John Gill is Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
There is only one true doom metal band. They set the standard for the genre. Google 'Sword in the Wind' for YouTube

Wait, are you referring to Manowar? If so, they are not doom, although they do have some doomy qualities. Lol, you're pretty adamant about this one band you like.

Quoting me earlier:

My favorite music styles are: Baroque, Celtic, Chinese, Classic Hymnal Music, and Doom Metal. There are no other styles of music save these.

This thread's about me! HAHAHA! Therefore I define the terms!! HAHAHA!!

Doom is a subjective term anyways, so different bands fall into it or out of it depending upon who you talk to. Ever hear of Mortification?

By the way, There is no other classical music style save Baroque. And Bach is its master. And the plan for bagpipes came directly from God! (Prov. 32:23)
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Krabbendam? Anyone who likes him can't be all bad!

When he would go on vacation to Florida, he would always preach at my home church. We'd be engrossed in his sermon and still keep track of how many times he took off and put his glasses back on. He also got my old pastor to start going to Uganda regularly.

I envy you. I love his preaching. He hits hard and with a love that comes across clearly. Though he does sound like Bullwinkle.

His series on Effective Evangelism at sermonaudio is the best I have ever heard. How is he?
 

Confessor

Puritan Board Senior
This thread's about me! HAHAHA! Therefore I define the terms!! HAHAHA!!

Doom is a subjective term anyways, so different bands fall into it or out of it depending upon who you talk to. Ever hear of Mortification?

Lol, not quite. You get to talk about yourself, but not define the terms. Otherwise, you could have said you like top-40 pop music and define Manowar as such, but that would be ridiculous.

The term "doom" has some leeway (as I said, some bands are kind of doomy, such as melodic death metal band Insomnium), but that doesn't make it subjective, to the point that there is no standard. Also, I have some of Mortification's stuff, but I haven't listened to it recently.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
This thread's about me! HAHAHA! Therefore I define the terms!! HAHAHA!!

Doom is a subjective term anyways, so different bands fall into it or out of it depending upon who you talk to. Ever hear of Mortification?

Lol, not quite. You get to talk about yourself, but not define the terms. Otherwise, you could have said you like top-40 pop music and define Manowar as such, but that would be ridiculous.

The term "doom" has some leeway (as I said, some bands are kind of doomy, such as melodic death metal band Insomnium), but that doesn't make it subjective, to the point that there is no standard. Also, I have some of Mortification's stuff, but I haven't listened to it recently.

top-40 pop music *shudder*

How about Deliverance? I like their rendering of Psalm 23.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Looks like you share much in common with me. I used to lean towards post-millenialism, but now I have embraced amillenialism after reading a good exegesis of Rev. 20.

I am also an EP but I tolerate hymns just like John Gill did. Have you read his sermon on Psalm Singing?

I am also a moderate theonomist. I believe that governmental laws cannot go against the Law of God, but are subordinate and must be based according to Scriptures.

I am neither a paedo-baptist nor a credo-baptist, as I think both views can be argued exegetically from Scripture. I do lean towards paedo however because I was baptized as a baby. I can also understand why a credo who was baptized as an adult would also lean towards the credo view.

Nope, but I will now. I could tolerate hymn singing if at least 2/3rds of the singing was Psalms. Mostly it's 7-11 music and a few hymns and then only a few lines from hymns.
 

Answerman

Puritan Board Sophomore
You're a man after my own heart, I'm theonomic, love Bahnsen and I share your views on education. I home school my three children and they have lessons in Latin and Greek. My choice of music is similar also, with the exception of doom metal, to which I like a similar style though. I like instrumental neo-classical guitar music like Yngwie Malmsteen. I don't like most 'metal' music because it is too dissonent and chaotic. I also like Joe Satriani and a few not so well know artists, Bill Majoros and Garfo, you ought to check out their music, it's kind of cool and they offer the MP3's free to download.

Here are the links to their stuff:
The Gareth 'Garfo' Thomas Website - Music Page
Bill Majoros

A hardy PB welcome to you!
 

cornopean

Puritan Board Freshman
Because they fell under the Eclectic text spell? It was more modern and scholarly supposedly. And it was based upon the modern scholarship that wasn't fully enlightened.
all(!) of the committees of all the thousands of translation projects are under this spell? Doesn't that seem a bit of a stretch?


