Re: [TruthTalk] Why listen to voices from the past.

[Lance Muir]

Jt:Since 1979? Scofield and his notes has similarly come under considerable fire in the last 20 years. I'm genuinely surprised that you wouldn't be aware of this.   Do a 'google' search on both. Do some of that research that I and all others have come to appreciate in your posts.       ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 28, 2004 08:10 Subject: [TruthTalk] Why listen to voices from the past. I realize and understand that he is now deceased and what I to the list below is his own story or testimony - This is the way it is presented.  He is not a doctor of the Church Nor is he some "famed" holy man or theologian who has been elevated to the status of Church Father.  To me there is a huge difference between his notes on scripture and the concept of Perichoresis from the 4th Century which has no basis in scripture.  I don't agree with Dake on every point but am not so conflicted that I need to throw out my Bible.  judyt   From: Judy Taylor   The excerpt below is part of the testimony of Finis Dake authored the Dake's Annotated Bible which IMO is a good Bible. It's KJV with his study notes.  What do you think of these standards for interpretation? - they are scriptural...   I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men. The professors did not agree among themselves on some of the basic truths, and a number even disagreed with what the Bible plainly stated on certain subjects. I thus became acquainted with a perplexing array of doctrines. Some of them were in agreement with Scripture and could be proved when all passages dealing with the subject were examined. But others turned out to be �hand-me-down� theology from a former generation of preachers, many of whom were great in spite of their doctrinal errors. I had to decide either to respect my gift and depend on God and the knowledge of the Word He had given me as a guide to determining scriptural truth, or go along with the crowd. My decision was firm. I vowed to the Lord never to teach one thing I could not prove with two or three plain Scriptures, agreeing with Paul that �in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established� (2 Cor. 13:1). Believing also that �no prophecy . . . is of any private interpretation� (to be interpreted without comparison with other Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1:20), I reasoned that the Bible is God�s Word in human language and means exactly what it says. Any interpretation which is out of harmony with what is plainly written must be rejected as the theory of man.  (Finis Dake)