[OLD REGGIE]

. If scripture is paramount; the use of history, context, language, to interpret should be acceptable under Sola Scriptura as long as the interpretation is not contrary to other parts of the bible. consistency in definition and application is needed on both sides

Would you be surprised if I said I was in total agreement with this statement?

I wish you would, at least, step back in long enough to provide the instances where SD was accused of "extra Scriptural" interpretations.

Caveat: If I didn't accuse him I may not defend the accusation.

[Titanites]

A useful site for comparing several versions of the Bible (including Douay-Rheims):

English Bible Search

[Joyful Wisdom]

Sorry Mr. Old Reggie did not mean to imply it was you. Throughout this tome, interpretations (usually by Catholics) that are rational but not necessarily true are dismissed for relying on more then just the words in the Bible. For example the whole Jesus' brother debate. The Catholic interpretation is reasonable (not the same thing as being true) but dismissed, because 'brother means brother'. The Catholic interpretation is consistant with Sola Scriptura. Again sorry if I implied actions on your point that is untrue.