Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | BradK | 95454 | ||
gbennet76, The Book of Lehi is not a Biblical souce nor is it considered so by any Evangelical scholar. I think you'll find yourself in an uphill battle to gain acceptance to your postings on the Study Bible Forum:-) The Lockman Foundation states as one of the guidelines:"Postings should be biblically based and whenever possible include supporting Bible references." Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
2 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | gbennett76 | 95466 | ||
The following is a quote from THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION: "It's not a discussion group or topical survey, but an ever growing "expository repository" that gives the layman and scholar an opportunity to share truth and contribute wisdom." I believe this is what I HAVE BEEN DOING! You however and many of your consorts have continued to tear down and "discuss" the truths and wisdom which I have posted. |
||||||
3 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | Hank | 95469 | ||
gbennet76 -- Please count me in agreement with BradK. The "truth and wisdom" that you have been posting eludes me completely. Stick with canonical Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | gbennett76 | 95473 | ||
I am sticking with "canonical scripture"... however if you are saying that I should not use references than perhaps your sermon woould benefit most of those who post here whom use commentaries, quotes, websites, scholarly works and 'study bibles'. The fact that I refer to other works that are not within your scope of theological sources is not a legitimate basis for dismissing my posts as unbiblical. | ||||||
5 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | Hank | 95475 | ||
gbennet -- I repeat, stick with canonical Scripture and legitimate, orthodox commentaries and expositions of canonical Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
6 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | gbennett76 | 95485 | ||
orthodox would mean only roman catholic commentaries and since u dont use catholic scripture translations than I guess you are not using orthodox material either. | ||||||
7 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | Hank | 95494 | ||
Dear gbennett76 -- Back in 1812 when I was a college freshman majoring in English, my professor warned me against using a word in speech or writing unless I knew what the word meant. Please consult a good dictionary or go to www.dictionary.com and see what the word "orthodox" means. Please report back when you find that it has anything whatever to say about Roman Catholic commentaries. --Hank | ||||||
8 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | gbennett76 | 95497 | ||
"conforming to established doctrine especially in religion." Considering the above definition of orthodox let's consider the following: 1)No group of Protestants or evangelicals agree to any "established doctrine" amongst themselves therefore thay cannot be orthodox.... 2)The Reformation is the result of protesting the only "established doctrine" of the Christian church( The Holy Roman Catholic Church) and its official councils . So yet again the historical record would suggest that proestantism is the opposite of orthodox which is "established". 3) It could be argued that Mormonism is orthodox in that it protests nothing yet restores everything. Restoration is orthodox! |
||||||
9 | Lehi Part 1 | Ezek 14:22 | Hank | 95499 | ||
gbennett76 -- Thanks for re-writing the English dictionary. The next chance I get, I'll recommend you to Merriam-Webster for the position of editor-in-chief. :-) --Hank | ||||||