Bethany Divinity College and bad "press"

"beaten up"

I post the following comments to test the integrity and honesty of your statement quoted above.

"Your pathetic grammar..."
"Your temper tantrums are not helping you. As a matter of fact, they reflect the poor theological education you received at your accredited schools."
"I do not believe you have a B.A. from an accredited college because your grammar is not even on the sixth grade level. Therefore, I was (and am) led to believe you are a spammer and trouble maker who is out to do nothing but create chaos."
"I did so because I thought him to be a trouble maker. In spite of his actually having accredited degrees, my suspicions turned out to be correct."
"Mr. AlnEstn is bitter and a malcontent. He had a bad experience at Bethany and hasn't gotten over it. Perhaps he needs some counseling so he can move on."

Were these statements made by you about me on Bethany's forum?
I think it is evident by my original posts that I was simply discussing the utility of Bethany credits and degrees for those wanting to seek recognition of them by recognized accredited or credible unaccredited institutions.

 

Re: "beaten up"

Alan, this was posted BEFORE your post about checking to see if you were being beaten upon. You have violated our "warning" by copying and pasting here. I don't think Degree Info is interested in what goes on, on another forum.

 

Re: "beaten up"

I am not sure what point you are making with the "BEFORE" comment, but mabye you can illuminate me.

Here is the timing on this issue. I went to see what the responses were to my "less than positive" post regarding Bethany's utility. Most, if not all of your comments about me were posted by that time. I then made the comment on degreeinfo about checking to see if I was getting beat up on Bethany's forum, and mentioned that the forum was again open to the general public.
You then made the comment that I was not getting beaten up, so I should not flatter myself. You had already made such comments about me, but said I was not getting beaten up. So, what is your point?
Maybe no one would classify your comments as being negative and given in a negative way. I guess that is for others to decide. I know what I think about the issue. You had to start tossing around all kinds of inflammatory statements to cover yourself and Bethany. Interesting approach!

 

I think it is significant to note that none of the unaccredited but quality schools mentioned here offer distance learning degrees. I do not know of ANY unaccredited DL programs in theology whose graduates routinely get into RA/ATS doctoral programs.

When I have in the past brought up the utility of degrees from unaccredited schools such as Central, Detroit, BJU, etcetera, it has not been to slam accreditation itself. Rather, I have tried to demonstrate that the quality and acceptance of degrees from those specified schools indicates that accreditation and quality aren't synonymous. I think Central is better than many RA/ATS seminaries, and has been for 56 years. But why?

This thread and others like it are useful, because they bring out discussions of what truly provides quality theological education. High standards. Original language training. Qualified faculty. High performing graduates. Particular strength within the Department (NT, OT, Systematic Theology, Historical Theology) your degree will be from.

This does allow us to point out a very few schools that do provide a quality theological education without accreditation. More importantly, it allows us to differentiate between mediocre RA/ATS schools and excellent RA/ATS schools. Too often here, recommendations of what RA/ATS/GAAP school one should attend devolve into merely what is cheapest or most convenient, as long as it is accredited. That artificially levels the field, and we should avoid it.

Dave

 

“Dr. Jimmy Clifton has give you good advise.”
—H. D. Shuemake, Chancellor of Bethany Divinity College and Seminary

 

I hope this appears and in the right place.

I do not want this to be about people, but about what is required to run a good doc program in Bible/Theology. That is, PhD/ThD, not DMin. If I have given the impression that I think holders of the Dothan doc are not commited or not intelligent, then I apologize. I am talking about programs not about people. But, the Dothan doc makes a big mistake IMO when it fails to prepare one, as other schools do, to interact with the research literature which often employs the Biblical languages.

For example, now I am writing about Philippians 2:6,7. I intend about 8 pages on it in the thesis. I am wondering how this relates to my topic of the relational subordination of the Son. So I begin a review on and evaluation of the literature.

Here's just a sample, a small sample, of what my last 20-30 hours of study have in been about. This IS about DL. It is about part of what is needed in a good DL program in Bible or Theology.

Re this text:

Martin thinks rejecting world rulership is the intent

Hoover says harpagmon egesato is an idiomatic expression.

Lightfoot says the sense is res tinenda.

The kenotics see a giving up of deity.

Yet Feinberg rebuts, as labon is a modal participal showing ekenosen refers to an acquiring of something not a losing something. Besides, the tense of huparchon denies this, I think.

Dunn takes it all as incarnational.

As Barth says the heauton ,because it is emphatic, shows the ekenosen was self directed...thus questioning the eternality of the role subordination.

Meyer point out the aorist egesato makes the act definite point in time.

Hawthorne says the article points back to morphe.`

But Wallace and BurK think the article which precedes the infinitive merely is a place marker and has no semantic force and that therefore this articular infinitive is not anaphoric, so consequentltly they say the Son possessed the morphe but not the isos...that is essence without attributes??? HMMM, don't think so!

This is the sort of literature I regularly this year have been dealing with, but this is no bragging. I would brag were it easy for me. Don't tell Ed, but this is real work for me being out of seminary for 10 years. My languages, never good, are pretty poor now. What others might do in an hour takes me three or four probably. Besides, I cannot complain because this is what graduate Bible/Theology is in part about. But with a good effort I think I'll get through OK

 

Bill, you continue to be a scholar and a gentleman. I hope I did not misrepresent your thoughts and posts about "holders of the Dothan doc." I apologize if I have because I should know better. You have always been fair and just in your comments and remarks and have never stooped to the level of ad hominem attacks. I have always enjoyed your posts that contained the scholarly Biblical and theological commentaries. Philippians 2:6-7 (6-11 often called the "Christ Hymn") has always interested me. I like the Aramaic rendering of "paha" meaning "equal but not identical." Lohmeyer believed there was an original Aramaic reflecting Christ's abasement. Many scholars view "ekenosen" as the basis for the much debated doctrine of "kenosis." All in all, very interesting. I hope to get to read your dissertation when it's completed. Take care, Bill.

 

To Jimmy

Jimmy,
I guess I want to end this with you. I formed a certain opinion about your response to my post on Bethany's forum, and let it get at me a bit. I should have refrained in responding the way I did. My purpose in posting to Bethany's forum was to mention one of my concerns over Bethany's programs, based on a repeated experience I have had. That concern, and a few others remain. If you will check over my posts on this forum, you will see I am not in the habit of slamming schools or people in an unbridled way.
I again responded to some real cheap shots leveled at me on Bethany's forum after my post. Again, I should have refrained myself and dealt with it differently. I still don't agree with some of your tactics, or comments.
Yet, I apologize for my responses.

 

Re: To Jimmy

My dear Brother,

You have nothing for which to apologize. I get a little defensive when it comes to Bethany, that's all. You have responded in subsequent posts on here and on the Bethany forum with honor and civility. I am afraid many who use the Internet to communicate say things they would not say face to face with someone. I know I would be more engaging and civil, more personable and congenial in person. The Internet seems to do something to most of us. I think the major problem is that it's not one on one. There is a "ganging up" process that takes place many times on all forums. Modern-day communications have ruined person-to-person interaction, I'm afraid. I am sure you are a very decent, kind and civil man who is honorable and above reproach. I am sorry if I ever implied otherwise. May God continue to bless you.

 

I was on the phone when I typed this and this is why it's jumpy. Also, this should have said "Aramaic background" not "original Aramaic."