For e v e: here is where we can discuss REVELATION

Bonnie

Super Member
commentary by Dr. Louis Brighton. I have his book. You have stated that you have his book on your computer, and think his book is "horrible" so, here is your chance to pick something from his book, citing chapter and page, that you think is bad, and I can look it up in my book and then we can discuss it. However, make sure please to cite the chapter, as it might be numbered differently on a computer. Also, my book has him discussing the Greek first, in each section, then going on to discuss the interpretation. This way, it will not interfere with your "Book of Henoch" thread. :)
 
I have no points to bring up...how could I, when you have never told me what is so horrible about Brighton's translation and interpretation? All I was asking for is one or two examples we could discuss, but I would need chapter and page numbers. Also, I have no desire to go over the whole book, line by line. That could take months.
 
e v e, I also asked you to pick something from Brighton's book, citing the chapter and also the page, if you can, and tell me what you think is so "horrible" about it. YOU said it was horrible; I did not. I am just asking for one example. THEN we can discuss it. Is that so difficult to do?
 
commentary by Dr. Louis Brighton. I have his book. You have stated that you have his book on your computer, and think his book is "horrible" so, here is your chance to pick something from his book, citing chapter and page, that you think is bad, and I can look it up in my book and then we can discuss it. However, make sure please to cite the chapter, as it might be numbered differently on a computer. Also, my book has him discussing the Greek first, in each section, then going on to discuss the interpretation. This way, it will not interfere with your "Book of Henoch" thread. :)
I have that work, but I haven't read it all the way through. (I prefer Becker's Revelation: The Distant Triumph Song.) A discussion about the work might get me to read it to the end. No pun intended. :)
 
I also have the People's Commentary on Revelation, by Pastor Mueller, which is easier to read, as well. :)

But I would still like to know what is so "horrible" about Brighton's book.
 
I also have the People's Commentary on Revelation, by Pastor Mueller, which is easier to read, as well. :)

But I would still like to know what is so "horrible" about Brighton's book.
This is just a general observation, sometimes the style or emphases of a commentary will influence a person's perception of a commentary.
 
I also have the People's Commentary on Revelation, by Pastor Mueller, which is easier to read, as well. :)

But I would still like to know what is so "horrible" about Brighton's book.
Again just a general comment on why an individual might find Dr Brighton's Book, "horrible."

I think someone who accepted a story or has a story to tell about Scripture or a particular pericope would find the four convictions of that series of commentaries too restrictive.

Some of the convictions listed in the editors' preface are in summary:
1) The content of the Scriptural witness is Jesus.
2) Law and Gospel are overarching doctrines.
3) The Scriptures are God's vehicle for communicating the Gospel.
p. ix-x, Revelation, Louis A. Brighton, (c)CPH
 
Back
Top