Comment from Eloprah
Time: November 22, 2007, 1:35 pm

Random stuff….

I like it.

 

Comment from Jed
Time: November 22, 2007, 1:55 pm

Yep, random stuff is the best.

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 19, 2007, 12:18 pm

This needs more random stuff.

I will help supply it.

Did you know the name for (OHCH2CH2OH) is ethylene glycol - even though there are only single C-C bonds?

Did you know that the best synthesis for ethers, if they are anything other than symmetrical primary ethers such as diethyl ether, is the Williamson synthesis? This is essentially an SN2 attack between a substrate and an alkoxide base/nucleophile. This also reminds me of oranges from Williamson and Sonoma. (Hey, this is the page for randomness!)

Did you know that the apical meristem produces three primary meristems - the protoderm, procambium, and the ground tissue meristem?

Did you know that the Father’s role in salvation is election? The Spirit’s role is calling, regeneration, sanctification, and something else?

Did you know that the “pericope adulterae” isn’t really the inspired or inerrant word of God and should be removed from the Bible?

Did you know that the Bible you have in your bedroom (or wherever you keep it) is not the inspired word of God?

This is a short recap of what I have learned at Cedarville.

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 19, 2007, 10:33 pm

Excellent. Eloprah, thank you for your beautiful addition to my (formerly) lonely, somewhat-empty chat page. These are some fascinating random facts that I did not know!!!

The last item especially interests me! Please tell me more! It’s a seemingly controversial statement, and controversy is always exciting, so I eagerly await your further explanation.

Thanks so much for posting, Eloprah!

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 1:32 pm

To respond in order….

Bethany, really, Cedarville isn’t a very opinionated place, for the most part. Actually, only one of the above statements could be considered a matter of opinion… the rest of them are facts. (Which brings up a further interesting discussion about the difference between fact and opinion, and the belief/truth/reality dichotomy so prevalent today…however, I digress. Although this may be a place for randomness, I would prefer my own posts be lucid.)

Jedidiah, you -who have been through A Beka’s Bible doctrines class, you who are not even a “KJV-only” - you honestly think the final item to be controversial? I will let you think about it a little more.
First, what is the act of inspiration?
Second, what is inerrancy?
Third, who are the Ruckmanites?

No controversy whatsoever; there are two basic positions. Either the *text* you hold in your hands is inspired by God, or it is not. One view is heretical, the other is not.

But why should controversy be exciting? What is the saying? “How good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in harmony” or something of the sort.

Feliz Navidad.

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 22, 2007, 1:40 pm

OH. MY. GOODNESS. Eloprah, you never cease to amaze (and sometimes baffle) me!

My official response will appear shortly.

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 22, 2007, 2:34 pm

Eloprah, I honestly am shocked that you do not believe my NIV Bible to be the inspired Word of God! Are you just joking around, or is that really what you’re saying???!! If so, what IS the inspired Word of God? Does it exist today? How can we access it? Have I wasted the majority of my life studying my NIV Bible with the “heretical” idea that it is indeed the inspired Word of God?

I take it you have a somewhat rigid view of “inspiration.” Let me remind you, God is not a human! Why would He need to depend on a single set of human words (like the KJV Bible, or an ancient text, or whatever) to communicate his wonderful truths??? Cannot He communicate through IDEAS??? Cannot He direct the God-honoring scholars who were responsible for the NIV translation??? Cannot he preserve the SPIRIT and MEANING of His Word throughout the generations?

Eloprah, discussing controversial topics is exciting and enlightening when the parties involved share their views in a loving, peaceful, non-condescending way. I am an open-minded individual, and I like to hear other people’s viewpoints, especially when they are different from mine. It’s not because I like to argue. It’s not because I want to attempt to flaunt my (real or imagined) intelligence. It’s simply because I want to understand people better.

I have nothing but love for you and the rest of the contributors to my blog. I think you’re a wonderful person and a great Christian, Eloprah. It hurts when I get the impression that the feeling’s not mutual. I know that sarcasm plays a big part in your writing, Eloprah, and that’s great. But I don’t want to feel the sharp sting of your quick wit. I want to feel (so to speak) the warmth of your heart.

Jed

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 4:13 pm

Jedidiah,

I think you’ve misunderstood. Why don’t you read over my posts again?………….. There. I wasn’t being sarcastic. What hints of sarcasm do you detect? When I addressed you, I only made the emphasis to encourage you to think carefully about the topic. It is one that we covered, I believe I recall, in Bible doctrines; it is a topic that is near and dear to the Ruckmanites’ (who are radical KJV-only believers) hearts.

There can be no controversy; I emphasized *text* to again underscore the basic tenet of the positions.

There is a great deal to discuss in your most recent post. Before that can happen, I suggest you answer my questions:
What is inspiration?
What is inerrancy?
Who are the Ruckmanites?

Also, what is revelation? and, What is preservation? are relevant questions to answer.

These are all topics under “Bibliology” - these answer what the Bible is, how we got it, and what the nature of the Bible is (and how it was preserved). You apparently have confused them - which did surprise me; I thought it was something covered in that Bible doctrines class. (Actually, I took Spiritual Formation this semester at Cedarville; there was a big discussion in the class about inspiration versus inerrancy. I was one of the few that sided with the professor, because of what A Beka had taught. This is just not a matter that is clearly elucidated in churches today; it is not meant in the least to be controversial.)

So, think about it some more. Explain to me why the *text* we have today (actually, it should be *manuscript*) is/is not inspired.

As to controversy….

Controversy means someone is right, but it also means someone is wrong. Now, it is a good thing to correct the person in error; but it is never a pleasant task. I don’t believe Christians should be glad when controversy arises, except so far as to examine their own views in light of the Scriptures, and, if wrong, humbly correct them. If correct, then humbly, again, hold forth the truth. The only purpose of having an open mind is to close it again on something solid (according to GK Chesterton). Yes, it can be fun to argue; I, quite frankly, love it. But it is not Christian charity. Instead, it can be an opportunity of pride, to air one’s own views, and be praised for one’s own intelligence. It is an opportunity to be right - and glory in that. Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) wrote “If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:1-2). (Not that this passage supports a wishy-washy conformity of opinion; rather the contrary. There must be proper doctrine; yet still, controversy is not necessarily a thing to be valued. )

Grace and peace (and truth),

Eloprah

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 22, 2007, 5:00 pm

Eloprah, why is it that I am required to answer your questions, when you have not responded to a single question I asked??? I originally asked you to explain what you meant by your claim that my copy of the Bible is “not the inspired word of God.” You responded by asking me tedious questions about MY views regarding several deep theological issues. I ALREADY KNOW MY STANCE ON THE MATTER, AND “THINKING ABOUT IT” MORE IS NOT AN INTERESTING EXCERCISE. No amount of “thinking about it” is going to allow me to discover YOUR stance on the matter. Why are you being so elusive? Please just succinctly explain yourself.

I spent about an hour reading and re-reading your posts, and I am still utterly confused and baffled. Just come right out and SAY what you are getting at here.

Also, can we please dispense with the excessive use of theological terminology??!! I am not a theologian, and I do not have time (or the desire) to research the intricacies of modern theological thought. Also, I do not care what A Beka says. I do not care what Ruckman says. I do not care what your Spiritual Formation class teacher says. The only thing that I care about in this discussion is what YOU BELIEVE. So please stop quoting people, and open up about YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Eloprah, I know you love to argue (you have provided me with ample proof of that fact). But I do not find this sort of argumentation amusing. I don’t want to hear precise dictionary definitions of wording thrown in my face. I don’t want my phraseology to be picked apart and refuted.

I just want to be your friend, and I just want to know what YOU believe. Is that too much to ask?

Jed

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 5:09 pm

Your finals didn’t go too well, did they?

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 5:11 pm

*That* was sarcasm.

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 5:19 pm

I’ll respond to all this more completely later.

In short, I haven’t been sarcastic (except the little post just above), nor have I attempted to evade. I wanted you to answer the questions, not for my sake, but for yours. It’s the whole Aristotle-Plato leading question type of thing; I didn’t want to turn this “page of randomness” into a deep discussion with high feelings on either side. I was merely trying to guide you, by questions, to carefully consider your position, and state it succinctly for me. I do not like refuting; and it is, furthermore, a difficult thing to do when there are about 5 closely related issues tangled up.

To be succinct, then:

I believe that God inspired the original text of the Bible; He inspired the very words of those original texts, through the prophets and apostles (and those, such as James, closely associated with them). Thus, the very words are God’s.

I do not believe that moderns translations and copies of the manuscripts (which are copies of the original text) are inspired; God did not speak them into existence. Rather, He has accurately preserved them; I am confident they are accurate copies, etc. of the original text. Thus, they are inerrant in all they affirm. Inerrancy only applies to the meaning - all they state is without error, but God did not inspire the Bible in my bedroom. My KJV came from a printing press directly, not directly from an apostle’s hand writing down as God inspired.

There is, of course, more to discuss, but we are about to eat.

Grace, peace, truth, humility be unto you,

Eloprah

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 22, 2007, 6:08 pm

UNBELIEVABLE. This whole discussion is about the specifics of the word “inspired”?

I’m disappointed in you, Eloprah. Why didn’t you just explain that to me, instead of letting me agonize over this for hours? :sad:

 

Comment from Eloprah
Time: December 22, 2007, 7:57 pm

You wanted controversy.

Furthermore, I did not want to turn this into an argument; I did not want to have to refute an incorrect stance. I thought that if you went through your position logically you would immediately see the arguments and fallacy. Besides, a little research never hurt anyone.

This is an important and essential doctrine, one with which believers should be familiar and able to defend adequately against all sorts of attacks - both from those who believe the Bible (the original text) was not inspired and today’s manuscripts are thus errant and from those who believe that the Textus Receptus is “advanced revelation.” In essence, this is not quibbling over inconsequentials or wrestling over unimportant specifics; this is an important part of Christian belief that should be thoroughly understood (as far as humans can, anyways.)

If you did agonize - good. You should be concerned about the truth. However, your reactions are not my fault, nor my responsibility. A little research, a little logic would have set you right without a word from me.

I asked the first questions, which you refused to answer. I stated the fact; you asked for more explanation. I asked several questions in the Socratic fashion which should have led to careful consideration of the matter and led to sufficient elucidation of the matter for you. You then responded, asking questions and refusing to answer mine. I restated the questions, which you again refused to answer.

 

Comment from Jed
Time: December 22, 2007, 7:58 pm

This has been a most unpleasant conversation, and I have debated removing all traces of it from this blog. However, in favor of free speech, I will leave it here.

Eloprah, truthfully I don’t understand what all this about. If you were attempting to “educate” me in some way, the only thing I’ve learned is that theologians use the word “inspiration” to refer only to the original manuscripts. This is a pretty simplistic thing that you could have “taught” me in about one sentence, without putting me through the emotional trauma of this discussion.

I do not appreciate being patronized. I don’t like the attitude that you are the erudite professor and I am the struggling student. I am delighted to learn about what you have to say, but there is a right way to inform me (or anybody else) about your views, and there is a wrong way. You have chosen a style of teaching that is (in my opinion) the WRONG way.

Thanks for sharing, Eloprah. But in the future, please be more considerate and sensitive to my feelings (this conversation has hurt me deeply).

Let’s just forget it, and move on (as friends).

(END OF TOPIC)