Chapter, Paragraph

 1 2,5 |       be dangerous to base any view of world-wide revival before
 2 3,2 | authorship need not affect our view as to the historicity and
 3 4,7 |       denies the commonly held view that Jehovah needed Israel,
 4 5,4 |  through experience. The older view based on Jewish tradition
 5 6,2 |      necessarily dispel such a view, for the at­tribution of
 6 6,2 |   demanded by the usual modern view, and the many improbabilities
 7 6,2 |      to accept the traditional view of the isaianic authorship
 8 6,8 |  nothing to be said for such a view; it only hinders our understanding
 9 6,1 |        purely worldly point of view. Certainly the people looked
10 6,3 |        they brought him — this view is violently attacked in
11 6,3 |      Unless we grasp that this view was shared by a large majority
12 6,5 |      combining the traditional view with the general setting
13 6,7 |    B.C. If we accept the older view of composite authorship,
14 9,2 |   writers to support the first view is Kirkpatrick, p. 249 seq.
15 9,2 | cautious support to the second view.).~ ~
16 10,2|        is on the basis of this view that a date as early as
17 10,2|     least 626 to 605 B.C. This view is the basis of the following
18 11,6|        long time the prevalent view has been that we have here
19 11,6|       that those who hold this view have to assume that Jeremiah
20 11,8|      bound to get a one­-sided view. In Kings and Chronicles
21 12,1|  formerly the most widely held view, has a great deal to be
22 12,1|     The arguments against this view are almost conclusive. If
23 12,1|      Jer. 49:7-22. Though this view has received little support,
24 12,1|       or left unsolved by this view, it does make the capture
25 12,1|         The most commonly held view to-day is that both Obadiah
26 12,1|      52). Since, however, this view normally assumes that Jer.
27 12,1|      effective than the second view in meeting certain inherent
28 12,1|      For an exposition of this view see HDD, article, Obadiah,
29 12,1|      It agrees with the second view in making the capture of
30 13,4|      so far as to say that the view that Ezekiel remained in
31 13,4|       great objections to this view are that it does not ex­
32 13,4|   Though we have rejected this view as unfounded, we be­lieve
33 13,4|  explanation of their exile, a view that will have been shared
34 13,7|        However attractive this view, we would point out that
35 13,7| generally overlooked that this view tacitly attri­butes to cherub (
36 13,2|      Ezekiel. Though the usual view is that they should be taken
37 14,1|       Malachi, and this is the view adopted by us. Modern scholarship
38 14,2|        the main outline of the view given above, we see no point
39 14,5|  Second Message (2:1-9). ~ The view expressed above that much
40 14,5|        the same building.~ The view that the rebuilding of the
41 15,2|    Zechariah, ch. XIII.). This view is entirely tenable, but
42 15,2|       442-456; for the extreme view Oesterley and Robinson:
43 15,2|   personally tend to the third view. There is no valid reason
44 15,5|       The plausibility of this view is increased by the mis­
45 17,2|      B.C (For the usual modern view see HDB, article Daniel,
46 17,2|       as well. Thus the modern view virtually answers its own
47 17,6|     really fatal to the modern view. Unfortunately the achieving
48 17,6|       worse, according to this view He took a book which had
49 17,9|    seldom the supporter of one view is won over to another.
50 17,0|     comings of our Lord are in view here. It is just because
51 18,6|    balance the second or third view seems the more probable.~