Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
STORMY ONE I agree with you what does believeing EGW or not have to do with our salvation . I belive our relationship with Jesus Christ is far more important than weather I believe the things EGW wrote
Note that it is quite obvious that Deems borrowed wording and sequence from Andrews. And yet in his entire chapter this is the only partial paragraph in which this kind of borrowing occurred. So, as Justice Story ruled:[/FONT]
"the author may have borrowed much of his materials from others, but if they are combined in a different manner from what was in use before, and a fortiori ["for a still stronger reason"], if his plan and arrangements are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copy-right in the book embodying such improvement" (Emerson v. Davies (1845), paragraph 2).
Well that is rather like the dog ate my homework. May or may not be true. But not much in the way of evidence, unless the word of one person carries much weight, in which case we are constantly being invaded by outer space aliens who are intent on preforming anal probes.
well glad you liked it. thanks for the props.Amen and Amen!!!
This statement is worth its weight in gold...
Note that it is quite obvious that Deems borrowed wording and sequence from Andrews. And yet in his entire chapter this is the only partial paragraph in which this kind of borrowing occurred. So, as Justice Story ruled:[/font]That is funny, this written at the time when people would take a book from England and print it in America without giving the original author anything.
"the author may have borrowed much of his materials from others, but if they are combined in a different manner from what was in use before, and a fortiori ["for a still stronger reason"], if his plan and arrangements are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copy-right in the book embodying such improvement" (Emerson v. Davies (1845), paragraph 2).
I have heard of earlier gerenations doing that. I have no proof for 1845. BTW, other printers in England could have done the same thing in earlier generations. The copyright belonged to the printer, not the author.
What kind of legal position is it to say what a "real improvement upon the existing modes" is present or not.
The judge is talking about the works. If the second work is an an improvement over the old then it is entitled to a copyright.
Yes indeed there are abundant cases where Judges ruled poorly but that of course does not make their rulings proper even in their own time.
I have no evidence that the judge in this case ruled poorly. No additional evidence is presented and the judge's rule is widely referred to by subsequent jduges.
Of course if anyone tells a story based upon another story it will usually have numerous items in common. That is why there are indeed so many similarities in Christian authors when telling of the life of Christ.
Yes and no. I had figured that such woulkd be the case when I started. In fact, there are many differences between the texts. So, when one sees striking similarities such as the Andrews-Deems example that I recently found then it sticks out.
It is based upon the Bible account
So much so that they wouldn't even bother putting the material in quotes or tell you what text they are quoting.
The problem comes mostly when EGW copies from other writers when they speculate on material,
I have not yet seen that.
such as EGW does with certain statements where she quotes Henry Melville or at best a slight paraphrase.
Please send me a scan of Melville's material so I can check it.
Agree with you there, k4c.I believe what EGW has written has a lot to do with the salvation of some people. Those who exalt her and her writings can receive and or preach unwaranted guilt and condemnation hardening the hearts of those who consider her writings equal to the Bible. This is a huge issue to me and is the reason why I'm struggling with my membership.
Galatians 3:2-4 Let me put this question to you: How did your new life begin? Was it by working your heads off to please God? Or was it by responding to God's Message to you? Are you going to continue this craziness? For only crazy people would think they could complete by their own efforts what was begun by God. If you weren't smart enough or strong enough to begin it, how do you suppose you could perfect it? Did you go through this whole painful learning process for nothing? It is not yet a total loss, but it certainly will be if you keep this up!
Galatians 3: 11-12 The obvious impossibility of carrying out such a moral program should make it plain that no one can sustain a relationship with God that way. The person who lives in right relationship with God does it by embracing what God arranges for him. Doing things for God is the opposite of entering into what God does for you. Habakkuk had it right: "The person who believes God, is set right by Godand that's the real life." Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: "The one who does these things [rule-keeping] continues to live by them."
Galatians 3:18-20 What is the point, then, of the law, the attached addendum? It was a thoughtful addition to the original covenant promises made to Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came, inheriting the promises and distributing them to us. Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God. It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses. But if there is a middleman as there was at Sinai, then the people are not dealing directly with God, are they? But the original promise is the direct blessing of God, received by faith.
Galatians 3:21-22 If such is the case, is the law, then, an anti-promise, a negation of God's will for us? Not at all. Its purpose was to make obvious to everyone that we are, in ourselves, out of right relationship with God, and therefore to show us the futility of devising some religious system for getting by our own efforts what we can only get by waiting in faith for God to complete his promise. For if any kind of rule-keeping had power to create life in us, we would certainly have gotten it by this time.
One need not be divinely inspired in order to have visions, either. Speaking from personal experience, visions can come from a variety of sources and not all of them easily discerned. For example, there can be visions that clearly take a dark turn or a dark tone, can be clearly discerned as having a negative or nefarious origin, maybe inspired by dark forces or evil spirits. Of course there can also be very human medical explanations for experiencing visions such as certain forms of temporal lobe epilepsy or psychological disturbances of various kinds. If a person of faith had such "visions" they might indeed have elements in them that seemed godly or divine but they would also be mixed with regular human error (meaning, nothing evil intended necessarily, just normal limits of human awareness making itself known and resulting in inaccurate notions produced by a fallible human mind).... we are coming from the stand point that she is not inspired. since that is our premise we must find another explination for her writings. As much as some don't like it and don't want to admit it borrowing is the most likely source. If the premise of the OP is accurate, then it would explain the source of Her writings. I personally do not believe she is divenly inspired and so no matter what one posts trying to expline or defend her postion it will not help in any way. borrowing is the only other option if she is not inspired.
there seems to be plenty of evidence in the arena of comparing her writing with similar literature, to substantiate that she did in fact borrow heavily from source materials, frequently barely even changing the words at all to conceal it.
well I consider myself to be progressively moderate.... sometimes moderately progressive, and other times progressively, moderately contrarian....The problem is that he is the only moderate SDA in the forums. The name needs to be changed. who ever put the name did not consulted the rest of the group because, there are no other Moderates here, only Evanglicals. In fact until it was posted i had never heard of Moderate.
Stormy, porgressive and moderate are basicaly the same thing, Moderate is basically an attitude and progressive is a parting on a few beliefs. So they are the same thing.well I consider myself to be progressively moderate.... sometimes moderately progressive, and other times progressively, moderately contrarian....
If you don't like what DJ brings to the table, ignore him.... resist the urge to respond to him.... in fact realize that you and he will probably not agree on most things and don't even stress yourself with trying to change his way of thinking..... just a thought....
ummm not exactly, however thank you for clarifying how you define the terms....Stormy, porgressive and moderate are basicaly the same thing, Moderate is basically an attitude and progressive is a parting on a few beliefs. So they are the same thing.
sorry it took me so long to answer this question Moriah... it is from The Message Bible.... I like using it from time to time....Stormy, what a terrific fresh translation! Which version did this come from?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?