Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 07, 2008 11:48AM
To Sister:
Truthtesty: Since you continue to insist on being confrontational, I will deal with you.
Sister quotes "All humans since Adam were born into a physically fallen race. No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point."
"Chafer says the Authorized Version favors the "heathen notion" of the physical body. Presumably this is the idea that flesh is sinful and cannot be "spiritual" or that the body is corrupt and is excluded from glory."
Truthtesty: Incorrect. Dr. Chafer did not miss the point of the effects of the fall on the human body.
The following should be helpful to understand Chafer's view of the "heathen notion" of the physical body.
Sister quote: {{{Is this in what you had posted, Testy?}}}
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 157 Body of Sin (Rom. 6:6). This phrase, found in Romans 6:6, affords no warrant for the ancient philosophy which teaches that the body is the seat of evil and must therefore be weakened and despised. Such a view contradicts all Biblical testimony concerning the human body. Sin did not begin with the body, but is rather a rebellion of the will against God, and it ever continues the same. The body of the Christian bears unmistakable marks of honor and dignity. It is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (1 Cor. 6:13); it is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:15, 19); its members are to be yielded properly unto God as instruments of righteousness (Rom. 6:13); and it is to be presented unto God a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). If the body is the seat of sin, it should be abandoned rather than redeemed; but the Spirit is said to “quicken” these mortal bodies. In the midst of abnormal suffering a person may welcome liberation from this body, but the normal attitude is to nourish and cherish it (Eph. 5:29). Most conclusive is the fact that Christ possessed a normal human body, yet without sin. It is never intimated that His body was the source of any solicitation whatever. A distinction arises here between the body, and the flesh, to which consideration will be given in due time.
Sister quote {{{AS you can see, Testy, there is some further information here that you had not sent or posted before. I can't be responsible to know all of Chafer. What you had sent and what I had commented on before was right as far as it went. In the passage you gave, Chafer DID MISS what I said he missed, that the body IS FALLEN and will not be redeemed as is. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINDGOM OF GOD. When we die physically, the body rots in the grave, AND THEN the believer gets his resurrection PHYSICAL body at the Resurrection. It will be like Christ's glorious body which could walk through walls and appear at will any time any where He chose. The body we inherited from Adam will be done away with. We as believers hold our TREASURE {Christ} in EARTHEN VESSELS Chafer said that the KJB words about the body means that their work reflects a HEATHEN belief about the body, and that is NOT TRUE.}}}
Truthtesty:
1st Of course you can be responsible. You can be responsible by NOT jumping to a predjudiced presumptions BEFORE ALL THE FACTS ARE IN. Just because 1 word of KJV is "revised" doesn't necessarily mean it is entirely wrong. Even Burgon said: "" I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels p. 15
[books.google.com]
Again I will help you with your false presumptions about Dr. Chafer:
Sister quote: Chafer says the Authorized Version favors the "heathen notion" of the physical body. Presumably this is the idea that flesh is sinful and cannot be "spiritual" or that the body is corrupt and is excluded from glory. Well, that is exactly what the Scriptures say: Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God {1 Cor. 15: 50}. All humans since Adam were born into a physically fallen race. No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point. I don't have the expertise to say whether the same words in the Greek are used for "vile" in KJB and in the Greek text used for the Revised Version Chafer quotes. But the King James translators had the godly temperament to communicate what God said in Greek from the best manuscripts that exist down to this very day, and the Revised translators chose to rely upon less than 5% of the available evidence, making their conclusions unreliable. Chafer says of his choice that all exegetes concur that "vile body" is wrong, and "body of humiliation" is right. NO! If all exegetes concur, then why did the KJB translators NOT CONCUR? He is not making himself clear here. Or he is preferring "modern scholars" who themselves were corrupted by the same process that corrupted Thieme! Perhaps somewhere else Chafer makes himself clearer, but it seems to me that Chafer is supporting the "modern textual critical" results and is not even saying that that is what he is doing. It is simply assumed! This is an unsound basis for theology in my opinion.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Truthtesty: It's obvious that Chafer was speaking about other scholars than the KJV Translators. It is you who is not clear. It is you preferring the KJV Translators without the expertise to determine for yourself. "Unsound basis for theology"? And you admit you do not have the expertise to determine for yourself? This is just your predjudice for the KJV Translators. It is you who is assuming/presuming. It appears "body of humiliation" is chosen as opposed to "body of glory". Chafer Vol. 2, Page 155 The present body is said to be one of humiliation or limitation (1 Cor. 15:43; Phil. 3:20–21), but the body that is to be will satisfy every desire of the spirit.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall. To what extent it is now injured, none can fully estimate. It became a dying, death-doomed body. The fact that, as it was originally created, it possessed vital organs and was self-sustained as the body is now sustained, indicates that, apart from such protection and support as God may have provided, the original or unfallen body was capable of death. Death was not then inevitable, though it was possible. God imposed the sentence of death—death in all its forms—upon the first man and through him upon the race (Rom. 5:12) as a penalty for sin. As first created man was not subject to death; yet, because of sin, man became a dying creature. Though life is ever constructing the body, death is ever destroying and with the certainty in view, apart from those who experience the rapture and thus do not die, that death will win the conflict. “It is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27).
