Take Me to Church Lyrics and Meaning - A ..
Ahaz's refusal to ask did not abrogate the sign. "The Lord himself" gave the stupendous sign: "Behold the virgin () shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." To render by "young woman" requires no miracle whatever, and moreover could never produce "Immanuel -- God with us." This was the great Messianic sign. Failure to recognize the appended non-Messianic sign of verse 16, Isaiah's own small son Shear-Jashub whom he had in his arms (cf. v. 3 ) and who had immediate application to King Ahaz, has obscured the full meaning of the Immanuel prophecy in the minds of many.
A Critique of the Revised Standard Version - …
"You shall be there tomorrow morning," said the Beast, "but remember your promise. You need only lay your ring on a table before you go to bed, when you have a mind to come back. Farewell Beauty." Beast sighed, as usual, bidding her good night, and Beauty went to bed very sad at seeing him so afflicted. When she waked the next morning, she found herself at her father's, and having rung a little bell, that was by her bedside, she saw the maid come, who, the moment she saw her, gave a loud shriek, at which the good man ran up stairs, and thought he should have died with joy to see his dear daughter again. He held her fast locked in his arms above a quarter of an hour. As soon as the first transports were over, Beauty began to think of rising, and was afraid she had no clothes to put on; but the maid told her, that she had just found, in the next room, a large trunk full of gowns, covered with gold and diamonds. Beauty thanked good Beast for his kind care, and taking one of the plainest of them, she intended to make a present of the others to her sisters. She scarce had said so when the trunk disappeared. Her father told her, that Beast insisted on her keeping them herself, and immediately both gowns and trunk came back again.
The most glaring flaw of the new version is the woeful lack of exegetical insight into the New Testament on the part of its translators. This, no doubt, is a reflection of the current trend in the majority of the seminaries to de-emphasize the exegesis of the text of the Bible in its original languages. A very good example of this is found in Romans 9:5. It is not within the purpose of this critique to enter into all the details of the exegesis of this verse. The problem from the exegetical standpoint eventually must be solved by a careful study of the context. It is admitted that there are at least four methods of punctuating the Greek text here. One method refers the statement of deity to Christ, two to God the Father, and one leaves the matter undetermined. Moulton is right, however, when he says, "It is exegesis rather than grammar which makes the reference to Christ probable." 5 Two exegetical reasons may be adduced for referring the statement to Christ. In the first place, the reference to the human nature of Christ in the would suggest some reference to the divine nature also. If there is, it must be found in the following words. In the second place, the context of the passage suggests a lament rather than the offering of praise to God. Israel has turned from God in spite of large spiritual advantages. How much more appropriate, then, for this to be a reference to the deity of the Messiah! To have rejected one who possess deity makes Israel's rejection of Him the more lamentable. This more appropriately accounts for Paul's "great heaviness and continual sorrow" (v. 2 ). The Authorized Version's rendering is the correct one, and the revisers should not have relegated it to the footnotes. It should be noted here in fairness to the new version that it has clarified the testimony of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 to the deity of Christ by the correct application of the Granville Sharp rule regarding the article.
Extensive review of Experiencing God
The source-cite is simply dismissed again as a matter of preference, with no critical evaluation; and McKinsey then uses the demand for critical evaluation to blacken the rep's reply -- indeed, sees it as some sort of victory, never mind that it thoroughly exposes his unwillingness to dig too deep. In all of this, the very thing needed, critical evaluation and comparison of the arguments, is simply bypassed.
.::Pat Donnelly :: Antique Arms…
Some have taken the position that a group of men holding such views on the above-mentioned vital issues as well as maintaining other destructive critical attitudes can nevertheless produce an unbiased English text "containing no changes in doctrine or fundamental concepts," because they have translated objectively without introducing into the work any of their personal views. All experience shows that such a theory is completely illusory and that true objectivity is never attainable under such circumstances. In fact, one who has taken a sympathetic stand toward the Revised Standard Version has said: "When a Greek word or construction has two or more possible meanings, a translator cannot avoid being an 'interpreter' when he chooses one meaning and rejects the other." Many cases of this kind appear in the Revised Standard Version, some of which are to be cited later in the article. Altogether too frequently the meaning chosen by the Committee represents the liberal view and unquestionably deviates from the correct translation, which in most cases is the one found in the American Standard Version or the King James Authorized Version.
Book Review: The Slot Swing - Jim McLean
Chapter 23 of the (EBE) is quiteamusing- "Acceptance, Submission, Rejection of Wealth, Expectation ofReward, Closed-Mindedness, Human Nature, Fostering Slavery" - sinceit betrays the preconcieved biases against the NT & the ChristianFaith. In fact, a major problem with some members of the so-called"Errancy Movement" is that they are not searching for truth, butmerly for an excuse to reject the Christian faith. This is aptlydemonstrated in the often virulent invective spewed forth againstChristians, Christianity, Jesus and anything related to the historicJudeo-Christian faith in general. They are not objective nor honestin their evaluation or research of NT evidence, nor the majority oftheir critiques.