Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 142915 | ||
Oh my goodness... I've never seen anything as utterly dumb as this. Zondervan has a new paraphrase. And I thought all the other paraphrases were dumb! It is called "The Word on the Street." Look how Genesis 2:23-24 is "paraphrased" “Whoa! Now we’re talking!” says Adam. “She’s like me . . . only not. Same bones, same skin, same shape . . . only not. She’s . . . uh . . . sexy. If I’m ‘man’, she’s . . . uh . . . ‘woman’.” (eyes cast heavenward) |
||||||
2 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | BradK | 142916 | ||
Doc, Wow! I'll have to say I'm disappointed. I was not aware that such a paraphrase was even out there. I'm not a big fan of many of these because (IMO) I see it as "dumbing down" even further an increasingly ignorant society. This seems to be reflected in the lack of quality, i.e standards in these translations. We see much of the result of this, here on the SBF on a day to day basis! I'll have to check this out the next time I'm in the local Christian Bookstore. Hopefully, It'll go the way of the TNIV and die for lack of market! Since it's inception (and I did buy a copy for reference), I've seen very few TNIV's on the shelf. This really shows a lack of proper reverence for Gods' Word- plain and simple. Thanks for sharing, BradK |
||||||
3 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 142919 | ||
Hi, brother Brad! I can't seem to put my fingers on the quote right now, but my wife told me that Rob Lacey had said that he hadn't parapharsed *all* the books of the bible. After all, he said, most of those books no one wants to read anyway. The only sillier thing I ever saw was an attempt to translate the Bible into Klingon... well, maybe at least as silly. This paraphrase may be handy for those churches that do skits instead of preaching and heavy metal instead of hymns. It seems to be right down there alley. I wouldn't expect these folks to have a proper reverence for God's Word. To them, it's a way to get money from the ignorant masses. May God have mercy on them all. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | Morant61 | 142947 | ||
Greetings Doc! Which churches 'skits instead of preaching'? I've seen many churches that used skits to emphasis a point from the sermon, but I've never seen one that used skits instead of preaching. Secondly, why is a 'hymn' better than some other style of music? I'm sure that you are aware that 'A Mighty Fortress' was set to the tune of a common bar song of the day! :-) I do agree with you about the paraphrase issue. As I wrote to Brad, I'm not in favor of paraphrases period - and that includes the Living Bible. I wouldn't have a problem with a translation that was designed to reach street people, but not a paraphrase. As far as Klingon is concerned, there is a very small number of people who speak it - so it might be worth the effort! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 142961 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I wish you could have been with me in California (Sherman Oaks and San Jose) and Texas (Arlington and Austin) so that our set of direct experiences could have been expanded together. I'd just as soon avoid giving specific names of churches, sir. If the opportunity presents itself, visit a wide variety of churches so that you can draw your own conclusions. Regarding the distinction between a hymn and a heavy metal song: I lack the music vocabulary to adequately explain the difference. It is kind of like the difference between baptismal water and runoff from a hog farm... Although my family is filled with musicians (a couple are even professional) I must confess that I would be hard pressed to give a technical explanation of the distinctions of melody, harmony, and rhythm. (I'm the one family member with very little music knowledge, let alone talent.) The answer to your question would involve the study of hymnody/psalmody and heavy metal, their practice, use, and history. If you like, I could find an example of the lyrics of each for a side by side comparison. :-) I always find the "tune of a common bar song" argument very revealing. If I understand it correctly, the argument goes something like this: Martin Luther (or John Newton or Charles Wesley or whoever) wrote a hymn picking up the melody in the liquor drinking establishments of the day from a drinking song, something along the lines of "How Dry I Am" or "Danny Boy" or "House of the Rising Sun." Therefore, why is it wrong to bring the modern equivalent of bawdy worldly music into our sanctuaries and worship services? I've already suggested you look into the "regulative principle," so I won't get into that again. However, let me quote you something: "Many critics have claimed that Luther wrote hymns patterned after bar songs sung in taverns, but this is a falsehood. Luther wrote many hymns in a medieval form called bar tune which was a pattern of stanzas for poetry writing; however, it has been thought of as literal drinking songs and that is not true. Though Luther did indeed use the method of bar tune or bar form, it cannot be believed and must not be misinterpreted that his hymns were inspired by corrupted bar songs." (Dr. R. Nostoro, "The Development of Church Music"). So let's leave off promulgating inaccuracies. (Eph 4:25) As you study hymnody you will discover the true roots (both lyrical and spiritual) by which believers have written church music down through the years. I commend everyone to such a study (Jer 6:16), please forgive my meager understanding and poor abilities to communicate. In Him, Doc PS "Methinks thou doth protest too much," sir. (To slightly paraphrase Hamlet.) |
