|
|
USER COMMENTS BY MURRAYA |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 5 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/18/08 9:43 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Aidan McDowell wrote: I currently read the NASB and the English Standard Version, the former because our church prefers it, and the latter because it seems to strike a balance between the NASB and the NIV. As for the KJV, it's a masterpiece of English literature... Aidan,Thank you for your response. I use the NASB, and have done for many years. The ESV is an update of the old RSV of 1952/71, and is quite good. I have not yet become all that familiar with it at this stage, however.The important thing in all this is that a version be committee-based, just like the KJV, for that matter. That's not the whole story, of course: so too was the New English Bible, but that was done by liberals and unbelievers. So a committee of scholars, committed to the historic doctrine of inspiration, and concerned to exalt Christ and His Word. These must be the criteria. I agree that the NASB is not a literary masterpiece by any criterion, but it does strive to be accurate, and in large measure achieves that. The NIV, by contrast, seems to aim at the intellectual level of a 10-yr old, and is at times banal, as well as sacrificing accuracy. I have made little use of it. |
|
|
7/18/08 7:16 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
kenny wrote: And I have always strongly suspected that many of those who exhibit such a sanctimonious attitude in their disdain for those who use the AV do so because they are too stupid and dense to comprehend it's English. BTW, MurrayA, your website is boring. kenny, you can brand me as sanctimonious if you like, but KJVO types, in my experience, know little or nothing about the issues of textual criticism, and when faced with the undeniable evidence of variations in manuscripts they run for their obscurantist, head-in-the-sand cover. And you are no exception to this.I don't have disdain for the AV, but I do have it for the KJVO zealots who are so hidebound in their commitment that it blinds them to both basic realities, and indeed, to the historic doctrine of Scripture, viz. that inspiration applies to the autographs. Those are simply the facts. If you don't like this, that's too bad. As for my website, I suspect prejudice from one who dislikes my position. Plenty of others have praised it. When I get my hymns up and running, you may find it less so, but I rather doubt that, as prejudice has its way of blinding one to the gems and joys of life. |
|
|
7/18/08 8:57 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
JD wrote: I really don't know who "church fathers" would be. Whoever formulated this question should have named a few as examples. JD, we know you are ignorant of church history, and care even less, but please don't make an exhibition of yourself like this!The term "church fathers" is well known to anyone with a modicum of knowledge: beginning with the sub-apostolic fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Diognetus, Polycarp) we move to the Apologists (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian), and then to the early theologians (Cyprian, Hippolytus, Origen). The great champions of orthodoxy of the fourth century such as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and then Augustine dominate the period, along with the church historians Eusebius and Socrates, then theologians such as Theodoret, and preacher-expositors like Chrysostom. You would do well to read about these men, and some of their writings. You may not agree with all their views (I hope you don't), but they will give you a perspective which you currently both lack and shamefully disdain. |
|
|
7/18/08 5:56 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
kenny wrote: I also choose C. I daresay that you choose C because it is from the KJV, not necessarily because it most accurately renders the Greek. Likewise with quote - he selects the KJV rendering most likely for the same hidebound "reason".As far as the Greek word 'theopneustos' is concerned, versions b or d are the best: the word means 'God-breathed', and is a unique, made-up word, most likely by Paul himself. Scripture is the result of 'out-breathing' by God, i.e. He by His Spirit so superintended the human writers that what they wrote was the result of His own 'breathing out'. Paul speaks here of the OT, but the same applies to the NT as well (John 14:26; 16:13). However, these considerations apply only to the original autographs, not to any later version, be it Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Slavonic, French, Saxon English, or Jacobean English. But I fear I am talking to people who know little or nothing about the details and issues of texts and versions, and care even less. The have their dogma, and that is that. |
|
|
7/17/08 12:52 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
JD wrote: Michael H Real bible believers seem to be the only people on here with real names like JD and Michael, and Mike, and Yamil, with real places where they are serving the Lord like Endicot, and Danville, and New York, and Vegas. Have you ever wondered why almost all these Calvinists are ashamed of their real names? Is there a message here? There was one Calvinist that used his real name in the early days. His name was Walt from Michigan but the practice did not catch on with them. Must have something to hide! {edit} Oh yea, whats his name from Australia? yeah, MurrayA. He used his real name also. So Walt, Alan H (7/16/08 10:47 PM), and myself: we all use our real names. You started with a sweeping allegation (a "bang"), but you now have to end with a list of exceptions (a "whimper"). And the list could be extended.What's that line about a proposition "dying the death of a thousand qualifications"? Think, JD, before you launch in where angels fear to tread! And what does JD stand for? Jerry Dale, I think (correct me if I am wrong). Using initials only could well land you in the very mire you have tried to create for others. |
