|
|
USER COMMENTS BY JORDAN |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
· Page 1 · Found: 23 user comments posted recently. |
| |
|
|
3/14/11 8:15 PM |
Jordan | | US | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Chris Perver wrote: I think it's sad that Zondervan has to publish yet another edition of the NIV in order to retain its lucrative copyright. I don't know how international copyright laws work (except that its based on the printing of a work), but in America, copyright is generally valid for 70 years after the author's death unless transferred to another holder before the death of the author. As corporations don't usually die, their copyright is valid nigh forever as copyright renewals don't even require republication in the US. @FAS As Amazon so aptly demonstrated a couple years ago, if Big brother decided that certain materials (read Bibles or other Christian literature)were to be deemed unfit for publication, then Amazon (or any other E-reader seller) has the ability to remove said material from your e-reader without your consent (however, they'll be sure to reimburse you). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1 The advantage of a paper/leather Bible is that they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. Edit: added a second response. |
|
|
3/8/11 6:28 PM |
Jordan | | usa | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Philippians 2:5-11 is generally regarded as an early Christian hymn, yet is not a Psalm.The Psalms also tell us to sing a new song for each of God's works, yet never addresses God's fatherhood of believers. These two reasons are examples of why I believe exclusive Psalmody to be errant, but right minded against much of the drivel coming out of CCM and songs found in mainline hymnals. (That being said, there are excellent hymns out there that are extremely edifying.) May God bless. P.S. I am well aware of many who call themselves "exclusive Psalmodists" but update the Psalms in light of NT revelation. From what studies I have done in this area (which I freely admit are deficient compared to other areas), this is a relatively recent development that is not in line with historical exclusive Psalmody. |
|
|
10/25/10 8:25 PM |
Jordan | | USA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Scott McMahan wrote: I am extremely skeptical of any claim like this until it has been completely reviewed by experts in math and computer science. Wait until this paper is actually published (not some liberal arts journalist's summary) and see what experts say. There was a similar problem recently that someone had claimed to solve (the P=NP problem) and the proof did not survive scrutiny. If you're talking about what I think you are, it was a solution that claimed that P and NP were disjoint (ie they ahd nothing in common). But yeah, that one didn't last long. |
|
|
10/20/10 9:54 PM |
Jordan | | USA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Wayfare wrote: This is incorrect translation by the NASB. The Greek here is "begotten Son" The NASB has not only changed the original Greek but has also changed the doctrine at this point. KJV 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. This is a more accurate translation of the Greek. Sorry, Wayfare, but you're simply wrong. The Greek in verse 18 is (transliterated as best I can, I haven't looked at how to transliterate for over a year) monogeneis theos, not monogeneis huios. The former is what is in the text, meaning only begotten God, or more accurately, the unique God. The term son is there as a textual variation, and it's in the minority of manuscripts. It's much more likely theos is the intended word. |
|
|
4/5/10 11:20 PM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
R. K. Borill wrote: Maybe, Piper read what Dr. John Robbins had to say about his "ministry". [URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf]]]Pied Piper[/URL] Sorry to tell you this, but Dr. Robbins seriously missed the boat on Dr. Piper's work. I've read his article, and checked the quotes in Dr. Piper's book ("Future Grace"). Checking behind Dr. Robbins leads me to believe that he is simply unable to read Dr. Piper in context. Part of that is Dr. Robbins overriding view of "there is one way to express things (ie "my way" mentality), and if you don't, you're a spy of Rome wanting to subvert the Reformation." While Dr. Robbins wrote a lot of good stuff, this article is simply well below his average. In fairness to Dr. Robbins, one of my friends informed me that he wrote the critique while in the later stages of battling cancer. Seeing my own grandfather go through that now, I understand that it is very likely that Dr. Robbins didn't realize that. Saying that, are Dr. Robbins points valid? Possibly. I think he reads too much into Dr. Piper's words, but he could be right. Edit: I noticed my first paragraph got cut off when I posted, so I added it back. |
|
|
|
Jump to Page : [1] 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|