New Fundamental Baptist Commentary

No, I don't really read commentaries...not that it is wrong or anything, providing the perspective, but I'm pretty much pretty simple and stick to my KVJ and listening to sermons when I am studying at home...of course I have a Strong's Concordance as well & E-SWORD!



KJV Only!

 

e-Sword rocks!

if you check out www.esword.net, they are always updating it with patches and additions to the list of commentaries, maps, books, dictionaries, etc.

e-Sword rocks!

 

sorry... that link is:

www.e-sword.net

You can also click the HELP button, then click on E-SWORD UPDATES...

 

I prefer commentaries that are written on the Biblical text in the original language and from an objective, academic perspective with each book of Bible commented upon at length and in great detail by a scholar who is a specialist in that particular book of the Bible.

I learned many years ago what fundamentalist Baptists believe the Bible teaches. During the past twenty-five years I have been much more concerned about what the Bible actually does teach.

 

Craig,

You are right. We have to be careful what we use today's commentary. Because, throughout in the lately years, baptist's teachings are changing by bit to bit slowly. The fact, I notice today's baptist commentators's interpreting of scriptures, most of them were influenced by learned from their professors at baptist colleges.

For example- when I was a student at baptist college. The president of that college asked ex-professor of TTU came to give lecture to the students in the chapel on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. I already aware of that ex-professor, what he will saying to the student before he lecture to them. Because I knew that ex-professor already learned from his teachers at college many years ago.

He gave lecture on 2 Thess. 2:2,3. I was not surprised what I was expecting of him saying on verse 2 and 3. He said to the students of 2 Thess. 2:2 on 'day of Christ', he said, "do not be shaken your mind, do not believe from any letters, by spirits, from any one of his disciples, saying that tribulation is at hand." I KNEW it! I was right.

Because, many authors, pastors, teachers, scholars saying of 'day of Christ' in KJV is a mistranslation, they saying it should be correct saying, 'day of the Lord'. Their intepreting of 'day of the Lord' means tribulation.

He was not correct saying to the students in the chapel that 'day of Christ' is 'tribulation'. Because he didn't follow the hermenuetic rule - intepreting in contextually. He KNEW 'day of Christ' of 2 Thess. 2:2 is speak of Christ's coming, because of its context with verse 1 speak of Christ's coming, not tribulation. However, he twisted on verse 2 to the students. Because he already learned from his professors at bible college many years ago. Also, I am no doubt that he do have lot of commentaries at his home.

We have to be careful what we reading any commentary. Never know these might be errors and twisting in their own intepreting the scriptures. I urge you better sticky with Word of God, what it saying than what you listening to men's teachings.

I do have commentaries in my library. But, I don't depend on them, I rather depend on God's Word, because it is the final authority over all commentaries. We have to pray ask Holy Spirit for the guide to us that we shall able to understand what God's Word saying. Also, I urge you to look at STRONG's Concordance for Greek dictionary, what the word in the verse, what it means.

I like old commentaries like Matthew Henry. Because, it is very deep and meat. Also, it is almost 300 years old. Most areas in Matthew Henry, that I agree with him. But, many things that I do not agree with him, because of salvation, also, he was Calvinist. Although, that commentary is very good for pastors, and teachers to study God's Word deep.

I notice baptists' intepreting Scripture have been changing by little bit to bit throughout in the last 25 to 50 years lately.

I consider, there are several baptist churches and colleges are already apostasy today.

The fact that I have seen them are changing. Because of follow their teachers, pastors, commentaries than read and listen Word of God. I rather follow what Word of God saith than what men saying according to Colossians 2:8.

2 Tim. 2:15 commands us to study Word of God, and to digging it deeper. Our responsible to understand and know the truth, that we ought to study Word of God so carefully. Do not let us being be brainwashing or being be deceived by listening to any men's teaching. Men's teaching could be error or twist. We have to be careful what we listening to them. Let's sticky with God's Word, what it saying than what men saying.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Sorenson is a strong KJV proponent.

 

David Sorenson is a PCC D.Min. graduate, I believe, and he is a frequent speaker there. They give high accolades to his work.

The vibes that I am getting here is that this is the first commentary from a KJV Baptist perspective in a hundred years. Have you never heard of Oliver B. Greene or Harold B. Sightler? Both have a series of commentaries from this perspective.

 

I prefer commentaries that are written on the Biblical text in the original language and from an objective, academic perspective with each book of Bible commented upon at length and in great detail by a scholar who is a specialist in that particular book of the Bible.

I learned many years ago what fundamentalist Baptists believe the Bible teaches. During the past twenty-five years I have been much more concerned about what the Bible actually does teach.

</font>[/QUOTE]You have been reading the wrong commentaries. That's why you have doubts. All those specialists who say it may mean this or it may mean that get you confused.

 

John R. Rice wrote commentaries on Matthew, Luke, John, Acts and Revelation, as well as an occasional pamphlet on Isaiah or another book. His commentaries were sometimes criticized as being devotional rather than scholarly, but he occasionally dealt with scholarly issues approached almost nowhere else, such as whether anothen should be translated "from above" in Luke 1:3, or whether the "cup" Jesus spoke of in the Garden of Gethsemane was death on the cross or death there in the Garden.

Here's the deal, though. Fundamentalists are out there carrying out and preaching the Bible. Rather than "going down deep and coming up dry," they are known for carrying the Bible with them and trying to obey it. Worldwide, the evangelical missionary force is decreasing in number. There is one segment of evangelicalism, though, where the number of missionaries being sent increases yearly--independent, Fundamental Baptists.

On the other hand, the big evangelical seminaries known for producing "great scholarship" have grad assistants teaching the students while the big shot professors are out producing "scholarship." You know, "publish or perish."

Scholarship is good in its place, which is in teaching the Word. But scholarship merely for scholarship's sake produces proud Christians. "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." (1 Cor. 8:1)

And that's the rest of the story.

[ October 06, 2005, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: John of Japan ]

 

Paidagogos wrote,

Is this personal attack all that you have to contribute to this thread? Shame on you!

 

I tend to agree with Craig in that most of the IFB type commentaries are pretty predictable in what they contain. That's not to say that they might not be a boon for some. I know and agree with (mostly) IFB doctrine but I probably won't spend money on a commentary if I can already predict what it's going to say.

The bigger critical commentaries do have value as well. I'm a big fan of Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown. While they are both a little more liberal than I would care to be I still find myself able to learn a great deal from their insights into textual issues. The strict fundamentalist commentaries are completely adherent to traditional doctrine - but are sometimes limited in that they don't even discuss anything else.

 

How refreshing, it's been a least a week since I've heard the "don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" mentality. Thought common sense and reason had come to the fundamentalist forum!

 

You DO have an imagination!

 

I prefer commentaries that are written on the Biblical text in the original language and from an objective, academic perspective with each book of Bible commented upon at length and in great detail by a scholar who is a specialist in that particular book of the Bible.

I learned many years ago what fundamentalist Baptists believe the Bible teaches. During the past twenty-five years I have been much more concerned about what the Bible actually does teach.

</font>[/QUOTE]You have been reading the wrong commentaries. That's why you have doubts. All those specialists who say it may mean this or it may mean that get you confused. </font>[/QUOTE]If I need to have heart surgery I do not go to a foot specialist nor a general practioner.

I read commentaries to consider points I may have missed or not considered, not to read what I have heard from the status quo church.

 

So has anybody here actually read enough of David Sorenson's commentary to make an intelligent statement?