Jack Moorman's credentials?

[annsni]

And I suppose the "scholarship" that James White received at an online diploman mill (Columbia Evangelical) was so much better. It is funny that many of the "scholars" cited against the KJV graduated from Bob Jones University (and in Moorman's case, Tenn Temple where NORRIS [Logos] attended), but yet Ruckman's not a real scholar, but Custer is even though they graduated from the SAME COLLEGE and Ruckman has an earned PhD, Thd.

It tickles me to no end the double standards you fellas apply to "scholarship".

Or even better, the REAL scholars are the ones like White's friend Alan Kirschner and Mike Majewski who took A course from HARVARD of all places (where they teach the German Rationalism form of higher textual criticism developed by non Christians) and those type are the REAL scholars. Of course, a person that begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God can't possibly be "scholarly" unless they get a $100,000 education from a man-approved secular university that specializes in casting doubt about not only ANY version of the Bible, but the very existence of God.

I'll take Peter Ruckman and Jack Moorman over any of your scholarship only fakes any day of the week.

Yet those who ARE qualified - who are true textual scholars - each and every one of them deny the claims that the KJV is the only preserved Word of God. Why is that?

 

[John of Japan]

And I suppose the "scholarship" that James White received at an online diploman mill (Columbia Evangelical) was so much better. It is funny that many of the "scholars" cited against the KJV graduated from Bob Jones University (and in Moorman's case, Tenn Temple where NORRIS [Logos] attended), but yet Ruckman's not a real scholar, but Custer is even though they graduated from the SAME COLLEGE and Ruckman has an earned PhD, Thd.

It tickles me to no end the double standards you fellas apply to "scholarship".

Hey, don't look at me to defend James White. I'm not a fan of his, have never quoted him here or anywhere else, think his doctorate is fake.

As for Tennessee Temple, so what? I'm a grad of there too. We got some great teaching. (Rick Norris can defend himself--doesn't need me to.) Now the difference between Moorman and me is that I've never set myself up as a scholar--never called myself one here or anywhere else. However, I do have an earned MABS, though I'm not aware that Moorman has any kind of earned master's or doctorate. Assuming your own doctorate is legit, you should be telling us whether or not Moorman's is legit, since that is what this thread is about.

Also, I am a Bible translator (translating from the TR, FYI), so in that respect I'm not afraid or ashamed to stand up and say that neither Ruckman nor Moorman are scholars on the subject of Bible translation. They've never done it, know little about it and shouldn't talk about it.

As for Ruckman, first of all his Ph. D. is in education, not Bible. Secondly, he has no degrees in theology, no Th. D or M. Div. or M. A. B. S. Thirdly, he is a vicious railer as our beloved KJV puts it, calling good men of God vicious names in his works. 1 Cor. 5:11, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

If you do not openly reject Peter Ruckman and his works you are in direct disobedience to the Word of God, our beloved KJV, as well as bringing reproach on the whole KJV position.

Or even better, the REAL scholars are the ones like White's friend Alan Kirschner and Mike Majewski who took A course from HARVARD of all places (where they teach the German Rationalism form of higher textual criticism developed by non Christians) and those type are the REAL scholars. Of course, a person that begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God can't possibly be "scholarly" unless they get a $100,000 education from a man-approved secular university that specializes in casting doubt about not only ANY version of the Bible, but the very existence of God.

Sorry, I don't even know these guys, don't defend them and never have. Your entire paragraph here is meaningless to me and has no connection with anything I believe or have said here or anywhere else.

I'll take Peter Ruckman and Jack Moorman over any of your scholarship only fakes any day of the week.

Moorman seems like a decent man, though I don't know him personally. But my "scholarship fakes"? You've proven you are clueless about any position I hold whatsoever. You have no idea who I would call a scholar.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yet those who ARE qualified - who are true textual scholars - each and every one of them deny the claims that the KJV is the only preserved Word of God. Why is that?

And again, just what makes them "qualified"? What makes an anti KJVO critic from BJU any different than a KJVO who graduated from the same school? One "IS" qualified but the other is not? And what is your criteria from coming to that conclusion? I'll tell you...you don't have one, it's based on mere bias. Frank Logsdon's scholarship would have never been questioned had he remained a part of the NRSV committee. But when he renounce the modern translations, now all of a sudden, he's not a "real" scholar anymore.

What's worse is you have the same attitude that that Pharisees had against Jesus,

"How knoweth this man letters HAVING NEVER LEARNED" John 7:15. I've preached in prisons before and met inmates that put modern "scholars" to shame who had no formal training, nothing but a room, access to a library, and time. Any person with common sense and average reading can go to a library and read the exact same texts used by "scholars" in a college. You act as if certain "scholars" have some kind of esoteric knowledge that nobody else has access to.

And you have yet to answer any of my previous comments. Like why would you consider James White a scholar when he didn't graduate from any college that is considered a "scholarly" college? He got his doctorate from an online diploma mill, his doctorate review committee consisted of ONE person, his dissertation was not defended and it was merely a recopy of something he'd already written. And yet he's a "scholar" and Ruckman and Moorman are not?

But, I see why KJVO critics hate the KJV,

"The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts." Mal 2:12

 

[preachinjesus]

It tickles me to no end the double standards you fellas apply to "scholarship".

Please refer to post #10 where I commented on White's own lack of scholarly credential.

Or even better, the REAL scholars are the ones like White's friend Alan Kirschner and Mike Majewski who took A course from HARVARD of all places (where they teach the German Rationalism form of higher textual criticism developed by non Christians) and those type are the REAL scholars.

Do you fully understand what you're typing here? Have you seen the syllabus for the HDS course? How can you say the textual criticism course automatically teaches "German Rationalism" (which, btw, you've employed plenty of examples of in your postings around here.) Can you please define what part of "German Rationalism" you disagree with?

Of course, a person that begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God can't possibly be "scholarly" unless they get a $100,000 education from a man-approved secular university that specializes in casting doubt about not only ANY version of the Bible, but the very existence of God.

Well you don't need to spend $100k on an education to be credentialed. However, you do need to take time and work through the heavy hitters of theology and biblical studies. I've yet encountered one of these unaccredited fundamentalist institutions that has this kind of rigor.

They take shortcuts and, honestly, avoid scholars they are a) uncomfortable with or (usually) b) unaware of.

I'll take Peter Ruckman and Jack Moorman over any of your scholarship only fakes any day of the week.

That's a pity because both of these men demonstrate all the failings of the anti-intellectual fundamentalist movement in the US on a consistent basis.

 

[annsni]

And again, just what makes them "qualified"? What makes an anti KJVO critic from BJU any different than a KJVO who graduated from the same school? One "IS" qualified but the other is not? And what is your criteria from coming to that conclusion? I'll tell you...you don't have one, it's based on mere bias. Frank Logsdon's scholarship would have never been questioned had he remained a part of the NRSV committee. But when he renounce the modern translations, now all of a sudden, he's not a "real" scholar anymore.

What's worse is you have the same attitude that that Pharisees had against Jesus,

"How knoweth this man letters HAVING NEVER LEARNED" John 7:15. I've preached in prisons before and met inmates that put modern "scholars" to shame who had no formal training, nothing but a room, access to a library, and time. Any person with common sense and average reading can go to a library and read the exact same texts used by "scholars" in a college. You act as if certain "scholars" have some kind of esoteric knowledge that nobody else has access to.

And you have yet to answer any of my previous comments. Like why would you consider James White a scholar when he didn't graduate from any college that is considered a "scholarly" college? He got his doctorate from an online diploma mill, his doctorate review committee consisted of ONE person, his dissertation was not defended and it was merely a recopy of something he'd already written. And yet he's a "scholar" and Ruckman and Moorman are not?

But, I see why KJVO critics hate the KJV,

"The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts." Mal 2:12

I'm not speaking of these men - I'm speaking of true Biblical scholars. Men of science, theology, language and truth. I consider James White a learned man but not a scholar - although he certainly runs circles around the KJVO crowd. I saw the debate with Moorman and it was sad. Moorman couldn't stand on anything yet White had hard truths. But no, neither one of them are true scholars in textual criticism

 

[preachinjesus]

But, I see why KJVO critics hate the KJV,

This is an unfair and pointless ad hominem against those who question the validity of the KJV. I have yet to meet anyone on this site who says the KJV is a bad translation and hates the KJV. Instead, I've seen and met only folks who point out that while it is a fine translation there are a) better contemporary translations and b) no grounds for stating it is the only translation or textual basis we should use.

Your overzealous, over the top post only invalidates your opinions among the more sensible.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Hey, don't look at me to defend James White. I'm not a fan of his, have never quoted him here or anywhere else, think his doctorate is fake.

