Page 3 of 5 (83 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 82 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 3781
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:27 AM

Daniel DeVilder:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply?  I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.

Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?

Blessings,

Floyd

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 2744
Bohuslav Wojnar | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:33 AM

Daniel DeVilder:

hey, where is the "quote" of the reply?  I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.

Do you click blue Quote word?

By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.

Bohuslav

Posts 3915
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:34 AM

Floyd Johnson:

Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?

Blessings,

Floyd

DUDE, you are THE MAN (I assume "Floyd" is "man")  Thanks.  That cleared up two questions.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 2744
Bohuslav Wojnar | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:35 AM

Floyd Johnson:

Daniel DeVilder:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply?  I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.

Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?

Blessings,

Floyd

If you do not highlight any text, just press "Quote" it puts whole thing into the reply (as you see here).

Bohuslav

Posts 3915
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:38 AM

Bohuslav Wojnar:

Do you click blue Quote word?

By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.

Thanks, and YOU are da Man, too! :)

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 3781
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 8:39 AM

Bohuslav Wojnar:

Daniel DeVilder:

hey, where is the "quote" of the reply?  I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.

Do you click blue Quote word?

By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.

 Amen - thank you for both your comments!

Yours because His,

Floyd

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 9:20 AM

Daniel DeVilder:
"Baptismal Regeneration" is also a label that is often misused and mischaracterizes those who do insiste on immersion as an initial step of salvation.  It probably accurately describes SOME people, but it is a term that is imo a straw man.  It stereotypes in sweeping generalizations those who practice water immersion.  I myself am really in neither camp ("faith only" or "water regenerationists").  Both seem to talk AT each other rather than listen to each other.  Oh great, this could be a whole new thread.

Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine.  You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses.  Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet.  I don't wish to start a discussion of the mode of baptism but rather to call attention to the fact that it is an initiation rite.  Before it you were with THAT group over there, but now you are a member of THIS group.  I seriously doubt that Peterson believes in baptismal regeneration.  As an Episcopalian, I think there might be some High Church Episcopalians who hold that view, but most do not.  What you are most likely to find are people who like the Catholics think that you must be baptised in order to be a part of the Kingdom.  They don't say that baptism regenerates but rather that you need to do it.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 3915
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 10:46 AM

George Somsel:
Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine.  You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses.  Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet.  I don't wish to start a discussion of the mode of baptism but rather to call attention to the fact that it is an initiation rite.

 

I come from a heritage that insists on "full immersion" and yes, I am sure due to that in part, it is hard for me to break free to be open to any other mode--if I am the one who is discipling another, and we come to this question: "what must I do?".  However, the various OT passages that talk about "sprinkling" and the imagery of sprinkling blood on the altar for cleansing give me pause to be entirely dogmatic about immersion.  Still, it would seem that the NT mode and word is immersion, as is the thrust of the imagery in Rom 6.  (I see Romans 6, however, as not being a proof text for immersion, but rather a point blank challenge to LIVE the "baptized life", ie, DO NOT SIN any longer).  Hence, I am most comfortable with an obedience of full immersion, which is closer in proximity to what early Christians seemed to teach and practice.  That is all.

There are some---never mind.  Let this not become thread on that.  I can expect some more responses, but I don't want to take the time to go down that trail much more.  I am thinking I need to go play ball with my 3 year old.  :)

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 2837
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 12:24 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

I am not a Peterson basher.  But this is one time when I DID think his translation was poor.  So I didn't use it.  I rarely use it, but there are times he captures well what I think the text says, and I use it because it sounds fresh and brings out God's Word.

It is clear that both Ted and John have hard core lines of thinking at different ends of the spectrum.  I am a bit dismayed at the tone that the discussion has devolved into. 

I always consult more literal versions when doing foundational study.  (NASB, ESV, NET--slightly less literal, but not so dynamic as NIV, etc).  Always.  But even THOSE translations are not void of their own theological leaning.  All you have to do is try to translate the enigmatic Romans 9:22 to see that.  Sometimes even, and especially, "literalness" is not the utopia we make it out to be.  certainly "thought for thought" has its problems too.  But it is not "wrong" in and of itself.

As a boy who grew up speaking English and German, I understand quite well the need for "dynamic equivalence."

It is clear this topic is an emotionally charged one depending on your spectrum of theology.  Take care my brothers to excercise love and gentleness.  Even God's word tells us to do so to those who are in error.  It does little good to be pseudo gentle and then  be condescendingly dismissive, either.  It's okay to stick to your guns, but be alert about the defensive posturing that is often a tool of the Enemy to divide us.

To stir up more controversy: as a kid, I read "The Way."  Shock.  Gasp.  I didn't agree with his theology, but I tell you what:  I READ the Bible (yes, I call "the way" the Bible, even with its faults).  I got the scope of God's plan, his people.  I would not have if I'd been forced to read a 400 year old tranlslation of the Bible.  And to this day, I promise you, my theology is not heretical after having read The Way.   In fact, I was helped spiritually by reading it.

Conversely, I love how KJV sticks to the "Walk" imagery of Ephesians (walk in sins, good works, etc).  It really pulls things together in a way that I think is softend (though it has the "same" meaning) in NIV's "to live."

Each brings something to the table.  Find out what it is, use it with all humility and with a relentless heart for the truth and love of God.

 

"Baptismal Regeneration" is also a label that is often misused and mischaracterizes those who do insiste on immersion as an initial step of salvation.  It probably accurately describes SOME people, but it is a term that is imo a straw man.  It stereotypes in sweeping generalizations those who practice water immersion.  I myself am really in neither camp ("faith only" or "water regenerationists").  Both seem to talk AT each other rather than listen to each other.  Oh great, this could be a whole new thread.

 

Hi Daniel,

I am not sure i was disrespectful of any one's position or condescendingly dismissive, was i? I am sure i did express my disagreement on a view point but that was it. I have reviewed my various posts again & i am not sure why i was named in your post. Other parties involved in the conversation, who used far stronger language were left out of your post. Perhaps a quote from me would point me to what you are getting at. I do believe Joe's concern on Peterson is a valid one, just my opinion and should not be viewed as bashing by others (i am not referring to you) who may disagree. It will not surprise others to hear that i am with Joe wholeheartedly in his concern, saying evangelicals are guilty of the same charge as Peterson is not an argument, not to be concerned about serious failures in the Message translation. If Joe had written about short comings in the KJV i am not sure there would be cries of disapproval. Where there are serious short comings as in the Message Bible i think Joe as one called and graced by our Lord should be free to demonstrate them to those who care to hear what his concerns are and why he holds those concerns. They may choose to disagree that is fine with me.  No-one should be made to feel that they should be prisoners of their conscience - neither Joe, myself or others involved in the dialogue who may disagree(Again i am not referring to you).

Thanks for your contribution to the conversation & i do realise you have not written in a spirit of controversy. Peace.

Kind Regards

Ted

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 1:22 PM

George Somsel:

Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine.  You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses.  Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet.

They probably got a little soggy trekking across the Red Sea bed.

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 1:52 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

Still, it would seem that the NT mode and word is immersion, as is the thrust of the imagery in Rom 6.

Romans 6? Oh well, never mind. I'm sure there's a very convincing argument in there somewhere.

One has to wonder, though, where exactly it was that Paul was "immersed" when he was baptized in Judas' house. In the hot tub maybe? Perhaps Judas had an indoor well and he was lowered down on a rope.

I wonder why we choose to argue about methodology like this, as if scripture was a book of incantations whereby every gesture and word must be exactly right in order for the magic to work.

Not accusing you of anything here Daniel. Just woolgathering about the general state of Christendom.

Yours in Christ

John

Posts 3915
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 2:09 PM

Sir.T:
I am not sure i was disrespectful of any one's position or condescendingly dismissive, was i? I am sure i did express my disagreement on a view point but that was it.

 

Ted, my sincerest apologies, and am grateful for your inquiry--both content and manner.  I was not very careful and was referring to one of Joe Miller's responses.

Listen, I have made my share of dismissive comments, and have been guilty of saying things about others in more of a party spirit than I care to admit.  Also, after many painful episodes, I have come to realize that email and forums are a playground for misunderstanding and rants.  (ever get Monday morning emails from somebody in the church that just "made" your day?)

We have a range of theological views here, and we need to expect comments to be made in touchy areas.  Let's all work hard to speak with grace, and choose words that are not incindiary.   AND DON'T NAME A DUDE IN YOUR REPLY UNLESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE IT WAS HIM.

My bad Ted. 

 

Dan

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 3915
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 2:12 PM

John McComb:
One has to wonder, though, where exactly it was that Paul was "immersed" when he was baptized in Judas' house. In the hot tub maybe?

Actually, I knew of a church with a hot tub bapistery.  Way cool.

'Yes, one has to wonder.  And I have a bit.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 2:24 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

John McComb:
One has to wonder, though, where exactly it was that Paul was "immersed" when he was baptized in Judas' house. In the hot tub maybe?

Actually, I knew of a church with a hot tub bapistery.  Way cool.

'Yes, one has to wonder.  And I have a bit.

If you want to hear something rather wild, when I was in Indiana there was a rector who decided that immersion was the proper method so he had a veteranarian in the church get a large round horse-watering trough which they equipped with a pump to circulate the water and set plants around to make it attractive.  He even immersed babies.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2793
J.R. Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 3:18 PM

Daniel DeVilder:
It is clear that both Ted and John have hard core lines of thinking at different ends of the spectrum.  I am a bit dismayed at the tone that the discussion has devolved into. 
What spectrum is that?  What part of my post compelled you to put me on a spectrum?  Listing Ted's name instead of mine is a good example of the problems we create when any of us post without taking the time to think first (I know I have been guilty of it too in my years on the net so you are not alone in this mistake brother).  I would suggest brother you return to the posts I made.  I only made ONE comment to Mr. Somsel.  There is no "heat" in my words, You are reading into the post with your own emotion and flawed assumptions.  I merely let Mr. Somsel know that I was not interested in his name calling and would no longer participate with him in that kind of discourse.  Nor am I interested in the debate that has ensued about water baptism or different translations... that was his issue, not mine.  If you read carefully Mr. Devider, you will see I pulled out BEFORE it devolved... so I see little validity in your admonition.

I also wonder given the substance of your initial reply, did you bother to read my blog post in question, or is this another case of you just making assumptions with only partial knowledge?  

Have I made a single statemnt about not liking paraphrastic translations or saying only literal one are good? Here or on my blog? Show me?

Have I made any statements preferring one "mode" of baptism or even suggested people should participate in water baptism? Show me?

This are all issue Mr. Somsel, you, and others have inserted into this discussion.  The fact that you engage me on these issues in your first post tells me you spent little or no time trying to understand the blog posts i linked to.  I find it unneessary to defend myself against your opinions of a topic I have not brought up.  If you care to actually read and respond to the substance of my blog posts regarding the integrity of Peterson's "commentary", please do so.  Otherweise, please do not mischaracterize me or my posts with your preconceived notions and theological bias.  i would appreciate it.Cool

 

To all concerned,

My blog series gives FOUR REASONS why The Message does not qualify as a translation, but as a commentary.

My blog series gives EIGHT SPECIFIC CATEGORIES of examples from the text where I feel the Message demonstrates itself not to be a translation.

Within these categories, I give THIRTY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES from the Bible text. 

 My blog post #2 gives 4 examples of how I see Peterson distorting the text to implant a theology of baptismal regeneration.  I find it most interesting that no one has actually asked "why" I wrote this, there has just been assumptions made and accusations built on theological  assumption.  I would suggest in the future when you have a concern about meaning, it is best to ask for clarification instead of posting wrong-headed assumptions.

