Monumental

[Genevanpreacher]

I apologize, but the discussion did involve the Geneva Bible in it, and I felt the freedom to include my testimony of the Geneva with what was part of this discussion.

 

"The reason that the Pilgrims preferred the Geneva Bible is not actually because of the Calvanist notes within it.  They preferred it for the simple reason that it was more clear within the covers of the Geneva that kings were not divine...."

(your response #9)

 

" Among other things, the Puritans were Calvinists, preferred the Geneva Bible because of the Calvinist notes, believed in liberty and freedom for themselves within the constraints of their view of Scripture" (John81 - #8)

Edited June 25, 2014 by Genevanpreacher

[HappyChristian]

Sigh. Discussing is one thing. Promoting another. It's not the first time but needs to be the last. Capice?

[Genevanpreacher]

I have edited my above 'promoting'. I 'capiced'.

 

I also edited post #16 as you can see.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Genevanpreacher

[1Timothy115]

Call me a simple child if you will but, I gave the movie high marks because it promoted a return to the Biblical principles so prevalent during the formation of this country. My promotion in no way had anything to do with the rants, preferences, agendas, personal peeves, or dislikes; nor was it intended to trample on them. If you've seen the film and have a comment on its value I hope you provide it. I would watch it again and I think it can and does provide emphasis in seeking God's truth.

[HappyChristian]

I really do want to see it, but it's not one our library has.  We'll have to buy it somewhere.  It sounds like one of those movies we would want to keep. 

 

Edited to add:  ha!  Found it on CBD!

[2bLikeJesus]

I just watched it.  If you are an Amazon Prime member, like myself, it is available to watch free on instant video.  I will recommend this heartily. I did not see a promotion of Puritans at all in this, nor any "call to for us to be like them".  In fact their mention is only fleeting in the very beginning of the movie.  Please watch it for yourself, you will be glad you did.  

[Genevanpreacher]

The film features a Mormon, has Cameron saying he didn't even approach the film as a Christian, paints a false portrait of Puritans while calling us to be more like them; which is something most IFBs object to and separate from.

I didn't see any mention or scene in the movie with Glenn Beck. There is a youtube interview between him and Kirk.

I thought the movie was excellent, and although I am considerably 'public school taught' in history, I may be wrong, but I thought accuracy was prime here.

[John81]

I didn't see any mention or scene in the movie with Glenn Beck. There is a youtube interview between him and Kirk.

I thought the movie was excellent, and although I am considerably 'public school taught' in history, I may be wrong, but I thought accuracy was prime here.

The lack of accuracy comes in the form of very selective choices of that which to point out and that which to leave out which gives a very distorted and inaccurate view.

[Genevanpreacher]

The lack of accuracy comes in the form of very selective choices of that which to point out and that which to leave out which gives a very distorted and inaccurate view.

I watched the whole movie in 2 sittings. The first 1/2 with my wife, (who by the way has taught our homeschooled children History, amongst the rest of their school subjects, for about 15 years), the rest by myself. I listened intently, and neither of us noticed anything wrong with it as a 'documentary' type of movie. Yeah, it may not be fully detailed as a 'history lesson', but I saw no blatant untruths. Do you have any details you think were untrue? I do know a bit about history that some may not know, but I don't pretend to know it all. If there is 'colored' pretense here I don't see it.

[John81]

It's been too long since I've seen it to offer any details. Typical of David Barton is to narrowly focus on the good points of something he wants to promote while making sure to leave out the rest of the story. It's not so much that what he presents isn't always true, it's that it's presented in a manner to skew how one views it.

This is just a simplistic example, and not something from Barton:

Say a person wants to make French slavery in Haiti seem like a good thing for the slaves. This person looks through the historical records, finds three French slaves who spoke well of their time in slavery and of their masters.

Now, those three accounts are historically accurate, they are true, but do they present the overall truth of the matter? If the person simply puts those three accounts forth in their story on French slavery in Haiti that would give the skewed view that the French must have been wonderful slave holders and their slaves pleased to belong to them.

If you are interested, you might do a search for articles detailing the bad history Barton puts forth. There are many out there.

On the other hand, perhaps the fact Barton is endorsed by Kenneth Copeland will mean something to you.