Sister quote: No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point.
Truthtesty:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall.
Chafer statements (plain and simple): "The human body was injured by the fall" AND "Nothing God has made is vile."
Your statement "None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam"
As I said before Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body. You still refuse to admit that. Which shows me that you have a credibility issue with being honest.
You made a wrong presumption about what Chafer meant. And now because of your predjudice for the KJV Translators you cannot admit you made a mistake.
You have a problem with the word choice "vile" being changed because KJV uses it, but? if you look at the greek word, the Byzantine uses the same greek word as Westcott and Hort, and Tischendorf.
[www.laparola.net]
It only appears that it's a matter of word choice in translation according to Strong: humiliation, be made low, low estate, vile.
Does not even use Dr. Waite use KJV Strong's Concordance? Isn't this just a matter of possible word choice?
Is this something that Burgon has mentioned specifically?( I haven't seen it) "Vile" If so? Show the sources. As you admit you do not have the expertise in Greek to determine what is actually going on. It appears is that all you have is a predjudice for the KJV Translators.
As I said before, even in the (inital) abbreviated previous quote does it not say?:
Chafer "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"
Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body.
Vol. 2, Page 158
Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be.
Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body. If you are honest you will admit that, but since you won't admit it, you have a credibilty problem with me. So it is not my lack of conversational skills that kept me from speaking to you (again as you badgeringly presume).
Perhaps you and Dr. Waite should pay attention to Burgon's own words:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
Truthtesty: I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Burgon quote: "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Burgon would probably agree with the statement "What sane woman...", as well.
Test all things
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2008 11:54AM by Truthtesty.
Truthtesty: Since you continue to insist on being confrontational, I will deal with you.
Sister quotes "All humans since Adam were born into a physically fallen race. No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point."
"Chafer says the Authorized Version favors the "heathen notion" of the physical body. Presumably this is the idea that flesh is sinful and cannot be "spiritual" or that the body is corrupt and is excluded from glory."
Truthtesty: Incorrect. Dr. Chafer did not miss the point of the effects of the fall on the human body.
The following should be helpful to understand Chafer's view of the "heathen notion" of the physical body.
Sister quote: {{{Is this in what you had posted, Testy?}}}
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 157 Body of Sin (Rom. 6:6). This phrase, found in Romans 6:6, affords no warrant for the ancient philosophy which teaches that the body is the seat of evil and must therefore be weakened and despised. Such a view contradicts all Biblical testimony concerning the human body. Sin did not begin with the body, but is rather a rebellion of the will against God, and it ever continues the same. The body of the Christian bears unmistakable marks of honor and dignity. It is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (1 Cor. 6:13); it is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:15, 19); its members are to be yielded properly unto God as instruments of righteousness (Rom. 6:13); and it is to be presented unto God a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). If the body is the seat of sin, it should be abandoned rather than redeemed; but the Spirit is said to “quicken” these mortal bodies. In the midst of abnormal suffering a person may welcome liberation from this body, but the normal attitude is to nourish and cherish it (Eph. 5:29). Most conclusive is the fact that Christ possessed a normal human body, yet without sin. It is never intimated that His body was the source of any solicitation whatever. A distinction arises here between the body, and the flesh, to which consideration will be given in due time.
Sister quote {{{AS you can see, Testy, there is some further information here that you had not sent or posted before. I can't be responsible to know all of Chafer. What you had sent and what I had commented on before was right as far as it went. In the passage you gave, Chafer DID MISS what I said he missed, that the body IS FALLEN and will not be redeemed as is. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINDGOM OF GOD. When we die physically, the body rots in the grave, AND THEN the believer gets his resurrection PHYSICAL body at the Resurrection. It will be like Christ's glorious body which could walk through walls and appear at will any time any where He chose. The body we inherited from Adam will be done away with. We as believers hold our TREASURE {Christ} in EARTHEN VESSELS Chafer said that the KJB words about the body means that their work reflects a HEATHEN belief about the body, and that is NOT TRUE.}}}
Truthtesty:
1st Of course you can be responsible. You can be responsible by NOT jumping to a predjudiced presumptions BEFORE ALL THE FACTS ARE IN. Just because 1 word of KJV is "revised" doesn't necessarily mean it is entirely wrong. Even Burgon said: "" I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels p. 15
[books.google.com]
Again I will help you with your false presumptions about Dr. Chafer:
Sister quote: Chafer says the Authorized Version favors the "heathen notion" of the physical body. Presumably this is the idea that flesh is sinful and cannot be "spiritual" or that the body is corrupt and is excluded from glory. Well, that is exactly what the Scriptures say: Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God {1 Cor. 15: 50}. All humans since Adam were born into a physically fallen race. No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point. I don't have the expertise to say whether the same words in the Greek are used for "vile" in KJB and in the Greek text used for the Revised Version Chafer quotes. But the King James translators had the godly temperament to communicate what God said in Greek from the best manuscripts that exist down to this very day, and the Revised translators chose to rely upon less than 5% of the available evidence, making their conclusions unreliable. Chafer says of his choice that all exegetes concur that "vile body" is wrong, and "body of humiliation" is right. NO! If all exegetes concur, then why did the KJB translators NOT CONCUR? He is not making himself clear here. Or he is preferring "modern scholars" who themselves were corrupted by the same process that corrupted Thieme! Perhaps somewhere else Chafer makes himself clearer, but it seems to me that Chafer is supporting the "modern textual critical" results and is not even saying that that is what he is doing. It is simply assumed! This is an unsound basis for theology in my opinion.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Truthtesty: It's obvious that Chafer was speaking about other scholars than the KJV Translators. It is you who is not clear. It is you preferring the KJV Translators without the expertise to determine for yourself. "Unsound basis for theology"? And you admit you do not have the expertise to determine for yourself? This is just your predjudice for the KJV Translators. It is you who is assuming/presuming. It appears "body of humiliation" is chosen as opposed to "body of glory". Chafer Vol. 2, Page 155 The present body is said to be one of humiliation or limitation (1 Cor. 15:43; Phil. 3:20–21), but the body that is to be will satisfy every desire of the spirit.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall. To what extent it is now injured, none can fully estimate. It became a dying, death-doomed body. The fact that, as it was originally created, it possessed vital organs and was self-sustained as the body is now sustained, indicates that, apart from such protection and support as God may have provided, the original or unfallen body was capable of death. Death was not then inevitable, though it was possible. God imposed the sentence of death—death in all its forms—upon the first man and through him upon the race (Rom. 5:12) as a penalty for sin. As first created man was not subject to death; yet, because of sin, man became a dying creature. Though life is ever constructing the body, death is ever destroying and with the certainty in view, apart from those who experience the rapture and thus do not die, that death will win the conflict. “It is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27).
Sister quote: No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point.
Truthtesty:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall.
Chafer statements (plain and simple): "The human body was injured by the fall" AND "Nothing God has made is vile."
Your statement "None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam"
As I said before Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body. You still refuse to admit that. Which shows me that you have a credibility issue with being honest.
You made a wrong presumption about what Chafer meant. And now because of your predjudice for the KJV Translators you cannot admit you made a mistake.
You have a problem with the word choice "vile" being changed because KJV uses it, but? if you look at the greek word, the Byzantine uses the same greek word as Westcott and Hort, and Tischendorf.
[www.laparola.net]
It only appears that it's a matter of word choice in translation according to Strong: humiliation, be made low, low estate, vile.
Does not even use Dr. Waite use KJV Strong's Concordance? Isn't this just a matter of possible word choice?
Is this something that Burgon has mentioned specifically?( I haven't seen it) "Vile" If so? Show the sources. As you admit you do not have the expertise in Greek to determine what is actually going on. It appears is that all you have is a predjudice for the KJV Translators.
As I said before, even in the (inital) abbreviated previous quote does it not say?:
Chafer "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"
Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body.
Vol. 2, Page 158
Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be.
Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the human body. If you are honest you will admit that, but since you won't admit it, you have a credibilty problem with me. So it is not my lack of conversational skills that kept me from speaking to you (again as you badgeringly presume).
Perhaps you and Dr. Waite should pay attention to Burgon's own words:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
Truthtesty: I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Burgon quote: "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Burgon would probably agree with the statement "What sane woman...", as well.
Test all things
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2008 11:54AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 07, 2008 12:05PM
To the Forum:
I initially offered these quotes freely about the Authorized text/Revised Version from Chafer, in the spirit of truth without predjudice, so people could compare and contrast for themselves. And I still do. I also sent Sister a whole lot more of these quotes than I put on this forum.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Truthtesty
I initially offered these quotes freely about the Authorized text/Revised Version from Chafer, in the spirit of truth without predjudice, so people could compare and contrast for themselves. And I still do. I also sent Sister a whole lot more of these quotes than I put on this forum.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 07, 2008 02:15PM
To Sister:
Sister: Sadly, Testy's temper and lack of conversational skills and fighting with me DO NOT HELP THE CAUSE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER HERE. It is probably a cause for rejoicing over at the pro Thieme camp for sure.
Truthtesty: Is this necessary? To impune my conversational skills without warrant? Why because I choose to do my research my way? Why? Because you have a credibility issue? Why? Because I don't buy into your way? or Dr. Waite's? The reason I am here is for the unpredjudiced truth.
Sister: Sad, isn't it?
Truthtesty: It's sad that you seemed to buy into the cherry-picked quotes of the Dean Burgon Society. You missed the Burgon quote below. Then you read it. But then? How is it that this quote does not send up a red flag? Does it? But? Then you would accuse me of finding quotes that agree with my position? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? How's that? HOW ABOUT READING THE PLAIN UNVARNISHED UNPREJUDICED TRUTH OF WHAT BURGON SAID? ARE YOU AFRAID?
Sister: P.S. TESTY, I have skimmed your posts but have not had time to read them in detail. You are good at finding quotes that agree wtih your postition. You are not good at seeing others' points of view if they disagree with you, at least in my case you are not. You still do not have a clear understanding of what I am saying about TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS.
Truthtesty: You "have not had time to read them in detail" But? you read them in enough detail to say "You are good at finding quotes that agree with your postition." Now how credible do you think that is?
I am not good at seeing insane people's points of view is the accurate statement. Don't believe me? Fine. Believe Burgon:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
Truthtesty: I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Burgon quote: "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Sister: You need to read Dr. Waite's book in toto and go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE and read their quotes of Burgon. You might find something that challenges you and your quotes.
Truthtesty: I don't need to go to read Dr. Waite's book in toto or go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE or read their quotes of Burgon. I CAN READ BURGON FOR MYSELF. I don't need a "spun version" which leaves out quotes.
Sister: Are you afraid?
Truthtesty: Again not at all. There is an issue with manuscripts which is being researched, but I don't need to buy into insanity to see the truth of the manuscripts problem.
Truthtesty
Sister: Sadly, Testy's temper and lack of conversational skills and fighting with me DO NOT HELP THE CAUSE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER HERE. It is probably a cause for rejoicing over at the pro Thieme camp for sure.
Truthtesty: Is this necessary? To impune my conversational skills without warrant? Why because I choose to do my research my way? Why? Because you have a credibility issue? Why? Because I don't buy into your way? or Dr. Waite's? The reason I am here is for the unpredjudiced truth.
Sister: Sad, isn't it?
Truthtesty: It's sad that you seemed to buy into the cherry-picked quotes of the Dean Burgon Society. You missed the Burgon quote below. Then you read it. But then? How is it that this quote does not send up a red flag? Does it? But? Then you would accuse me of finding quotes that agree with my position? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? How's that? HOW ABOUT READING THE PLAIN UNVARNISHED UNPREJUDICED TRUTH OF WHAT BURGON SAID? ARE YOU AFRAID?
Sister: P.S. TESTY, I have skimmed your posts but have not had time to read them in detail. You are good at finding quotes that agree wtih your postition. You are not good at seeing others' points of view if they disagree with you, at least in my case you are not. You still do not have a clear understanding of what I am saying about TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS.
Truthtesty: You "have not had time to read them in detail" But? you read them in enough detail to say "You are good at finding quotes that agree with your postition." Now how credible do you think that is?
