Talk:George Müller

Palestine?

What evidence is there for adding Category:Christian missionaries in Palestine ? I am unaware of any connection between George Müller and the countries in the Levant. DFH 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake in reading the article - now corrected!Thanks.Brian0324 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth Brethren?

I see links to Open Brethren and Plymouth Brethren, but no text about any association with these assemblies, and nothing about whether Müller considered himself a member of these or had any link to the Brethren. 69.30.97.248 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

George Muller - correction number of orphans he cared for

when I read the link 'George Mullers strategy' down the page, I read that George Muller cared for 10,024 orphans. in the text of George Muller encyclopedia wikipedia there stands 100,000. this should be clarified.

reply to above

During his actual lifetime, 9,720 orphans were admitted to the homes. No 9,721 (Elizabeth Grace Bailey) was actually admitted on the day of Muller's death. According to the Admissions Registers, the last Full Orphan (ie, a child who had lost both parents) recorded was No 11,088, admitted on 20 September 1909, however the method of recording admissions was changed at this time and further Full Orphans were admitted after this.

It was decided om 1900 that because other orphanages were now operating elsewhere in the country lowering demand for admission, leading to one of the New Orphan Houses at Ashley Down standing empty; and because there was a demand for it, "partial orphans" would be admitted - ie, children who had lost only one parent and the surviving parent was unable to cope. The first of these was admitted on 1 August 1901. The last to be received into the homes at Ashley Down was numbered 5686. There is an entry after this record which states that the last Full Orphan to be admitted was numbered 11,603, this a total of 17,289 children were admitted to Wilson Street and the New Orphan Houses on Ashley Down. The buildings on Ashley Down were then sold to Bristol City Council and the children moved into smaller houses throughout the region. The method of recording admissions was changed again and children continued to be accepted into the homes until the mid 80s.

Silver Shiney (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Work?

This section should be renamed. Because it not only mentions Mueller's early work but also his death. 72.171.0.147 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Prayer

How on earth can an artilce about George Muller, a man famous for raising thousands of pounds via prayer, who spent hours each day in prayer, only have the word twice in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.232.99 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology

I've heard it said that Muller was a Calvinist. (John Piper comes to mind). This article says: "He records in his autobiography how he came to examine the doctrines of election, particular redemption and final persevering grace and how, having been previously opposed to these doctrines, he came with "great astonishment" to find that the Bible was to "speak decidedly" for them [3]"

But here's the passage from his autobiography:

"It was at this time that God began to show me that his word alone is our standard of judgment in spiritual things; that it can be explained only by the Holy Spirit; and that in our day, as well as in former times, he is the teacher of his people. The office of the Holy Spirit I had not experimentally understood before that time. Indeed, of the office of each of the blessed persons, in what is commonly called the Trinity, I had no experimental apprehension. I had not before seen from the Scriptures that the Father chose us before the foundation of the world; that in him that wonderful plan of our redemption originated, and that he also appointed all the means by which it was to be brought about. Further, that the Son, to save us, had fulfilled the law, to satisfy its demands, and with it also the holiness of God; that he had borne the punishment due to our sins, and had thus satisfied the justice of God. And, further, that the Holy Spirit alone can teach us about our state by nature, show us the need of a Saviour, enable us to believe in Christ, explain to us the Scriptures, help us in preaching, etc. It was my beginning to understand this latter point in particular which had a great effect on me; for the Lord enabled me to put it to the test of experience, by laying aside commentaries, and almost every other book, and simply reading the word of God and studying it. The result of this was, that the first evening that I shut myself into my room, to give myself to prayer and meditation over the Scriptures, I learned more in a few hours than I had done during a period of several months previously. But the particular difference was, that I received real strength for my soul in doing so. I now began to try by the test of the Scriptures the things which I had learned and seen, and found that only those principles which stood the test were really of value." (Michigan Historical Reprint Series of the Gould and Lincoln 1861 version, page 54).

Please note that the Calvinist terms used in the article do not appear here in Muller's own writings. And please also note that his own emphasis is on his discovery that scripture is adequate as the sole rule, and that the Holy Spirit alone is adequate as our teacher. Please reconsider the wording of this article. It seems to bear bais that is unfortunate for information about such a great man. Eliyel (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyel (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced the Calvinist viewpoint with above extract from Michigan Historical Reprint Series of the Gould and Lincoln 1861 version, page 54. According to the quote on the wiki page for Benjamin Wills Newton, Muller highly valued Newton's thoughts, thinking that he was the most accurate writer on religious themes of the nineteenth century. This might be worth mentioning but would probably provoke hostile reaction from the John Nelson Darby school of thought which even permeates the Open Brethren, especially in regards to eschatology. --Another berean (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

The lack of referencing for this article leads to it being re-assessed as C class. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I am new to editing on wikipedia and had tagged some sections on this page as needing references, but they got removed by Silver Shiney. Being new to editing I am not sure how referencing works and I may misunderstand it. I believe just having a source in the list of references isn't enough. The source should be cited throughout the article with specific page numbers. Based on this assumption I just reverted the edit by Silver Shiney. --Rantir (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "citation needed" tags because, as previously stated, the facts are given in the references listed. I have also previously put references to page numbers of various books in the text, and feel this makes the screen look untidy. To insert a citation for each and every fact will make the page unreadable due to the high number of tags.

Most of the "citation needed" tags cannot be "verified" in the way you want. For example, "Records of all children who passed through the orphanage are held and may be inspected by relatives for a modest fee.[citation needed]". Why on earth do you want a citation for that? How do you verify it? It is a simple matter of fact that the records are held and that a fee will be charged for access. The ONLY way you'll get that confirmed in writing is if (provided you are an Old Boy/Girl or descended from one of the orphans) you email me asking for access. Some of the evidence is a display in our museum. Most of the proof is contained within Muller's autobiography and the Narratives - I don't have time to go back through these large volumes to look up page numbers.

Another "citation needed" (regarding the Trust) is already met by the link to our website.

On this basis, I am reverting Rantir's revert. Silver Shiney (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I have added a citation in light of the above - the citation refers to a little known, and perhaps difficult to obtain, publication that the majority of readers will not have access to. The facts behind the removed CNs are all easily verifiable through a number of readily available sources that are listed at the end of the article, and it does not need chapter and verse to be quoted for these.

Silver Shiney (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A citation for the phrase: "Records of all children who passed through the orphanage are held and may be inspected by relatives for a modest fee.[citation needed]" could come from the organization's webpage that makes this claim. It needs to verified because it is a claim; without a citation no one is able to verify the statement. About autobiography: I agree that going through the autobiography could be a pain. I have read the first three Narratives and am willing to help find the page numbers if needed. The Abraham Lincoln page has examples of good citation style. --Rantir (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the statement (NOT a "claim") is given on the website, which is referred to in the article, a separate citation is unnecessary. I thoroughly agree that "claims" need to be verified and citations given but none of the material disputed is a "claim", it is a statement of fact. Most of these are readily verifiable from many sources which are readily available and referred to at the bottom of the article. The few that are verifiable from sources that are not readily available (for example "Household Words") I have cited. The fact remains that nearly everything said on this article could (if one was bigotted or cynical enough) be challenged and citations demanded. Where do you draw the line? I respectfully suggest that the line is drawn where I have placed it - by specifically citing only difficult-to-verify statements. The rest can be checked by reading the references already given. Otherwise, especially in an article like this, you will not be able to read the text for a mass of citation markings.

To give another example - no-one has (yet) demanded citations to verify the existence of George's children. It was only recently that I discovered that he had four. He does not refer to the two that were stillborn in any of his writings. My colleague only found out by accident when he was researching death records in the Bristol Archives for one of the orphans and discovered an entry for an unnamed child born to George and Mary Muller. He then went through the rest of the register and found a second entry. Indeed, would you want verification of the claim that George even lived? I don't have his birth certificate (although I do have his passport). As I said, where do you draw the line?

Just below this editing window, Wikipedia says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Absolutely correct. The material that I, and others, have given is verifiable from the sources referred to.

Thank you for offering to help find the page numbers. However, you say you have read the first three narratives. There are several different publications of the Narratives! The ones we sell contain all six in two volumes. Yet we have in the library several other editions, where the six are spread across four volumes, or even six. Quoting a page number would, I suggest, be pointless unless it was known exactly which version you were using - and many were published before IBSN's were introduced (I've just updated the citation regarding the Autobiography to include the ISBN as, while trying to source replacement stock, I've found different versions of the Autobiography). Most of the information in the Narratives is an exact copy of the text in the Autobiography (how did George manage that without copy-and-paste?!?!?) and much of this is quoted at length in the various biographries by Pierson, Steer, et al.

By the way, if ever you are in Bristol, do let me know - I would be delighted to welcome you to the museum and show you some of the material.

Regards

Silver Shiney (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have a serious WP:COI here and your reversion of legitimate edits and removing mainatenance tags is likely to lead to your being blocked. Just becuse you think that inline referencing is "untidy" is not a good reason for removing maintenance tags. Please stop asserting ownership of this article. --–– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can accuse me of "serious conflict of interest" or of "asserting ownership" and find your tone in this, and on my message page, offensive. My aim is to provide accurate material based on verifiable sources, most of which are readily available, some of which probably are not (and have been suitably cited). I am aghast to see that you have removed the reference to the "Robber of the Cruel Streets" video - how on earth can you possibly justify this as being spam? There is absolutely no difference between listing a video resource and its publisher and listing a book resource and its publisher - to maintain consistency, you should remove references to ALL such resources, not just arbitrarily remove ones that you take a personal dislike to.

As a "for instance" (as discussed with Rantir above) how do you verify "Records of all children who passed through the orphanage are held and may be inspected by relatives for a modest fee."? I have more than adequately explained why this does not need a citation. The website states "The Trust is also home to archives of the original homes and records of all the orphans – over 18,500 of them. These can be viewed by arrangement by contacting the Trust office." and the website is listed as an external link. People thus contacting the Trust are advised by letter/email of the charges necessarily made. Also, on that particular paragraph, why have you deleted the statement that the museum is closed on a Bank Holiday? Surely the whole idea of Wikipedia is to give verifiable facts and information on the topic? In which case (to my way of thinking) the more correct information that can be given, the better.

As you can see from the preceding entries, I am now engaged in polite discussion with Rantir about this matter. It appears that you are taking ownership of this article....

I look forward to reading your justification for your actions. I believe I have already given more than ample justification for mine. I am, however, always willing to be proved wrong but for you to slam me like you have is simply not acceptable.

Silver Shiney (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells - kindly explain this to me: "He was sent to Teignmouth to recuperate and, whilst there, met Henry Craik, who became his life-long friend.[citation needed]". What do you want cited? The well documented fact that he went to Teignmouth? The well documented fact that he met Hentry Craik? Or the fact that they were life-long friends? To my (almost certain) knowledge, it is not written anywhere that "George Muller and Henry Craik were life-long friends" but, reading Muller's books, he often refers to his partnership with Craik and his presence and involvement at the time of Craik's death, so it can safely be stated as fact that they were, indeed, lifelong friends. But if you are insisting on a written statement to that effect, I do not think this exists - so does that mean the sentence has to be deleted?

Yes, if it cannot be verified, this is an encyclopaedia not a place for original research. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a great many other statements of fact in this article for which you have not demanded citations. In the interests of consistency, why not? Like I said to Rantir, where do you draw the line? I still maintain that these citations are unnecessary but, in order to keep the peace and humour you, I have started to insert them. Silver Shiney (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:V please cite all statements, with page numbers and ISBNs of books. If Videos are used for citations, please use the {{cite video}} template. I remove the videos as they just appear to be a list of spam links. If they are references then place them in the reference section and cite accordingly. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"if it cannot be verified, this is an encyclopaedia not a place for original research" I totally agree. But this is not "original research". Perhaps if I reword the sentence you would be satisfied? It would not alter the verifiable fact that the two men were, indeed, life-long friends. Something does not necessarily have to be in black and white to be verifiable.

