maninthemiddle
From the same source you quoted:
"If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts
given, we might not improperly name the volumes--
the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself "
Now, it's absolutely true that on the same article the author says that "Studies in the Scriptures" are not a substitute to the Bible or as the author wrote, they are not meant to "supplant the Bible". But the point isn't about Russell ever saying that. The point is that the Bible Students elevated Russell's books to a similar status than of the Bible. Because the Studies were interpretative works based upon the Bible (albeit not the Bible itself), raising its status to that of the Bible also raised those interpretations to the level of inspired work. Actually, the same author said:
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot
see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but
we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years
--if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes
to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for
ten years, our experience shows that within two years he
goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had
merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would
be in the light at the end of the two years, because he
would have the light of the Scriptures.
and this too:
We repeat, then, that STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES are either of the Lord's providence or else they
are one of the greatest miracles.
Kenneth Floodin's video is an exercise in strawman argument and red herring. He is the one that's exercising deceit upon his audience. He is the liar in this story.
Eden