Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.
|
I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.
Threaded Mode
