A Scholar, Ye shall Know Him By His Fruit

In the Old Testament there is a man whose name (Agur) means a "collector of wise sayings" (Prov. 30:1). You will notice that the preacher who "sought to find out acceptable words" (Ecc. 12:10) no sooner found out "that which was written was upright, even words of truth" (notice the plural: Ecc. 12:10), than the Scholar's Union transvested him into a "scholar" (see NKJV, Eec. 12:10), whereas the Holy Scriptures had him listed as a "preacher."

You'd better think about that two or three years before you buy an NIVor NASV; they both converted the "preacher" in-. to a teacher. They got rid of the pastor in the local church who was preaching a Bible, and replaced him with one of their own faculty members who didn't believe THE WORDS (see Eec. 12:10, 11) were God's words. The context, by the way, was "many books" (Eec. 12:12).

You see, a Bible scholar would have to spend time in the Bible in order to master his subject—the Bible. This would automatically disqualify ninety percent of the members of every translating committee for English Bibles since 1800. They didn't spend their time in the Bible; they spent it with Hebrew and Greek "word studies," Hebrew and Greek lexicons, the critical theories of Bible-rejecting philosophers, scientists, "manuscript detectives," and pro-Catholic "theorizers." Research into Baur's Historiche Grammatik Der Hebraischen Sprache, Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, F. F. Bruce's The Books and the Parchments, F. M. Cross' The Ancient Library of Qumran, F. G. Kenyon's Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts, or G. R. Driver's Semitic Writing, from Pictograph to Alphabet is not BIBLE study. If scholars are present they are NOT "Bible" scholars.

Research and collation are the outstanding marks of the real scholar in any field. The trick, when buying books, is to find the men who have done the most research and collated the most material and then use this material. This way you can save thousands of dollars in building a library. When it comes to the Bible itself, no man has to buy more than eighty books to learn everything about the Book that anyone ever found out (or probably ever will find out) up to the Rapture. "You can borrow brains but you can't borrow character," hence we can borrow material from the world's greatest scholars who often had no intelligence at all when it came to Biblical truth. Scholars can research, experiment, theorize, test, analyize, and record till they are blue in the face, but if they are not born again (1 Cor. 3) the Book says they will be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

The ability to gather facts is not the ability to interpret facts. The ability to collect details is not the ability to relate them correctly. The ability to analyize Greek and Hebrew words, to take them apart, construct them, trace their origins and roots, and relate them to other languages is not the ability, to understand the Author of speech, or even what the Author of speech SAID (2 Pet. 1:21). . Etymological "know-how" is not soul-winning know-how (see p. 121). A "sense of history" doesn't mean the author has any common sense, and a knowledge of Biblical languages doesn't mean the scholar can grasp one fundamental truth in sixty-six books where it contradicts his opinions or beliefs. Ezekiel 14 and 2 Thessalonians 2 assure us that not even the seeker after the truth, or the inquirer after facts, can find either if a wrong heart condition exists that God knows about (Ezek. 14:1-12). Since there is not one "recognized" scholar who ever lived who acknowledged this Biblical truth—it contradicts their opinions and beliefs—you may assume that ninety-five percent of the intellectuals who professed to be "Biblical" scholars were nothing but deluded egotists.

Years ago (1950) John R. Rice used to preach a sermon called The Seven-Fold Sin of Not Winning Souls to Christ. One point that he made was that in view of Proverbs 11:30, a man who didn't win souls to Christ was a "short-sighted fool."

Did you ever think how that sermon would have struck the Christian scholars between 1800 and 1990 who produced all the modern trash (NW, NASV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, RV, NKJV) that is on the market today? "A short-sighted fool?" Isn't that some way to talk about Zane Hodges, Millar Burrows, Wilbur Pickering, Reuben Olson, Bob Jones IV, Arthur Farstad, Kurt Aland, and Bruce Metzger? "A short-sighted fool!" What was Rice's authority for calling the greatest Christian intellects of the twentieth century "short-sighted fools"? My, how rude of " good, godly, kind, Dr. John!" Do you know who this would have included if it were so? B. M. Metzger, H. Von Soden, Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, Fred Afman, James Price, R. M. Grant, Kenneth Wuest, Wilbur Pickering, Philip Schaff and all of their friends and associates.

"Short-sighted fools."

How does a brilliant Christian intellectual who majored in "Biblical scholarship" wind up as a "short-sighted fool"?

Easy; he pretends that Proverbs 11:30 was either written for someone else or else it was written wrongly. (See the RSV for the latter viewpoint). John R. Rice further said that if a scholar was not winning souls to Christ he was not following Christ (Matt. 4:19). And if that weren't enough, he said the scholar was guilty of spiritual manslaughter (Ezek. 3). How did John R. Rice (who professed to be a "scholar") ever draw such a judgment on A. Harnack, Gerhard Strauss, F. F. Bruce, Ronald Walker, Dick Melton, Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Gary Hudson, E. J. Bultmann, G. W. Anderson, MacRae, Newman, Professor Nida, and the NW and NASV committees? What peculiar standard was John Rice judging "godly" Christian scholarship by? He was judging it by a King James Authorized Version (1611).

If he was right, would you follow any intellectual—of any degree, or any ability—knowing he was a fool with blood on his hands, because he was not following Jesus Christ? I trow not.

You see, from a Biblical standpoint—and all the men above were "recognized Biblical scholars"—scholarship and scholars are not essential things at all; they are not even valuable. Their value depends only on the amount of material they accumulate that is SO, and what can be done with this material to improve the living conditions, or the dying conditions, of their fellow men. If the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia cannot help a man live closer to Jesus Christ than he does, and cannot prepare him for death and the Judgment Seat of Christ in better condition than he would have been without it, it is from a Biblical standpoint—shall we dare say, the word?—WORTHLESS. The fact that it took twenty-three years to complete and it contains the accumulated works and researches of seven hundred qualified authorities doesn't "do the job" from a Biblical standpoint if it doesn't cause the salvation of sinners, the edification of the saints, and the magnification of the words of God (Psa. 138:2, Acts 13:48). The Bible has its own standards 'of "scholarship." It also has a great deal to say about scholars (Luke!!; Isa. 28, 29; Psa. 119; Ecc. 12; 1 Cor. 1-3, and Prov. 1, 9, 10, 13, 15, 22, 24, and 29).

For the Ending Continue to the next thread

So called “Biblical Scholars” have done nothing to reach people for Christ, but rather they have revealed their own hearts (proverbs 18:1-2) as being depraved and full of darkness (Luke 11:35). Should we build upon those who claim to know better than we the Scriptures they deny and do not follow. Ye shall know them by their fruit and their fruit is not adding People to the Lord, their rotten fruit is changing the words of God and over throwing the faith in the word of God, replacing it with faith in a bible version that removes it from a historical account of God working with and in the lives of men, to another "RELIGIOUS BOOK" one of many, and making Christianity one of many ways to heaven. Their own fruit says they it is rotten fruit (John 15:1-8), that will spoil he whole bunch. Scholars are not proof of a godly life, they are not proof of belief in the Bible, they ave more belief in men and in the words of men and not the words of God. Trust in his words and he will guide and lead you to the truth,, and his truth will set you free.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You are confusing 2 completely different concepts. The actual physical translation of the words and the esoteric meaning behind them.

Every translation I have looked into keeps the esoteric meaning in place.

I know my argument will go nowhere with you. But someone needs to represent the truth. The KJV is not the only place where a man can find the esoteric meanings behind the teaching, and to make such claims is shortsighted and perpetrated by those who only see the physical meaning of words wothout having the esoteric understanding.

You just posted a huge rant about the bible, it was not about Jesus, do you know why?
Because you are more a servant to the bible than your fellow man
That's what the pharisees were guilty of

Not only are you preaching the bible and ignoring Christ,myopic are attacking fellow Christians
Your fruit is anger, divisiveness and arrogance, wondering what the difference between arrogance and pride is

Anyway, tread carefully

a reply to: Raggedyman

More concerned with a physical translation than the inward transformation.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Raggedyman

More concerned with a physical translation than the inward transformation.

Christianity is surrendering, it's not lost on me

Inward transformation is a perfect description

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Granted that scholarship is not the same thing as knowing God, need they exclude each other?
For example, I'd like to put in a good word for the very godly scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, one of my favourite commentators. If you looked through his commentary on John, you might be obliged to admit that he was presenting Christ.

a reply to: Raggedyman

It is about Scholars not the Bible, unless you are making the two the same, then you are in very big trouble, because what you are saying is the words of Scholars are the same as that of God. thereby setting up scholars as gods to be referred to when needed to understand the Bible when in fact they are confusing it as they did here

2Ch 1:16 And Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king's merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price. (NKJV)

Do you know what Keveh is without going to a dictionary or a Hebrew Word study?

The American Standard Version chose to leave yarn out of the scripture all together. You do remember what the Book says about removing or taking away the words of God does don't you?

2Ch 1:16 And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt; the king's merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price. (ASV)

Youngs Literal Translation left it as Keva and of course no simple person could know what it is

2Ch 1:16 And the source of the horses that are to Solomon is from Egypt and from Keva; merchants of the king from Keva take at a price, (YLT)

How ever the NIV does no better

2Cron 1:16 Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue the royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price.

Do you know what a Kue is without having to look it up? Of course not. If anything you would think right off hand that is is a Pool Cue, as that would ring bells in the mind of an reprobate mind.

I'm going to step into this as a professional editor.

Every day, my job calls for me to read text and try to look at it with an eye toward figuring out what the meaning is. Sometimes, that means I have to dive into the Thesaurus and look at lists of synonyms and then into the Dictionary to look closely at word meanings to try to parse which word would be closer to the intent of the article in question.

While what I do isn't the work of translation, it's similar. In the case of translation, the scholars have to look at the original texts, in the languages they were written in. They want to get as close to the original sources as it is possible to get. To try to create a translation or new version off an existing error would only compound whatever mistranslations might already exist. Like we see here:



I think you make a mistake trying to assign incorrect motives to the scholars in this case. You seem to blame them for making the wrong translation because they spent time agonizing over Greek and Hebrew lexicons trying to make the best translation. Do you not think they didn't spend earnest time in prayer asking God to guide them in their search and quest to make the best versions they could? The most accurate ones possible?

You might be right. No doubt for some it was purely an intellectual exercise, but I have no doubt that for others, they did the very best they could to allow the Holy Spirit to guide them to the best work they could do to make the best translation possible.

I know I always try to do my very best when I am faced with a similar situation at work, and it isn't easy. It is NEVER easy. English is a difficult language because it has so many possible options with so many shades of meaning and so many connotations attached to each one. Simply choosing one synonym over another can change the complexion of entire piece.

Look at how many different interpretations people come up with for various parts of the Bible, no matter what language we're talking about. You have the same problem in translation work because of the richness and depth of the languages involved in making translation. I understand that you want a perfect, word-for-word product that carries the exact original message, but it does not exist, could not exist. Jesus didn't write his message; he spoke it, and we have to have faith in what was written about it all these years later.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The KJV is actually pretty terrible as translations go.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Westcott and Hort at best were not saved men. As far as the other, godly men, go to their work, you will find they always quote another Scholar (not the Bible) before them who did not believe the word of God as found in the AKJV and wanted to change the words of God as found in the AKJV. The reason they research is to find an alibi for their sin of unbelief in the words of God. Go further and you will learn these men never led a person to Christ and if they did there were way fewer than the years they professed to being a Christian.

I have led over 720 people to the Lord in 23 years as being a Christian, on an average that is 31.3 per year. And hopefully before the Lord comes I will lead more tot hat number. Not one of the scholars you referred to can compare, search and see they haven's led more than three if any at all.

It is not just about presenting Christ, he ignores the actual historical references in other commentaries, like the historicity of God being a Creator as he is said to be by Christ himself, by Luke and by John. Many believe that Israel is done with and the church has replaced Israel by misappropriating the verses Paul taught and shared in Roms 2:29 and Roms 9:-8.

I don't think Biblical translations are divinely inspired. A little to much politics for my tastes.

imo...so called Bible scholars aren't divinely inspired either, though many claim to be.

a reply to: olaru12

Careful with that ... most Christians study the Bible making them scholars. So you are basically insinuating that all Christians are a lie.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How many time have you read the KJV through?

Once? Maybe and more likely never only a few verses and your quoting someone else when you say "is a terrible as translations go".

If one claims to be a Bible scholar and has spent more time in the Opinions of men's writing more than in the word of God AKJV, they my friend cannot be trusted to be of any value to anyone to know God, his Christ or Salvation.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Westcott and Hort at best were not saved men.

On what authority do you make that claim?
Have you ever studied one of Westcott's commentaries? The experience might change your mind.
Ultimately, of course, God is the one who knows whether he was saved or not.

a reply to: ketsuko

You may be correct and if they are any kind of an TRUE intellectual, (and not some one who is an anti-intellectual, as most scholars and bible students under them are) they will not be offended at all for they would be true scholars of the word of God and not a scholars. In that case, they are most likely a true Bible believer and not one who seeks to change the word but to share the word of God in truth.

If any are offended then take heed to that which you are truly offended not in my words but what my words imply for in that lays the truth of why you are offended, God's words.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: olaru12

Careful with that ... most Christians study the Bible making them scholars. So you are basically insinuating that all Christians are a lie.

I can only reference the Southern Baptist I was raised by; they were expert at cheery picking the Bible parts that suited them. Don't most Christians do the same?

Know Him By His Fruit

Cherrys usually....

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes I have copy I used to use but no longer look at. If you want a detailed discussion on westcot and hort get a copy of Gail Riplingers book "New Age Bible Versions". or go here for a synopsis of it under point number eleven of the Westcott and Hort Only Controversy as this is the only online reference I can give you as many are in book form only, and some are not in print and you most likely could never get a copy of those books for they date back to the beginning of last century and many books you once could find in the local library have been culled and were literally thrown in the trash of every city in America between 1980 and 2000, you would be lucky if there any in the Library of Congress, among its 24 million books.

a reply to: olaru12

Now you're not even speaking to the topic but instead bringing up the same tired old retread.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Isurrender73

The KJV is actually pretty terrible as translations go.

Indeed. The KJV keeps to tradition in the way it promotes Hell theology, even though none of the four words translated as "hell" refer to such a place or concept. I have seen in the text where "sheol" is translated as "hell" when context allowed, and left as "grave" or "pit" when context did not allow. I have seen other dishonesty in the text as well. Make no mistake, the KJV translators were under severe constraints, and translated to satisfy their king and the Anglican Church.