Louisiana Baptist University

No one is speaking of undergraduate school, Bill. On numerous threads in the past, you have questioned both graduate and post-graduate programs wherein the Biblical languages are not taught.

It would be interesting to study all the schools of religion prior to accreditation to see if they, at that time, passed your muster. Perhaps LBU will become more rigorous and stringent as it marches forward just as nearly every other school in the history of American education has.

I seriously doubt Luther Rice was so rigorous and stringent as you would like when they first began. I would imagine Charles Stanley would have to work much harder, take more courses, and engage in more in-depth scholarly research if he were to enroll in the doctoral program today.

 

Not so! I wasn't BEGINNING to doubt...

 

Oh. Sorry. I stand corrected. A Bible college MA student should learn SEVEN ancient languages---got it.

See there Nosborne, we is edjicated.

 

Ah, Dr. Grover,

The TRUTH is, Jews have never really HAD a theology. Just law, custom, limited oral history and tradition. Such theological tools as Jewish scholars, other than Hebrew and Aramaic language skills, have had to be learned at the feet of the great Christian theologians, historians, archeologists and scientists.

A very good argument can be made that Christian scholarship was a major force behind the development of Reform Judaism, for which I am certainly grateful!

 

===

Nosborne

You really are a gracious fellow. I'm very blessed to be able to have you and Jimmy and the others here as virtual friends!

 

Well, we do have some times on here, don't we Bill?

Seriously, I applaud your concerns about theological education but, you do have a theme of redundancy regarding the Biblical languages issue.

How many times can you state your case? I guess it's true, repetition is good.

Take care Bill. Want some of our nearly three-feet of snow sent your way?

 

This...

 

Re: Re: Afterthoughts on this discussion

... and this feel weird from people so enlightened in religious studies.


Sorry if I am being an idiot for pointing this behavior out, but I see you guys trying to discredit each other completely (it seems like one is always trying to be better than the other, whatever that means) and then posting "Bless you" all the time, which to me ( a layman) seems a lot like sarcasm.

edit: I just read everybody apologizing a few posts after the ones I quoted, so now I apologize for posting in such a hurry, with incomplete information. Sorry, guys


Anyway, I hope you can all forgive my need to post the above and help in asnwering a legitimate question that I've had for a while and I can not find a definitiev explantion for it until now.


I understand that the Bible is supposed to represent the word of God himself. However, how can you be sure of the Bible's accuracy? How can we know that the Bible is not a fraud or something that is not related to the original texts with the word of God?

I know there are archeological evidences for the writing of the New Testament, but what about Genesis, for instance? How is it interpreted by the experts in the field?

Please do not take offense to any of my questions. I am still lost in finding a religion and I would be really happy if you gusy couod help with guidance in some of my questions.

When I ask someone at the Church (any church) they usually tell me it is all about faith, but with this argument I could believe in the craziest things and call it faith. Maybe more educated people like the members here can give me more help.

 

Bill,

Look again at what I said:

Including them in the catalog of offerings doesn't mean all have to be taken. I just think they should be offered. Sorry for the confusion.

 

.......

DING DING


Friendlyman

Yes. I laughed at Jason.

Now would go to the context of that occasion for my laugh, give me your understanding of that context, and explain to me why what Jasaon said should not have been funny to me?

Thanks,


Thanks,

 

LBU could do a lot simply by changing certain semantics associated with their degree offerings. The Bible or Biblical studies degrees should indicate "English Bible" in their nomenclature. Theology should be designated "Ministerial Theology." There is nothing at all wrong with a degree in English Bible, even where it does require some original language work. In my opinion they should award only the D.A. and D.Min degree.

What I like about LBU is that they improve every year. Like any organization they have their problems and eccentricities. But they are clearly getting better in every area and are clearly becoming a nationally respectable institution. The doctoral program I did was substantial--not top flight but honestly substantial. Only the lack of original language instruction subtracted from the over all value of the studies. I learned a great deal at LBU--and I think it was at the doctoral level compraed to other doctoral level (RA) studies I have done.

They are looking at a number of retirements and will hire new people with solid backgrounds. I am certain, even if it takes 15 years LBU will end up nationally accredited and with a pretty large residential program.

Blessings

Craig

 

Re: Re: Re: Afterthoughts on this discussion

Hi Friendlyman,

Dr. Grover and I go back a long way on this forum. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He is a very intelligent and scholarly man and I like to challenge him on things, especially when I think he is not being consistent or is too critical of some people on here, theological scholars, doctrines, etc.

It's not acrimonious or hostile. I know it may seem that way but it's not. I enjoy questioning him and reading his responses. I have actually learned quite a bit from him.

 

I guess if one gets a degree from an unaccredited school there is nothing wrong with faculty having degrees from unaccredited schools.

Is it possible one can be intelligent, knowledgeable, scholarly, and skilled with a degree from an unaccredited school? Does accreditation always equal brilliance and scholarship? I think not!

Take Charles Stanley and Robert Schuller. Considering Stanley's unaccredited doctorate and Schuller's accredited doctorate, I don't think anyone will argue Stanley is twice the scholar Schuller is.

The same way I would reconcile someone with a degree from an accredited school who lacked "scholarliness." Do you think Dr. James Kennedy is not more scholarly than Dr. Rick Warren? Yet, they both have accredited doctorates.

All this in no way implies support for unaccredited degrees over accredited degrees.

 

I like these ideas. The English Bible nomenclature is an excellent idea considering many Baptist schools are "KJV only." I guess this would correspond, perhaps, to a Catholic receiving a doctorate in Bible from a Catholic school having only taken Latin since the Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate.

Would he be accused of not being scholarly since he didn't take Greek or Hebrew? Personally, I like Latin. It's much easier to learn than Greek or Hebrew and is more easily retained.

Your other ideas might receive some flack, however. If LBU changed some of its degree titles they may be accused of being out of the norm thus another round of attacks would occur.

Speaking of which, I received an email from the DETC accredited Home Study Institute that in the spring a Master of Christian Ministry degree will be offered. I think it may be offered via Griggs University.

 

Bill! You're up early, ha!

Does having a degree from an unaccredited school always mean incompetence? Does having a degree from an accredited school always mean competence?

Did I say this?

My whole point is that just because someone has a degree from an unaccredited school doesn't necessarily make him or her any less scholarly than someone with a degree from an accredited school and vice versa.

I am sure we can find "Jasons" in accredited schools as well. I am almost certain Dr. Bill Grover, with his UNIZUL Th.D., could walk circles around many Harvard Th.D.'s. Yet, the Harvard program would not be viewed in any less light just because some graduates aren't so smart and scholarly as Dr. Grover.

 

I suppose one COULD specialize on the history and development of the Bible in English. Such a degree, however, would carry NO WEIGHT WHATEVER in the field of textual criticism. It would be more like a branch of Church History.

 

===


In my opinion there is something very wrong in offering a DA or a PhD or a ThD in Bible with no requirement for the Biblical languages. Why IYO did "the lack of original language instruction" subtract from the value of your studies?

It seems to me that regardless of the nomenclature, if the doctorate is awarded in Bible and if Bible comprises the major portion of the coursework and/or dissertation, then not to include any work in the Biblical languages would impair the understanding of the Biblical text at that doctoral level. If you disagree, tell me why.

Did you ever do an accredited masters degree in Bible or in Systematic Theology or do any significant amount of accredited doctoral level studies in these areas which would provide you with more precise data by which to compare the LBU program?

In my case I have done grad level work in both English and in Education from two RA accredited universities. But, believe me, nothing in those experiences compares in the rigor required of me in the series of ThM courses I took in the Greek Exegesis of the Pauline Literature and nothing at USD or OSU was comparable in the rigor required in Systematic Theology at the MDiv level. So, I wouldn't presume to compare the rigor required in these disciplines of Education/English to Bible/Theology.

What evidences your opinion that LBU is becoming a "nationally respectable institution"?

Thanks,