I am not good at seeing insane people's points of view is the accurate statement. Don't believe me? Fine. Believe Burgon:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
Truthtesty: I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Burgon quote: "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Sister: You need to read Dr. Waite's book in toto and go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE and read their quotes of Burgon. You might find something that challenges you and your quotes.
Truthtesty: I don't need to go to read Dr. Waite's book in toto or go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE or read their quotes of Burgon. I CAN READ BURGON FOR MYSELF. I don't need a "spun version" which leaves out quotes.
Sister: Are you afraid?
Truthtesty: Again not at all. There is an issue with manuscripts which is being researched, but I don't need to buy into insanity to see the truth of the manuscripts problem.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
karen
()
Date: August 08, 2008 07:18AM
Reply to Spiritual Liberty
I quote you - "The name of the church was Grace Bible, and appears to be the same church that Bluefire once attended. I started in 1993. I learned the "doctrinal terminology" forwards and backwards, and before long, I was sitting on my high doctrinal horse, firmly convinced that I was a "winner," as I looked down my nose at all the Christian "losers" around me--those losers whose prayers "went no higher than the ceiling" because they didn't know how to "rebound."
I'd like to know where, in the Bible, anything is said about "no eqality" in heaven.
and I'd like to know where, in the Bible, anything is said about our prayers not
going any higher than the ceiling if we don't "rebound" - as you stated in your
post.
Thank you,
Karen
I quote you - "The name of the church was Grace Bible, and appears to be the same church that Bluefire once attended. I started in 1993. I learned the "doctrinal terminology" forwards and backwards, and before long, I was sitting on my high doctrinal horse, firmly convinced that I was a "winner," as I looked down my nose at all the Christian "losers" around me--those losers whose prayers "went no higher than the ceiling" because they didn't know how to "rebound."
I'd like to know where, in the Bible, anything is said about "no eqality" in heaven.
and I'd like to know where, in the Bible, anything is said about our prayers not
going any higher than the ceiling if we don't "rebound" - as you stated in your
post.
Thank you,
Karen
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 08, 2008 07:33AM
To Sister:
Truthtesty: You have a problem admitting to error. It is not really personal, but it does get in the way of honest research. Can you not admit that Dr. Chafer does not miss the theological point of the passages? "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be." Plain and simple.
Sister quote: [[[REPLY: No I don't. You have a problem accepting that your statement of your opinion is not a fact and is not proof of what you claim. You have not shown an error in what I said yet, same as with the King James Bible and the translators of it. I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest? I still think Chafer missed the point I saw, and so you disagree with that still? So what? We disagree! Amazing. You just won't admit that because i DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS that this makes you mad. You have made a career of opposing Thieme and don't like it when someone opposes you who also opposes Thieme. Give it your BEST shot, Testy. Don't send me a nasty email and an insulting one or I will post it and show the world what you have said. Post it here. In front of everyone. Since you don't even read what I send I am writing this more for other readers' benefit than for yours. I don't expect a respectful factual response from you Testy. I expect more quotes from Chafer and personal opinions and assertions being expected to be accepted as proof when they are not. THE ISSUE TO ME IS THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS BEST, NOT DIVINE. LEARNING FACTS AND EVIDENCE I HAD MISSED FREED ME FROM THIEME.
Truthtesty: That is absurd. I offer proof of facts and in those facts what other people have said as proof often to dispute what other people have said they said. I never offer my opinion as "fact". Do I offer my opinion? Yes. But do I expect people to accept my opinion as fact? NONE WHATSOEVER. How many times have I said this or something similar about people making up thier own minds and "test all things" (including me)?
June 18, 2008 02:23AMTruthtesty
Date Added: 01/13/2007
Posts: 574 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.radaph: And this proves Berachah is a cult, how?
Truthtesty: I have already proven to sound minds how Thieme is a cult. In addition, the information presented above is for well meaning Christians to contrast and compare Dr. Chafer and Thieme, for thier own personal study. In doing so Christians can discriminate for themselves and make up thier own minds on the place of the "beatitudes". However, I am certain Christian psycologists who read this would raise an eyebrow at Thieme's telling people to be "Thinking with God's Thoughts, not human thoughts". (By the way "beatitudes" if from the Latin word "beatis", from the Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Greek word is "makarios". Thieme did claim to be a student of Latin too, so why would he use the Catholic Latin Vulgate "beatitudes", instead of "makarios"?)
(same post)
Truthtesty: I present information for people to make up thier own minds. I tell people to "test all things", INCLUDING ME and I take no offense to thier (logically sound) testing what I say.
If you notice the majority of my posts are not about me or my opinion. The majority of my posts are about what other people have said. Dr. Chafer, Dr. Waite, Dr. Wall, Dr. Barr, Dr. Kittle etc... In which you by your words you have obviously liked much of what I had to present. ie Thieme's military records available under FOIA etc...
Sister quote: " I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest?
Truthtesty: I haven't done this yet? How's this? Can you admit you made an error about Thieme's psycotic statement? You never found it in reference did you?
Sister quote: Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?
Truthtesty: Then after never finding proof in reference about your statement Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?"
What did you do? You rambled on endlessly torturing this forum for 4 or 5 pages (137-141) in YOU SERIES - GATE 9: PSYCYHOPATHIC ARROGANCE. But? You never found the quote "IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC" nor did you prove it was "Straight from Bob Thieme!" AND? You never admitted that you made a mistake. That is a credibility issue that you have.
But? You thought it was on this thread, but it wasn't. Then you became frustrated and then you knew it was "around here somewhere", but it wasn't. It wasn't was it? It was actually a figment of your imagination.
Truthtesty: I say what are your qualifications for satisfaction? I only offer the truth. Is that satisfactory enough? Will you admit to error? Or? will you just continue to dodge admitting error?
I don't care if you oppose me and Thieme. But do it logically, not personally. It doesn't make ME mad if someone doesn't accept my opinion as fact, because that is not what I am doing or expect. I didn't write you a nasty or insulting e-mail. I spoke of the suspicions that I had of you and the KJV cult and how foohardy that would be to try to present on Rick Ross - a CULT FORUM.
I am researching for unpredjudiced truth. Can you say the same? It appears you are just regurgitating Dr. Waite.
I am doing my own research, which your Dr. Waite's quote vs Burgon quote (above) is directly contradictory. This? You did not point out. Burgon would call Dr. Waite insane at one point. Why did you not point this out? Can you not look at information which is FACTUAL and contradictory to Dr. Waite?
And now? I have proven a point to "sound minds", how in one case Dr. Waite(Dean Burgon Society) deviated from Burgon.
And now? After further review of the evidence shown above, can you now admit that Dr. Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the body? Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall....
Keep it logical, not personal.
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 07:35AM by Truthtesty.
Truthtesty: You have a problem admitting to error. It is not really personal, but it does get in the way of honest research. Can you not admit that Dr. Chafer does not miss the theological point of the passages? "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be." Plain and simple.
Sister quote: [[[REPLY: No I don't. You have a problem accepting that your statement of your opinion is not a fact and is not proof of what you claim. You have not shown an error in what I said yet, same as with the King James Bible and the translators of it. I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest? I still think Chafer missed the point I saw, and so you disagree with that still? So what? We disagree! Amazing. You just won't admit that because i DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS that this makes you mad. You have made a career of opposing Thieme and don't like it when someone opposes you who also opposes Thieme. Give it your BEST shot, Testy. Don't send me a nasty email and an insulting one or I will post it and show the world what you have said. Post it here. In front of everyone. Since you don't even read what I send I am writing this more for other readers' benefit than for yours. I don't expect a respectful factual response from you Testy. I expect more quotes from Chafer and personal opinions and assertions being expected to be accepted as proof when they are not. THE ISSUE TO ME IS THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS BEST, NOT DIVINE. LEARNING FACTS AND EVIDENCE I HAD MISSED FREED ME FROM THIEME.
Truthtesty: That is absurd. I offer proof of facts and in those facts what other people have said as proof often to dispute what other people have said they said. I never offer my opinion as "fact". Do I offer my opinion? Yes. But do I expect people to accept my opinion as fact? NONE WHATSOEVER. How many times have I said this or something similar about people making up thier own minds and "test all things" (including me)?
June 18, 2008 02:23AMTruthtesty
Date Added: 01/13/2007
Posts: 574 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.radaph: And this proves Berachah is a cult, how?
