Posted on 06/03/2009 12:00:38 PM PDT by blue-duncan
HOW TO MASTER THE BIBLE
CHAPTER 1--HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE
THE Bible is a plain, honest, straightforward, simple Book. It is easy to read and easy to understand. It needs no learned introduction, no expert scholarship to enable us to grasp its meaning. It was written for the people and it has not missed its mark. It is a people's Book; therefore a classic. It is an exhaustive, work; therefore a standard. It readily discloses its secret to men of pure heart and simple faith, whether college-trained or unacquainted with the learning of the schools. The primary requisite of the Bible student is a sincere desire to know the will of God in order that he may do it. The Bible is a revelation of the will of God. Its primary appeal is to the will of man. It was written to be obeyed. Hence the primary qualification demanded in the reader is not scholarship but surrender, not expert knowledge but willingness to be led by the Spirit of God. Simple piety will feed on the inner spiritual kernel of Scripture. Pride of intellect will break its teeth upon its external literary shell.
It is not necessary to preface our study of the Bible with a course of Bible Introduction. The purpose for which the Bible was written, the purpose for which it ought to be read, may be accomplished without any knowledge of the conclusions of modern Biblical criticism as to the writers and the readers of the several books, the time when and the place where they were written, their simple or composite character, or the grounds on which they have been assigned a place in the sacred Canon. Bible Introduction may enhance our knowledge of the circumstances under which the books of the Bible were composed, but it is a poor substitute for the deeper and more exact knowledge of the message and content of the books themselves.
Bible Study is the study of the Bible not the study of problems relating to the composition of the Text and the transmission of the Canon.
The Bible is an open Book, not a cypher message the key to the interpretation of which is in the possession of the learned. It requires no preliminary course of study initiating us into the method of its composition and the mystery of its meaning. The essential content of the Bible, the facts recorded, the truths taught, and the precepts enjoined are within the compass of the most ordinary reader. The principal qualification for the right understanding of the Bible is a pure heart, a simple faith, and an obedient will. We must be in sympathy with the Divine aim and purpose of the Book which is to make unholy, men holy, and to make holy men holier still. We must be prepared to accept as authentic the things which it records as facts. We must be prepared to believe as true the interpretation which it gives of the real significance and meaning of those facts. And we must be prepared to obey the precepts which it enjoins as arising necessarily out of those facts and those truths.
The first necessity for the understanding of the Bible is the removal of all the embargoes which have been placed upon the operation of the Spirit of God in opening and illuminating the mind of the reader. Through the Word of God the Spirit of God awakens a clear conviction of the certainty of the facts recorded, the truth of the interpretations placed upon those facts, and the imperative necessity of obeying the will of God as made known in and through them.
The Bible is pre-eminently a manual of life and conduct for the layman. In the early days of the Christian Church, as also at the time of the Reformation, and again in the century following the great Evangelical Revival ushered in by the preaching of Whitefield and Wesley, the real meaning, the true purport, and the actual content of the Bible were well understood. The Bible was an open Book, " understanded of the people." Lay-preachers abounded. The Gospel message was grasped by all and proclaimed by all. The assumption of the incapacity of the unlettered layman to ascertain the true meaning of the Word of God must be resisted at all costs. It is made by the craft of the critic no less than by the craft of the Romish priest. It must be disallowed both in the interest of the truth itself, and also in the interest of the right of the laity to assist in the proclamation of the truth, without having to undergo a preliminary course of instruction in the very questionable results of modern Biblical Criticism.
The true key to the understanding of the Word of God is the sincere desire to ascertain just exactly what the Spirit of God in the sacred writers intended to convey. We must not take their words and read into them a meaning of our own.. We must receive the Word whether it accords with our preconceptions or contradicts them. We must interpret literally everything that was meant to be interpreted literally, and we must interpret figuratively everything that was meant to be interpreted figuratively.
Thus the early chapters of Genesis are not sacred myths but historic facts. The book of Jonah is not an allegory but the record of a historic event. The Son of Solomon is an inspired idyll to be interpreted not literally as if it were a common secular love song, and not allegorically as if it meant something altogether different from that which it says, but typically, as setting forth, under the type of the transcendent experiences of human life and human love, the still deeper mysteries of the union of the soul and its Saviour, of Christ and His Church. `
The allegorical method of Origin and Christian fathers of Alexandria, which empties the records of the Old Testament of their content of historical reality, and the hypothetical method of modern Biblical Criticism, which accounts for the whole content of Scripture upon naturalistic principles, and leaves no room for the transcendent operation of the Spirit of God, are both alike to be rejected as wholly incompatible with the plain declarations of the Word of God itself, , and a virtual denial of its claim to be a supernatural and a real revelation of the mind and will of God to men.
The Bible will never be understood until it is received for what in truth it is-a transcript from real life. The Bible is always true to itself. There are no real discrepancies and no real contradictions in it, though it can easily be so misinterpreted that the critic may be able to get many discrepancies and contradictions out of it. The Bible is always true to life. There are no contradictions between the facts stated in Scripture and the facts which have been ascertained and brought to light in any department of modern literary and scientific research. Astronomy, geology, archaeology, comparative religion, and Biblical Criticism in all its branches, have yielded no single instance of inaccuracy or unreliability in the written Word of God.
It is necessary to state the case thus strongly in view of the widely prevalent assumption that in some of these respects the accuracy and the authority of the Bible have been discredited. But whatever may be the learning and the scholarship of those who deny the authenticity and the harmony of the Biblical records, and however frequently the assertion of inaccuracy and unreliability may be made, the refutation of the charge is complete, and the Bible stands today, as it ever has stood, a well-spring of Divine truth, in every detail clear and pure and undefiled.
For an illustration of the truth of this statement the reader is referred to the author's "Romance of Bible Chronology," where in spite of the assertion of all manner of chronological discrepancies in the Text of the Old Testament, it is conclusively proved that every date given in the Old Testament is in perfect accord with every other date given therein, and also with every date obtained from contemporary monuments, such as the cuneiform inscriptions in the British Museum. The Biblical narrative is thus seen to be both self-consistent and self-sufficient, and also in perfect accord with all the facts that , have been brought to light by modern discovery and recent research. A similarly detailed study of any other class of alleged discrepancies will establish in like manner the entire accuracy and the complete authenticity of the Biblical records.
The Bible will never disclose its meaning to the man who approaches it in a spirit of doubt, who turns its facts into fables, its certificates of authenticity into late forgeries, and its theophanies into the subtle workings of the subliminal consciousness of men. The Bible must be treated with reverence as well as with intelligence. Its solemn testimonies must be accepted in good faith as trustworthy communication of the mind and will of God to men. The Bible student must be a man of prayer, in living communion with the living God, who utters His voice in the living soul. As the eyes fall upon the printed page the Spirit of God defines and perpetuates for all time the exact content and the true meaning of the Eternal Word. Divine power resides in the Word. It inheres in every translation of the Word. It penetrates the heart, illuminates the understanding, and invigorates the will. Every sympathetic and sincere soul may understand, if he is willing to obey, the holy will of God made known in His Holy Word.
Well....you may think it's fixed.....but I'm not a Protestant and I don't know if that is their position or not. My theology is "First Century Christianity" which predates yours by about 300 years. The scriptures I have offered demolish your Church/State theology quite adequately. If you disagree with those passages it would behoove you to provide some of your own.....to show me my error.
When one is presented with Biblical passages that differ with their preconceived ideas, one should attempt to find the mistake in understanding of those passages instead of just casting about aspersions.
"There, I fixed it for you", tells me a great deal about your ability to discuss this subject.....so I'll understand it if you don't respond with proof of my error.
As a side note.....I am not a supporter of Martin Luther and his efforts to bring "Catholic Lite" to this world. In fact, I'm further from Protestantism than you are!
The Ru'ach HaKodesh chose to have it written in Koine Greek. You miss one important point, the Good News was not written in Aramaic !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
“The scriptures I have offered demolish your Church/State theology”
...tells me a great deal about your ability to discuss this subject.
I believe I have already shown you your error.
What a simplistic view of biblical history...
St. Papias and Irenaeus stated that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic presumably for Aramaic speakers in Syria-Palestine, while the Gospel of Mark was written for the Greek speaking Christians of Rome, who would not have known Aramaic fluently, but who might have become familiar with certain phrases from the preaching of the Apostles or the liturgy, just as the words “Alleluia”, “Amen”, “Abba”, “Hosanna” and “Sabaoth” are still in common usage in the western liturgy.