||||||
6 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | Morant61 | 143008 | ||
Greetings Doc! You wrote: "PS "Methinks thou doth protest too much," sir. (To slightly paraphrase Hamlet.)" I didn't know that asking questions was protesting! :-) I was just curious about your statements my friend. It seemed to me, based on your previous post and some of the other discussions that we have been having, that only one style of music is acceptable in church and that only one format of worship is acceptable in church. So, I was curious about your reasoning. You also wrote: "If the opportunity presents itself, visit a wide variety of churches so that you can draw your own conclusions" Actually, I have visted a very wide variety of churches, not to mention viewing worship services online from many others. I have never seen any that used skits instead of preaching, though I have seen many that used skits along with the preaching. Do you believe that using skits is wrong? If so, what is the Scriptural basis for that view? You quoted: "Many critics have claimed that Luther wrote hymns patterned after bar songs sung in taverns, but this is a falsehood." According to the information I have, this is not a falsehood. Luther took a common bar tune and set his wonderful words to it. However, my point was simply this: Most hymns were based upon commons styles of music from the time they were written. There is nothing 'unique' about hymn style. But, for some reason, many in the church have decided that we have to sing music from 100 to 200 years ago to the exclusion of anything else. I knew of one couple whose pastor had actually taught them that any music that had a tempo faster than their heart rate was evil. This actually wouldn't be very helpful in my case since I have a naturally high heart rate! ;-) There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that condemns any particular style of worship, or which limits worship music to hymns. What makes music 'holy' or 'evil' is the content of the words. Words that lift of God are good, words that lift up sin are bad, but the style of the music has absolutely nothing to with it. You pretty much admitted as much my friend, when you wrote: "If you like, I could find an example of the lyrics of each for a side by side comparison." Well, I have to get ready for work my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 143018 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, Now I know what Curly Joe felt like when he had tape stuck on his fingers! If I continue to answer your questions, will you just keep asking the same ones over and over? I'm game. :-) I gave you four examples where I witnessed skits and no preaching. I'm not sure why you would question my veracity. By the way, you stated that you had never seen this done. The facts of our experience together do not prove anything except that you haven't been to the churches that I attended. It certainly doesn't prove that such churches don't exist. No, there is nothing inherently wrong with skits. I suppose the old morality plays fit right in with TBN. If a believer doesn't love the Word of God enough to sit under its admonition (an evidence of salvation) -- or lacks the discipline (part of the fruit of the Spirit) -- then what you have is only a church by virtue of sign out front. Why are you so opposed to preaching the word? Why do you want to defend those who want to dispense with it? (John 4:21, Malachi 1:11, 1 Timothy 2:8, Acts 10:2, Matthew 6:11, Psalms 55:17, Matthew 6:6, Hebrews 10:25, Acts 2:42.) Lets not do that junk any more about "bar tune" equals "bar song." It is verifiably misleading if not downright false. Even were it true, do you think that a Fanny Crosby lyric in iambic pentameter is sullied somehow because Alice Cooper wrote one in the same form? What is your objection to traditional hymns? You really think singing the chorus "People need the Lord" 25 times can actually compare with the depth of truth in "A Mighty Fortress?" Doesn't Colossians 3:16 say that we are to *teach* by our songs and hymns? People do need the Lord, but the congregation can't get this point unless it is repeated 25 times? So what you are saying is that styles of music do not appeal more or less to the flesh? Or more or less to the mind? Or more or less to the spirit? The way music appeals to any part of a man is part of the culture as well. Please don't associate me with "tempo faster than your heart beat" folks. This is also faulty reasoning and unbecoming of believers when they are deliberating. What is wrong with 100 or 200 year old music? Perhaps there is a reason that they have endured? In my church the regulative principle is observed, but there is often music that has been penned in the last decade. The regulative principle has nothing to do with when a hymn was composed. Why is it that so many "churches" think they have to look like the world? Aren't we new creatures? Don't we have the very Spirit of God? Why is it we think we can't come up with music that would last as long as some of the hymns of St. Francis have lasted? Aren't we creative enough? In Him, Doc PS Okay, brother Tim... I'm ready... asks your questions over again. :-) |
||||||
8 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | Morant61 | 143032 | ||
