P
.
My first ever personal Bible was a 1967 Scofield in the King James version
that I bought back in 1968. Prior to the internet and Bible study software,
Scofield's was the cat's meow.
Were we to disregard someone's work simply on the basis of their being a
jerk, then what are we to do with David's psalms? He was a premeditated
murder and adulterer. And Moses' writings? He was a murderer too. And
Paul? He delivered a number of Christians over to execution. And Peter? He
denied knowing Jesus; not once but no less than three times.
I say: look for the proof of the pudding in the pudding, not in the chef; as
Jesus once said:
• John 7:16-17 . . My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. If any man
will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak of myself.
* An attack on the character of a scholar is known as an ad hominem;
roughly defined as a chicken way of going about invalidating a scholar's
work, and/or calling into question a witness' testimony.
_
My first ever personal Bible was a 1967 Scofield in the King James version
that I bought back in 1968. Prior to the internet and Bible study software,
Scofield's was the cat's meow.
Were we to disregard someone's work simply on the basis of their being a
jerk, then what are we to do with David's psalms? He was a premeditated
murder and adulterer. And Moses' writings? He was a murderer too. And
Paul? He delivered a number of Christians over to execution. And Peter? He
denied knowing Jesus; not once but no less than three times.
I say: look for the proof of the pudding in the pudding, not in the chef; as
Jesus once said:
• John 7:16-17 . . My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. If any man
will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak of myself.
* An attack on the character of a scholar is known as an ad hominem;
roughly defined as a chicken way of going about invalidating a scholar's
work, and/or calling into question a witness' testimony.
_