Tech Schools are the biggest need of this era according to http://www.courseworkonline.co.uk Two year college is intended to show you aptitudes you can apply to a future profession. Schools show scholastic or exploration abilities.
Jots and tittles Speaking of the law, I can't help but wonder if your clothes are made of mixed fibers, or if you've ever enjoyed a nice, juicy pork chop... Maybe you coukd explain why those jots and tittles are no longer important?
Again, the magnificent, but silly faith in computers/techonology is demonstrated.
This type of program is nothing new, but the reporters of this particular project are clearly ignorant of the limits of authorship attribution algorithms. Case in point, most (i would argue all) algorithms will return that the works of C.S. Lewis were written by two people, one that wrote the non-fiction (such as Mere Christianity), and the other fiction (such as the Chronicles of Narnia, the Screwtape Letters, etc). If such an algorithm returned one author for the entire corpus, then there would be room for discussion.
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).
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.
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.
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.
We haven't used the gold standard since the 60's or early 70s. Since then, the backing has been our faith in the gov't. If you get an old dollar bill (say from the 40s or so), you'll be able to find a sentence that basically says "you can exchange this for gold with the gov't."
R. K. Borill wrote: Maybe, Piper read what Dr. John Robbins had to say about his "ministry". Pied Piper
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.
Rick: Dr Piper realizes that, but he also has to make sure that the fame that he has been blessed with doesn't go to his head. Taking a step back from it to tend to his family and his own soul is a move that seems to be a very wise thing to do.
I hope this event also helps his congregation in that it reminds them that they are where they are because of the Lord, not John Piper.
There is only one war in which Christians are to fight. That is the war against Satan, and that war is not fought with nukes.
The one weapon we have against muslims is the Word of God, which will break through the lies they have been taught, God willing. That fight is one for the Holy Spirit to settle, not the guns in our posession.
Allan wrote: Scientists find missing link Again? Tell me when they actually have real proof. All they ever have are conclusions based on unprovable presuppositions that are directly influenced by their bias towards evolution and long ages. Their beliefs make their science. Just like mine does. I however like to base my presuppositions on the documented record of the one who did it and who gives details about how and when he did it. I like to start with answers from the one who does know everything and who was there. Rather than the opinions of men who don't know everything and who weren't there. Start with answers, get right questions. Start with questions, get right and wrong answers - and no way to tell them apart.
At least someone else realizes the anti-science thought of modern science.
Let me explain. Since Darwin gave a semi-credible theory in terms of atheistic origins, the science community has defined science in purely materialistic terms, leaving God out of the picture. Fast forward a century, and any mention of God and you're an "ignorant fundamentalist @!%!*$" while the current theories of secular scientists are constantly being modified by unpredicted evidence.
This could be considered idolatry depending on the person, but either way it is utter blasphemy. To think a persons greed could so pervert them as to cause them to use the precious name of our Lord to hawk their cheesy goods. Christ did not die so that someone could profit of an action figure that could not possibly accurately portray His glory. Im sure such an item could probably be found in front of the temple with the other salesmen and moneychangers.
The statement " no one who is not a cherished child of God, " in no way lines up with scripture. In John 8:43-44 it says that those who do not belong to Christ are the children of the devil.
Jesus was compassionate to the worst of sinners, but harshly chastised those who claimed to know God, but were hypocrites. Nowhere does the Bible teach us to tolerate and accept the sins of others, though we are of course commanded to love the sinner nonetheless. Homosexuality is indeed a sin (see Rom 1:18-28, 1 Cor 6:9-10).
Someone who claims to be a born again child of God, yets does not repent of their sinful lifestyles, and even proclaims their sin (Isa 3:9) is a liar and not counted among the elect of God (see 1 john, specifically verse 6)