Jarthur001
Active Member
tinytim said:
This is just one of the reasons I do this tim.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should I get this book?
- Thread starter ScottF
- Start date
This is just one of the reasons I do this tim.
I don't notice a lot of quotes from it, but I don't get into the KJVO debates.ScottF said:
All encyclopedia articles are somewhat biased and have a doctrincal bent to them. (There's no othe reason to write one really.) I don't agree with a lot things from David Cloud...
However...
I may purchase this encyclopedia. It's bound to contain data strategically omitted by those who promote issues opposed to Cloud's doctrines.
Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
ScottF said:
I think you will find the material to be a good investment.
Amy.G said:
Well, let's take an example and see if the Holman Bible Dictionary has ANY biases. Look up "tribulation" and browse down to where Daniel's 70th week is stated to be divided EQUALLY between two 3 1/2 year periods. That is a BIASED view of Daniel's week.
There is NO scripture that divides Daniel's week in TWO EXACT HALVES. The scriptures speak of events occuring in the MIDST of the week. The scriptures speak of several time periods that consist of either 1260 days, 42 months or 3 1/2 years (all prophetic, not Gregorian time periods).
NONE of these time periods are specified to begin at the EXACT middle of Daniel's week. For example, the two witnesses testify for 1260 days BUT are killed BEFORE the end of Daniel's week.
When you say the time periods are prophetic do you mean symbolic and non-literal? I have never understood how repeated specific time periods can be simply symbolic... but that is another topic I guess.
Is any book truly unbiased? I think all books have bias and it is just the degree or honesty about position that distinguishes one book from another.
I like the book mentioned in the original post as it is clear about where the author stands on all the topics. It doesn't have fluff like, "Well, Dr. so and so believes abc while Professor Duh believes xyz." Don't get me wrong, they have their place, but sometimes you just want a resource to say what they believe and why they believe. This is one of those books.
Like any book the key is to take the meat and spit out the bones. By far the most important key is to let the Holy Spirit be your teacher, the Bible your final authority and any other book just a secondary tool.
BTW, I have the book but did not part with hard earned cash, it was given to me by a friend.
Is any book truly unbiased? I think all books have bias and it is just the degree or honesty about position that distinguishes one book from another.
I like the book mentioned in the original post as it is clear about where the author stands on all the topics. It doesn't have fluff like, "Well, Dr. so and so believes abc while Professor Duh believes xyz." Don't get me wrong, they have their place, but sometimes you just want a resource to say what they believe and why they believe. This is one of those books.
Like any book the key is to take the meat and spit out the bones. By far the most important key is to let the Holy Spirit be your teacher, the Bible your final authority and any other book just a secondary tool.
BTW, I have the book but did not part with hard earned cash, it was given to me by a friend.
saturneptune
New Member
Amen to that. It makes me feel good to agree with you. Maybe that should be tried more often.El_Guero said:
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Praise be! Another year old thread raised from the dead!
Armchair Scholar
New Member
I agree with posters who say that Way of Life and David Cloud are quite legalistic. My former IFB pastor consulted Cloud as much as, if not more than, he consulted the Bible. Cloud was the basis for his legalistic teachings, having more to say about things than the Lord Himself has said. Cloud's site has some good information on a lot of subjects that can be verified alongside Scripture for accuracy but be careful because legalisms are added into the mix without announcement.
It seems to me every time this kind of discussion comes up the words "legalist, legalistic, legalism etc" are employed to describe someone who holds to a standard with which those using the word do not. They decry the judgmentalism of the "legalist" whilst feeling free to judge him as such. Surely legalism is about the means of salvation. Legalism is teaching a works/law based salvation and is taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc., not by David Cloud.
Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
Amen! The word "legalist" is so often misused and abused.Ulsterman said:
Although we do not agree on everything, people often accuse Brother Cloud of being judgmental and legalistic. That sounds pretty judgmental and legalistic to me. Another word for it is hypocrisy. They condemn what he does by doing the same thing to him.
We are to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). I think (in most cases) Brother Cloud does "judge righteous judgment."
Yeah! Miracles never cease on the Baptist Board, do they??Magnetic Poles said:
Or should we say that if you want to see a human example of eternal life in action, just start a thread on the Baptist Board. Even though it may be seldom seen, yet it "shall live and never die". :thumbs:
:laugh: :laugh:
Ed
Early on in the thread, a couple of posters mentioned "unbiased" works, and another mentioned not having something in their library with which they disagreed. Were either of those the case, I would have a library of exactly zero books, for I do not agree with any writer in every detail in every point, that I have seen as of yet, in my Christian life, and am do not even agree with each and every single rendering of each and every word translated in any particular version of the several copies of Scripture I have, or have access to, from the Wycliffe, through the newest version I possess. I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic, at all, so have to rely entirely on other's translations of the OT, and only read enough Greek to fight my way through it, plus we apparently do not have the original texts in the Greek NT either (not to mention the Hebrew or Aramaic OT Texts), hence I cannot be absolutely sure what is the exact wording of the text, in every single variant, as no extant manuscripts and texts are absolutely identical, in every detail. Plus, even if I had the exact wording and spelling, how would I know that I had it??
Yet I can (and occasionally do) hold up the version I am using, announce that I believe it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God written (and translated), and stand on just as sound a footing as was the Lord Jesus Christ, when He read from the Scroll of Isaiah in the temple, proclaimed it as Scripture, and announced that it was fulfilled in their ears. Even so, what He read does not apparently coincide exactly with any known Hebrew manuscripts and/or texts we have, of Isaiah, nor the Greek LXX, or any other ancient version.
He did not make a mistake when doing this, and neither do we, when we proclaim even "the very 'meanest' translation" is the written "Word of God", just as likewise did the KJV translators announce about all other versions they had any access to, at that time! It and they were referring to "the very Word of God".
The KJV that is in the pew of our church is the written Word of God; the NKJV that I will be carrying is the written Word of God; the HCSB that is referenced in the SS literature we are currently using is the written Word of God; my wife's NIV lying on the Library table is the written Word of God; and the Electronic Bible on the little computer she carries is some six times the written Word of God, for I believe it has six versions encoded, if I am not mistaken. [I do not carry one of those electronic ones, simply because my fat arthritic fingers (not to mention the small text size that make it hard for my eyes to read, plus my own computer shortcomings) would not allow me to use it very efficiently.]
But they each and every one are "the written Word of God" telling the story of "the Incarnate WORD OF GOD"!
Ed
P.S. Now if someone can find Elmer Fudd, perhaps we can all dine on "Wabbit Stew", this evening, after he bags that theological rabbit I just released! :thumbs: :laugh: :laugh:
Yet I can (and occasionally do) hold up the version I am using, announce that I believe it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God written (and translated), and stand on just as sound a footing as was the Lord Jesus Christ, when He read from the Scroll of Isaiah in the temple, proclaimed it as Scripture, and announced that it was fulfilled in their ears. Even so, what He read does not apparently coincide exactly with any known Hebrew manuscripts and/or texts we have, of Isaiah, nor the Greek LXX, or any other ancient version.
He did not make a mistake when doing this, and neither do we, when we proclaim even "the very 'meanest' translation" is the written "Word of God", just as likewise did the KJV translators announce about all other versions they had any access to, at that time! It and they were referring to "the very Word of God".
The KJV that is in the pew of our church is the written Word of God; the NKJV that I will be carrying is the written Word of God; the HCSB that is referenced in the SS literature we are currently using is the written Word of God; my wife's NIV lying on the Library table is the written Word of God; and the Electronic Bible on the little computer she carries is some six times the written Word of God, for I believe it has six versions encoded, if I am not mistaken. [I do not carry one of those electronic ones, simply because my fat arthritic fingers (not to mention the small text size that make it hard for my eyes to read, plus my own computer shortcomings) would not allow me to use it very efficiently.]
But they each and every one are "the written Word of God" telling the story of "the Incarnate WORD OF GOD"!
Ed
P.S. Now if someone can find Elmer Fudd, perhaps we can all dine on "Wabbit Stew", this evening, after he bags that theological rabbit I just released! :thumbs: :laugh: :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator: