An Archive-Section for the Blog

2011
Feb '11
Jan '11

2008-2010
Dec '10
Nov '10
Oct '10
Sep '10
Aug '10
Jul '10
Jun '10
May '10
Jan '10

Dec '09
Nov '09
Jul '09
May '09
Apr '09
Mar '09
Feb '09
Jan '09

Dec '08
Nov '08
Oct '08
Sep '08
Jul '08
May '08
Apr '08
Mar '08
Feb '08


(So I wanted a way to make a blog "archive" without using more than about a line of side-bar space. KISSing it, I've decided to make a post that I can hand-edit with the months, and so I present to you the Blog's Archive.

Unfortunately it's not a post I can make disappear and have called only by someone clicking on the "Archive" link to the right. That's okay, though, a little exposure and perhaps Google might take notice and implement features in blogger that are like this.)

Reprobation

You likely may have no idea what "Reprobation" means: It is by many of today's standards a hard doctrine to swallow, but according to our predecessors one plainly expressed in scripture. Some say God merely lets people continue as they are (as SVC here, which is pastored by a discerning, though dispensational, brother, mind you), but here's why many before us said otherwise, explaining what this concept is from scripture:

The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation, by A.W. Pink.

Resources on the King James Version

This is a post meant to be successively updated, and accessed from the side-bar. It was made to remove its links from cluttering that bar (the one to the right).

Significance, About, etc.
The King James Version (Bible Researcher)

Study
Quoting Michael Marlowe: "This is historically the most important version and it continues to be the most impressive literary translation of the Bible ever made. All serious students of the English Bible should make themselves thoroughly familiar with it."


KJV-Onlyism

[Examine] KJV-Only[ism]
"Against The Flood of Propaganda from King James Onlyism"
Westcott & Hort Resource Center: Two Frequently attacked men who's words are taken out of context by KJV-onlyists; those quotes are given in-context at this site, which is also trying to make their full works available (for scholarly-historical interest, though some would still apply today, mostly some of their doctrinal writing, works like their text-critical writing often does not)

Saints' Voices, "Liberty", and Separation

Something from "Andy S", reformatted, who over on an OldTruth post wrote, "Here is something a professor at a Bible school gave me about tv" and posted:

"The television is my shepherd, my spiritual life doth want.
It maketh me sit down and do nothing. It leadeth me beside men of no faith.
It restoreth my desire for worldly pleasures.
It requireth all my spare time and keepeth me from doing the will of God,
because it presenteth so much foolishness which I must see.
It increaseth my knowledge of nonsense
and keepeth me from the study of the Word of God.

Yea, though I live to be a hundred,
yet the viewing of my television shall have first place in my life
as long as it doth operate,
for it is my closest companion.

Its sound and its picture, they comfort me.
It presenteth foolishness and folly before me continually
and keepeth me from surrendering my whole life unto God.
It anoints my mind with seeds of corruption
and fills my head with vanity, which profiteth me nothing;
my cup remains empty.

Surely, no good things will come of my life,
because I am devoted to my television,
which leaveth me no time to serve God acceptably.
Thus I will dwell in the House of Confusion[,] forever."

And another unsorted, but valuable question by a brother (bryan rieke) left there is [here missing the first sentence]:

i too have been musing what being "separated" looks like. i mean it has to look like stuff i do and dont do to some degree... no? it seems of late i have been hearing alot about our(christians) freedom in christ or christian liberty. conspicuously absent is talk of holiness though. christian liberty is great but i fear that liberty is cherished more than christ is, i.e., the things of christ treasured over christ himself.

I note that "liberties" in the NT often refers to that which some boasted in, for which they were admonished not to boast or parade-about at the expense of conscience or wrecking of weaker brothers and sisters; and some simply just did what was wrong, but tried to call it "liberties".

While not, at the moment, fully probing into "liberty", here's a sermon on "True and False Separation", by Bob DeWaay, though I'm not sure on the comments about the Law: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/critical_issues_
commentary/archives.asp?bcd=5/5/2008

Could anyone else comment (correctly) on that (the law comments about certain points being done-away with)?

