If people grasp every outcome of the main principle - but not the foundational argument - are the results different or better?
That may seem mysterious, until the facts are added to the question.
If people consent to treating
the Bible as just another book, but never make that claim themselves - will that make a difference in how the Scriptures are treated?
The answer is "Yes, of course it will." If the results come from the main principle, "
the Bible is just another book" has been conceded.
The most important figure in the destruction of Biblical teaching is a British academic named
Fenton John Anthony Hort, the argumentative half of Wescott and Hort, who created another Greek text for the New Testament.
That was back in the 1880s. If we go back further, the same theme can be found among the Biblical scholars at Halle University, mother ship of
Objective Justification. Rationalism finds a way to grow, whether in one place or another. Rationalist clergy send themselves - they are not sent by God.
Let's stick with Hort for this, because his destructive work on the New Testament text directly affects all English translations.
Hort's first rule - or principle - was to treat
the Bible as just another book. The rest of his rules are tricks to set aside the traditional text of the Bible in favor of what he liked. The subordinate rules do not matter, because the results have already been determined, even if they take time to show up.
Translating the rules into Latin - so cool. If the rule is in Latin, it must be serious and credible. "The shorter version of a verse or passage is better, because we know that stories grow in length, the more they are told." Actually, there is no reason to believe that is true, and text scholars know that.
The difficult reading is preferred - that is even better. Difficult for whom? - the traditional Christian, of course. True scholars know the Bible is just another book, and eeevul traditionalists have neglected
the truth of Jesus being just a man who died expressing his solidarity with the poor. If we sand down those rough spots, more of the original will shine forth.
"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
If they have a manuscript that omits "the Son of God" from Mark 1:1, that must be the best reading. Why? It is shorter and more difficult for the traditional Christian. The English translation will probably have a footnote that says "some witnesses omit the Son of God." That varies with the translation and the year that edition came out. Bible sellers have learned to put the big changes in the overlooked footnotes.
 |
| "Give me a place to stand, and I can move the world." Archimedes |
Multiply that by the five to six thousand changes that have been made in the traditional text, most of them not singled out as Mark 1:1 or the ending of Mark are. Even then, who reads Biblical footnotes and how valuable are they in determining the original text?
Add to that list of changes - the simple fact that the Biblical language clergy are quite rare today. Those who study text criticism are even rarer.
Hort was standing where he could move the world of Christianity, and he applied maximum force to the lever. To this day, a few people gather to vote on the text of the New Testament, they vote changes up or down. That becomes the Greek New Testament, and that alone is the basis for the English translations.
The Old Testament is treated with much more care, because there is a tradition of the rabbis counting words and letters of each copied book, an ancient check-sum formula to make sure there were no omissions or additions.
 |
ELCA's Rev Nadia Bolz-Weber represents the denomination's true nature,
and LCMS-WELS-ELS are not far behind her. |
Denominations Race to the Bottom
Biblical relativism led to similar creativity among the theologians. The Bible could mean anything, as a product of man's imagination, and so could the entire field of theology.
The so-called problem of modern theology is making sense out of Biblical images that are no longer believed by the academics and leading clergy.
Karl Barth - and his live-in mistress Charlotte Kirschbaum - spent decades recasting the topics of theology into Marxist talking points. The work simply turns all religious categories upside-down, like his dysfunctional family.
The ever-loyal Charlotte would say to today's LCMS-WELS-ELS clergy - "So what? Your founder, Martin Stephan, had the same arrangement with his young woman and other girls as well. Your precious Walther and his buddies went along with it until - just wait for the book -
Walther, the American Calvin: A Synod Built on Felonies."
So we have this perfect set of harmonies. The Calvinism of Stephan and Walther puts their followers comfortably in the camp of Calvinistic Fuller Seminary.
The theological hero of Fuller is Karl Barth - and covertly his luffly mistress Charlotte. Their rationalistic treatment of Christianity is no different from Hort's -
the Bible is just another book.
The LCMS-ELS-WELS seminaries follow Hort and reject the traditional text of the Bible. They send their doctrinally disadvantaged students and faculty to Fuller Seminary for additional training in methods and gimmicks. The president of Mordor, Valleskey, was a proud Fuller alumnus - like his buddy Frosty Bivens - and lied about it.
A denomination does not have to be 100% Fuller-Barth to be under their control. Each one reaches the tipping point where an ambitious teacher or pastor never questions the wisdom and insights of Karl Barth, Charlotte Kirschbaum, or C. Peter Wagner.
People do not use what they do not trust. They do not trust the Word of God, so they apply human wisdom to their tasks. The worse things are, the more they search out and buy human solutions derived from business and the charlatans who are always happy to help.
 |
| I just love how diverse Mark Jeske is - ELCA, Thrivent, WELS, LCMS! |
 |
| Just because they speak at Church and Change Your Gender Conferences doesn't mean... Oh forget it. |
 |
| Would you wear a dress at a congregational picnic just to become a major speaker for WELS? |
 |
| Male and female created He them. |
 |
Valleskey never went to Fuller Seminary, he said. Then he admitted it to David Koenig, who wrote me about it. And then Valleskey was angry with Koenig, and Koenig was angry with me for telling the truth. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Notice the Mark Jeske half-smile, which suggests inner conflict.
|
 |
| These guys are dy-no-mite! blowing up everything in sight. |
