The majority of curriculums in a public institution, with the exception of technical/vocational trade schools, are humanist and replete with anti-Christian sentiment. Hardly an appropriate environment for any student who has a desire to be in ministry and learn the word of God. Yet liberals and back-slidden anti-fundamentalists seek to impose standards on believers that Christ Himself did not impose on the very first group of people He chose to lead His church.

Let the Bible speak on the matter of the “wise” and “higher learning” of the statist sponsored standards of education.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31:

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

——————-

There are @ 17 grammatical errors contained in this article. We will award you the Award of Pedantic Scholarship if you can find all 17.

J/A

Isaiah 26:18-Defending the KJV

In Isaiah 26:18 the nation of Israel continues to complain “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.”

This is the reading of the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “neither did the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, the RSV, Youngs, Darby, Douay 1950,  the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV 1982,  ESV 2001-2011, Holman Standard 2003, the Judaica Press Tanach – “neither do the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Common English Bible (a critical text edition)of 2011 and the Knox Bible of 2012.

Coverdale’s bible says: “and the inhabitours of the worlde perish not.” Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read as does the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1090, 1960, 1995 and the RV Gomez of 2010 – “ninguna liberación logramos en la tierra ni cayeron los moradores del mundo.”,  = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen”, the Italian Nuova Diodati of 1991 – “e gli abitanti del mondo non sono caduti.” = “and the inhabitants of the earth are not fallen.”, the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 – “nem caíram os moradores do mundo.”= “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.”, the French Darby – “et les habitants du monde ne sont pas tombés” and Luther’s German bible 1545 – “und die Einwohner auf dem Erdboden wollen nicht fallen.”

However the NASB actually changes this to “WE HAVE NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD”.  The NIV 1984 edition is similar with the equally ridiculous “NOR WERE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD BORN.”  However the NIV 2011 edition changed this verse once again and now it reads: “AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT COME TO LIFE.”,which would be the exact opposite meaning of that found in the KJB, ESV, RV, ASV, etc.

The NASB concordance shows they have translated this word # 5307 as Fallen or Fall, as in Babylon is Fallen, 197 times but only once as “given birth”; and the NIV likewise has “Fall or Fallen” 237 times and only one time as “Born”.

Dan “Anything but the KJB” Wallace and company’s NET version also reads in a similar manner to the NASB, NIVs.  It says: “We were pregnant, we strained, we gave birth, as it were, to wind. We cannot produce deliverance on the earth; people to populate the world are not born. (30).  He then footnotes: “Heb “and the inhabitants of the world do not fall.”

The Voice 2012, put out by Thomas Nelson Company, the same people who give us the NKJV, reads: “WE COULDN’T MAKE IT TEEM WITH LIFE.” – Again, the opposite of what even the NKJV says.

Which other version do you think reads this way?  You got it. The modern Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads: “we have not given salvation to the earth, NO INHABITANTS FOR THE WORLD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO BIRTH.”  Oh, but wait.  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the Hebrew reading – “For this reason, THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The RSV read as does the Hebrew and the KJB with: “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”  However the NRSV of 1989 went with: “and NO ONE IS BORN TO INHABIT THE WORLD.”  But then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV of 2001, went back to the Hebrew reading of “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The so called Greek Septuagint version is really messed up in this verse.  Instead of saying: “”We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth WIND; WE HAVE NOT WROUGHT ANY DELIVERANCE in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.” (KJB) the LXX actually says: “We have conceived, O Lord, BECAUSE OF THY FEAR, and have been in pain and have brought forth THE BREATH OF THY SALVATION, WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT UPON THE EARTH; WE SHALL NOT FALL, BUT ALL THAT DWELL UPON THE LAND SHALL FALL.”!!!  The meaning of the LXX is almost the exact opposite of the Hebrew text.  NO Bible version follows the so called Greek Septuagint in this verse.

However the Modern Greek Bible reads like the Hebrew text and the KJB saying: ” ουδε επεσαν οι κατοικοι του κοσμου.” = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen.”

Any time some bible agnostic tries to tell you that “Thanks to the science of textual criticism, we are now very, very close to what the originals said.” you should know that he is full of baloney and hot air – not a good combination.

Jamison, Faucett and Brown remark in their commentary: neither . . . world fallen–The “world” at large, is in antithesis to Judea. The world at enmity with the city of God has not been subdued. But MAURER explains “fallen,” according to Arabic idiom, of the birth of a child, which is said to fall when being born; “inhabitants of the world are not yet born”; that is, the country as yet lies desolate, and is not yet populated.”

So, did the NASB, NIV follow this Arabic idiom instead of the Hebrew?

Here is the straight forward comment by Matthew Henry – neither have the inhabitants of the world, whom we have been contesting with, fallen before us, either in their power or in their hopes; but they are still as high and arrogant as ever.’’

John Gill comments – “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen; worldly men, the great men, the kings of the earth; particularly such as commit fornication with the whore of Rome, Popish persecuting princes; these as yet are not fallen, though they shall in the battle of Armageddon.”

John Calvin comments on this verse saying: “And the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.  for lpn (naphal) signifies “to fall.” … if we follow the ordinary interpretation, we must view it as referring to the wicked. “The inhabitants of the world annoy us and do not fall; everything goes on prosperously with them.”

The Pulpit Commentary says: “we have not effected the downfall of our heathen enemies.”

Do you still think all bible say the same thing, but with different words?

~Will Kinney