"There are a great many other statements of fact in this article for which you have not demanded citations. In the interests of consistency, why not?" Kindly answer the question. I could, if I was of a mind, put in so many citations that the article would become unreadable.

You removed the references to the videos without checking what you were doing, you put them back, please. I note you have made a number of edits to this article, the references to videos, that you have now removed, have been there for a very long time. Why only now do you take exception to them? "Robber of the Cruel Streets" is a docu-drama on Muller's life, "Obstacle to Comfort" is an old film discussing his life and work. I didn't add the reference to the Veggietales video, so can't comment on that. There is certainly no justification for not including "Robber" in the list of references. "Obstacle" is so old, it probably wouldn't hurt not to include it.

"with page numbers and ISBNs of books" some of the books are so old, there are no ISBN numbers. You would have known this had you read my discussion with Rantir.

As you are aware, I have started to add the demanded citations but please do not take this as a change of mind on the necessity for these. You have said nothing, nor referred me to anything, to oblige this.

I have the tremendous privilege of having ready access to a considerable amount of material on George Muller and, as this is an encyclopedia, I wish to share such information as I discover. I do not want to abuse this privilege and try very hard not to do so. You have the privilege of being a moderator for this article. From what I have read from you today, I would respectfully ask you to remember that. Silver Shiney (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells - you have once again demanded a citation for "The theology that guided George Müller's work is not widely known, but was shaped by an experience in his mid twenties when he "came to prize the Bible alone as [his] standard of judgement"." As I clearly stated the last time I removed this tag, the CITED proof is in the next paragraph. Please explain why this is insufficient. Silver Shiney (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Numbers

For page numbers could we use what Google has on Google Book on 6th Part? The text is searchable enabling us to quickly get page number up where needed. I am sure we can find the other parts on there as well. Using Google Books enables others to easily verify claims made. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantir (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how that would work, but anything to help the task can only be welcome. It would need, of course, to be clear which version of a book is being used as that would change the page number containing the citation being used (the current published version of the Narratives contains all six parts in two volumes). Also, I'm not sure if the Narratives are copyright-free - I know an American website has published some of these works as being out of copyright yet the printed version shows another American company does hold copyright on the book! Silver Shiney (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still newer at citing things on Wikipedia, but I am sure there is a clear way to reference Google Books. Here is the first part of Narrative: Fist Part. As far as copyrights are concerned, I believe anything published before 1923 is in the public domain(US Copyright Law). Once in the public domain I believe anyone is free to resell the work. --Rantir (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that link. That isn't actually the first part of the Narrative, it's an edited version and it's POSSIBLE that some material may have been omitted. As you will know, there's a considerable amount of text in the Narratives and I for one don't envy the person who volunteers to compare these versions (volunteer = someone who misunderstood the question.....). I know the laws on copyright change from country to country, but if "anyone" can sell material that's out of copyright, I wonder why the publishers in the same country say they do have the copyright? Silver Shiney (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on it being an edited work. I would still suggest that we use it as a reference for the following reasons. 1) It is on Google books, so anyone can access it and verify claims made in the article. 2) Because it is a digital resource it can be quickly searched making text citations easier. 3) Although it is not a complete collection of Muller's work it still is his writing making it a solid first-hand account. If other more complete works of Muller are found and cited that would be ideal, but we can work with what we have right now. Here is my guess regarding copyrights: The musical scores of Bach and Mozart are free for anyone to look at. When a piece is performed by a symphony and recorded that recording is copyrighted. In this case, the copyright applies to the recording of the work not the actual work itself. Perhaps something similar is with the publications. This is not my area of expertise, so you would have to ask someone else about it. --Rantir (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rantir, thanks for that useful information! I've got no problem per se about using this resource, as long as it's crystal clear which work is being referred to - for example, if I quote from the original Narratives citing chapter and verse and someone looks up the online reference, not realising there is a difference, they probably wouldn't find what I was referring to, and might then complain or delete it. That's my only reservation for what it's worth!! Silver Shiney (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The references can be made so they distinguishes between the online and the printed versions. My personnel bias is towards referencing electronically available material whenever as it allows for faster verification and searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantir (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged three references to the Narratives as page needed. Does anyone have print versions. I found and verified the statements / quotes using the online version at Gutenberg but this has not page numbers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find these for you. Silver Shiney (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have tagged three unreliable sources in the article. #8 [1] is a wiki, thus not WP:RS, #26 [2] is some sort of religious site pushing a particular POV, no evidence of it being regarded as RS, likewise #27 [3]. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Sorted. 20:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref #16 is a letter in The Times, signed simply, C. A letter in a newspaper is not a reliable source. I have amended the article text to indicate that this is a letter, not an article.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Video section

The link to CTA's website has once again been removed, with the claim that it was a spam link. I can see that the link, inserted by BuildArk, to CTA's online shop is a spam link, and I can understand why a cursory glance at their home page MIGHT also be considered a spam link. I have tried to insert a link to their "about" page (www.cta.uk.com/about.asp), but Jezhotwells has does something to prevent this.

However, CTA is an internationally-renowned company that produces films, documentaries and programmes. So is the BBC. CTA happens to have an online shop. So does the BBC. CTA's products are available from other sources. So are the BBC's. In the interests of accuracy, fairness and consistency, if a link to CTA's website is to be considered spam, then so must links to www.bbc.co.uk.

As mere retailers of the DVD, I agree that it is inappropriate to have a link to CTA's shop. As film- and documentary producers, it is reasonable to have a link to their website. Silver Shiney (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you don't seem to get it. If CTA is notable and has a wikipedia article, then it may be appropriate to wikilink to it, but inserting a weblink to the organisation is not correct. This is an article about Georeg Müller, not CTA. Your analogy with the BBC is incorrect. People do not link to www.bbc.co.uk every time that they are mentioned. BBC News is correctly used in reference cites and other parts of the BBC, e.g Radio 4, BB3, BBC Worldwide are wikilinked as they have wikipedia articles. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Silver Shiney (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

requisite proof for citation

I've moved tag 14 up a sentence or two to the claim I believe it is challenging. I'm not sure if the statement (about receipts) is verified in Muller's writings, however I entered it because I've seen one of the receipt forms. If I can find it again, and scan it in, would a jpeg image be considered sufficient as a citation? Silver Shiney (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just found a reference to receipts on page 463 of the Autobiography (ISBN 0-9647552-0-3), where Muller says on 1 March 1875 "when I sent their receipts". Not sure if this is adequate. Silver Shiney (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BRRETHRREN MEMBERSHIP & PASTORS

Is this article correct in what it says about Brethren membership & Brethren pastors?

I have attended Brrethrren Churches over many years, both in the USA & in England. I never knew a Brrethrren Church that had "membership" in the way that other denominations have membership. In my experience, you basically just attend, & there comes to be an informal consensus that you belong. So I think that the references to membership are probably in error. As to pastors, all the Brrethrren I ever knew had elders who could be called pastors. But in England where I attended, there was no formal designation of who was an elder. It was eldership by osmosis, informal recognition by the people who attended. And there could well be differences of opinion about who the elders were! (EnochBethany (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC))

out of duty, not desire

This sentence "At the end of October, he renounced his regular salary, believing that the practice could lead to church members giving out of duty, not desire." is not clear and not according to 2 Cor. 9:7: "Each one as he has purposed in his heart, not out of sorrow or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver." Please explain!--Jusmeistar (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote marked as such

The quote should be marked as such because it seems to summarize the central theological understanding of Müller. If in doubt, feel free to revert it. --Inawe 08:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

"Müller never sought donations from specific individuals and relied on the Almighty for all of his needs" Chadrack (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC) {NPOV language}

Where was he born

where was he born

2601:603:4F00:EB0:F879:B9CB:EF5C:F0EC (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Kroppenstedt. It's mentioned in the infobox on the right. – Schneid9 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)