They were more interested in texts that tore apart the testimony of Christ by following the Alexandrian texts because they were older manuscripts. Albeit there is suppose to be only two of them, against the myraid of majority text manuscripts. The testimony of two older texts is suppose to be more reliable. Even though the writings of the early church fathers and songs sung in the early church support the Majority, these men claimed the Alexandrian more closer to the original. I have my doubts as you can see.
all of this sounds very reasonable......but stacked against the fact that every translation committee seems to have reasons for rejecting the TR. I rather doubt this is a large conspiracy to corrupt God's word.
 

matt01

Puritan Board Senior
I believe every Christian should be forced to learn Universal Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Every Christian should also be forced to learn at least Latin and Greek. When I'm world dictator this will be so. Get busy now.

How are you doing on this one?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Because they fell under the Eclectic text spell? It was more modern and scholarly supposedly. And it was based upon the modern scholarship that wasn't fully enlightened.
all(!) of the committees of all the thousands of translation projects are under this spell? Doesn't that seem a bit of a stretch?


They were more interested in texts that tore apart the testimony of Christ by following the Alexandrian texts because they were older manuscripts. Albeit there is suppose to be only two of them, against the myraid of majority text manuscripts. The testimony of two older texts is suppose to be more reliable. Even though the writings of the early church fathers and songs sung in the early church support the Majority, these men claimed the Alexandrian more closer to the original. I have my doubts as you can see.
all of this sounds very reasonable......but stacked against the fact that every translation committee seems to have reasons for rejecting the TR. I rather doubt this is a large conspiracy to corrupt God's word.

I was speaking in jest somewhat but my points were made in the above post. Most of the translation committees have been largely more sloppy in translation also opting for a more dynamic equivalent translation method. It goes with the times. Look at the main line denominations. They are slowly eroding into terrible doctrines. This is where your modern scholastics are running to. So goes the way of the choice of manuscripts. There are a lot of good threads on this topic. Just have fun reading through the translation / manuscript threads. Here is one that you might like. http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I believe every Christian should be forced to learn Universal Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Every Christian should also be forced to learn at least Latin and Greek. When I'm world dictator this will be so. Get busy now.

How are you doing on this one?

Not too well I'm afraid. It seems most people want to watch the Olympics instead of doing what I say. Lazy bums!! I mean come on, what would you rather do? Watch TV or learn the Trivium with Classical Latin & Greek? Hold on a sec, commercial breaks over...ok I'm back. Like I was saying...
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
You're a man after my own heart, I'm theonomic, love Bahnsen and I share your views on education. I home school my three children and they have lessons in Latin and Greek. My choice of music is similar also, with the exception of doom metal, to which I like a similar style though. I like instrumental neo-classical guitar music like Yngwie Malmsteen. I don't like most 'metal' music because it is too dissonent and chaotic. I also like Joe Satriani and a few not so well know artists, Bill Majoros and Garfo, you ought to check out their music, it's kind of cool and they offer the MP3's free to download.

Here are the links to their stuff:
The Gareth 'Garfo' Thomas Website - Music Page
Bill Majoros

A hardy PB welcome to you!

I like Manowar because most of their songs are not chaotic and dissonant. Hymn of the Immortals or The Crown and The Ring are good examples.

Thanks, I'll check out the links.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
I envy you. I love his preaching. He hits hard and with a love that comes across clearly. Though he does sound like Bullwinkle.

His series on Effective Evangelism at sermonaudio is the best I have ever heard. How is he?

One of my favorite illustrations he has is this:

"Oh brothers, you must wrap one arm around the gospel and one arm around the law, then I will let you see my daughter because you won't have any arms free for any hanky panky!"

Last I heard he was great. He has a school for ministers in Uganda now, and goes there several times a year.

Still waiting for his commentary on James to be published. He's been working on that for years!
 

puritansound

Puritan Board Freshman
Welcome. You have excellent taste in music. I just got turned onto The Sword. They 're album Age of Winters might be right up your alley. Here's a youtube link (don't know how to post in text). Enjoy!

