Featured Jack Moorman's credentials?

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Jesus died for me, no bible translation ever did!

 

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

 

To you brother!

 

You make no sense.