Truthtesty: I have already proven to sound minds how Thieme is a cult. In addition, the information presented above is for well meaning Christians to contrast and compare Dr. Chafer and Thieme, for thier own personal study. In doing so Christians can discriminate for themselves and make up thier own minds on the place of the "beatitudes". However, I am certain Christian psycologists who read this would raise an eyebrow at Thieme's telling people to be "Thinking with God's Thoughts, not human thoughts". (By the way "beatitudes" if from the Latin word "beatis", from the Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Greek word is "makarios". Thieme did claim to be a student of Latin too, so why would he use the Catholic Latin Vulgate "beatitudes", instead of "makarios"?)
(same post)
Truthtesty: I present information for people to make up thier own minds. I tell people to "test all things", INCLUDING ME and I take no offense to thier (logically sound) testing what I say.
If you notice the majority of my posts are not about me or my opinion. The majority of my posts are about what other people have said. Dr. Chafer, Dr. Waite, Dr. Wall, Dr. Barr, Dr. Kittle etc... In which you by your words you have obviously liked much of what I had to present. ie Thieme's military records available under FOIA etc...
Sister quote: " I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest?
Truthtesty: I haven't done this yet? How's this? Can you admit you made an error about Thieme's psycotic statement? You never found it in reference did you?
Sister quote: Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?
Truthtesty: Then after never finding proof in reference about your statement Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?"
What did you do? You rambled on endlessly torturing this forum for 4 or 5 pages (137-141) in YOU SERIES - GATE 9: PSYCYHOPATHIC ARROGANCE. But? You never found the quote "IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC" nor did you prove it was "Straight from Bob Thieme!" AND? You never admitted that you made a mistake. That is a credibility issue that you have.
But? You thought it was on this thread, but it wasn't. Then you became frustrated and then you knew it was "around here somewhere", but it wasn't. It wasn't was it? It was actually a figment of your imagination.
Truthtesty: I say what are your qualifications for satisfaction? I only offer the truth. Is that satisfactory enough? Will you admit to error? Or? will you just continue to dodge admitting error?
I don't care if you oppose me and Thieme. But do it logically, not personally. It doesn't make ME mad if someone doesn't accept my opinion as fact, because that is not what I am doing or expect. I didn't write you a nasty or insulting e-mail. I spoke of the suspicions that I had of you and the KJV cult and how foohardy that would be to try to present on Rick Ross - a CULT FORUM.
I am researching for unpredjudiced truth. Can you say the same? It appears you are just regurgitating Dr. Waite.
I am doing my own research, which your Dr. Waite's quote vs Burgon quote (above) is directly contradictory. This? You did not point out. Burgon would call Dr. Waite insane at one point. Why did you not point this out? Can you not look at information which is FACTUAL and contradictory to Dr. Waite?
And now? I have proven a point to "sound minds", how in one case Dr. Waite(Dean Burgon Society) deviated from Burgon.
And now? After further review of the evidence shown above, can you now admit that Dr. Chafer did not miss the effects of the fall on the body? Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 148 The human body was injured by the fall....
Keep it logical, not personal.
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 07:35AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 08, 2008 10:34AM
To the Forum:
Here is J. N. Darby's method stated in the REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1871) from: The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Book of Revelation: Commonly called the New Testament. A New Translation from a Revised Text of the Greek Original. London: G. Morrish, 1867. Second edition 1872. Third edition 1884.
[www.bible-researcher.com]
One of the many intresting notes is that Darby's work was consulted by the company which produced "The Revised New Testament" of 1881.: "It was consulted by the translators of the English Revised Version of 1881 (see F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed., 1978, p. 132)."
History of the Bible in English By Frederick Fyvie Bruce
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 10:35AM by Truthtesty.
Here is J. N. Darby's method stated in the REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1871) from: The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Book of Revelation: Commonly called the New Testament. A New Translation from a Revised Text of the Greek Original. London: G. Morrish, 1867. Second edition 1872. Third edition 1884.
[www.bible-researcher.com]
One of the many intresting notes is that Darby's work was consulted by the company which produced "The Revised New Testament" of 1881.: "It was consulted by the translators of the English Revised Version of 1881 (see F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed., 1978, p. 132)."
History of the Bible in English By Frederick Fyvie Bruce
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 10:35AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
sistersoap
()
Date: August 08, 2008 03:55PM
Testy, I have a confession to make. I was wrong.
about your name, as I reread our correspondence I noticed that I kept calling you the wrong name. Yours is TESTYTRUTH and I kept calling you TRUTHTESTY.
I apologize.
BREATHE, TESTY.