As for Tennessee Temple, so what? I'm a grad of there too. We got some great teaching. (Rick Norris can defend himself--doesn't need me to.) Now the difference between Moorman and me is that I've never set myself up as a scholar--never called myself one here or anywhere else. However, I do have an earned MABS, though I'm not aware that Moorman has any kind of earned master's or doctorate. Assuming your own doctorate is legit, you should be telling us whether or not Moorman's is legit, since that is what this thread is about.

Also, I am a Bible translator (translating from the TR, FYI), so in that respect I'm not afraid or ashamed to stand up and say that neither Ruckman nor Moorman are scholars on the subject of Bible translation. They've never done it, know little about it and shouldn't talk about it.

As for Ruckman, first of all his Ph. D. is in education, not Bible. Secondly, he has no degrees in theology, no Th. D or M. Div. or M. A. B. S. Thirdly, he is a vicious railer as our beloved KJV puts it, calling good men of God vicious names in his works. 1 Cor. 5:11, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

If you do not openly reject Peter Ruckman and his works you are in direct disobedience to the Word of God, our beloved KJV, as well as bringing reproach on the whole KJV position.

Sorry, I don't even know these guys, don't defend them and never have. Your entire paragraph here is meaningless to me and has no connection with anything I believe or have said here or anywhere else.

Moorman seems like a decent man, though I don't know him personally. But my "scholarship fakes"? You've proven you are clueless about any position I hold whatsoever. You have no idea who I would call a scholar.

Most of my comment was not directed to you ONLY, your comment just happened to be the one that got selected to address everyone. Notice all of the third person references.

And I don't know where you got your information about Ruckman's education, but his Masters and Ph.D are in religion, not education. He has a BA, BD, MA, ThM and PhD.

Jack Moorman I don't know anything more about his education than Tenn Temp. I read any author with the same scrutiny and evaluation regardless of where they graduated from. I'm surprised that Pilgrim's Progress is still selling considering that Bunyon taught himself how to read.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I'm not speaking of these men - I'm speaking of true Biblical scholars. Men of science, theology, language and truth. I consider James White a learned man but not a scholar - although he certainly runs circles around the KJVO crowd. I saw the debate with Moorman and it was sad. Moorman couldn't stand on anything yet White had hard truths. But no, neither one of them are true scholars in textual criticism

You are STILL dodging the question so I'll keep this short and sweet. Just what is a "TRUE Biblical scholar"?

 

[Winman]

I'm not speaking of these men - I'm speaking of true Biblical scholars. Men of science, theology, language and truth. I consider James White a learned man but not a scholar - although he certainly runs circles around the KJVO crowd. I saw the debate with Moorman and it was sad. Moorman couldn't stand on anything yet White had hard truths. But no, neither one of them are true scholars in textual criticism

I guess it's all a matter of perspective then, because I thought Moorman easily won that debate. Moorman was correct that White never overcame his "Mount Impassable" argument.

Here is what D.A. Waite wrote about this debate

1. The first man’s question about James was foolish.

2. 1 John 5:7 was brought up. White said the early church never used this verse as proof of the Trinity. This is false. Early church writers quoted from it and used it for this purpose and other purposes.

3. If you take out the parts of 1 John 5:7 and 8, the genders do not match. White disputed this, but it is correct.

4. White lied when he said at the bottom of the page in the Nestle/Aland text “I have an exhaustive listing of every textual variant.” That is a total lie. Many, many texts are omitted. The hundreds of Traditional readings are merely grouped into the”M” symbol, but are never shown specifically. If “every textual variant” were shown in the footnotes, there would have to be over 8,000 variants shown since that is the total number of variants found by Dr. Jack Moorman. These are found in his book, 8000 Differences (BFT #3084 @ $20.00 + $7.00 S&H). This would take several volumes to contain “every reading.” How can James White be like this?

5. He said, further that “I have the textual data here.” He does not have ALL the data by any means. He said “I have the information right in front of me.” But it is only very, very partial and limited information.

6. He brings up Revelation 16:5 once again about HOSIOS to throw off the main discussion without answering Dr. Moorman’s 5500 manuscripts that all but 50 support the TR. Nor does he or the moderator let Dr. Moorman discuss the 105 places where the Gnostic Critical Text is weakly supported by very few Greek MSS.

