|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ ALAN H ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 8 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 12/11/10 5:41 PM |
| Alan H | | Washington State | |  |  | |  | |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Michael Hranek wrote:
Alan HEver hear of the Bereans? They were praised/complemented on examining FOR THEMSELVES what Paul told them with the Scriptures TO SEE IF IT WAS SO.  "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." Ac 17:10-12Michael, As you have stated it in the above sentence I would agree, but that is not what you said previously. The Bereans were commended because they compared Paul's word with the Scriptures, not because they discarded his words as you seem to suggest we ought to do with Calvinism/Reformed Theology. IF Calvinism/Reformed Theology is in accord with Scripture it ought to be embraced and retained. But that is not what you have proposed. Certainly, it ought to be tested against God's word, as should everything else which claims to be in agreement with Scripture; I don't deny that! Scripture is the plumb line, there is no other. |
|
|
| 12/10/10 11:05 PM |
| Alan H | | Washington State | | | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Michael Hranek wrote:
restle
I would suggest you (all of us for that matter) step back from Calvinism/Reformed Theology and humbly consider afresh what God Himself has actually said in the Bible. You seem to be implying that Calvinism/Reformed Theology is not Scriptural.  I would beg to differ, as would many who post on these threads. Is not the truth the truth?  I don't understand your logic.  |
|
|
| 12/3/10 7:02 PM |
| Alan H | | Washington State | | | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
John UK wrote:
Perhaps I'd better explain a little, bro Alan.  In the TTTR, the translators were open about how difficult some words were to translate into English. One such area was some of the OT animals. Despite recourse to folks who actually spoke Hebrew as their first language, no-one knew what some of these animals were. It matters nothing to me if it is called a duck or a dack, it hardly is going to affect doctrine, is it?  I hope that clears it up satisfactorily. Thanks John! SO, they are weaknesses, not errors? And they are due to the difficulties of translating rather than the biases of some translators? My only problem was that, if you look at the literal meaning of the word "imperfections," it suggests something incomplete or something without the needed strength to fulfill its purpose. I really think we need to understand that the word "imperfections" seldom, if ever,
means "erroneous." That is the point I was trying to get across by asking you to define what you meant. |
|
|
| 11/26/10 12:48 AM |
| Alan H | | Washington State | | | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Reformanda wrote:
Notwithstanding the nonsense spewed forth by opponents (and sadly SOME proponents of the A.V.) God has in the past blessed, and continues to bless in the present, the faithful preaching of God's Word from this version. It is a translation, but a very good one, and the best extant, in my own view. The "broad-brush" attacks by people like James White upon the supporters of the A.V.(KJV) are not justified based on the evidence. Whilst the aim might be to counteract extremists on the issue(such as Ruckman, Gail Riplinger etc.,)the net result is an unfair labelling of all who exclusively use the A.V. as fanatics. It is a sad day indeed when the use of the time-honored Authorised Version is lampooned by professing Christians. If you want to label me "KJV-only", and make that a perjorative, that is your problem. Sometimes I wonder why it is not considered aa a bad thing when some churches are NIV-only, or ESV-only, or NASB-only?? Is it not a tragic thing to witness the utter confusion that has arisen because some churches have 4 or 5 versions among attendees and yet another version employed in the pulpit?? Excellent comment! |
|
|
| 11/5/10 10:50 PM |
| Alan H | | Washington State | | | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Could It Be wrote:
Real Bible,
The truth is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not that the KJV is the inspired Word of God! Huh!  I think you need to provide a few verses yourself showing that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the inspired Word of God. I don't recall seeing any such verses. Could it be, you have a bias against the Holy Scriptures? And could it be, you don't know what you're talking about?1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Where is the word of God my friend? Who can be born again without it? NONE!!! You may say, "Well, that verse is not talking about a translation of the Bible." TRUE, but you tell me how you can obtain that incorruptible seed without a translation of the Bible. It is the Holy Spirit who uses the Word to regenerate the sinner, making him a saint, and He doesn't do so without it. So, I ask you do we have it? Where? Are you born again? How were you born again? With or without a Bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