|
|
7/10/08 6:02 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Follower of Messiah wrote: People go to hell because they sin against God, not because of anything that happened to them "in Adam". People read more into Rom 5 than Paul meant to say. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the book that added "in Adam" to scripture. It is not in the Greek. Sorry, FoM, but your claim that "in Adam" is not in the Greek is simply false. I don't know how much of the Greek New Testament you you know, but if this is any indication it must be pretty paltry.In Rom.5:12ff the phrase "through one" or "through the one" occur frequently, and the reference is clearly to Adam, who is named in v.14. In contrast Christ is the Second Adam, or "the last Adam" is 1 Cor.15:45. He is the new Federal head of, and embodies the new humanity, just as Adam was the federal head of the original humanity which fell into sin. In 1 Cor.15:22 the phrase "in Adam" is clearly in the Greek, and there is NO manuscript evidence which suggests its exclusion - none whatever. I don't know where you get your anecdote about Jerome from, but it's certainly apocryphal. |
|
|
6/9/08 9:18 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Philip, Just a point of information: Greek has no indefinite article, so you can't build an argument on the word being "a man" as opposed to merely "man".Moreover, the Greek does instruct the reader to "calculate" (psephizoo) the number of the beast, not merely "interpret", a different word entirely had that been intended. The ancient cryptic practice of gematria, where each letter of a word had a numerical value, and the total of the letter values added up to a final number, seems to be what the text intends. The problem was, and remains, what that underlying word is. The suggestions have been legion. |
|
|
6/2/08 8:01 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
I think we need to understand that NASA justifies its funding allocation by the search for extra-terrestrial life. NASA is very much involved in the SETI programme, and its space probe equipment is geared toward that end.Integral to this object is the search for water: the evolutionary belief that al you need is a conglomeration of the right chemicals, and then - just add water! When one adds water, hey presto...life!!! You don't believe me? Then listen to the rhetoric! So it's not just the media which gets on to the life-on-other-planets bandwagon; it's NASA itself. Hence they will get excited when some lowly organic compound is found - and you will then hear "the building-blocks of life" mantra. The same goes for discovery of water. But how much water is there really on Mars? Probably not much. I will be interested, of course, but I fully expect that most of the ice-cap will be dry ice, or frozen CO2. Yet evolutionist, anti-creationist scientists will prattle on about how Mars was once covered with water, yet there is hardly any there now. But talk to the same people about how there was once a world-wide flood on the Earth, and they will almost scrag you from ear to ear! "Where is all the water now?" they will sneer. Hypocrisy is known in her children! |
|
|
6/2/08 5:13 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
"I had given some serious thought to your comments and had read your web page. It frustrated me that I lost it and my time was getting away so I did not retype it."That's fine, Casob/JD. Just take your time. A lot of time went into researching those pages, so time taken to consider them would be a compliment. You remark that Psa.12:6 is about the words of God. Indeed it is, and I have said as much in my article. The sticking point is whether the pronoun suffixes of the verbs in v.7 refer to the words of God, or to the persecuted righteous of v.5. I maintain the latter. This text is not a statement about the preservation of the text of Scripture; it is about God's faithful promises to His own as they face crises. Still less is this text a statement about the eternal veracity of a version of Scripture, be it Greek, Coptic, Latin, Slavonic, or Jacobean English. |
|
|
6/1/08 7:15 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob never-wrong JD, Still waiting for your reply to my challenge of 5/31/08 11:36 PM. specifically: How do you explain the phenomenon of manuscript variations? Were the KJV translators inspired in their selection of words and phrases, and their selection of readings from the manuscripts and printed texts then available?On the 'no authority' bit, what you are doing is throwing out truth, and substituting personal, but artificial and phony 'certainty'. To illustrate: the global warming zealots are quite certain that there is such a thing as global warming, even though the evidence for it is sparse, and a large and growing number of serious scientists have rejected the idea. But leftists are quite certain about it, even if the truth is otherwise. Similarly, you are quite certain that the translations and readings of the KJV are true in every last detail, even if the evidence is otherwise. "Hang the facts! Gimme the Bible that Paul used!" That may be exaggerating slightly, but it's the mentality nevertheless. |