University Insaneness

On another blog is a poster displaying a poster, and they say:

“All that it takes for prejudice to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” As you can see in this detail, this is an homage to Edmund Burke, who famously said “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

While I agree that there are prejudices which are not good things (racisms is a good example of "not good prejudices"), the way "prejudice" is used in Universities comes to encompass moral opinions which Universities disparage (to put it lightly): they say "tolerate anything" and yet then persecute those who disagree. : ( Anyways, the ironic thing is what Edmund Burke himself said about "prejudices": this is one of those nuspeak-twisted words that was once full of sagacity, used to mean those things which had been examined and judged according to knowledge and experience, with careful consideration: and this is still the way it is used when it is wrested to blur ignorant and bigotted opinions with moral ones that have carefully thought over and issue, and judged it, despite pc "moral consensus" and preferential metaphysical modernist disconnection from history. Here's what Edmund Burke said, I found this ironic. Happy reading:

We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.–Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution.

[Below Added 2011-12-24]

Interestingly they say Burke is famous for saying "all that is necessary..." yet I wondered at the lack of citation anywhere, started looking online, and stumbled upon a like minded (I do not think I have ever published one, but I have like this author sat down, put a bunch of forms of a quote supposed to have been made by someone to paper or screen, then listed the various sources in which I could find them, whether on or off line, under each respective form, in search of citations and clues to where I might find an origin) reviewer, http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html. I dissent from statements that commonly known quotes need no be cited, since often they do else false attributions spread like cancer, and assertions that quotes that are genuine will only find a few deviant forms, knowing people, but enjoy the gist of his page.

I qualify that with stating that allusions to an author using his words, such as the examples given by this author, "workers of the world unite" (Marx) and "give us this day our daily bread" (Jesus) need not necessarily be cited, even in fact mythological conceptions and associations, e.g. a writer knowing that "all that is necessary..." is wrongly attributed to Burke, might nonetheless use those words because they express what he wants to say, and does not do wrong by using them, or even by failing in every instance of use to tell everyone they are not by Burke.

Anyway, there is an acronym used by those who haunt "Slashdot", a forum for nerds to discuss nerdy news, "RTFA", which means "Read the ****ing article", which is used commonly not only towards those who comment without reading the article, common because people go there to discuss not just the articles linked to but related things or whatever comes up in discussion, but even by many of themselvs after making stupid statements about the things being discussed they might not have if they had read the article, e.g. "I know, I know, RTFA". I just realized that I saw that blog post and skimmed the first section, then wrote this post. I then went to a copy of "Reflections..." and put down the quote. Upon going over the entire blog post, however, I find that its author...writes the same gist! I.e. dumb poster, given Burke's defense of prejudices. So "I know, I know, RTA".

if a tree falls to the ground...

One great facet about the web is that you can publish to a possible audience of, well...most of the world (even though the percentage of internet users is relatively low, and accessibility so-so)...and still have, for all practical purposes, no readers (that you know of). : )

I kind of like it...gives me more time to think on things and keep revising...

R-ASV

I thought I should explain "R-ASV" in the blog description area...in which I put a verse first. The "R" stands for "Revised". "ASV" stands for the version properly designated "Revised Version, American Standard Edition", which is popularly known as the "American Standard Version"; among seminaries it was known as the "Standard Version" and hence the reason the first revision of it was called the "Revised Standard Version". The "revision" I made is taking the old "wherefore" and substituting "therefore" (as you'll see in modern versions).

I like to use public domain resources when possible. Any changes in a work indicated as that work I indicate so someone can check into it if they desire: so there's the point of the "R".

Depending on how literal a version is I sometimes change-up. Usually for the more literal, the less only used as commentaries (if correct). I probably would have used the English Revised Version (the first edition of which the ASV is a second edition) but the ASV's punctuation here is better (by one mark) so I chose that one.