Another seminary guy doesn't approve of me

Lane
Went over to Robert K’s blog. Good grief, and to think I though Robert actually made some worth while comments every now and then. But then, I remember he made some off-the-wall comment about Warfield and textual criticism via Theodore Letis and my radar picked up goofness. Gee whiz-the things he says about James White are beyond the pale of sanity. - GLW Johnson

I use 'bad' language at times for good purpose. Language is relative, not all bad words are useless. They can be useful to shock certain types, such as sleeping, smug, holier-than-thou Village of Morality types.

I write on this blog from the perspective of the practical level of the faith as well.

Regarding the strong language exposing the Alexandrian manuscripts: that is the most foundational issue. Look at the person's quote above. That person is a seminary bred Christian author (perhaps professor, I'm not sure), and more dead asleep than a girl screaming at a Hannah Montana concert. These are Christians who are more interested in being intellectuals and who have yet to see the terror of their situation. They adopt the atheists/new-agers bibles because those bibles don't come with the authority of God. They come with the authority of scholars. I.e., of man. They avoid the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version for the sole and simple reason that it convicts them. It is painful for them to even approach it. This is why they mock it and lapse into all manner of sophistry and fallacious rhetoric when denouncing it or championing their full-of-holes and corrupted man-authority versions. These are Christians that if you asked them to write down ten books they'd take with them if they were going to be stranded on an island the Word of God itself would be grudgingly slotted into the tenth spot. Afterall, isn't the latest, most up-to-date commentary just as good? Oh, well, they say to themselves, just to keep up appearances I'd better include the actual Bible. The latest, most up-to-date Critical Text version though. None of that real thing that Christians actually died for. That Christians actually defended through time and history, persecution and martyrdom. None of that real thing that actually convicts. None of that real thing that actually forces me to humble myself to something higher than me (forces me to recognize something higher than me) like that which created me. No, they say, I'll stick with the Westcott and Hort Blavatsky version[s] thank you.