Contradictions In The Bible???

I see you touched on Darby, Mr. Darby....But failed to discuss his theology, the bedrock of his foot-noted Bible.

He was no translator. Nor was his much more powerful protegee, Scofield, who took a unaccepted small time English preacher and blew his "theology" up as big as a Macy's parade blimp and sold it to the Americans.

Can't pry Scofield from Darby anymore than you can pry Menno Simons from the Mennonites.

You showed the dirty laundry of Wescott and others....Why not your hero Darby?
 
Mr. Darby: I'm stunned at your idea here:

These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly.
Compared to what? They themselves decried the sinfulness, cold formality and fake Christianity of their day...a day of church promoted imperialism, racism, hatred between churches and much more....
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
I think everyone has their dirty laundry, including myself. We are all sinners. I don't know what 'dirty laundry' you are talking about in regard to Darby, I think he was a fine man. I assume you mean Margaret McDonald, but there is much info out there refuting that, including McDonald's own testimony. I have researched that matter, and find it not convincing. (The Irvingites were historicist fanatics that identified Napolean III as Anti Christ in their own time. They certainly were not Pre-Trib. Check out Kelly's book on the Irvingites.) I believe Darby got his views of the Rapture from studying II Thessalonians 2 just as he wrote that he did. Anyway, I don't wish to debate Darby's character or sources. I believe him to be a godly man, honest and a good Bible scholar. I agree with his theology in the main because that is what I have arrived at in my own study of the scripture.

I don't use Darby's Bible very much, and I would agree that it is not the best of translations. I disagree with it in many places. I think it was probably the least important part of his legacy.

At any rate, I am not interested in discussion concerning Darby. I have heard much of the slander against him, and I guess one either believes it or he doesn't. We won't settle the controversy here. I just wanted to give a bit of testimony as to where I am coming from.
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
Mr. Darby: I'm stunned at your idea here:



Compared to what? They themselves decried the sinfulness, cold formality and fake Christianity of their day...a day of church promoted imperialism, racism, hatred between churches and much more....
Yes, they did. (However, in his lectures on the letters to the 7 churches, Darby identified his time as still being the Philadelphia church period and lamented the difficult plight of those who would live in the future Laodicean age.) There has certainly never been a 'golden age' in human history. But I do think the church is comparatively more worldly today. Sexual immorality is rampant. I will not attend many churches in my area because of the open immorality that is knowingly allowed. Sodomites pastor churches. People are not influenced by attending church as they once were. Doctrine is more sloppy, the blood less emphasized. Yeah, I guess that century saw many bad things, but I think this century is even worse, IMO.
 
I believe him to be a godly man, honest and a good Bible scholar. I agree with his theology in the main because that is what I have arrived at in my own study of the scripture.

I don't use Darby's Bible very much, and I would agree that it is not the best of translations. I disagree with it in many places. I think it was probably the least important part of his legacy.

At any rate, I am not interested in discussion concerning Darby. I have heard much of the slander against him, and I guess one either believes it or he doesn't. We won't settle the controversy here. I just wanted to give a bit of testimony as to where I am coming from.
Hold on hold on! You don't want to "slander" Darby? Who was even implying that? Not I! I was going to show you what other's thought of his theology, in his own day...Like the arch-Baptist Spurgeon, not any hanky panky you may have dug up about McDonald....

A wee bit over protective..especially when you "diss" or slander these guys...?

Brother, don't trust the scholars too far. You would be shocked if you knew what some of these scholars really believe, or did believe in their days. Charles Briggs who did the Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon denied the virgin birth and was tried by the Presbyterian Church for Heresy. The lexicon reflects his lack of belief in the virgin birth. Thayer, of the famed Thayer's Greek Lexicon, was a Unitarian who denied the inspiration of the scripture. He was on the RV committee in the 1880's. Scholar's personal beliefs affect their interpretation of facts. It is simply human.
I can show you equally "shocking" things about Darby's theology....but, what's the point?

I'm sad you can slam some Christian scholars but shield your own gurus.

That also is "simply human".
 
Webster knew many languages, including Hebrew and Greek. He was one of the foremost language experts of any era. Though, still, I would prefer the KJV to Webster. Burgon also was a scholar of immense ability. The advocates of newer views never refuted his books in his life, nor have any scholars disproven him today, but his influence was killed in Academia the same way Creationism was killed; ignoring it without disproving it.​
I once read in one of CS Lewis's books a comment in which he referred to our ability to be 'chronological snobs'. We always think we know more than past generations because we live at a later date in history. Sometimes that may be true, but always it is not. These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly. I don't think that too many people could argue that today the church is at it's peak. Let's face it, it is apostate and worldly. I do admit that I think many of the good fundamental men of the 19th Century are better guides than some of the stuff published by 'Christian' publishers now. And remember, the scripture tells us that the tendency in the church will be false doctrine and apostasy as the end of the age nears. If we are at the end of the age, then maybe previous generations of Christians not affected by the spirit of the age may offer us better understanding.​
At any rate, if one knows his views are right, can it hurt to read an alternative opinion?​
We must be smarter than Gill and Darby and Schofield and McHeny, because we have computers and cars and airplanes don't we!!!!
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
Hold on hold on! You don't want to "slander" Darby? Who was even implying that? Not I! I was going to show you what other's thought of his theology, in his own day...Like the arch-Baptist Spurgeon, not any hanky panky you may have dug up about McDonald....

A wee bit over protective..especially when you "diss" or slander these guys...?



I can show you equally "shocking" things about Darby's theology....but, what's the point?

I'm sad you can slam some Christian scholars but shield your own gurus.

That also is "simply human".
Many of the Anti-Darby writers out there slander Darby. Yes, I know how Spurgeon felt about Darby and the brethren. I think we have about exhausted the topic of Darby. We don't agree and we'll have to leave it at that.
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
We must be smarter than Gill and Darby and Schofield and McHeny, because we have computers and cars and airplanes don't we!!!!
Smarter in science and technology, but declining in spirituality. I think these tendencies will increase as the end of the age draws nearer.
 
Many of the Anti-Darby writers out there slander Darby. Yes, I know how Spurgeon felt about Darby and the brethren. I think we have about exhausted the topic of Darby. We don't agree and we'll have to leave it at that.
I hear you but I am pretty sure that it aint' gona happen.
 
Many of the Anti-Darby writers out there slander Darby. Yes, I know how Spurgeon felt about Darby and the brethren. I think we have about exhausted the topic of Darby. We don't agree and we'll have to leave it at that.
My friend,,,you dodged the intent. YOU worried about talking about slander against Darby (personal stuff, the McDonald lady etc) ...I did not...I pointed out twice it was a theological problem, as you did with Westcott and others.

Now you want to shut the door you opened on others....What are you afraid of?
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
I'm not afraid of anything. Feel free to say whatever you feel you need to say. But, I think I would be most interested in how you first began to question Dispensationalism, and what steps led to your abandoning it, if you are willing to do that.
 
I'm not afraid of anything. Feel free to say whatever you feel you need to say. But, I think I would be most interested in how you first began to question Dispensationalism, and what steps led to your abandoning it, if you are willing to do that.
It has little to do with my feelings.
I find it odd you say we have "exhausted the subject" and are clearly reluctant to discuss Darby's theological problems with any sort of unbiased mind....and yet you want to know the processes of my dumping his theories without wanting to explore the problems...making it me the problem.
Reminds me of the backslidden Christian being questioned as to why she isn't in church....but the questioners refuse to listen to what they contributed to her leaving it.

No...I will avoid any personal tale of disillusionment and IF and WHEN I open a thread on the subject, please recall you gave permission.
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
I am fine with anything you want to post. You are not going to convert me away from Dispensationalism, however. After 25 years of study, Dispensational truth is beyond question as far as I am concerned.
 
I am fine with anything you want to post. You are not going to convert me away from Dispensationalism, however. After 25 years of study, Dispensational truth is beyond question as far as I am concerned.
"Fine" but I will not be moved or consider?? THAT is your fear...that anyone, me for example, is even attempting to convert you.

And I have studied equally as long how garbled it is, AFTER I studied dispensationalism.

My friend....You have revealed an utterly closed opinion on the subject....But I have known this for some time.

I have just been giving you fair warning that I may open a thread on the subject, but will not kowtow to easily hurt scholarly or denominational pride.
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
You have as much freedom to open a thread on any topic that you like, but don't expect me to sit at my computer all day and argue with you. I guess you can think what you want as regards to my 'fear', but God alone knows my heart.
 
Webster knew many languages, including Hebrew and Greek. He was one of the foremost language experts of any era. Though, still, I would prefer the KJV to Webster. Burgon also was a scholar of immense ability. The advocates of newer views never refuted his books in his life, nor have any scholars disproven him today, but his influence was killed in Academia the same way Creationism was killed; ignoring it without disproving it.

I once read in one of CS Lewis's books a comment in which he referred to our ability to be 'chronological snobs'. We always think we know more than past generations because we live at a later date in history. Sometimes that may be true, but always it is not. These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly. I don't think that too many people could argue that today the church is at it's peak. Let's face it, it is apostate and worldly. I do admit that I think many of the good fundamental men of the 19th Century are better guides than some of the stuff published by 'Christian' publishers now. And remember, the scripture tells us that the tendency in the church will be false doctrine and apostasy as the end of the age nears. If we are at the end of the age, then maybe previous generations of Christians not affected by the spirit of the age may offer us better understanding.

At any rate, if one knows his views are right, can it hurt to read an alternative opinion?


Where exactly do you get this assertion from? I couldn't find ANYTHING that confirmed he had credentials OTHER than as a lexicographer. Suitable for doing a dictionary and adding so-called modern vernacular to the KJV, but NOT much else.
Burgon is no clearer other than he got a degree at Worcester College. What degree did he get? His claim to fame seems to be that he instigated the KJVO society, which does NOT sit well with me AT ALL. Right away his Anglican nature comes out in spite of evidence even in his time, that the KJV was NOT the best. I have nothing against Anglicans, but the Word is the Word and it's best we get the most exact and unbiased English translation we can. That CANNOT be said for the KJV.

The FACT is we DO know more. That is NOT to disparage the earlier Saints. It's just that we can't really expect to KNOW God if we come at Him from a doctrinal position rather than an exegetical one. God's WORD is our guide and it is really not hard to know or ascertain what it says now-a-days.

The scriptures WARN us about false doctrine Mr D, it does NOT tell us it is a tendency of the BOC. We are NOT at the end of the age, and trust me apostasy will be far greater than we can imagine at that time.

As far as I am concerned, my mother's advice about NOT playing with fire is sound and I see no reason to ignore it, in the same fashion I see no reason to expose myself to alternative opinions I KNOW are wrong. I was born and raised as a RC,
....that's enough doctrinal trash to last anyone a lifetime. I thank God that in 1971 He drew me to Him and I was born again.
 
Oh...There you are Stan!

You made a profound statement, I think:
The FACT is we DO know more. That is NOT to disparage the earlier Saints. It's just that we can't really expect to KNOW God if we come at Him from a doctrinal position rather than an exegetical one. God's WORD is our guide and it is really not hard to know or ascertain what it says now-a-days.
Couldn't agree more with the underlined!