Irenaeus lived from ~ CE to 202 CE Were they eyewitness' ? I don't think so. You would impugn the Holy Spirit (Ru'ach HaKodesh) There is lots of very good scholarly research to That is based on Hebraisms in the text. We know that the texts which we have are in Koine Greek. One needs to take the text at face value and not speculate.Papias lived 70 CE to 150 CE
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and believe mortal men.
suggest that Matthew was first written in Hebrew.
Speculation leads to error. NAsbU Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
You didn't show me one thing. What you did was post more of your "YADA YADA YADA"!
Your cut and paste included three scriptures [Matthew 16:13-20][Mark 8:27-30] & [Luke 9:18-21]. All these say is that He was addressing His disciples. We've already gone over Matthew in detail so let me show you your error in Mark and Luke.
[Mark 8:27-30] Douay-Rheims 27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to "them": Whom do men say that I am? 28 "Who" answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. 29 Then he saith to "them": But whom do "you" say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. 30 And he strictly charged "them" that "they" should not tell any man of him.
Don't you really think that by this time they had discussed among themselves just who this guy, "Jesus of Nazareth" really was? Peter was answering for the group! The rest of them were not standing around scratching their heads!
[Luke 9:18-21] Douay-Rheims 18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked "them", saying: Whom do the people say that I am? 19 But "they" answered, and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias; and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. 20 And he said to "them": But whom do "you" say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. 21 But he strictly charging "them", commanded "they" should tell this to no man.
These two passages in Mark and Luke duplicate the passage of Matthew. Our Lord is asking all of them the questions. He responds to all of them as you can see by my highlights. The only thing different about Matthew is the fact, in that passage.....He refers to Himself as the Rock. I already proved that in my earlier post with my scriptures that back up everything that I said about it. Your response does not address those points........one iota!
How about the fact that the book was written in Greek.....not Aramaic?
How about the fact that John calls "Cephas" a stone [1:42]?
How about the fact that "Petra" is the Greek word used to describe Our Lord in [I Corinthians 10:4]?
How about the fact that "Petra" always describes a large rock.....or Christ in scripture [Matthew 7:24-25]?
How about the fact that even the Latin Vulgate agrees in [John 1:42] that Cephas is a little stone?
How about the fact that Our Lord again reiterates to all the Disciples in [Matthew 18:18-20] that they all have the power to loose and bind.....as He previously told them all in [Matthew 16:19]?
Everyone of these facts were not addressed but instead I received nothing but more Roman Catholic tradition. What I gave you was not just claptrap but inspired words from scripture......by the Holy Spirit. You, evidently thought they were unimportant.
Now, if you want to continue this discussion I would recommend you find something more substantial than myths and fairy tales to back up your position! You take one isolated passage and attempt to convince the world that Peter has preeminence. Balderdash! He didn't even go to Rome! The scriptures show him in Jerusalem, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Antioch and Babylon. He is never heard of again after [Acts 15] until he writes his own books from Babylon. But you folks attempt build an entire theology around him because of an invented tradition!
[Galatians 2:7-9] 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
To the lurkers in Rio Linda......this means that Peter was commissioned to go to the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6].....Jews and Israelites of the dispersion.......and they weren't in Rome! You gotta trust me on this....... Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15]. In fact, Paul is even in Rome (where there were Gentiles)....a couple of times in scripture. Who would have thunk? :)
That exclamation point at the end makes your answer so much more truthy!
LOL
Peter was the one in the group (which Jesus was addressing and continued to address) who answered correctly.
Your projection onto truth of what you want so much to be there does not put it there.
CE?
LOL
AD means “In the year of our Lord.”
CE is an effort to dump references to our Lord.
Someone who uses CE probably doesn’t even believe in the Blessed Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Oh....wait....
Your “facts” are not all that truthy.
...as per usual.
Ask yourself, in general, the value of arguing Christianity with people who don’t believe in the Trinity, who condemn the celebration of the birth of Christ and the Sunday when Christ was resurrected.
What is the point?
ROTFLMAOAPIMPRFI!
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ circa AD 33.
Your particular flavor of grave error came about around 1850.
OK, I get the ROTFLMAO what does AIMPRFI mean?
But it was not written in Attic Greek, the only Greek in which that distinction exists.
Petronski...you are a genius, really.
It’s a typo.
Should be APIMPRFI.
Oh yeah?
Well, I can out-maudlin you...I absolutely love that tagline.
lol...thanks :)
Tap tap tap
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.