|
|
USER COMMENTS BY MURRAYA |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 3 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/31/08 6:47 AM |
MurrayA | | Auistralia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
kenny, The topic isn't Calvinism, I'm aware, but the argument used here in reference to the KJV ("God used X to send revival") is one which some on this board refuse to use in other connections, e.g. the Calvinism argument. This is inconsistent.But let me bring it closer to the topic: On my website I mention how John Wesley, no mean Greek scholar, made revisions of the KJV for the benefit of his converts, some 12,000 in all, some of which have been adopted in more recent versions. Was he too a corrupter of the Word of God? Clearly not, since by the very argument used here ("God used him to bring revival") he was indeed blessed of God. So you can do either of two things (not both): 1. Admit that he was blessed of God, and for that reason abandon KJV-only-ism. 2. Abandon this line of argument in order to maintain King James only-ism. |
|
|
7/31/08 2:43 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
PILUT wrote: It's interesting that some of the greatest revivals in this World were before modern versions. And tell me where the revivals are today - or in the last 50 years? It's interesting that some on this board (including yourself?) are not prepared to use that argument when it comes to Arminianism or Dispensational theology! God sent revival to C18th England and America: by the agencies of such thorough-going Calvinists as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Grimshaw, William Romaine, Daniel Rowlands, and others.What about Wesley, you ask? He was much closer to that position than he cared to admit, and certainly much, much closer than the modern Dispensational Fundie. Just read his sermons and Journal entries. And also: NONE of them were Dispensationalists: they had never heard of the position. After all, that wasn't invented until the next century. So if you're going to use the "God blessed X with revival" argument, be consistent! |
|
|
7/29/08 3:57 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
ENGINEER, Thank you for your post, but I will have to bow out. It seems I am only hitting my my head against a wall on this board, the bastion of KJVO-ism that it is.One of my posts was indeed removed (it's back on p.2 now), as you point out. Was it you who hit the abuse button? It doesn't matter. However, I make no apology for my posts, nor do I accept that my contentions have been at all misleading, or deliberately offensive to any person. I have certainly attacked the position you and others hold, to be sure: it is full of fopperies, convolutions, untenable positions, bad scholarship, and wilful ignorance of plain evidence, etc. You complain about offensive language: until I came on to this board I have never before had to contend with the personal attacks, abusive language, strident in-your-face confrontation, and the like. I have some of this on file on my computer. It has been vicious stuff, but I have taken it in my stride and let it pass. If I have descended to the same level in reply I humbly apologise. One final point: how anyone can read Miles Smith's "Translators to the Reader" and maintain King James Only-ism is beyond me. Your attempt to turn his remarks into a defence of your view is just an example of what I mean by convolutions and obscurantism. |
|
|
7/28/08 8:28 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Joel Osteen is a religious charlatan, regrettably one of many in our world today. One can watch and listen to his "preaching" on TV, as I have from time to time (as much as I can stand), and it's the same thing every time. Like Hitler's famous speeches at Nuremberg in the 1930s, when Der Fuhrer could speak for an hour and say precisely nothing of substance, Joel Osteen does the same, except that the "substance" is Christianised psycho-babble. Now it's also lined with prosperity gospel.He is a hyped-up, mega-church version of that master of religious psycho-babble, Norman Vincent Peale of the mid-C20th, with the added flavour of, "use Jesus to get rich!" Where, oh where does one find this in the Scriptures? He needs a good dose of Luke 18:18-30. |
|
|
7/28/08 6:58 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jum, Thank you for drawing to our attention the "Translators to the Reader" preface by Miles Smith. I have likewise reproduced in summary much of its content on my own website at: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/history_kjv_ii.htmlHowever, be under no illusions: KJVO-types are well aware of what Miles Smith wrote, but twist it around to suit their own agenda. They are masters of that perverse art. I have composed a history of the KJV in two pages on my website, and at the end drawn attention to the fact that the C18th evangelist, John Wesley, a very good Greek scholar in his own right, also did his own translation of the NT, with 12,000 corrections to the KJV, some of which were actually adopted in more recent versions. I suppose that the great John Wesley is likewise a corrupter of the Word, a devil incarnate, or whatever, for these KJVO people! |
|
|
7/28/08 2:25 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
quote, Whoever posted this (7/27/08 8:08 PM) is quite correct. I have noted, although not quoted, this reference in Augustine on my web page on John 8.What the quotation shows is that Augustine knew of the passage, that it had been circulating before his time, and he issued a caution about it. However, he himself accepts the passage as authentic. So do I. At the same time, however, the early manuscript evidence has it at various locations: the traditional place in John 8 (and many of those with asterisks or obeli to indicate the scribe's doubt as to its status); earlier in John 7; at the end of John's Gospel; and even in Luke 21. All of the early manuscripts except Codex D (Bezae) omit it, including P66 and P75. BTW, appealing to Codex D is not good evidence: there are all sorts of additions in that Manuscript which the most ardent KJVO person would never accept. Hence it is entirely arbitrary to accept the Adulteress story on the authority of D, and not say, the addition in Acts 15:29, "whatever things which you do not want to be done to you, do not do to another." (I am NOT suggesting that we adopt this) The only explanation of this diverse testimony is that it circulated independently, and post-Nicene tradition has placed it at the beginning of John 8. |
|
|
7/28/08 12:25 AM |
MurrayA | | Australian | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
PILUT wrote: Murray - after your rant about the superiority of the British/Australian English, I am quite surprised you use such new versions of the Bible that degrade and water-down the King's English. Am I mistaken? Again, the oldest manuscript doesn't make it the most accurate one. Taking the last point first: perhaps not, but the earlier manuscripts will certainly precede later corruptions - usually additions, which is what is in question here. In general, however, the earlier the better. One can hardly quarrel with that."The King's English" has moved on a bit from that of King James I - 400 years ago! As to U.S. English the issue was, I recall, my alleged "errors" of spelling. I pointed out in reply that they were no errors at all, according to accepted British usage. Superiority? It's a matter of viewpoint, but U.S. English has made many spelling changes, and grammatical changes which I do indeed find irritating, but I'll leave that aside. So yes, I like the NASB, and I am prepared to put up with the Americanisms from time to time in what is a very good version. I have used it for many years. |
|
|
7/27/08 7:53 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mr. Ford, "Your paper has misspelled 4 words. judgement(ironic, ehh?) favourite scepticism behaviour & one grammar error [semicolon use 2nd paragraph] (after Georgian Mss.)"Sorry to inform you but the "errors" are all in fact correct according to British (and Australian) usage. I am consistent in following these standard conventions. I am NOT an American, and I will use and continue to use British spelling and grammar. that means that "colour", "behaviour", and "favour" etc. I will spell with an included "u". In that system, after a colon, each item in the subsequent list is followed not by a comma, but by a semi-colon. As to "judgment", according to my Shorter Oxford Dictionary both "judgement" and "judgment" are acceptable. It used to be that only the latter was acceptable, but not any more. However, you sing the praises of your American system. I daresay you will want me to say "aluminum" instead of "aluminium", and "defense" instead of "defence". etc! No way!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|