TAKE IN SOME OXYGEN.
BREATHE, BREATHE.
Cheers,
Sistersoap
about your name, as I reread our correspondence I noticed that I kept calling you the wrong name. Yours is TESTYTRUTH and I kept calling you TRUTHTESTY.
I apologize.
BREATHE, TESTY.
TAKE IN SOME OXYGEN.
BREATHE, BREATHE.
Cheers,
Sistersoap
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
sistersoap
()
Date: August 08, 2008 03:58PM
Another short item to note, Testy. I have tried at least ten times to post to one of your posts recently in the last thirty minutes. I never got to. The forum kept saying I had not signed in when I had. So I am giving it a well deserved rest for a while till the managers get their act together AGAIN. Have you had trouble posting recently? I was able to send a PM to ORANGE a while ago, but nothing else.
Sistersoap
Sistersoap
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
sistersoap
()
Date: August 09, 2008 04:22AM
Quote
sistersoap
Testy, I have a confession to make. I was wrong.
about your name, as I reread our correspondence I noticed that I kept calling you the wrong name. Yours is TESTYTRUTH and I kept calling you TRUTHTESTY.
I apologize.
BREATHE, TESTY.
TAKE IN SOME OXYGEN.
BREATHE, BREATHE.
Cheers,
Sistersoap
WELL the joke is on me, isn't it?
I should know better than making confessions at such an ungodly hour when I am so tired!
Again, I apologize for getting so mixed up.....
Your real name here is TRUTHTESTY and I have been using TESTYTRUTH.
Sorry twice now.
Sistersoap
Maybe I am the one who needs oxygen!
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 10, 2008 12:00AM
Quote
sistersoapQuote
sistersoap
Testy, I have a confession to make. I was wrong.
about your name, as I reread our correspondence I noticed that I kept calling you the wrong name. Yours is TESTYTRUTH and I kept calling you TRUTHTESTY.
I apologize.
BREATHE, TESTY.
TAKE IN SOME OXYGEN.
BREATHE, BREATHE.
Cheers,
Sistersoap
WELL the joke is on me, isn't it?
I should know better than making confessions at such an ungodly hour when I am so tired!
Again, I apologize for getting so mixed up.....
Your real name here is TRUTHTESTY and I have been using TESTYTRUTH.
Sorry twice now.
Sistersoap
Maybe I am the one who needs oxygen!
Truthtesty: Maybe you are. I found your quote on this Forum. [forum.culteducation.com] "immature believers are PSYCHOTIC", but it was you who said it back in March. You did not prove the quote from Thieme, from reference.
If you notice the majority of my posts are not about me or my opinion. The majority of my posts are about what other people have said. Dr. Chafer, Dr. Waite, Dr. Wall, Dr. Barr, Dr. Kittle etc... In which you by your words you have obviously liked much of what I had to present. ie Thieme's military records available under FOIA etc...
Sister quote: " I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest?
Truthtesty: I haven't done this yet? How's this? Can you admit you made an error about Thieme's psycotic statement? You never found it in reference did you?
Sister quote: Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?
Truthtesty: Then after never finding proof in reference about your statement Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?"
What did you do? You rambled on endlessly torturing this forum for 4 or 5 pages (137-141) in YOU SERIES - GATE 9: PSYCYHOPATHIC ARROGANCE. But? You never found the quote "IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC" nor did you prove it was "Straight from Bob Thieme!" AND? You never admitted that you made a mistake. That is a credibility issue that you have.
But? You thought it was on this thread, but it wasn't. Then you became frustrated and then you knew it was "around here somewhere", but it wasn't. It wasn't was it? It was actually a figment of your imagination.
Truthtesty: I say what are your qualifications for satisfaction? I only offer the truth. Is that satisfactory enough? Will you admit to error? Or? will you just continue to dodge admitting error?
I don't care if you oppose me and Thieme. But do it logically, not personally. It doesn't make ME mad if someone doesn't accept my opinion as fact, because that is not what I am doing or expect. I didn't write you a nasty or insulting e-mail. I spoke of the suspicions that I had of you and the KJV cult and how foohardy that would be to try to present on Rick Ross - a CULT FORUM.
The virtual name I use "Truthtesty" has a symbolic Hotmail account associated name "Testytruth". That is probably the reason you are confused about my virtual name(s).
I commend you on your baby-stepping attempt at becoming credible.
Truthtesty
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.