|
Have I encouraged anyone of you
on TT to go out and buy a Dakes Bible or to follow Finis Dake?
Do I back what I write with
"Dake says" or with God's Word? (my source). There is not one Bible on the
market that is without controversy or criticism Lance. This is the devil's
business and he is good at it. I am not going to waste time defending
Dake. (I liked what he said in his testimony about the confusion of so
many different voices and how he went to God's Word for wisdom). If you don't like his Bible (or Schofields)
then use another one. The Holy Spirit can lead one with a heart toward
God into His Truth using any
of them, even the Living Word if that's all one has. jt
Jt:'can not understand why on bookshelf.."
Demonstrate some ability to think critically, Judy. I couldn't come close to
selling this book (DVC) at the price charged by 'big box stores' so, if I had it
(I didn't say that I did) why then, would I. (reasons other than 'evil
commerce')??
Dake & Schofield are inherently MORE dangerous
than Dan Brown. Do you know why?
This IS serious stuff. As someone (you) who has
trumpeted the Words of God (Bible) so frequently perhaps (stones &
glass houses) you ought to have been more up-front concerning your real sources
before now.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: July 28, 2004 09:08
Subject: [TruthTalk] Why listen to voices
from the past.
Dan Brown is into divination.
I am not interested in anything he would have to say (about anything spiritual
that is) or his book
The DaVinci Code and can not
understanding why it is on the shelf in Christian Bookstores along with other
books refuting his thesis. Guess it must be motivated by money - the way of
capitalism. jt.
Jt:Your criticism(s) of perichoresis and of the
4th century would be appreciated by Dan Brown (author of The DaVinci
Code).
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
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)
| 
