Skip to comments.HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE
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.
I'll sum it up in 2 words..."Read It"
“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.”
Tell that to the Ethiopian eunuch.
Really? Then there should be no denominations, no religious wars within the church, no challenges, etc? The Bible may be all true, but man is flawed, very flawed and has a history of misinterpreting or twisting the Bible to suit his own purpose, all while declaring his translation was the 'true' one. A whole world opens up when you do dig into it with scholarship, with learning, studying the language, culture, and history, not just trusting what someone in sunday school said it means.
“Tell that to the Ethiopian eunuch.”
“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.”
Stopped reading after that little bit of claptrap.
As a child, I was taught the bible rigorously over six years of primary, Catholic education.
I never needed “learned interpretations” then, and I surely don’t need them now.
Of course, plenty of religo-crats, including many here on FR, will provide multi-page “translations” of the most simple ideas.
I had eight years of nuns and four years of Jesuits . The only bible I ever saw was on the altar in latin.
Wow ! You must have lived in a special place. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I had eight years of nuns and four years of Jesuits .
The only bible I ever saw was on the altar in latin.
I agree with you. There is a lot to the Bible. You have to understand the generational gap between now and then. There are many things in the Bible that don’t literally apply today. There are lessons to be learned from everything but applying some of the things in a literal way today is not always the answer.
Six years of nuns. (1-6)
Four years of Basilians. (Prep School)
Every chapter of the Old and New Testaments and selected omitted texts, as well as specific lectures from Jewish scholars.
Shakespeare needs some ‘splaining, but not The Bible.
Some people make a good living making the simple word complicated.
Oft repeated too.
The people in Sunday School aren’t the ones starting the wars.
It’s the guys who have a dollar to make or power to grab may making simple lessons incomprehensible.
Those “professionals” absolutely hate it when the laymen start muscling in on their territory.
Thats such an easily confirmable lie. Shame.
Better get to confession.
Not enough, one must "Chew the Dud" and meditate upon it. Reading is good, but not substitute for engraving it on the mind through memorization, meditation and application.
You said — I never needed learned interpretations then, and I surely dont need them now.
Well, the thing about that, is that everyone has their “methodology”... It’s all there, with everyone — one way or another. Now, some may not know what that methodology is and simply take the word of the church that they’re hearing it from — but all churches do have a certain kind of methodology to use to “understand” the Bible.
It pays to know what that methodology is and know what the others are, and where they are coming from, and understand why you will use one certain methodology over another.
We drilled Baltimore Catechism #3 for 15 minutes each day.
“Baltimore Catechism #3” (first page) :
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt. 16: 18-19)
Hmmmmm.... Bible or not Bible?
Yeah, you’ve seen it, besides just on an altar in Latin....
What other man-made god would do something like that?
People who judge the soul of othersshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and call other FReepers liars
are violating the rules of the religion forum.
i pray one day you seek the face of G-d and seek repentance.
Which Bible....THE Catholic Bible inspired by the Holy spirit and used for all times or a non catholic Bible in use for 4 centuries differentiated by a Man removing 7 books?? Just asking...
No offense but I suspect your full of it.
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach whatever.
I wonder if the bible had a big heavy chain attached to it as well.
Run along, obnoxious n00b, you’re out of your league.
The problem with disagreeing with the part “upon this rock I will build my Church” is dual:
1. Peter’s name means “rock”; and
2. in the next breath Christ says “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc.” : even if you believe the “rock” is Peter’s confession, Christ still goes on to give the keys to Peter (and/or the apostles, depending on your interpretation).
and I’m not RC (but I was schooled by nuns and Jesuits).
shalom bSHEM Yahshua HaMashiach whatever.
May YHvH bless you shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
May YHvH shine His Face on you
and be gracious to you
May YHvH lift His Face onto you
and give you his shalom.
Why Should I listen to someone from the hills of Tennessee?
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach Whatever.
How could Peter's confession bind anything in heaven or earth? How could Peter's confession have keys to the kingdom given to it.?
Given the context, a plain reading indicates Peter, not his confession.
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.
Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?
Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede
Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.
1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;
2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour from violent men you save me.
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!
Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'
Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."
Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.
1 Peter 2:1-10NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
And in Matthew 16:18, Christ refers to Peter as the rock on which He would build His Church.
Pope Peter I of the Catholic Church.
I take it you don't agree with the author of the article on this post when he says:
The principal qualification for the right understanding of the Bible is a pure heart, a simple faith, and an obedient will.
Or when he says:
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.
Nice try. Christ is indeed a Rock as foretold in the OT.
Unfortunately for you, context is everything.
Christ said, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.”
If Christ had meant Himself, He would have said: (and the verse would have been recorded) “And I say to thee: upon this rock I will build my Church.”
But He didn’t; He inserted the words “That thou art Peter” in the middle of that sentence, and that makes all the difference.
I take the Holy Word of Elohim at face value.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I do not twist it with eisegesis.
When YHvH says He is the Rock and our salvation.
Why do you dispute it.
Why do you impugn YHvH with the Traditions of man ?
If you were to review the Koine Greek textshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
not the derivative translation you would see that there are
two different words used in the Greek for Peter and the Rock.
You have been misled by someone's eisegesis.
Peter also refers to the "elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" in the same way in that same passage:
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Of course there are 2 different words.
And Christ inserts “thou are Peter” (his apostle’s name) clearly in the middle of the sentence which was handed down faithfully by the Apostles (and/or the scribes of the Apostles).
Deal with it.
I do not dispute that the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
Why do you impugn YHvH with the Traditions of man ?
I do no such thing. How is it that you say that I do?
I do no such thing. How is it that you say that I do?
Do you claim that Peter is the Tsur(rock) on which the church is built ? shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
...those verses have always been poorly translated into English. The correct translation is ...
I take it that you do not agree with the main premise of the article in this post.
In the name of full disclosure, I do not agree with the main premise of the article in this post, and my main purpose in posting is to dispute that premise.
I’m not saying that.
I think this gets into a very long discussion. Your explanation in your post #40 (B) is a good one. But to me, the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” interpretation is very analogous to the discussion of Jesus saying, “No one comes to the Father but through Me”. To sum, the truth about Jesus, and who He was, and what He said would be kept by His Apostles (with the “keys”), and that would be the way to Salvation.
If you'll refer to my first post on this thread (#32) you'll see quite clearly what I claim.
I have also claimed that Jesus is the stone which the builders rejected and has become the chief cornerstone.
I have also claimed that the Word of God (in 1 Peter) refers to other Christians as living stones.
If you can show how any of these claims impugns Jesus with "the Traditions of man", then please do so.
Your exigetical post seems to me to refute the main premise of the article on this post. Do you agree or disagree with the main premise of the article on this post?
And Christ inserts thou are Peter ....
Deal with it.
Why do you conflate them ? Yah'shua is the Rock i.e. rock of Israel. i.e. YHvH Peter is a small stone just as are you and I. You have been misled by eisegesis.
If you agree that they are two different words shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and have two different meanings
Why do you conflate them ?
Yah'shua is the Rock i.e. rock of Israel. i.e. YHvH
Peter is a small stone just as are you and I.
You have been misled by eisegesis.
correct me if I am wrong.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
but my reading of #32 was you stated that Peter is the ROCK.