You see this from time to time that the society will quote a reference or commentator with out actually giving a reference. The book study tonight has two such statements.
***
cl chap. 25 pp. 250-251 "The Tender Compassion of Our God" ***One reference work explains that the verb ra·cham´ "expresses a deep and tender feeling of compassion, such as is aroused by the sight of weakness or suffering in those that are dear to us or need our help."
***
cl chap. 25 p. 251 "The Tender Compassion of Our God" ***Little wonder that one commentator said of Isaiah 49:15: "This is one of the strongest, if not the strongest expression of God?s love in the Old Testament."
Yet they go on to quote a long dead philosopher and give reference to his name, Seneca. I looked up the racham in Strongs and they didnt quote Strongs. Is it right to quote works without giving referece? Not just a dub thing, I mean would any work be taken seriously if they did this.
Their reference to racham was valid so why not give the authority for the definition?
pissed IPSec