My 3 blog posts on the Message never argues for one particular view of baptism.  I frankly don't care if one sprinkles, dunks, or ignores water baptism (this is not my concern in this series).  

So please stay on topic.  The NT uses the term baptism to refer to both water and the work of the Holy Spirit.  Peterson inserts the word "water" into the text where there is no Greek word used for water.  His insertion of this term is based on a theological assumption, not on his understanding of Greek.  His insertion of "water" into the text is misleading, that is my only point.  Can anyone show me in Romans 6, or any of the other 3 verses I reference, where Peterson translated "water" from the Greek?  Of course you can't!

I recognize this is hard for some to understand and still harder for some to stay focused on the topic because they would rather argue about their particular theological tradition, but that debate misses the point of the post about the text of the Bible itself.  How disappointing... I would hope for a better study habits Geeked and the ability to focus and stay on topic.Sad

My Books in Logos & FREE Training

Posts 2837
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 3:28 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

Sir.T:
I am not sure i was disrespectful of any one's position or condescendingly dismissive, was i? I am sure i did express my disagreement on a view point but that was it.

 Ted, my sincerest apologies, and am grateful for your inquiry--both content and manner.  I was not very careful and was referring to one of Joe Miller's responses.

Listen, I have made my share of dismissive comments, and have been guilty of saying things about others in more of a party spirit than I care to admit.  Also, after many painful episodes, I have come to realize that email and forums are a playground for misunderstanding and rants.  (ever get Monday morning emails from somebody in the church that just "made" your day?)

We have a range of theological views here, and we need to expect comments to be made in touchy areas.  Let's all work hard to speak with grace, and choose words that are not incindiary.   AND DON'T NAME A DUDE IN YOUR REPLY UNLESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE IT WAS HIM.

My bad Ted. 

 

Dan

Thanks Dan for your kind response, in fairness to Joe i think his post was not responded to constructively & he was provoked by the other side namely ........

Oh dear George might be reading this. George resist temptation & don't get drawn into another argument by responding to my postBig Smile Your silence is greatly desired, mercy George for you do have a sharp pen.

Ted

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 3:53 PM

Sir.T:

Thanks Dan for your kind response, in fairness to Joe i think his post was not responded to constructively & he was provoked by the other side namely ........

Oh dear George might be reading this. George resist temptation & don't get drawn into another argument by responding to my postBig Smile Your silence is greatly desired, mercy George for you do have a sharp pen.

Ted

You said the magic words "Shut up" (or the equivalent) so here I am.  Who's being drawn into an argument.  I don't argue with people who are manifestly wrong for any length of time.  They are perfectly at liberty to be wrong all they want.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 4:28 PM

George Somsel:

If you want to hear something rather wild, when I was in Indiana there was a rector who decided that immersion was the proper method so he had a veteranarian in the church get a large round horse-watering trough which they equipped with a pump to circulate the water and set plants around to make it attractive.  He even immersed babies.

Good. Start a legionnaire's disease epidemic. Or did he chlorinate the horse trough and, if so, is chlorinated water a proper medium for baptism? Questions, questions.

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 4:33 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

It is clear that both Ted and John have hard core lines of thinking at different ends of the spectrum.  I am a bit dismayed at the tone that the discussion has devolved into. 

Whoa, easy. I actually plucked this out of Joe's post but tracked back to make sure it was accurate.

I checked the thread and the only John I can find posting to it is me. I can assure you that I never offered any opinion one way or another about Eugene Peterson. I don't even know who he is.

 

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 5:01 PM

Daniel DeVilder:

As a boy who grew up speaking English and German, I understand quite well the need for "dynamic equivalence."

Ah dynamic equivalence, the key to understanding the meaning of another language.

I always tell my students that a useful modern English translation must convey the author's intended meaning in the language we think in, while being as literal as possible doing so. I'm afraid that Peterson has missed this mark, in an effort to modernize the word pictures used by the original authors he has, at times, moved away from their intended meaning.

In Christ,

Paul

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Page 3 of 5 (83 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS