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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.