E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes

Page 2 of 4 (72 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 71 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 411
Ken Shawver | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 4:04 PM

Mike, I too would be interested in these notes. I have read some of Bullinger's work and it gives one some thought provoking topics of converation.

In Christ,

Ken

Dell Studio 1555; 15.6 True Life LCD; Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.20 GHz, 2M Cache, 800 MHz FSB ; 500GB 5400 HDD; 8GB RAM, Win 10, Chrome 70

http://wiki.logos.com/

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 4:38 PM

Kenneth Shawver:

George, all though we have not agreed previously and don't expect to now, I would ask that you refrain from disparaging remarks for those who do not agree with you. You are entitled to your opinion and though I may not agree with you I would not wish to call you a "kook" because of your honest beliefs. As a brother in Christ I would hope you would give the same consideration to others. I have yet to meet a man that has obtain a full understanding of the scriptures. You may very well be surprised on the day you meet the Lord to find out what you had right and what you had wrong.

Remember Isaiah 55:9

In Christ,

Ken

Read http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app146.html from the Companion Bible where he stands the meaning of καταβολή on its head so that it doesn't mean "foundation" but rather "destruction" and tell me that this isn't kooky.  This is part of the basis for their contention that there was a world prior to this world and that souls fell in this pre-existent world.  They also teach that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent in the account of the Garden so that Cain was the offspring of the serpent.  Can you still contend that this isn't kooky?  You might want to read the article "Serpent Seed" in Wikipedia.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 212
Steven Yu | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 6:01 PM

I would like to see the Companion Bible Notes in Logos too!

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free", John 8:32.
"你們必定認識真理,真理必定使你們自由", 約翰福音 8:3.

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 8:27 PM

George Somsel:
They

 

Who are THEY?  I am a dispensationalist and I dont subscribe to what "THEY" say.  By the way, I am not offended by what George has written.  I have been on the forum also for a very long time and I am used to George.  Like Bullinger, George has wisdom in areas and I appreciate those areas, and like Bullinger and all of us, George has blind spots and opinions that some would consider kooky.  George, I would not normally write that on a forum, but as I have written, those of us who know you over time on the forum know your style and just let your comments be what they are.  The Bema will bring all to its proper light.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 8:40 PM

MarkSwaim:

George Somsel:
They

 

Who are THEY?  I am a dispensationalist and I dont subscribe to what "THEY" say.  By the way, I am not offended by what George has written.  I have been on the forum also for a very long time and I am used to George.  Like Bullinger, George has wisdom in areas and I appreciate those areas, and like Bullinger and all of us, George has blind spots and opinions that some would consider kooky.  George, I would not normally write that on a forum, but as I have written, those of us who know you over time on the forum know your style and just let your comments be what they are.  The Bema will bring all to its proper light.

You really should include the context rather than simply one word.  I had to go back to look at the context.

Did you read the Wikipedia article?

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 9:02 PM

Did you reference a wikipedia article?  Sorry but I did not see your reference.  I had to look through all the posts and still did not see it.  What article are you referring to. You really should include the context rather than simply ask about a wikipedia article Smile

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 9:12 PM

MarkSwaim:

Did you reference a wikipedia article?  Sorry but I did not see your reference.  I had to look through all the posts and still did not see it.  What article are you referring to. You really should include the context rather than simply ask about a wikipedia article Smile

I wrote:

"You might want to read the article "Serpent Seed" in Wikipedia."

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 10:04 PM

Thank you George.  I just skimmed the article.  I am familiar with this teaching, but this teaching has nothing to do with dispensationalism.  I therefore do not understand why in the context of the conversation, you are bringing this teaching up.  I certainly do not subscribe to it and neither do the many many dispensationalists I associate with.

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 10:11 PM

MarkSwaim:

Thank you George.  I just skimmed the article.  I am familiar with this teaching, but this teaching has nothing to do with dispensationalism.  I therefore do not understand why in the context of the conversation, you are bringing this teaching up.  I certainly do not subscribe to it and neither do the many many dispensationalists I associate with.

 

This is the second time in the course of this thread that I have found it necessary to state that I was not calling dispensationalists kooks (just borderline).  Ted has also stated the same.  Please read what I wrote without inserting any additional thought.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 10:40 PM

Ok.  Thanks for making that clearer.  Why then would you call dispensationalists borderline kooks?  I trust I am not inserting any additional thought here.  And I am genuinly asking you. 