|
|
5/31/08 7:35 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, "For instance, have you ever compared Psa 12:6,7 in the KJV with, say, the NIV? That would leave you with a decision to make."I certainly have done such a comparison, and much more besides. See the discussion of Psa.12:6-7 on my website: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/preservation_1.html I make three brief points: 1. You complain about having to make a decision. Time and again this is what exegesis is all about, if you knew anything about it: in determining the meaning of a text there will emerge alternatives, and normally it is the information from the immediate context, or the broader context which will determine which to adopt. 2. The NIV in Psa.12:7 reads "us" instead of "them". There is support for that from the LXX, Jerome, and some Hebrew manuscripts. 3. The preferred reading is the Massoretic "them", but even then it refers to the poor and needy, the persecuted of v.5. The Lord will preserve those people from their persecutors, as I have argued on my website. To refer the line in v.7 to the words of God is only barely possible, and not the most likely alternative (!). Certainly there is no room for the dogmatism you espouse. |
|
|
5/31/08 3:20 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob never wrong JD, "In fact, I am really not trying to change your mind about anything, I am merely stating what I think the Scriptures teach with the words that are in my KJV."We get a whole lot on these threads about what "you think" the Scriptures teach! Whether that's what the Scriptures really do teach is another question entirely. I for one am not interested in your incessant drivel about what you think the Scriptures teach, and nothing you present makes me at all likely to be interested. If you are not prepared even to compare various English versions, and consider those other versions as valid translations, to inquire as to the meaning of the text, then you have a completely closed mind, not really interested in investigating Scripture teaching at all, but only interested in confirming your existing prejudices. That is not true Bible study, but merely being wise in your own conceits. |
|
|
5/30/08 10:51 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob wrote: There is a false end time teaching that is akin to the doctrine from which it sprang, Romanism. The two movements that have arisen that is influencing Christianity in a negative way is Calvinism and Pentecostalism. One is as bad as the other, just in different ways. Both are an attack on the word of God... And I too have some definite convictions: 1. There is a false end-time teaching abroad, viz. Dispensationalism, rapturism, millennialism - all of these things. They are bypaths which are diverting folks into Israel-watching and away from preparing for tribulation and the Lord's Coming.2. Arminian Fundamentalism: the view that I say the sinner's prayer, make my "decision for Christ", and God is for me the rest of the way. Or alternatively, i have to work at keeping my free will up to the mark in order to stay in a state of salvation. There are other features of this phenomenon such as extreme legalism, "holding" revival meetings, and jingoistic nationalism combined with Christianity. 3. King James Version Onlyism: the head-in-the-sand obscurantism which equates the Word of God with what a company of translators produced 400 years ago. NO, no, no, no! |
|
|
5/30/08 8:53 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob never-wrong JD, You have not answered my points at all. What Balaam's ass has to do with the issue I'm not sure.The rest is just the same incoherent raving to which I have become accustomed from KJV-only advocates; likewise when you bring in the Calvinist bogeyman, as you have attempted to do before when cornered. Last, and by no means least, you never fail to attack both me and others as unbelieving, Romanist-style priests with no regard for the Word. Yeah, yeah. Ho-hum. Yawn. If this is all you can offer then you have NO real arguments, NO debating points, NOTHING of substance at all. You had best retire from the board and leave discussion to others who have (i) some rationality about them, and (ii) some genuine Biblical substance, instead of Dispensational cant. |
|
|
5/30/08 8:11 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob never-wrong JD, Yeah, yeah, now you flee to the familiar refuge of blissful ignorance, surrounded with "elitist" weaponry for shooting down "enemies of the KJV". Sigh. Yawn.If you spent less time in other pursuits and dedicated yourself to study Greek you would benefit greatly. But you hide behind ignorance and declare that ignorance is not only bliss, but virtue. Then you also presume to attack those devout souls who do want to know the original languages. This mentality masquerades as piety, but is in reality nothing short of blasphemy against the original Word of God. "How many times do I need to tell you that I am not changing a single word in the KJV..." And how often do I have to tell you that no translation, English or otherwise, is "what God wrote". The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are of immediate inspiration. I urge you to read Miles Smith's "Translators to the Reader" to see clearly that the KJV translators were NOT claiming any sort of finality or infallibility for their version, nor would they tolerate anyone else claiming it for them (such as yourself). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|