7. The question was whether or not these differences are in minor things, or do they change the meaning of the text. White sidestepped this question and said “the vast majority of variations in the New Testament manuscripts do not in any way shape or form change the meaning. In fact, of the approximately 400,000 textual variants that exist in manuscript tradition, 99% of them you would not be able to explain what the difference is to the English speaker because it cannot be translated. So you have about 1% or about 4,000 meaningful variants which actually impact the meaning of the text. Of those, about 1500 to 2000 are viable, that is, they could be original . . . So you have about 1500 to 2000 that have to be examined and that might impact the meaning of the text. It’s very important.” The truth of the matter is that there are more than 356 doctrinal passages that change the meaning doctrinally. Almost 200 pages prove this in Dr. Moorman’s Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (BFT #3230 @ $20.00 + $7.00 S&H).

8. White lied when he pointed to the TR and the NA New Testaments and said: “If I take either of those two texts that Pastor Moorman has on the desk right there, and I apply the same translation procedure to those two books, I WILL NOT HAVE A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE OR TEACHING. I WILL NOT.” “I might have a different list of verses that support any one doctrine.” In fact, as I mentioned #7 above, there are 356 doctrinal passages that are in error on his Nestle/Aland text. This is a lie and a deception to his listeners.

9. When Dr. Moorman was answering this, White interrupted him and would not let him finish, nor give him equal time to reply. This is totally unfair for the moderator to have allowed this.

10. White lied when he said that rather than things being MISSING (as Dr. Moorman said). “You’ll never hear ADDED, and yet clearly there is added material in the expansion of titles in the Byzantine manuscripts.” This is false. It would have been impossible to have ADDED materials in these 5,500 manuscripts all over the world at different time periods and yet have the same words “added.” Yet REMOVAL was possible from the Vatican and Sinai kind of manuscripts.

11. One questioner mentioned that in the Gnostic critical text, they “pervert the deity of Christ, take away from Him, remove the virgin birth, eliminate the Godhead, add works to salvation, support Jehovah’s Witness beliefs,” Then White interrupted and lied when he said (without letting Dr. Moorman reply), “That’s just not true.” Dr. Moorman said, “It most certainly is true!” White said, “That’s just not true.”

12. A question was asked about the dead sea scrolls. The moderator asked Dr. Moorman if he would like to comment on this. Dr. Moorman said it wasn’t an issue that we’re facing here tonight. White said “I think actually it is.”

13. Then White went on to say wrongly that the N.T. writers cited the Septuagint (LXX) rather than Hebrew Old Testament. In fact, there was no LXX in B.C. times, only in A.D. That is a serious lie that he makes. He then lies again by saying: “The dead sea scrolls demonstrate that the Septuagint translation has just as ancient moorings as the 1525 Bomberg Masoretic text that we have in Hebrew.” This is a total lie. White is exalts the Greek LXX to a par with God’s own Hebrew Old Testament Words. Shame on him! The LXX did not come into existence in B.C. but only in the 200's A.D. in Origen’s days. This putting of the LXX on an equal position (or even higher, perhaps) than the Hebrew Words which God Himself gave to us directly is serious heresy.

The rest of this article can be found here. People who know a little about the subject have a far different opinion than you. D.A. Waite is a REAL scholar.

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2011/02/d-waite-on-moorman-white-debate.html

 

[Winman]

Here was Moorman's Mount Impassable argument

18. Dr. Moorman makes an excellent point when he asked White how words could have been ADDED when the manuscripts were from many different countries and covered many different years. It would have been impossible to have ADDED these in the more than 5,500 manuscripts now in existence. The Vatican and Sinai have 2900 fewer words. How could you add these 2900 words? “That is your MOUNT IMPASSABLE” that White did not answer, nor could he answer, though he claimed he did answer.

This is a fantastic argument for the King James text.

 

[John of Japan]

Most of my comment was not directed to you ONLY, your comment just happened to be the one that got selected to address everyone. Notice all of the third person references.

So in in other words, you lumped me in a group knowing nothing about what I really am. That speaks to your debating technique.

And I don't know where you got your information about Ruckman's education, but his Masters and Ph.D are in religion, not education. He has a BA, BD, MA, ThM and PhD.

Where did you get that information? I've been an IFB all of my 61 years of life, and every IFB who knows the subject will tell you Ruckman only has a Ph. D. in education from BJU. (Back in the day at BJU it was a degree in "religious education," which is still not theology or Bible.) Some even say BJU revoked that doctorate. His works going back to the '70's (when he was already in his 50's) all say just "Ph. D." I think someone fed you a line.

Here's a pro-Ruckman bio with no mention of the degrees you think he has (BD and ThM): http://www.sluiceboxadventures.com/rearguard6_ruckman.htm

Here's another with none of the degrees you say he has: http://www.thywordistrue.com/author-id-1.htm

So, where do you get your information?

Jack Moorman I don't know anything more about his education than Tenn Temp. I read any author with the same scrutiny and evaluation regardless of where they graduated from. I'm surprised that Pilgrim's Progress is still selling considering that Bunyon taught himself how to read.

So what are you doing pontificating on a thread about Moorman if you know nothing about him? The thread is not even about the KJVO position, just about textual criticism (about which Moorman makes many blunders).

 

[DrJamesAch]

So in in other words, you lumped me in a group knowing nothing about what I really am. That speaks to your debating technique.
Where did you get that information? I've been an IFB all of my 61 years of life, and every IFB who knows the subject will tell you Ruckman only has a Ph. D. in education from BJU. (Back in the day at BJU it was a degree in "religious education," which is still not theology or Bible.) Some even say BJU revoked that doctorate. His works going back to the '70's (when he was already in his 50's) all say just "Ph. D." I think someone fed you a line.

Here's a pro-Ruckman bio with no mention of the degrees you think he has (BD and ThM): http://www.sluiceboxadventures.com/rearguard6_ruckman.htm

Here's another with none of the degrees you say he has: http://www.thywordistrue.com/author-id-1.htm

So, where do you get your information?

So what are you doing pontificating on a thread about Moorman if you know nothing about him? The thread is not even about the KJVO position, just about textual criticism (about which Moorman makes many blunders).

Why don't you take a look inside on of Peter Ruckman's own books and see what he himself wrote about his credentials. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Y8HT5A/?tag=baptis04-20

Click on the picture and scroll to page 2 and then put those 5 degrees on a piece of paper and EAT THEM with honey. So what IF Ruckman did not have a degree in "Theology". I guess that means he never read the Bible then right? I guess religious education from a Baptist University never had any actual Bible courses. Have you ever read any of Ruckman's commentaries? I doubt that you or anyone else on here that criticizes him has. Try it sometime, you might actually be surprised at how much he actually knows about the Bible without a "Theology" degree from EducationIsMyGod University (although as I have just shown, he actually DOES have a ThM which last I knew was a Masters in THEOLOGY).

And if you don't like my "debating style" too bad. It gets a little old hearing you Bible agnostics accuse other intelligent and well read believers of being stupid, and of lesser intelligence simply because someone didn't graduate from the same type of school that you holier than thou jack rabbits. Tell me, how does a person with a degree from Harvard, that learned everything he learned FROM A BOOK, any different than the average high IQ joe that got the SAME BOOK from a LIBRARY?

Sick of you "educated" jerks prating your "intellectual superiority" over the average Christian as if none of them are "as smart as" you REAL Bible "scholars". While you thumb your noses at those who don't have "real 'textual criticism'" degrees or classroom residency time put in at Harvard or Oxford. I have an earned doctorate and will NEVER throw that in someones face as an advantage in a dialogue or debate. There are several people I have personally met that put me to shame in Bible knowledge and history- and I'm not too proud to admit-that have ZERO formal education.

This is the whole reason Jesus chose FISHERMEN and TAX COLLECTORS instead of LAWYERS and SCRIBES as disciples because of idiots like you, Norris, Bob, that placate other believers robbing the church of the ability to be comfortable reading and learning the Bible without the almighty infallible interpretation of the "scholarly' PRIESTS.

Not only would I take Peter Ruckman and Jack Moorman over any of you clowns any day of the week, I would take the average nursing home resident, prisoner, or rescue mission bum, that has studied and believed the word of God their entire life over anyone that tauts their "scholarship".

God chose the base things of the world, the simple and foolish things of the world to confound the wise. Morons like you fellas have turned out more atheists and agnostics than any poor soul that took a dime store King James Bible to the streets while being mocked and ridiculed.

Now I have no problem with good colleges, but when those colleges usurp the authority and place of the local church, and their education prowess is elevated above that which God promises to any common man that ASKS HIM (James 1:5), and encourages believers to study to show themselves approved UNTO MAN instead of GOD (2 Tim 2:15), then I have a problem with idiots that try and educate believers out of their knowledge and belief in the Bible.

 

[preachinjesus]

Sick of you "educated" jerks prating your "intellectual superiority" over the average Christian as if none of them are "as smart as" you REAL Bible "scholars". While you thumb your noses at those who don't have "real 'textual criticism'" degrees or classroom residency time put in at Harvard or Oxford. I have an earned doctorate and will NEVER throw that in someones face as an advantage in a dialogue or debate. There are several people I have personally met that put me to shame in Bible knowledge and history- and I'm not too proud to admit-that have ZERO formal education.

Wow, man, your anger and hurtful words have no place on a civil forum like this. John of Japan is (as best I can tell) a humble servant of God who is serving God faithfully in a foreign, pagan land in one of the most important ministries I can think of. Take issue with someone's points, but this kind of behavior is inexcusable and unChristian. You need to ask for forgiveness and repent of your sin.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Wow, man, your anger and hurtful words have no place on a civil forum like this. John of Japan is (as best I can tell) a humble servant of God who is serving God faithfully in a foreign, pagan land in one of the most important ministries I can think of. Take issue with someone's points, but this kind of behavior is inexcusable and unChristian. You need to ask for forgiveness and repent of your sin.

Serving God in a pagan land? I live right next door to Syria pal, and surrounded by countries that want me dead on a daily basis. Don't feed me that false piety nonsense. I have a Bibllical right and God given admonition to call people out who patronize other believers. If you don't like how I address these issues, take it up with Jesus and Paul and John:

Gal. 2:11-14, II Tim. 4:10, I Tim. 1: 18-20, III John 9, Rev. 2:14, Matthew 23:13,14,15,23,25,27,28 and 29.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Personally I am glad Jesus used one of the most educated and respected Ph.D.'s to write half the NT. His masterful use of the Greek grammar and all its nuances (lost in English) help us today to know what God really said.

People with a paucity of truth and believing cultic lies automatically HATE education. Watch their posts; you can tell who they are by their loathing and mocking anything remotely intelligent.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sick of you "educated" jerks prating your "intellectual superiority" over the average Christian as if none of them are "as smart as" you REAL Bible "scholars". While you thumb your noses at those who don't have "real 'textual criticism'" degrees or classroom residency time put in at Harvard or Oxford. I have an earned doctorate and will NEVER throw that in someones face as an advantage in a dialogue or debate. There are several people I have personally met that put me to shame in Bible knowledge and history- and I'm not too proud to admit-that have ZERO formal education.

You are out of line and over the top.

 

[John of Japan]

Why don't you take a look inside on of Peter Ruckman's own books and see what he himself wrote about his credentials. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Y8HT5A/?tag=baptis04-20

Click on the picture and scroll to page 2 and then put those 5 degrees on a piece of paper and EAT THEM with honey. So what IF Ruckman did not have a degree in "Theology". I guess that means he never read the Bible then right? I guess religious education from a Baptist University never had any actual Bible courses. Have you ever read any of Ruckman's commentaries? I doubt that you or anyone else on here that criticizes him has. Try it sometime, you might actually be surprised at how much he actually knows about the Bible without a "Theology" degree from EducationIsMyGod University (although as I have just shown, he actually DOES have a ThM which last I knew was a Masters in THEOLOGY).

Okay. I'll admit Ruckman claims those degrees. Whether they are genuine or store bought is another problem. (And why tout these degrees in the same post you attack education??)

And yes, I've read a commentary of his. In the commentary I read he was vicious and nasty towards many good fundamentalists (not supposed to be his enemy, dude). So I have absolutely no respect for the man when you add in his two divorces. He's not fit to stand in the pulpit.

...you Bible agnostics.... Morons like you fellas.... ...idiots like you...

Wow, what's your problem? You need to sit back, cool off and think this through. Do you really want to call a fundamental, independent Baptist missionary and Bible translator a "Bible agnostic" and "moron" and "idiot"? As the KJV says, "I magnify mine office" office as a missionary. You do your cause no good by this kind of rhetoric.

I really have no idea what I said to set you off; I was actually being gentle. So I have nothing to apologize for. I would say you do for your name-calling.

 

[Dr. Bob]

John, I'm not editing the slander non-Christian attacks on you (and others) right away to allow others to see how evil this man is. And he claims to be a man of God.

Wonder if he kisses his mother with the same mouth that produces such vile language?

He needs a vacation from the BB.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I'm not editing the slander non-Christian attacks on you (and others) right away to allow others to see how evil this man is. And he claims to be a man of God.

Wonder if he kisses his mother with the same mouth that produces such vile language?

He needs a vacation from the BB.

I understand, Doc. Do what you have to do.

 

[John of Japan]

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.