Posts 2869
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 11:07 PM

George Somsel:
This is the second time in the course of this thread that I have found it necessary to state that I was not calling dispensationalists kooks (just borderline).  Ted has also stated the same.  Please read what I wrote without inserting any additional thought.

This is partly my fault in all fairness George did not mention dispensationalism in his comments i was the one who raised it up due to previous exchange. I do not want him to get into the firing line for something he is not actually guilty of so my apologies to all including George. This is George being George - it takes some getting use to, if it was someone else i might take offence but with George i would say our Lord has not finished the work of sanctification on him yet. This thread is beginning to take George's comments seriously which i don't think it should. However some of the issues he raised about the Companion Bible are valid i. e "the gap theory", "foundation" but rather "destruction" & "Serpent Seed". I would not have used his choice of words but one can see what he is getting at, exegetically some (not all) of the comments in the Companion Bible do miss the mark. I have the Companion Bible and i would love to see it in Logos.

Sorry all, due to the time difference between the Uk and America i could not leave my comments earlier. George means no harm, you all will come to find that out as the days goes by so don't take him seriously when he is being light-hearted. I agree not all in this forum knows his style

Sir T

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 6:06 AM

Hi Ted

Thanks for your comments but they are unnecessary.  I know George as far as the forum goes as well.  I have been apart of the ng for many years.  I have read with lots of respect George's comments on dispensationalism right before the ng basically shut down due to the forum here.  I have written to George on the ng I believe (it may have been a private email but I think it was on the ng) that I highly appreciated his comments even though I did not agree with much of what he wrote.  He acknowledged my appreciation.  So you see, i dont need time to get used to George. I am used to him.  And George should not continuously be defended.  I believe he is an adult and can stand on his own two feet.

I also agree with your comments "in all fairness".  You have mentioned this before and we do need to be fair (I guess).  George DID mention dispensationalism in his last response.  He mentioned that he does not think dispensationalists are kooks.  Therefore he DID mention it.  But he did not stop there. (We who know George knew he would not stop there).  He continued and called dispensationalists borderline kooks.  I simply asked him what he means by that.

I also need to reinterate that I have not been offended by George at all.  Are you, Ted, offended by my continuing to call George on this?  George, are you offended that I am calling you on this?  Ted, if you are offended, I do not mean to offend you but in all fairness you should not be offended.  Ofter all, this is George and this is me.  You did mention that the thread is beginning to take George's comments seriously which in your opinion, these comments should not be taken seriously.  I am however amazed that you would say that and wonder why you would say that.  After all, you do know George and you were part of the dispensationalist exchange that took place prior to the ng going south.  So you do know George is serious about his comments.

I just wonder why it is that if anyone else on the forum makes comments of this nature, they should be called on them...but when George makes them we should allow him to offend others (let me explain this comment...I am not offended by his remarks.  But I KNOW that his remarks have offended others.  I think that is why in the ng there were many observers, but there were not many brave souls who made comments apart from the usual crowd.  Make a comment that will cause George to mock the commenter, and the commenter stops commenting. 

Once again, I completely understand this thread.  And I understand George.  He has cleared up the matter after 2 pages of forum writing that he does not think dispensationalists are kooks.  Now he just needs to clear up the comment that they are borderline kooks by either explaining what he means by that, are writing that he was joking.  We who know George do not expect him to write that he was joking.  Nor do we expect an apology.  George is George and we love him and we have appreciated his comments so much over the years.  I say that without joking.  I appreciate him much.  But for my benefit and the benefit of others, I call him on his posts because believe it or not, I learn from George. I wont say what I learn.  I can only say that I am a dispensationalist and I have kept the email exchange on dispensationalism where he blasts it as a rediculous system for educational and amusement purposes.  Will I always be a dispensationalist?  Maybe and maybe not.  I like many of us (should be all of us) are learning and when we see where we are wrong, we should be willing to change our minds.  We study to learn more and grow more.

Posts 403
777 | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 6:32 AM

George Somsel:

And I might even buy it just to have the happy hunting grounds of the kooks available. 

You haven't read my book yet (since it isn't finished) so don't be too quick to judge that everything won't be correct.  Big Smile

No need to read YOUR book.  I have other books from higher authorities that keep me plenty busy.  Thanks anyway.

I'm glad that you'd buy a copy of the Companion Bible Notes and Appendixes just to work over the "kooks", if that's what rings your bell.  If I remember my Bible correctly, the gate you're supposed to be looking for is small, so I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the "kooks" get it right.  Myself, I'm still studying and keeping my eyes open, like I have been for many, many years.  If what the "kooks" say lines up with The Word, then I'd have to side with the "kooks" in that particular instance.  What doesn't line up gets 86'd.  I have a feeling that your book isn't going to help me much with the weeding out of junk to get to truth.. eh?  Father's Spirit does a real dandy job of that without your book.

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

If the "kooks" look like fools to you, then you'd better remember that God uses whoever He will and He's pretty good at covert activity.  I don't know what country you're from, but here in the U.S.A. we have freedom of religion and "kooks" have all the rights everyone else has.  Father ALONE is the judge.  He might object to you trying to steal His job.

Have a super-duper really boss keen day!!! Big Smile

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:13 AM

MikeM:
I have a feeling that your book isn't going to help me much with the weeding out of junk to get to truth.. eh?  Father's Spirit does a real dandy job of that without your book.

I'm glad to hear that you have a fast-track to know the truth.  Most of us need to study and think a bit.  All you need to do is to drink a few spirits.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 153
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:21 AM

I certainly don't want to get embroiled in this interchange ... but I would like to recommend a book to all of you, whichever side of the fence you come down on.  Unfortunately it's not yet in Libronix.

"An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics" (KREGEL) ed by Mal Couch.

It is well reasoned, well documented, and offers useful points to consider, while also "86'ing" some rather foolish points.

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 403
777 | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:34 AM

George Somsel:

I'm glad to hear that you have a fast-track to know the truth.  Most of us need to study and think a bit.  All you need to do is to drink a few spirits.

I do study & think.  I do, however, feel that Bullinger's work would find a more welcome home in my library than your work would.  I'm just considering the source of your book.  SInce your book is not completed, perhaps you'll consider this addition:

A horse is a horse of course of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course.
That is of course unless the horse
Is the famous Mister George!

Go right to the source and ask the horse.
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister George!

 

People yakkity-yak a streak
And waste your time of day,
but Mister George will never speak
Unless he has something to say!

A horse is a horse of course of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?
Well, listen to this...

" I am Mr. George!"

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Take inventory.  See how things are going for you today and then again in about a month.  And remember, you brought this on yourself.

 

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:46 AM

MikeM:

How about adding E.W. Bullinger's notes from The Companion Bible as a Logos book? 

It's out of copyright, so you all could ca$h in.

Can we just stop all this name-calling and one-upmanship. Somebody made a suggestion. Whether you or I think it is a good book or a bad book, is irrelevant to the fact that this is a suggestion.

Too many of these discussions are getting hi-jacked these days, to discuss everything from KJV onlyism, to Genesis 1 issues, to Dispensationalism.

At least in the newsgroups we tried to keep our discussions first of all civil and secondly, on topic. The topic is using Libronix. The topic is not whatever theological banjo someone prefers to play. I wish the Logos folks would step in and 'lay down the law' on this. It's getting ridiculous.

Please, let's lay down our verbal weapons, and our theological sensitivities and discuss the software.

Your humble and self-appointed moderator,

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:54 AM

MarkSwaim:
I know George as far as the forum goes as well.  I have been apart of the ng for many years.  I have read with lots of respect George's comments on dispensationalism right before the ng basically shut down due to the forum here.

This may seem like a strange place to finally make my first post here in the forums but having tried to follow what's going on here now that most of the action has moved from the newsgroup this comment by Mark sums up my second frustration with the move.

If we put to one side the fact that the structure on the forums makes it virtually impossible to follow what's going on unless the posters quote extensively to preserve the context the other major problem is that in moving a 'mature' group to a new loacation and merging it with lots of new users creates a massive amount of background noise as the new bigger group struggles to build a new identity and get to know each other. Whilst I cannot deny that its great to see a lot of new people involved in the discussions as an ex user of the newsgroups I think I'll wait for the dust to settle before I actively commit my time to these forums.

God Bless

Graham

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 3883
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:56 AM

Richard DeRuiter:
At least in the newsgroups we tried to keep our discussions first of all civil and secondly, on topic. The topic is using Libronix. The topic is not whatever theological banjo someone prefers to play. I wish the Logos folks would step in and 'lay down the law' on this. It's getting ridiculous.

Thanks Rich -

At one point yesterday I was considering leaving the forums entirely because of the bickering - some of which was my own fault.  At this point I will not, but I would like the sniping and "bickering" to stop.

Blessings,

Floyd

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 2869
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 7:58 AM

MarkSwaim:

Hi Ted

Thanks for your comments but they are unnecessary.  I know George as far as the forum goes as well.  I have been apart of the ng for many years.  I have read with lots of respect George's comments on dispensationalism right before the ng basically shut down due to the forum here.  I have written to George on the ng I believe (it may have been a private email but I think it was on the ng) that I highly appreciated his comments even though I did not agree with much of what he wrote.  He acknowledged my appreciation.  So you see, i dont need time to get used to George. I am used to him.  And George should not continuously be defended.  I believe he is an adult and can stand on his own two feet.

I also agree with your comments "in all fairness".  You have mentioned this before and we do need to be fair (I guess).  George DID mention dispensationalism in his last response.  He mentioned that he does not think dispensationalists are kooks.  Therefore he DID mention it.  But he did not stop there. (We who know George knew he would not stop there).  He continued and called dispensationalists borderline kooks.  I simply asked him what he means by that.

I also need to reinterate that I have not been offended by George at all.  Are you, Ted, offended by my continuing to call George on this?  George, are you offended that I am calling you on this?  Ted, if you are offended, I do not mean to offend you but in all fairness you should not be offended.  Ofter all, this is George and this is me.  You did mention that the thread is beginning to take George's comments seriously which in your opinion, these comments should not be taken seriously.  I am however amazed that you would say that and wonder why you would say that.  After all, you do know George and you were part of the dispensationalist exchange that took place prior to the ng going south.  So you do know George is serious about his comments.

I just wonder why it is that if anyone else on the forum makes comments of this nature, they should be called on them...but when George makes them we should allow him to offend others (let me explain this comment...I am not offended by his remarks.  But I KNOW that his remarks have offended others.  I think that is why in the ng there were many observers, but there were not many brave souls who made comments apart from the usual crowd.  Make a comment that will cause George to mock the commenter, and the commenter stops commenting. 

Once again, I completely understand this thread.  And I understand George.  He has cleared up the matter after 2 pages of forum writing that he does not think dispensationalists are kooks.  Now he just needs to clear up the comment that they are borderline kooks by either explaining what he means by that, are writing that he was joking.  We who know George do not expect him to write that he was joking.  Nor do we expect an apology.  George is George and we love him and we have appreciated his comments so much over the years.  I say that without joking.  I appreciate him much.  But for my benefit and the benefit of others, I call him on his posts because believe it or not, I learn from George. I wont say what I learn.  I can only say that I am a dispensationalist and I have kept the email exchange on dispensationalism where he blasts it as a rediculous system for educational and amusement purposes.  Will I always be a dispensationalist?  Maybe and maybe not.  I like many of us (should be all of us) are learning and when we see where we are wrong, we should be willing to change our minds.  We study to learn more and grow more.

Hi Mark,

            I know it is hard to believe but i really was not directing my post to you as earlier on you made your position clear. Me offended by you taking George to task, a fellow News grouper who knows him well please feel free. My comments were more directed to those who may not know George & i should have made that more clearer. I do agree that some of his comments may have the effect of stopping others from participating so the need on my part to inform those who do not know him not to take him seriously. I really do believe this is a misunderstanding Mark of what i was trying to do, i certainly was not trying to defend George or be his spokesman. My concern was that the conversation did not degenerate into something else - i was trying to put things in context. Did i understand what you were up to - yes and i have no problem with that. I hope this helps to throw light on my position, others may just have to learn from experience that George does write with a sharp pen. If i thought rebuking, telling off would work with George as it would with most people then fine. Somehow i don’t see that as having any effect on him, my point is why waste one’s time when he will only annoy one with his uncharitable remarks/ response. I wish George was more refined in his comments but he is not. Am i therefore saying you should not respond to him as one who knows him, PLEASE do & i would enjoy it! But for others i think they may just miss the point. To beat George in his game one must get down to his level and be like him, somehow i don’t think most would want to go down that road (Becoming like what you are trying to correct)

 

Regards Mark, if you still want to discuss this go to the Newsgroup when you will find my email and drop me a line.

 

Ted

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Page 2 of 4 (72 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS