Monday, September 22, 2014

To answer JimS's Questions found in an earlier post

Dear JimS:

You quoted me thus: “But I asked how they knew what the modern application of Scripture was: They found modern fulfillments for parts of the Bible that do not seem prophetic. The answer was,‘They don’t know. They only believe.’”

I did not mean to imply that a Witness gave me that answer. I stated my conclusion. Bible principles and prophetic interpretation should agree, but they aren’t the same thing. If the Bible doesn’t suggest that a verse has a last-days interpretation we shouldn’t make one up.

You asked if I parted ways with Abrahamic Faith over their Socinian beliefs. That was a factor but not the sole factor.

You asked what I meant by Christian Mysticism. You ask if I meant “God’s organization” and “led by holy spirit”claims. All believers should find themselves within God’s family and led by Holy Spirit. Christian Mysticism makes claims of an advanced understanding and special appointment to prophetic office. You may want to read Manuela Dunn Mascetti’s Christian Mysticism and Garrett’s Respectable Folly.

You asked about Lang’s Commentary. I have it as a twelve volume hard back book in Schaff’s translation. The original German Edition and first English editions combine volumes. There never were sixty-three volumes. Only 12 or 15 depending on the edition. And yes, I’ve read it all. And a number of other multi-volume commentaries as well.

4 comments:

JimSpace said...

Thank you Rachael for your swift and concise reply.

I love being aware of Bible commentaries. Regarding Lang’s Commentary translated into English by Schaff, I take it you mean the commentary by John Peter Lange translated by Philip Schaff? Logos offers a 63 volume version, assuming we’re talking about the same thing, just divided differently.

I read Bible commentaries too (not as many as you though) and have a number of study Bibles.

Semer said...

And talking of commentaries, do you know the title of the 19th century commentary on Revelation that might have influenced Rutherford's interpretation?

roberto said...

What do yothink about Matthew Henry's Commentary

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

I have and use Matthew Henry's Commentary. All commentaries should be read with reservations. As good as some are, there's a bit of nonsense in all of them.