In a recent post, self-appointed Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong lamented:
“As it can be seen from this book, anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues can see that there is a difference between the textual critical methodology as utilized by Westcort, Hort, Metzger, Aland etc, and the text-types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western etc) contributing to the variant readings of the texts.”
But as I have exposed quite a while back, Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong does not even know what a “critical text” is. He confused critical texts (which are eclectic texts collated by committees that examine a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original) with extant manuscripts such as Aleph and B. And he actually dared to debate me ferociously on textual issues, thereby exposing himself to be a dunce (no offense).
Anyone who doesn’t know what a critical text really is shouldn’t even attempt debating textual issues. And I suppose Clark’s book “Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism” is perhaps the very first baby book he touched concerning the issue. But again, who would study textual criticism from a non-textual critic i.e. Gordon Clark – except a dunce?
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? There is apparently a prideful dunce who persists in his errors in Singapore.
Anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues would know what a critical text is.
Period.
9 comments:
Another Daniel Chew-bashing post?
C'mon brother, why not write a post on Textual issues?
Let's see what you've got!
From,
An interested reader
Hi friend,
I am not "bashing" anyone. I got this watchman "office" in the same way Watchman Chew got his. Therefore, in the spirit of the great Watchman Chew, I've got to expose, criticize, tear-down, and reveal the heresies and errors of these apostates, heretics, and false teachers - which includes "watchmen".
Hmmm ... what I've got. I'm not desperate to "prove" what I've got. Maybe some other time in another blog.
This blog is a watchman of watchmen's blog - it concerns what the watchmen do not have," not what I've got. :)
From,
An interested critic
(PS: If I were you, I'll glean my textual critical knowledge from textbooks, not blogs. BTW, my blog is not to "show-off" my knowledge - if any.)
"PS: If I were you, I'll glean my textual critical knowledge from textbooks, not blogs. BTW, my blog is not to "show-off" my knowledge - if any."
I am relieved to see that, AT! I was hoping you would say that. I wish Daniel Chew will take that piece of advice.
From,
An interested reader.
Anything new post?
A reader
Antithesis,
Great work you are doing!! Watchman Chew really needs some watching.
Some guy thinks Daniel has "High Functioning Autism": See the Nov 11 comments at http://astronova.multiply.com/video/item/16
Its here: http://astronova.multiply.com/video/item/16
Hi there,
I do not "think" that he has Asperger Syndrome; he HAS Asperger Syndrome. And that is why he is so afraid of seeing a shrink. He might need his medications.
I, however, disagree with the comment that Watchman Chew has "above average" intelligence. He has, thus far, demonstrated muddied thinking and stuttering thoughts. Desperately trying to achieve "recognition" within the Christian fraternity, he has appointed himself "Watchman," and started a blog to show the world how "intelligent" he is.
Even a bird can be trained to parrot a person - say, Gordon Clark.
I have seen parrots done better.
Antithesis
So Watchman Chew really has Asperger Syndrome? Is he doing anything about it? He should be honest about it and declare this in his blog then.
Wow! This explains a lot!
"High Functioning Autism", that maybe true also, but someone told me that they think he is "missing", MALE HORMONE.
Post a Comment