Venom
07-20-2003, 06:35 PM
Old School, The President, and myself are the authors of this study. For part one click here, How to use the Word of God Part 1- Accuracy of Scripture and Salvation (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=590954& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=How%20to%20use%20the%20Wor d%20of%20God%20Part%201&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Sear chpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=590954&Search=tru e#Post590954)
<font color="red"> Books of the Bible </font>
A good way to start this next study would be understanding how the bible is divided up.
<font color="blue"> OLD TESTAMENT </font>
<font color="red"> Moses' books and the Law:
</font>
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
<font color="red"> History: </font>
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
<font color="red">Books of Wisdom:
</font>
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
<font color="red"> Prophets Books: </font>
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
<font color="blue"> NEW TESTAMENT
</font>
<font color="red"> Gospels</font>
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
<font color="red"> History of the Early Church </font>
Acts
<font color="red">Paul's letters </font>
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
<font color="red"> Other's Letters </font>
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
<font color="red">Prophecy </font>
Revelation
Some basic history.
Bible, the English form of the Greek name Biblia, meaning "books," the name which in the fifth century began to be given to the entire collection of sacred books, the "Library of Divine Revelation." The name "Bible" was adopted by Wickliffe, and came gradually into use in our English language.
The Bible consists of sixty-six different books, composed by many different writers, in three different languages, under different circumstances; writers of almost every social rank, statesmen and peasants, kings, herdsmen, fishermen, priests, tax-gatherers, tentmakers; educated and uneducated, Jews and Gentiles; most of them unknown to each other, and writing at various periods during the space of about 1600 years: and yet, after all, it is only one book dealing with only one subject in its numberless aspects and relations, the subject of man's redemption.
It is divided into the Old Testament, containing thirty-nine books, and the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books.
The names given to the Old in the writings of the New are "the scriptures" ( Matt. 21:42), "scripture" ( 2 Pet. 1:20), "the holy scriptures" ( Rom. 1:2), "the law" ( John 12:34), "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" ( Luke 24:44), "the law and the prophets" ( Matt. 5:17), "the old covenant" ( 2 Cor. 3:14, R.V.).
There is a break of 400 years between the Old Testament and the New.
The Old Testament is divided into three parts:
The Law (Torah), consisting of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses.
The Prophets, consisting of...
the former, namely, Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, and the Books of Kings
the latter, namely, the greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets.
The Hagiographa, or holy writings, including the rest of the books. These were ranked in three divisions:
The Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, distinguished by the Hebrew name, a word formed of the initial letters of these books, emeth, meaning truth.
Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, called the five rolls, as being written for the synagogue use on five separate rolls.
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles.
Between the Old and the New Testament no addition was made to the revelation God had already given.
The period of New Testament revelation, extending over a century, began with the appearance of John the Baptist.
The New Testament consists of...
the historical books, viz., the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles
the Epistles
the book of prophecy, the Revelation
The division of the Bible into chapters and verses is altogether of human invention, designed to facilitate reference to it. The ancient Jews divided the Old Testament into certain sections for use in the synagogue service, and then at a later period, in the ninth century A.D., into verses. Our modern system of chapters for all the books of the Bible was introduced by Cardinal Hugo about the middle of the thirteenth century (he died 1263). The system of verses for the New Testament was introduced by Stephens in 1551, and generally adopted, although neither Tyndale's nor Coverdale's English translation of the Bible has verses. The division is not always wisely made, yet it is very useful
So what are the scriptures?
This word used in the New Testament always denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:15, 16; John 20:9; Gal. 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:20). It was God's purpose thus to perpetuate his revealed will. From time to time he raised up men to commit to writing in an infallible record the revelation he gave. The "Scripture," or collection of sacred writings, was thus enlarged from time to time as God saw necessary. We have now a completed "Scripture," consisting of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament canon in the time of our Lord was precisely the same as that which we now possess under that name. He placed the seal of his own authority on this collection of writings, as all equally given by inspiration (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:29, 31)
The bible is infallable!
Inspiration is that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Tim. 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.
As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.
<font color="green"> Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. </font>
Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. Objections to the inerrancy and suffiency of Scripture are refuted. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.
I) Old Testament:
1) Moses
Moses often testified that his writings were from God:
Exodus 24:4: 'Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said...'
See also v.7, Ex. 34:7, Nu. 33:1-2, Dt. 31:9,
Deuteronomy 31:11: 'when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.'
2) Joshua:
Joshua 1:8: 'Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.'
The book of the Law is the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible.
3) David (c. 1000 BC)
Israel's greatest king clearly also regarded the Law very highly. At his stage in history, not too many books of Scripture had been written, but the Pentateuch was regarded as God's Law. Psalm 1:2: 'But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.'
II) New Testament
1) Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:3-6:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'
4 Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,
5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
Note: Christ accepted Genesis literally
He cited from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, showing that He did not regard Genesis 1 and 2 as separate contradictory creation accounts, but as complementary.
v.5, which in Genesis is an editorial comment, is equated with the word of the Creator. This is not the only place where the New Testament cites an Old Testament passage as 'God said'; compare the following pairs: Ps. 2:1 & Acts 4:24-25, Ps. 2:7 & Heb. 1:5, Ps. 16:10 & Acts 13:35, Ps. 95:7 & Heb. 3:7, Ps. 97:7 & Heb. 1:6, Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 1:7, Is. 55:3 & Acts 13:34. The converse is true in the following pairs: Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8, Ex. 9:16 & Rom. 9:17; where a direct statement by God in the OT is cited as 'Scripture said'.
Luke 17:26-32:
26 'Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.
32 Remember Lot's wife!
Note: Christ took the accounts of Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the calamity befalling Lot's wife literally. Matthew 12:39 ff. shows that Christ took the account of Jonah and the whale literally, and even used it as a type of His resurrection.
Luke 16:31: 'He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Note: Christ clearly shows how important the Old Testament is.
John 5:46-47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
Matthew 22:23-34:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24 Teacher, they said, Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?
29 Jesus replied, You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But about the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God said to you,
32 I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Note:
the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted the same books as the Protestant OT (as confirmed by the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (ca. 130 BC), Josephus (ca. AD 90), Melito (ca. AD 170)). Jesus accused the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures, because they did not accept the Prophets and Writings.
Even the Scriptures accepted by the Sadducees taught the resurrection: Christ demonstrated this with an argument depending on the present tense of the implied verb "to be" implied the patriarchs were living in a sense in Moses' day, centuries after they had died physically. This passage shows that the Lord believed in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Matthew 5:18: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Note: the "jot" was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the "tittle" was a small part of the letter. So Christ is supporting inspiration even down to the individual letters.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010323_8.jpg
Return to Contents
Matthew 23:35: And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Jesus here gives the extent of the Canon of Scripture:
The Pharisees' Bible is the same as the Protestant OT, but the order is different. The first book was still Genesis, but the last book was 2 Chronicles. That generation was to be held responsible for all God's people murdered in the OT, from Abel (Gen. 4:8) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20'21). There were other martyrdoms recorded in the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not regard these writings as Scripture, and never cited them. Jesus agreed with the Pharisaic canon (John 5:39), but not the Saddusaic one.
What about those "extra books?"
The Apocrypha was not recognised as canonical by the Jewish scholars at Jamnia (AD 90), and the Talmud stated that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after Malachi. Many Church Fathers agreed, e.g. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter of AD 367, listed the same canon as modern Protestants (with the exception of the book of Esther). He also stated that the Apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther additions, Judith and Tobit were worth reading but not canonical. He made no mention of the books of Maccabees.
The apocryphal books abound in geographical and historical errors,2 e.g. 2 Macc. 15:1 ff is inconsistent with 1 Macc. 2:41; Judith 1:1 has Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh rather than Babylon. The morality and doctrine of the apocryphal books also falls short of biblical standards: For example, God assists Judith in a lie (Judith 9:10,13); salvation by works (Tobit 12:9, 14:10'11); prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:45'46), pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19-20) and creation out of pre-existent matter (Wisdom 11:17). Even the books themselves disclaim divine inspiration: 1 Macc. 9:27 recognises that prophecy had disappeared in Israel, while 2 Macc. 15:37-39 admits that it was a human composition with possible flaws.
It's also important to note that each book was canonical as soon as it was finished, because its ultimate author was God Himself. Their canonicity did not have to wait for the Church to choose them. The NT scholar FF Bruce writes:
"The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif what was already the general practice of those communities."
John 10:35 '... and the scriptures cannot be broken." self-explanatory
John 14:26: the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Note: Christ here promises his disciples that they would be taught by the Holy Spirit. These teachings eventually became written down in the New Testament.
2) the Apostle Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note:
the Greek word for Scriptures in v.15 is (grammata), and must refer to the OT alone, as these are the only Scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood
in v. 16, the word translated Scripture is (graphe), which would include the OT plus all the NT written by then (AD 63), i.e. all the NT except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John's writings. As Paul's writings were divinely inspired, this statement would apply even to the latter books.
"God-breathed" is a correct translation by the NIV of the Greek word (theopneustos). If Scripture is "God-breathed" and God cannot err, it logically follows that Scripture cannot err.
Scripture is able to make a man "wise unto salvation" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works". This implies that Scripture contains all the doctrine and moral law we need.
But since v. 16 makes it clear that all Scripture is God-breathed, not just some, inerrancy applies to whatever the Bible affirms, and is not restricted just to those verses deemed to relate to faith and conduct. After all, doctrine is inextricably linked to history and science, so that whatever Scripture affirms on scientific or historical matters is also true. For example, the key doctrine of the Resurrection is linked to the historical fact that Jesus' body had vacated the tomb on the third day. It also impinges on science, because naturalistic scientists assert that it is impossible for dead men to rise. And the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection is tied to the historical accuracy of the event recorded in Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Jesus is the second Adam. Because of the first Adam death is brought to all, because of the second Adam(Christ) we have life. Adam is not a metaphor, Christ is not a metaphor.
1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments. This again shows that the NT was already regarded as Scripture even in apostolic times.
1 Timothy 2:12-14:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Note: Paul accepted the Genesis account as a historical narrative, and used it to teach on the role of men and women in Church.
Acts 17:1-3:
1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, he said.
Note: this shows how important the Scriptures were to Paul's evangelism to Jews, who already accepted them as authoritative.
Acts 17:10-11:
10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
This shows that even Paul's teaching was subjected to the test of Scripture by people who were commended for it. So Christians today should follow that Berean example and test the teachings of any church (or scientist) by Scripture.
Return to Contents
3) Peter:
2 Pet. 1:20-21:
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 3:15-16:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Note: Peter affirms that Paul's writings were also Scripture.
4) Jude
Jude 3: "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."
N.B. If the faith was once delivered, then there is no need for additional revelations of doctrine after the canon of scripture was closed.
5) John:
John 14:26: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
Christ's promise in John 14:26 was to His disciples personally present. John was the last survivor, so his books are the last of the NT Canon. It is possible that Rev. 22:18-19 is an indication that this book closes the Canon.
6) Church Fathers:
All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers. For Irenaeus (c. AD 170), the fourfold gospel was as axiomatic as the four quarters of the earth and the four winds. He cited 23 of the 27 NT books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Ignatius (AD 50-115), Bishop of Antioch, cited 15 NT books. He recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: "I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles."
-References: Bible Encyclopedia, Apologia 3(2):12-16, 1994
Quotes from the OT in the NT.
Throughout the New Testament you have probably noticed the writers quoting Old Testament scripture.
...from the Old Testament in the New, which are very numerous, are not made according to any uniform method. When the New Testament was written, the Old was not divided, as it now is, into chapters and verses, and hence such peculiarities as these: When Luke (20:37) refers to Ex. 3:6, he quotes from "Moses at the bush", i.e., the section containing the record of Moses at the bush. So also Mark (2:26) refers to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, in the words, "in the days of Abiathar;" and Paul (Rom. 11:2) refers to 1 Kings ch. 17-19, in the words, "in Elias", i.e., in the portion of the history regarding Elias.
In general, the New Testament writers quote from the Septuagint (q.v.) version of the Old Testament, as it was then in common use among the Jews. But it is noticeable that these quotations are not made in any uniform manner. Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either with the LXX. or the Hebrew text. This occurs in about one hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted (in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances).
Quotations are sometimes made also directly from the Hebrew text (Matt. 4:15, 16; John 19:37; 1 Cor. 15:54). Besides the quotations made directly, there are found numberless allusions, more or less distinct, showing that the minds of the New Testament writers were filled with the expressions and ideas as well as historical facts recorded in the Old.
There are in all two hundred and eighty-three direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, but not one clear and certain case of quotation from the Apocrypha (q.v.).
Besides quotations in the New from the Old Testament, there are in Paul's writings three quotations from certain Greek poets, Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12. These quotations are memorials of his early classical education.
<font color="red">Galileo </font>
The problem was the early church did exactly what we are doing today!
Those who interpert the scriptures under the proper rules of interpertation are often accused of trying to oppose science on purely theological terms. The argument usually contains a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the theologians of his own time. It continues, "History has proven that Galileo was correct and that the dogmatic religious authorities who opposed him were wrong." With one simple illustration, scientists warn that any interference in scientific ideas by religious people is tantamount to religious persecution.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo3.gif
Galileo in his later years. (Original painting by Justus Sustermans)
The historical account of Galileo's struggle for acceptance is not, however, a black and white issue. In fact, it is one of the most interesting and complex historical events recorded. Galileo's trial was not the simple conflict between science and religion so commonly pictured. It was a complex power struggle, fought upon the foundations of personal and professional pride, envy, and ambition.
The stage for this tragedy had been set a few years earlier during what is commonly referred to as the Protestant reformation. During the reformation, the Catholic Church's authority had been called into question. Priests and laypeople had judged Rome as having forsaken true Christian beliefs. The reformation shook the Church at its very foundation of authority, causing it to lose much of its world power and influence. Eventually, at the council of Trent, the Catholic Church formed an index of literature which was forbidden to Catholics throughout the world. Included in this censor were any books that challenged traditional interpretations of the scripture.
Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis.
Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy.
In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.
One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged.
The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.
The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound biblical teachings must be abandoned. This is the Believer's goal. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness.
As we see Galileo was not a case of science disproving the bible, but rather eisogesis on the part of a pagan-influenced church.
Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with "the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at Scriptural truth."
This clearly implies that improper paths can be taken.
Of course, proper methodology is essential to many fields of endeavor. A heart surgeon does not perform open heart surgery without following proper, objective methodology. (Would you trust a heart surgeon to operate on you who told you that he intended to discard objective methodology, instead opting for a subjective approach - cutting you where he feels like cutting you?)
Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new.
Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).
This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.
Contrary to the practices of some false teachers in Corinth, the apostle Paul assured his readers that he faithfully handled the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). Paul admonished young Timothy to follow his example: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, italics added).
The Bible as a body of literature exists because human beings need to know certain spiritual truths to which they cannot attain by themselves.
Thus these truths must come to them from without - that is, via objective, special revelation from God (Deuteronomy 29:29).
And this revelation can only be understood if one interprets the words of Scripture according to God's original design for language - that is, according to the ordinary, plain, literal sense of each word.
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/album02/Eternal_Covenant.jpg
Eight Rules of Interpretation
"...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.
1.Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2.Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
3.Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4.Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5.Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6.Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
7.Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8.Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
"It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation."
- From "Who Said Women Can't Teach?" by Charles Bromley.
These are expanded by appologetics ministries in the following manner:
<font color="red">"And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." [2 Peter 1:19,20 NAS]
</font>
We can't have a "sure word" about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have a sure method to interpret the words. The following eight rules are the center of all grammatical interpretation. They have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present. While my hope is that they will be used to "rightly divide the word of truth" of the Holy Bible, they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such language.
Since the Bible teaches that God is not the author of confusion [1 Cor. 14:33], how can the many disagreements today between Christians and the proliferation of the cults be explained since all, or nearly all, claim to use the Bible as the basis of their doctrines? Nearly all false doctrines taught today by Christians and cultists alike can be traced to the distortion of the meaning of Biblical words. These eight rules are prayerfully offered in the hope that they may help many come to the truth of what God says in His Word.
The Rev. Guy Duty said in his book Divorce & Remarriage:
[ QUOTE ]
When two interpretations are claimed for a Scripture, the construction most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. When all the facts of an interpretation are in agreement they sound together in harmony, like notes in a chord.
Biblical interpretation is more than knowing a set of rules, but it cannot be done without the rules. So, learn the rules, and rightly apply them...." (Divorce & Remarriage, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1967)
[/ QUOTE ]
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/album02/Dolphins.jpg
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
[ QUOTE ]
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
[/ QUOTE ]
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020621_124.jpg
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Savior.
This paper will close with some words from King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, excepting our Lord Jesus Christ:
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." [Prov. 1:5,6]
(File provided by: The Light BBS - Silver Springs, FL.
Note: I believe this information was first published by the Personal Freedom Outreach. )
Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).
By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.
Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture. There are entire sites dedicated to this attempting to show the bible as "full of contradictions" when really all they have done is show their expertise in eisogesis.
Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.
The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020719_128.jpg
Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.
As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including
the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),
Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),
Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and
The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Jesus affirmed the Bible's
divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),
its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),
its infallibility (John 10:35),
its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),
its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),
its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and
its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020607_120.jpg
<font color="red"> <font color="red"> </font> More Archeology
</font>
1. Professor Bryant Wood, David Down and many others have concluded that the Semitic slaves who lived at Kahun were indeed the Israelites.
2. Rosalie , A., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, p. 191, 1996
Rosalie et. al, concludes the fact, that the semantics were indeed in Egypt, in the above study
3. Look at this archaological evidence!
and I quote from Dr. Rosalie
Rosalie , A.., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, p. 191, 1996
" [i] <font color="red"> 'Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.' </font>
There is a Biblical explanation for this. Pharaoh had ordered the Hebrew midwives, 'When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him'(Exodus1:16). The midwives ignored this command so 'Pharaoh commanded all his people saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the river '" ' (verse 22). Many grieving mothers must have had their babies snatched from their arms and killed. They apparently buried them in boxes beneath the floors of their houses.17
4. Another striking feature of Petrie's discoveries was the fact that these slaves suddenly disappeared off the scene. Rosalie David wrote:
It is apparent that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.
There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated
The departure was sudden and unpremeditated! Nothing could better fit the Biblical record. 'And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years' on that very same day it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt(Exodus 12:41).
<font color="red"> Books of the Bible </font>
A good way to start this next study would be understanding how the bible is divided up.
<font color="blue"> OLD TESTAMENT </font>
<font color="red"> Moses' books and the Law:
</font>
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
<font color="red"> History: </font>
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
<font color="red">Books of Wisdom:
</font>
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
<font color="red"> Prophets Books: </font>
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
<font color="blue"> NEW TESTAMENT
</font>
<font color="red"> Gospels</font>
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
<font color="red"> History of the Early Church </font>
Acts
<font color="red">Paul's letters </font>
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
<font color="red"> Other's Letters </font>
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
<font color="red">Prophecy </font>
Revelation
Some basic history.
Bible, the English form of the Greek name Biblia, meaning "books," the name which in the fifth century began to be given to the entire collection of sacred books, the "Library of Divine Revelation." The name "Bible" was adopted by Wickliffe, and came gradually into use in our English language.
The Bible consists of sixty-six different books, composed by many different writers, in three different languages, under different circumstances; writers of almost every social rank, statesmen and peasants, kings, herdsmen, fishermen, priests, tax-gatherers, tentmakers; educated and uneducated, Jews and Gentiles; most of them unknown to each other, and writing at various periods during the space of about 1600 years: and yet, after all, it is only one book dealing with only one subject in its numberless aspects and relations, the subject of man's redemption.
It is divided into the Old Testament, containing thirty-nine books, and the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books.
The names given to the Old in the writings of the New are "the scriptures" ( Matt. 21:42), "scripture" ( 2 Pet. 1:20), "the holy scriptures" ( Rom. 1:2), "the law" ( John 12:34), "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" ( Luke 24:44), "the law and the prophets" ( Matt. 5:17), "the old covenant" ( 2 Cor. 3:14, R.V.).
There is a break of 400 years between the Old Testament and the New.
The Old Testament is divided into three parts:
The Law (Torah), consisting of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses.
The Prophets, consisting of...
the former, namely, Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, and the Books of Kings
the latter, namely, the greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets.
The Hagiographa, or holy writings, including the rest of the books. These were ranked in three divisions:
The Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, distinguished by the Hebrew name, a word formed of the initial letters of these books, emeth, meaning truth.
Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, called the five rolls, as being written for the synagogue use on five separate rolls.
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles.
Between the Old and the New Testament no addition was made to the revelation God had already given.
The period of New Testament revelation, extending over a century, began with the appearance of John the Baptist.
The New Testament consists of...
the historical books, viz., the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles
the Epistles
the book of prophecy, the Revelation
The division of the Bible into chapters and verses is altogether of human invention, designed to facilitate reference to it. The ancient Jews divided the Old Testament into certain sections for use in the synagogue service, and then at a later period, in the ninth century A.D., into verses. Our modern system of chapters for all the books of the Bible was introduced by Cardinal Hugo about the middle of the thirteenth century (he died 1263). The system of verses for the New Testament was introduced by Stephens in 1551, and generally adopted, although neither Tyndale's nor Coverdale's English translation of the Bible has verses. The division is not always wisely made, yet it is very useful
So what are the scriptures?
This word used in the New Testament always denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:15, 16; John 20:9; Gal. 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:20). It was God's purpose thus to perpetuate his revealed will. From time to time he raised up men to commit to writing in an infallible record the revelation he gave. The "Scripture," or collection of sacred writings, was thus enlarged from time to time as God saw necessary. We have now a completed "Scripture," consisting of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament canon in the time of our Lord was precisely the same as that which we now possess under that name. He placed the seal of his own authority on this collection of writings, as all equally given by inspiration (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:29, 31)
The bible is infallable!
Inspiration is that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Tim. 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.
As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.
<font color="green"> Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. </font>
Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. Objections to the inerrancy and suffiency of Scripture are refuted. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.
I) Old Testament:
1) Moses
Moses often testified that his writings were from God:
Exodus 24:4: 'Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said...'
See also v.7, Ex. 34:7, Nu. 33:1-2, Dt. 31:9,
Deuteronomy 31:11: 'when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.'
2) Joshua:
Joshua 1:8: 'Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.'
The book of the Law is the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible.
3) David (c. 1000 BC)
Israel's greatest king clearly also regarded the Law very highly. At his stage in history, not too many books of Scripture had been written, but the Pentateuch was regarded as God's Law. Psalm 1:2: 'But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.'
II) New Testament
1) Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:3-6:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'
4 Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,
5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
Note: Christ accepted Genesis literally
He cited from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, showing that He did not regard Genesis 1 and 2 as separate contradictory creation accounts, but as complementary.
v.5, which in Genesis is an editorial comment, is equated with the word of the Creator. This is not the only place where the New Testament cites an Old Testament passage as 'God said'; compare the following pairs: Ps. 2:1 & Acts 4:24-25, Ps. 2:7 & Heb. 1:5, Ps. 16:10 & Acts 13:35, Ps. 95:7 & Heb. 3:7, Ps. 97:7 & Heb. 1:6, Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 1:7, Is. 55:3 & Acts 13:34. The converse is true in the following pairs: Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8, Ex. 9:16 & Rom. 9:17; where a direct statement by God in the OT is cited as 'Scripture said'.
Luke 17:26-32:
26 'Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.
32 Remember Lot's wife!
Note: Christ took the accounts of Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the calamity befalling Lot's wife literally. Matthew 12:39 ff. shows that Christ took the account of Jonah and the whale literally, and even used it as a type of His resurrection.
Luke 16:31: 'He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Note: Christ clearly shows how important the Old Testament is.
John 5:46-47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
Matthew 22:23-34:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24 Teacher, they said, Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?
29 Jesus replied, You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But about the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God said to you,
32 I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Note:
the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted the same books as the Protestant OT (as confirmed by the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (ca. 130 BC), Josephus (ca. AD 90), Melito (ca. AD 170)). Jesus accused the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures, because they did not accept the Prophets and Writings.
Even the Scriptures accepted by the Sadducees taught the resurrection: Christ demonstrated this with an argument depending on the present tense of the implied verb "to be" implied the patriarchs were living in a sense in Moses' day, centuries after they had died physically. This passage shows that the Lord believed in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Matthew 5:18: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Note: the "jot" was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the "tittle" was a small part of the letter. So Christ is supporting inspiration even down to the individual letters.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010323_8.jpg
Return to Contents
Matthew 23:35: And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Jesus here gives the extent of the Canon of Scripture:
The Pharisees' Bible is the same as the Protestant OT, but the order is different. The first book was still Genesis, but the last book was 2 Chronicles. That generation was to be held responsible for all God's people murdered in the OT, from Abel (Gen. 4:8) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20'21). There were other martyrdoms recorded in the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not regard these writings as Scripture, and never cited them. Jesus agreed with the Pharisaic canon (John 5:39), but not the Saddusaic one.
What about those "extra books?"
The Apocrypha was not recognised as canonical by the Jewish scholars at Jamnia (AD 90), and the Talmud stated that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after Malachi. Many Church Fathers agreed, e.g. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter of AD 367, listed the same canon as modern Protestants (with the exception of the book of Esther). He also stated that the Apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther additions, Judith and Tobit were worth reading but not canonical. He made no mention of the books of Maccabees.
The apocryphal books abound in geographical and historical errors,2 e.g. 2 Macc. 15:1 ff is inconsistent with 1 Macc. 2:41; Judith 1:1 has Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh rather than Babylon. The morality and doctrine of the apocryphal books also falls short of biblical standards: For example, God assists Judith in a lie (Judith 9:10,13); salvation by works (Tobit 12:9, 14:10'11); prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:45'46), pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19-20) and creation out of pre-existent matter (Wisdom 11:17). Even the books themselves disclaim divine inspiration: 1 Macc. 9:27 recognises that prophecy had disappeared in Israel, while 2 Macc. 15:37-39 admits that it was a human composition with possible flaws.
It's also important to note that each book was canonical as soon as it was finished, because its ultimate author was God Himself. Their canonicity did not have to wait for the Church to choose them. The NT scholar FF Bruce writes:
"The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif what was already the general practice of those communities."
John 10:35 '... and the scriptures cannot be broken." self-explanatory
John 14:26: the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Note: Christ here promises his disciples that they would be taught by the Holy Spirit. These teachings eventually became written down in the New Testament.
2) the Apostle Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note:
the Greek word for Scriptures in v.15 is (grammata), and must refer to the OT alone, as these are the only Scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood
in v. 16, the word translated Scripture is (graphe), which would include the OT plus all the NT written by then (AD 63), i.e. all the NT except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John's writings. As Paul's writings were divinely inspired, this statement would apply even to the latter books.
"God-breathed" is a correct translation by the NIV of the Greek word (theopneustos). If Scripture is "God-breathed" and God cannot err, it logically follows that Scripture cannot err.
Scripture is able to make a man "wise unto salvation" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works". This implies that Scripture contains all the doctrine and moral law we need.
But since v. 16 makes it clear that all Scripture is God-breathed, not just some, inerrancy applies to whatever the Bible affirms, and is not restricted just to those verses deemed to relate to faith and conduct. After all, doctrine is inextricably linked to history and science, so that whatever Scripture affirms on scientific or historical matters is also true. For example, the key doctrine of the Resurrection is linked to the historical fact that Jesus' body had vacated the tomb on the third day. It also impinges on science, because naturalistic scientists assert that it is impossible for dead men to rise. And the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection is tied to the historical accuracy of the event recorded in Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Jesus is the second Adam. Because of the first Adam death is brought to all, because of the second Adam(Christ) we have life. Adam is not a metaphor, Christ is not a metaphor.
1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments. This again shows that the NT was already regarded as Scripture even in apostolic times.
1 Timothy 2:12-14:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Note: Paul accepted the Genesis account as a historical narrative, and used it to teach on the role of men and women in Church.
Acts 17:1-3:
1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, he said.
Note: this shows how important the Scriptures were to Paul's evangelism to Jews, who already accepted them as authoritative.
Acts 17:10-11:
10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
This shows that even Paul's teaching was subjected to the test of Scripture by people who were commended for it. So Christians today should follow that Berean example and test the teachings of any church (or scientist) by Scripture.
Return to Contents
3) Peter:
2 Pet. 1:20-21:
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 3:15-16:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Note: Peter affirms that Paul's writings were also Scripture.
4) Jude
Jude 3: "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."
N.B. If the faith was once delivered, then there is no need for additional revelations of doctrine after the canon of scripture was closed.
5) John:
John 14:26: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
Christ's promise in John 14:26 was to His disciples personally present. John was the last survivor, so his books are the last of the NT Canon. It is possible that Rev. 22:18-19 is an indication that this book closes the Canon.
6) Church Fathers:
All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers. For Irenaeus (c. AD 170), the fourfold gospel was as axiomatic as the four quarters of the earth and the four winds. He cited 23 of the 27 NT books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Ignatius (AD 50-115), Bishop of Antioch, cited 15 NT books. He recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: "I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles."
-References: Bible Encyclopedia, Apologia 3(2):12-16, 1994
Quotes from the OT in the NT.
Throughout the New Testament you have probably noticed the writers quoting Old Testament scripture.
...from the Old Testament in the New, which are very numerous, are not made according to any uniform method. When the New Testament was written, the Old was not divided, as it now is, into chapters and verses, and hence such peculiarities as these: When Luke (20:37) refers to Ex. 3:6, he quotes from "Moses at the bush", i.e., the section containing the record of Moses at the bush. So also Mark (2:26) refers to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, in the words, "in the days of Abiathar;" and Paul (Rom. 11:2) refers to 1 Kings ch. 17-19, in the words, "in Elias", i.e., in the portion of the history regarding Elias.
In general, the New Testament writers quote from the Septuagint (q.v.) version of the Old Testament, as it was then in common use among the Jews. But it is noticeable that these quotations are not made in any uniform manner. Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either with the LXX. or the Hebrew text. This occurs in about one hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted (in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances).
Quotations are sometimes made also directly from the Hebrew text (Matt. 4:15, 16; John 19:37; 1 Cor. 15:54). Besides the quotations made directly, there are found numberless allusions, more or less distinct, showing that the minds of the New Testament writers were filled with the expressions and ideas as well as historical facts recorded in the Old.
There are in all two hundred and eighty-three direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, but not one clear and certain case of quotation from the Apocrypha (q.v.).
Besides quotations in the New from the Old Testament, there are in Paul's writings three quotations from certain Greek poets, Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12. These quotations are memorials of his early classical education.
<font color="red">Galileo </font>
The problem was the early church did exactly what we are doing today!
Those who interpert the scriptures under the proper rules of interpertation are often accused of trying to oppose science on purely theological terms. The argument usually contains a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the theologians of his own time. It continues, "History has proven that Galileo was correct and that the dogmatic religious authorities who opposed him were wrong." With one simple illustration, scientists warn that any interference in scientific ideas by religious people is tantamount to religious persecution.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo3.gif
Galileo in his later years. (Original painting by Justus Sustermans)
The historical account of Galileo's struggle for acceptance is not, however, a black and white issue. In fact, it is one of the most interesting and complex historical events recorded. Galileo's trial was not the simple conflict between science and religion so commonly pictured. It was a complex power struggle, fought upon the foundations of personal and professional pride, envy, and ambition.
The stage for this tragedy had been set a few years earlier during what is commonly referred to as the Protestant reformation. During the reformation, the Catholic Church's authority had been called into question. Priests and laypeople had judged Rome as having forsaken true Christian beliefs. The reformation shook the Church at its very foundation of authority, causing it to lose much of its world power and influence. Eventually, at the council of Trent, the Catholic Church formed an index of literature which was forbidden to Catholics throughout the world. Included in this censor were any books that challenged traditional interpretations of the scripture.
Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis.
Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy.
In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.
One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged.
The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.
The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound biblical teachings must be abandoned. This is the Believer's goal. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness.
As we see Galileo was not a case of science disproving the bible, but rather eisogesis on the part of a pagan-influenced church.
Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with "the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at Scriptural truth."
This clearly implies that improper paths can be taken.
Of course, proper methodology is essential to many fields of endeavor. A heart surgeon does not perform open heart surgery without following proper, objective methodology. (Would you trust a heart surgeon to operate on you who told you that he intended to discard objective methodology, instead opting for a subjective approach - cutting you where he feels like cutting you?)
Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new.
Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).
This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.
Contrary to the practices of some false teachers in Corinth, the apostle Paul assured his readers that he faithfully handled the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). Paul admonished young Timothy to follow his example: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, italics added).
The Bible as a body of literature exists because human beings need to know certain spiritual truths to which they cannot attain by themselves.
Thus these truths must come to them from without - that is, via objective, special revelation from God (Deuteronomy 29:29).
And this revelation can only be understood if one interprets the words of Scripture according to God's original design for language - that is, according to the ordinary, plain, literal sense of each word.
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/album02/Eternal_Covenant.jpg
Eight Rules of Interpretation
"...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.
1.Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2.Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
3.Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4.Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5.Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6.Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
7.Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8.Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
"It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation."
- From "Who Said Women Can't Teach?" by Charles Bromley.
These are expanded by appologetics ministries in the following manner:
<font color="red">"And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." [2 Peter 1:19,20 NAS]
</font>
We can't have a "sure word" about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have a sure method to interpret the words. The following eight rules are the center of all grammatical interpretation. They have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present. While my hope is that they will be used to "rightly divide the word of truth" of the Holy Bible, they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such language.
Since the Bible teaches that God is not the author of confusion [1 Cor. 14:33], how can the many disagreements today between Christians and the proliferation of the cults be explained since all, or nearly all, claim to use the Bible as the basis of their doctrines? Nearly all false doctrines taught today by Christians and cultists alike can be traced to the distortion of the meaning of Biblical words. These eight rules are prayerfully offered in the hope that they may help many come to the truth of what God says in His Word.
The Rev. Guy Duty said in his book Divorce & Remarriage:
[ QUOTE ]
When two interpretations are claimed for a Scripture, the construction most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. When all the facts of an interpretation are in agreement they sound together in harmony, like notes in a chord.
Biblical interpretation is more than knowing a set of rules, but it cannot be done without the rules. So, learn the rules, and rightly apply them...." (Divorce & Remarriage, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1967)
[/ QUOTE ]
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/album02/Dolphins.jpg
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
[ QUOTE ]
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
[/ QUOTE ]
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020621_124.jpg
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Savior.
This paper will close with some words from King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, excepting our Lord Jesus Christ:
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." [Prov. 1:5,6]
(File provided by: The Light BBS - Silver Springs, FL.
Note: I believe this information was first published by the Personal Freedom Outreach. )
Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).
By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.
Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture. There are entire sites dedicated to this attempting to show the bible as "full of contradictions" when really all they have done is show their expertise in eisogesis.
Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.
The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020719_128.jpg
Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.
As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including
the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),
Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),
Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and
The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Jesus affirmed the Bible's
divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),
its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),
its infallibility (John 10:35),
its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),
its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),
its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and
its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020607_120.jpg
<font color="red"> <font color="red"> </font> More Archeology
</font>
1. Professor Bryant Wood, David Down and many others have concluded that the Semitic slaves who lived at Kahun were indeed the Israelites.
2. Rosalie , A., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, p. 191, 1996
Rosalie et. al, concludes the fact, that the semantics were indeed in Egypt, in the above study
3. Look at this archaological evidence!
and I quote from Dr. Rosalie
Rosalie , A.., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, p. 191, 1996
" [i] <font color="red"> 'Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.' </font>
There is a Biblical explanation for this. Pharaoh had ordered the Hebrew midwives, 'When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him'(Exodus1:16). The midwives ignored this command so 'Pharaoh commanded all his people saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the river '" ' (verse 22). Many grieving mothers must have had their babies snatched from their arms and killed. They apparently buried them in boxes beneath the floors of their houses.17
4. Another striking feature of Petrie's discoveries was the fact that these slaves suddenly disappeared off the scene. Rosalie David wrote:
It is apparent that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.
There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated
The departure was sudden and unpremeditated! Nothing could better fit the Biblical record. 'And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years' on that very same day it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt(Exodus 12:41).