Greetings Doc! First of all, I only asked two questions! I asked if skits were wrong and if so where did Scripture say so! You sorted of answered the first one, but totally skipped the second one! :-) Secondly, I never questioned your honesty! I simply responded to your statement that I have personally never seen anyone use a skit instead of a sermon. You made it sound like I hadn't simply because I hadn't been to enough churches! :-) Thirdly, where did I ever state that I was opposed to preaching? If we disagree on the issue of worship styles, that is fine. But, let's not get insulting! Please! I happen to love preaching! Fourthly, where did I ever say that I was opposed to hymns? Again, you are putting words in my mouth my friend. I happen to love hymns. But, I also happen to love some newer music as well. I love any song that worships God, whether it was written 200 years ago or 2 minutes ago! ;-) I just happen to know that Scripture doesn't limit use to one particular style of song, or tempo! Finally, I don't believe that churches that use newer music are trying to 'look like the world'. They are simply trying to be 'contemporary'. By that I simply mean this: The first century church did not sing songs from 1800! They used music, words, and styles that were contemporary to them. Churches in the 1500's used music from their time. Churches in the 1800's used music from their time. Churches in 2005 should be allowed to use music that is contemporary to our time. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 143070 | ||
Sorry, Brother Tim... I thought the implications were pretty clear. I commented on some faults in some churches and you questioned my finding fault with them. This seemed like a tacit defense of their practices. Please forgive me for any offense that you may have suffered. It is never my intent to hurt. It is always my intent to draw is back to the Word. Perhaps, knowing my heart, you will grant me allowances for my zeal. The first century church is not a perfect model for all normative behavior. It was quite immature and had problems that even you and I would be aghast over (hence all the corrective epistles). However, you are correct, they did not sing hymns and psalms from the 1800's. They didn't even sing 200 year old hymns and psalms. They adopted, instead, the Jewish practice of singing 900 year old hymns and psalms. So if we insist on using them as a pattern in this respect for our modern behavior, we should find hymns that are about 4 times older! (By the way, this is why some groups use what are called psalters -- the Psalms set to music.) We should also avoid using any other church period to set the standard for what we are doing today. The 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600, going back as far as you want saw their share of heresy -- we aren't immune. The only certain, infallible, sufficient, and complete standard is scripture. Where the Bible does not state explicitly or implicitly, we bring to bear scriptural principles. You bring up an interesting point. You state your objective is to be more "contemporary." Perhaps it would be helpful to define what you mean by this word. You make a distinction between what is practiced in more traditional churches from what you would like to see practiced. So, what is it that you use as a pattern for comparison in order to determine your success at becoming more contemporary? In Him, Doc |
||||||
10 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | Morant61 | 143074 | ||
Greetings Doc! My use of the word 'contemporary' simply refers to 'living in 2005'. So, I would use computers in Sunday School instead of flannel boards! I would use projectors instead of hymnals. I would use multi-media to illusrate my sermons instead of just quoting literature. I would use the best air-conditioning I can get! ;-) In other words, I would live like it is 2005! ;-) I would use current English styles instead of Elizabethean english. This is all that I mean by being 'contemporary'. I do not mean that I would change the Gospel to make it acceptable. I do not mean that I would ignore the parts of the Bible that people don't like today. I do not mean that worship should be a 'show' - man centered rather than God centered. In worship, I will obey the commands that God has given! In worship, I will apply Biblical principles to everything I do! But, I will not limit worship because of man made distinctions that have no support in Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | DocTrinsograce | 143078 | ||
Hi, Brother Tim... So the term contemporary when used in regard to worship only means the environmental and presentation technologies? (I thought it had to do with the music, since your original question arose from my criticism of "heavy metal instead of hymns.") If contemporary worship simply means that it takes place in a modern sanctuary with electronic acoustics and multimedia devices, we have no disagreement in this regard. The presence of such things do not impede our awe and reverence for our Holy God. I commend you for your concerted efforts to apply Biblical standards to your worship, rather than tayloring things by some other extra-biblical standard. I would enjoy attending such a worship. Thank you for explaining, brother. In Him, Doc |
||||||
12 | Is there intelligent life on earth? | John 17:17 | Morant61 | 143079 | ||
Greetings Doc! I would include music as well! Personally, I use a mixture of musical styles. Get well my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||