Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 7 of 7
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	The Real stature of Satan	Is 14:16	DocTrinsograce	126950
	I cannot find a single orthodox reformation era scholar (1500 through 1700) who considered this passage to be referencing anything except the king of Babylon. Now I'm curious to see if there are any commentators at all who are of the opinion that this verse is speaking of Satan.
2	Commentator?	Is 14:16	Stultis the Fool	126953
	When you say "commentator," how do you mean? Does our friend BarbaraC102 not fulfill the role of a "commentator" of the opinion this verse is speaking of Satan?
3	Commentator?	Is 14:16	DocTrinsograce	126955
	Only if she's published.
4	Out of curiosity?	Is 14:16	Stultis the Fool	126957
	Out of curiosity, what is the importance of a "commentator" making agreement with the opinion in question?
5	Out of curiosity?	Is 14:16	DocTrinsograce	126959
	Lends authority. Helps to insure we do not go off on the deep end studing a thing.
6	Out of curiosity?	Is 14:16	Stultis the Fool	126962
	I appologize, but you beg the question: If God is no respector of persons, and we are not to be a respector of persons, what does being "published" have to do with anything? Many people have published many things, but that most certainly does not guarantee the veracity of what they write. I will add that a fact should be established on the basis of two or three witnesses, and again, where two or three are gathered, there I am amongst you. Please understand, I am not trying to fight, but rather to gain some insight into your methodology. Do we both seem to be in agreement regarding the verse in question (Isaiah 14:16)?
7	Out of curiosity?	Is 14:16	following him	126964
	Please excuss me. I must say that I agree with Stultis the Fool. I can find a "published" commentary to support any number of different sides of an issue. Gap Theory, day age theory, young earth theory. Pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib etc. They all can't be right if they are saying the opposite of each other. Most commentaries I've read are slanted toward a particular denomination or church organization's beliefs. So how can you say that their "opinions" are worth more than someone else who has not been published. Each side of the issue always thinks they are the right one and have scriptural proof (at least in their view) to back them up. As far as I'm concerned a commentary is simply someone's elses opinion it may be in writen form (and it should be considered) but its still an opinion.