[video=youtube;I21y2xa4Va8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I21y2xa4Va8&feature=related[/video]
 

cornopean

Puritan Board Freshman
Most of the translation committees have been largely more sloppy in translation also opting for a more dynamic equivalent translation method.
I don't know what is "wrong" with a DE translation. It is a different way of translating, it might be more or less suitable for this situation or that, but "wrong"?
I will just use this opportunity to point out that Luther's translation was quite free.
"He adapted the words to the capacity of the Germans, often at the expense of accuracy. He cared more for the substance than the form. He turned the Hebrew shekel into a Silberling, the Greek drachma and Roman denarius into a German Groschen, the quadrans into a Heller, the Hebrew measures into Scheffel, Malter, Tonne, Centner, and the Roman centurion into a Hauptmann. He substituted even undeutsch (!) for barbarian in 1 Cor. 14:11. Still greater liberties he allowed himself in the Apocrypha, to make them more easy and pleasant reading. He used popular alliterative phrases as Geld und Gut, Land und Leute, Rath und That, Stecken und Stab, Dornen und Disteln, matt und müde, gäng und gäbe. He avoided foreign terms which rushed in like a flood with the revival of learning, especially in proper names (as Melanchthon for Schwarzerd, Aurifaber for Goldschmid, Oecolampadius for Hausschein, Camerarius for Kammermeister). He enriched the vocabulary with such beautiful words as holdselig, Gottseligkeit.

Erasmus Alber, a contemporary of Luther, called him the German Cicero, who not only reformed religion, but also the German language.

Luther’s version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty of the German language. It is the first German classic, as King James’s version is the first English classic."​
History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation. - Philip Schaff

It goes with the times. Look at the main line denominations. They are slowly eroding into terrible doctrines. This is where your modern scholastics are running to.
just for clarity here...do you think the deterioration of the mainline denominations is caused by their adoption of a DE style translation?
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Most of the translation committees have been largely more sloppy in translation also opting for a more dynamic equivalent translation method.
I don't know what is "wrong" with a DE translation. It is a different way of translating, it might be more or less suitable for this situation or that, but "wrong"?
I will just use this opportunity to point out that Luther's translation was quite free.
"He adapted the words to the capacity of the Germans, often at the expense of accuracy. He cared more for the substance than the form. He turned the Hebrew shekel into a Silberling, the Greek drachma and Roman denarius into a German Groschen, the quadrans into a Heller, the Hebrew measures into Scheffel, Malter, Tonne, Centner, and the Roman centurion into a Hauptmann. He substituted even undeutsch (!) for barbarian in 1 Cor. 14:11. Still greater liberties he allowed himself in the Apocrypha, to make them more easy and pleasant reading. He used popular alliterative phrases as Geld und Gut, Land und Leute, Rath und That, Stecken und Stab, Dornen und Disteln, matt und müde, gäng und gäbe. He avoided foreign terms which rushed in like a flood with the revival of learning, especially in proper names (as Melanchthon for Schwarzerd, Aurifaber for Goldschmid, Oecolampadius for Hausschein, Camerarius for Kammermeister). He enriched the vocabulary with such beautiful words as holdselig, Gottseligkeit.

Erasmus Alber, a contemporary of Luther, called him the German Cicero, who not only reformed religion, but also the German language.

Luther’s version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty of the German language. It is the first German classic, as King James’s version is the first English classic."​
History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation. - Philip Schaff

It goes with the times. Look at the main line denominations. They are slowly eroding into terrible doctrines. This is where your modern scholastics are running to.
just for clarity here...do you think the deterioration of the mainline denominations is caused by their adoption of a DE style translation?

Which translation method is faithful to the original text? It is not dynamic equivalency in which one's interpretation masquerades as a translation.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has some resources dealing with this.

But this subject is better discussed in a different thread.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Now I've seen it all!

Have yourself a Twisted Christmas

[video=youtube;NIxUoByyQRc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxUoByyQRc&feature=related[/video]
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
It goes with the times. Look at the main line denominations. They are slowly eroding into terrible doctrines. This is where your modern scholastics are running to.
just for clarity here...do you think the deterioration of the mainline denominations is caused by their adoption of a DE style translation?

Frankly, I doubt that Bible translation has much to do with the decline of the mainlines. The causes are multifaceted: sociological factors relating to the typical process of institutionalization; a tendency for orthodox Protestant groups/institutions to trend toward heterodoxy over time; the corrosive effects of individualism, privitization, pluralism, relativism, and secularization; the legacy of the Enlightenment on Western civilization; etc.

If you follow Wayne Grudem's argument, he suggests that a proximate cause for the current decline has something to do with compromises on issues of human sexuality (e.g., Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? I would proffer that the impact of Darwinian thought was even more destructive of a biblical life and worldview. Other damaging ideologies (e.g., Marx and Freud) have become passé. Darwinian naturalism, on the other hand, has burrowed into all of the mainlines, undermining their confidence in the Bible as the word of God, suggesting confusion about taking the Bible straight forwardly.

Put it all together, and I believe that the Answers in Genesis people are quite correct in suggesting that the seedbed of many of our doctrines can be found in Genesis 1-3. Start off arguing that the Bible does not mean what it says in the first chapter and you will find yourself fighting a losing battle when you come to sex roles, same sex unions, and other controversial issues facing the church today.
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've been posting for a while, but have never posted an introduction post. I'll cover mainly what I believe about different issues.

I'm a Presbyterian Baptist as my pastor and I joke. Or to put it another way, I'm reformed and baptistic. I used to be IFBkad. (Independent Fundamental Baptist kool-aid drinker. Think a cross between John R. Rice and Jack Hyles theology.)

I post-millennial. I was a dispensational pre-trib. Then a non-dispensational pre-trib. Then historic pre-mill.

I'm Bahnsen VanTillian in apologetic method. I believe apologetics and evangelism work hand in hand.

I believe the text of scripture is that text which has the greatest chronological and geographical distribution throughout the Copies, Versions, and Fathers. Therefore I believe the TR (all of them) and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text to be final authority. I will only use translations from these two texts. I currently use the AV, but if someone wants to buy me a nice leather bound Geneva Bible I won't say no. (Was that subtle enough?) I used to be KJVO (not Ruckman, but Waite-lite.) I'm now KJV Preferred.

I subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689. Obviously I do not subscribe to the HC's view on paedo-baptism, but instead substitute Hercules Collins reformulation of it.

I'm theonomic. The less annoying kind if that makes sense.

I believe in conquering the culture for Christ through the twin tools we have been given by God, namely evangelism and discipling.

I enjoy studying theology. (Bavinck, Gill, Turretin, a Brakel, Watson.)

I love reading Puritan literature, especially their sermons.

My top 5 favorite preachers are: Joel Beeke, Greg Bahnsen, Henry Krabbendam, Gregory Barkman, Foppe Vanderzwaag.

My favorite music styles are: Baroque, Celtic, Chinese, Classic Hymnal Music, and Doom Metal. There are no other styles of music save these.

I believe in exclusive psalmody.

I believe every Christian should be forced to learn Universal Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Every Christian should also be forced to learn at least Latin and Greek. When I'm world dictator this will be so. Get busy now.

If there's something else you think I should put up, let me know.

Welcome....and what is doom metal?
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Krabbendam? Anyone who likes him can't be all bad!

When he would go on vacation to Florida, he would always preach at my home church. We'd be engrossed in his sermon and still keep track of how many times he took off and put his glasses back on. He also got my old pastor to start going to Uganda regularly.


I love Dr. K. I had the blessing of going on one of those Uganda trips. Does your pastor still go?

Also...I should have read more...I now know what doom metal is.
 

Pilgrim72

Puritan Board Junior
and what is doom metal?

Doom metal is a slow, plodding subgenre of metal. A good example would be Iron Man by Black Sabbath. They are considered to be the fathers of doom.

I just got turned onto The Sword.

The Sword is actually pretty good. My favorite tune from them is "Iron Swan"...
 

cornopean

Puritan Board Freshman
Which translation method is faithful to the original text? It is not dynamic equivalency in which one's interpretation masquerades as a translation.
faithful to the form or to the meaning of the text? which ultimately is more important? Luther obviously knew which one was more important.


But this subject is better discussed in a different thread.
I haven't seen another thread. I saw the answering Kuschner thread but that wasn't dealing with translation style.
 

cornopean

Puritan Board Freshman
Frankly, I doubt that Bible translation has much to do with the decline of the mainlines. The causes are multifaceted: sociological factors relating to the typical process of institutionalization; a tendency for orthodox Protestant groups/institutions to trend toward heterodoxy over time; the corrosive effects of individualism, privitization, pluralism, relativism, and secularization; the legacy of the Enlightenment on Western civilization; etc.
Sometimes I wonder if the loss of any idea of an antithesis between the world and the church might have had something to do with it......?
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
frankly, i doubt that bible translation has much to do with the decline of the mainlines. The causes are multifaceted: Sociological factors relating to the typical process of institutionalization; a tendency for orthodox protestant groups/institutions to trend toward heterodoxy over time; the corrosive effects of individualism, privitization, pluralism, relativism, and secularization; the legacy of the enlightenment on western civilization; etc.
sometimes i wonder if the loss of any idea of an antithesis between the world and the church might have had something to do with it......?

Shhh!!!!! You could get hurt saying such things.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Great! Fantastic!! Now I have to learn old Anglo-Saxon!! At least I found a Polyglot grammar for various languages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top