Jack Moorman's credentials?

[annsni]

Wow. Just wow. It is amazing how one learns more about the heart of a person when they are put under pressure. In this case, the "postal" kind of response speaks volumes.

 

[robycop3]

Here was Moorman's Mount Impassable argument



This is a fantastic argument for the King James text.

And here's the "Mount Impassable" for the supporters of the KJVO myth:

"KJVO has NO Scriptural support whatsoever!"

As an indie fundy Baptist, I don't believe ANY doctrine of worship that's not found in SCRIPTURE. YOU shouldn't, either.

 

[robycop3]

This whole thread appears to be an episode of the game "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"

 

[Logos1560]

No, John Burgon did NOT want the KJV improved and said so very specifically in his 'Revision Revised'.

John William Burgon wrote: "we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning) would at any time be a work of inestimable value" (Revision Revised, p. 114).

John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72).

Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164).

Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220).

Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217).

Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100).

 

[Yeshua1]

John William Burgon wrote: "we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning) would at any time be a work of inestimable value" (Revision Revised, p. 114).

John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72).

Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164).

Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220).

Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217).

Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100).

Instead of being one of their patron saints, he would today probably have ben on the NKJV translation team!

You would know better then most of us here, just how many times did the KJVO "expert scholars" misquote/mischaracterized their sources cited?

 

[Rippon]

Let me give some examples of Moorman's lack of scholarship from his online PDF book Forever Settled. Let me emphasize that I'm sure he's a good man. I do not attack his character at all. I'm just saying he is no scholar.

First of all, he rarely cites his sources. For example, he cites Metzger 7 times but only one time does he give a source for Metzger, and that is from Wilbur Pickering's book The Identity of the New Testament Text, and even then he doesn't give a page number. Then he doesn't even have a bibliography. Folks, that's just basic, that's just for papers for the BA, not a grad degree. He went to Tennessee Temple back in the day as did I, and I'll tell you for a fact that at Temple we were taught to cite sources and give a bibliography. (I found one of my old TTU papers in my files the other day, and was looking at it.)

Secondly, he gives many bald statements about history as facts with no sources whatsoever. On p. 6 he gives a quote from Rabbi Akiba with no sourcing whatsoever.

Thirdly, many of the sources he does use are way, way out of date, and he doesn't keep up with new sources. For example, he quotes four times from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) of 1911. (There is a revision of this classic done in 1988, after Moorman's book, to be fair.) A true scholar uses up-to-date sources. There are many places Moorman could have gotten up-to-date information. He does the same thing in his debate with White, which I have listened to. At one point White says that there are passages in the TR that do not exist in any mss. If Moorman were up on the latest in textual criticism, he would have responded with Maurice Robinson's essay proving the same thing about the UBS4 in Translating the New Testament, ed. by Porter and Boda (2009, two years before the debate). But Moorman had no answer for White (who didn't show much knowledge of textual criticism either, by the way).

But again, true scholarship uses primary sources. Get this: two of Dr. Moorman's quotes of ISBE mentioned above were taken from Peter Ruckman's works!! Checking the original sources should have been easy for Dr. Moorman (I had it here in Japan in 1985 when he wrote his book), but he did not do it.

Now as I said at the start, I am not attacking Dr. Moorman's character. There are some good people with the DBS he is prominent with, and I'm sure he's one of them, though I've never met him. But I have a soft spot for IFB missionaries, seeing I is one! But I think he really needs to learn some true scholarship.

I just thought I would bring this thread back to life again because the subject of Jack Moorman has come up again. Some folks still harbor the belief that he is a scholar.

 

[Yeshua1]

According to KJV-only author David Cloud, Jack A. Moorman (1941- )
"graduated from Tennessee Temple Bible College in the 1960's and traveled to South Africa to begin a missionary church-planting ministry. He was there from 1968-88, counting two years he lived in England during that time" (For Love of the Bible, p. 266). David Cloud wrote: "In 1988 they moved to England" (Ibid.)

So in other words, he was not formally trained in the art of textual criticism, nor in the issues involved in the transmission/translation of the biblical texts, so then he would be considered a biblical scholar in those areas by KJVO because?

 

[bro.larry]

So in other words, he was not formally trained in the art of textual criticism, nor in the issues involved in the transmission/translation of the biblical texts, so then he would be considered a biblical scholar in those areas by KJVO because?

 

[bro.larry]

I see a lot of people posting here that should be ashamed of their actions. I came here looking for information on Jack Moorman and what I found were people who since on a Baptist forum are Baptist are manly concerned with bashing the KJV. I’m not going to call anyone person out, BUT there are some who should be ashamed of what they have said. I’ve looked at post on here before and never felt the need to respond. Until Now!

 

[TCassidy]

Nobody bashes the KJV or any other translation of the bible. It is against the forum rules and the basher would be warned, and if the violation of the board rules continues the person will be banned.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see a lot of people posting here that should be ashamed of their actions. I came here looking for information on Jack Moorman and what I found were people who since on a Baptist forum are Baptist are manly concerned with bashing the KJV. I’m not going to call anyone person out, BUT there are some who should be ashamed of what they have said. I’ve looked at post on here before and never felt the need to respond. Until Now!

None of us here bash the Kjv, be we do come strong against KJVO!

 

[Rippon]

Nobody bashes any other translation of the bible. It is against the forum rules and the basher would be warned, and if the violation of the board rules continues the person will be banned.

Are you sure about that? When some translations are called abominations and similar choice words by particular posters I tend to doubt your assurances.

 

[John of Japan]

I see a lot of people posting here that should be ashamed of their actions. I came here looking for information on Jack Moorman and what I found were people who since on a Baptist forum are Baptist are manly concerned with bashing the KJV. I’m not going to call anyone person out, BUT there are some who should be ashamed of what they have said. I’ve looked at post on here before and never felt the need to respond. Until Now!

I for one am not "manly concerned" with bashing the KJV. I never do it.

Now, if you are objecting to my posts concerning Jack Moorman, who you came here to learn about, please tell me one single place on this thread where I misspoke about Moorman.

 

[agedman]

The KJV only group are known for “bashing” other translations, so a general standard against bashing any translation should be validly imposed.

However, bashing does not occur when demonstrating weakness or rendering unless the temperament of the post is to ridicule.

It is rare the non-KJV only folks take the time to waiste in such efforts.

However, there is great froth spewed before the gullible by some who think they must contend for the Scripture translation rather then the faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you sure about that? When some translations are called abominations and similar choice words by particular posters I tend to doubt your assurances.

We can all here have preferred versions, as yours is the Niv, and mine Nasb, but none of us should have it as being the only one to be used, and should see other translations as being the word of God to us in English.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV only group are known for “bashing” other translations, so a general standard against bashing any translation should be validly imposed.

However, bashing does not occur when demonstrating weakness or rendering unless the temperament of the post is to ridicule.

It is rare the non-KJV only folks take the time to waiste in such efforts.

However, there is great froth spewed before the gullible by some who think they must contend for the Scripture translation rather then the faith.

Jesus died for me, no bible translation ever did!

 

[Rippon]

We can all here have preferred versions, as yours is the Niv, and mine Nasb, but none of us should have it as being the only one to be used, and should see other translations as being the word of God to us in English.

Are you taking issue with me in the above or what?

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you taking issue with me in the above or what?

To you brother!

 

[Rippon]

To you brother!

You make no sense.