"God's Pure Word"

I'm a seminary professor. This is false. Our seminary students go out soul winning every week, and are good, zealous men of God that know the Bible extremely well.

There are seminaries that don't talk about evangelism, but the two seminaries I attended and the one where I teach are not that way. I have a very fond memory of going soul winning with my seminary professor, Dr. James Price, a famous Hebrew scholar. My son, who has a PhD in New Testament and teaches various seminary classes, went out soul winning today with two boys from the Jr. High dept., which is where he faithfully serves the Lord.

The seminary my son got his PhD from is Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and they have a building on campus dedicated to fulfilling the Great Commission. His mentor there was Dr. David Alan Black, who for many years went every year on missions trips to China and/or Ethiopia.

As for myself, I served God for 33 years as a soul winning, church planting missionary to Japan. We currently have five of our soul winning seminary grads on deputation to go to the mission fields of the world. So, again, you have given a false statement about seminaries. Simply because a school is a seminary does not make it dead spiritually. It all depends on the leadership and the professors. As dear Dr. Lee Roberson used to say, "Everything rises and falls on leadership."

My grandparents, Dr. and Mrs. John R. Rice, went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when fervent soul winner L. R. Scarborough chaired the evangelism department, which was called the Chair of Fire. That's where John R. Rice got his zeal to see 200,000 saved through his evangelism.

 

So 1st century Christians were dumber than we are? Really?

Jesus took 3 years to train his disciples. That would be an absolute minimum, because none of us are Jesus.

 

Let’s see….

Matthew: A Levitical priest certainly obtained a superior education in OT Law and prophets, as evidenced by his continual use of “this was to fulfill the scripture (or prophet)

Mark: Not sure, but since he could write at all suggests some formal education

Luke: The beloved Physician: The only Gentile writer of scripture. Uses near Classical Greek in the first four verses of Luke and Acts. That, and that he was a physician suggests extensive education.

John (and James his brother) from a wealthy family. His writing style of frequent dualism and repeating themes suggest extensive education.

Apostle Paul: Clearly advanced education within Judaism as well as Greek culture and philosophies. This is evidenced by his mastery of OT Law and the use of the knowledge of Roman culture to appeal to his readers. Without question, Apostle Paul would have held a PHD by our standards.

Peter, Jude, James: probably little formal education.

So, the Apostles varied from having little formal education to extensive education. Those who wrote most of the New Testament had extensive education, certainly many years or even decades in Paul’s case and perhaps Luke as well.

The question is not “seminaries” but education. Spurgeon had no formal seminary education but had immersed himself in studying scripture and what others had taught about scripture for years prior to preaching.

I’d be very careful letting a new Christian teach after only 6 months, as teachers will be held to a higher standard by God for what they teach.

peace to you

 

You have failed to demonstrate that you are a reputable source since you make statements that are misleading or factually not true. You seem to be far more uninformed and misinformed than you even realize. You refuse to accept facts as you choose to cling to incorrect claims. A reputable teacher should correct his mistakes or incorrect claims when they are pointed out.

The imperfectly printed and varying Textus Receptus editions on which the KJV was based were not made from perfectly copied Greek NT manuscripts. There were actual copying errors (imperfections or impurities) in the Greek manuscripts used in the making of the varying TR editions. There were also textual differences and variations in those Greek manuscripts.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The KJV translators were not "ancient men", and they did not have the most "ancient" Greek manuscripts. The 1500's printed Textus Receptus editions were not "ancient Greek manuscripts."

 

Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all, without any additions, and without any omissions.

According to scriptural truth (Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19), words added by men would not be pure inspired words of God, and any words omitted by men should be restored. Any errors introduced by men whether copiers, printers, editors, or translators would not be pure words of God.

 

The problem is translating a “dead language”. No one speaks kone Greek or Biblical Hebrew. The modern languages are not the same.

As scholars study, not only NT letters but also other writings of the time, they continue to learn and understand the nuances of the language. Any “additions” may be attempts to make the translation a little smoother into English, or some other language where exact words don’t match.

For example, Paul says in 1 Timothy, that an elder should be a “one woman man”. Most take that to mean having one wife and it’s usually translated “husband of one wife”.

If I understand correctly, the phrase “one woman man” means always faithful to his wife, never having strayed. Wives would put the phrase on tombstones to honor their husbands commitment to their marriage.

While we argue about divorce/remarriage etc., Paul is actually giving “life long faithfulness” as the standard for elders.

peace to you

 

Aren't you baiting the very thing you forbade in the OP? (KJVO)

 

Now, do you teach sinners to obey Acts 2:38?

 

They did not have the Holy Ghost in those 3 years.

Also, why did they baptize always and only in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and seminarians do not?

Maybe they should go back to Jesus' training course?

 

As we see, not a single person of the 12 Apostles had a degree from a Christian university, nor did the thousands of 1st century elders that pastored the various churches, nor any of the 5 fold ministry.

All of them were qualified to teach the word of God.

A degree is for a career these days.

 

I would say 400 year old men are ancient, concerning translating ancient material.

You were not there as I was not.

You believe the KJV is wrong and I believe it is right.

I teach from it and you critique it.

I win.

 

I'm a fundamental, Bible-believing, independent, Baptist, literally interpreting, preacher. What do you think?

The very fact that you thought it necessary to ask this question means that you haven't really read my posts so far, have you. Of course, now, if you are Church of Christ or some other such heretical group, then I can understand your question.

 

You went to all that school and never learned to obey Acts 2:38?

You can't even point sinners to remission of sins.

You wasted your time and money.

You need to go to the 3000 at Pentecosts' school before you go to any other school....

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Seminary is strategically created to teach folks to skip Acts.

 

I see. So since they did not have the Holy Spirit, they were dumber than we are. And Jesus took three years to train the 12, but since you have the Holy Ghost, you can do the same thing in 6 months. The Holy Ghost makes you smarter than Jesus! Right, got it.

 

Nope. That is patently false. There are many different seminaries out there. In order to prove this statement, you'd have to check the curriculum of each of them--which I'm pretty sure you have not.

Fact: back in the day I took a 4 credit course on the book of Acts in seminary.