Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Bible Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

But I am not talking about commentaries. Commentaries have been discussed over and over.
I am talking about history books which describe the cultures of the day. Farming books which explain methods of farming.
Even books which explain the eastern method of farming sheep, which is entirely different to that which is done where I live.
Looking at sheep from a modern western perspective gives you a very different view than that which one gets if you study the methods of that region.

My point is that the Bible often assumes a certain knowledge of life things that are stated or indicated but not explained.

The parables and illustrations of Jesus have more impact if you learn about the culture they were spoken to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

But I am not talking about commentaries. Commentaries have been discussed over and over.
I am talking about history books which describe the cultures of the day. Farming books which explain methods of farming.
Even books which explain the eastern method of farming sheep, which is entirely different to that which is done where I live.
Looking at sheep from a modern western perspective gives you a very different view than that which one gets if you study the methods of that region.

My point is that the Bible often assumes a certain knowledge of life things that are stated or indicated but not explained.

The parables and illustrations of Jesus have more impact if you learn about the culture they were spoken to.

I agree and I've been blasted for saying this in the past. You need to know the who, what, where, when and why of a passage or text of scripture.  Place yourself in the group being addressed in the age they lived with the knowledge of the word of God they may have had. The bible didn't drop out of heaven all at one time to people living in the 20th century holding a completed bible.

 

Edersheim's "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" and J.I.Packers "Manners and Customs of the Bible" are good reads here, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Dave I'm one whom has stated at times I use the Bible only and when I do I am rejecting the use of of someones use of certain books written by man and the topic of the context of the passage of scripture being used. it is be extremely dangerous using another man's work/opinion to try and interpret God's Word or to establish ones beliefs upon, there are many whom will use the bible and man written books to create false doctrines convincing others to follow after their deceptions and when I see the use of such I will reject to it and refer to the use of the bible only in my response.

 

There are a lot of books that have written by godly men that are good but one has to be careful how they may use and understand what they are reading and should have their bible in hand to know if it is line with the Word of God.

I agree that history and culture are very important to study, and Christian videos of biblical artifacts are good as well.  

 

as John said, the bible should be the beginning and ending point of our study.

 

God bless   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yep - that is exactly my point - not men's opinions, but historical fact.
Yet this is still extra biblical information.

There is a difference between extra- biblical information and unbiblical information.

Using information from outside the Bible, where that information is factual, is not only not wrong, but it is profitable for Biblical understanding.

As with all information, it needs to be handled wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In my studies of Eph 6 and the armour of God, one source that piqued my curiosity was in fact a childhood comic book series.
They had descriptions of Roman soldiers and their armour - done of course in a humourous way.
Many years later, after I was saved, when I read in the Bible about the armour of God it occurred to me that it must have been Roman armour. I had always assumed the comic was just made up silliness, but in fact the comic book was very accurate in this respect - but with a funny twist.

When I investigated, I discovered some amazing things about the passage.
None of it changes the passage, but it strengthens the passage unbelievably.
Years later when I preached the book of Ephesians we had an ethnic Roman attending. Because of his heritage, he had made a study of Roman history. He came to me afterwards and confirmed that what I had said about the armour was historically correct.

It is a wonderful study to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I Corinthians 3:10- According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

 

You can make all the claims you want that you have nor ever will learn from the writings of other men but in reality we all have. Even if it hasn't been directly. No man is an island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I Corinthians 3:10- According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

You can make all the claims you want that you have nor ever will learn from the writings of other men but in reality we all have. Even if it hasn't been directly. No man is an island.

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In my studies of Eph 6 and the armour of God, one source that piqued my curiosity was in fact a childhood comic book series.
They had descriptions of Roman soldiers and their armour - done of course in a humourous way.
Many years later, after I was saved, when I read in the Bible about the armour of God it occurred to me that it must have been Roman armour. I had always assumed the comic was just made up silliness, but in fact the comic book was very accurate in this respect - but with a funny twist.

When I investigated, I discovered some amazing things about the passage.
None of it changes the passage, but it strengthens the passage unbelievably.
Years later when I preached the book of Ephesians we had an ethnic Roman attending. Because of his heritage, he had made a study of Roman history. He came to me afterwards and confirmed that what I had said about the armour was historically correct.

It is a wonderful study to do.

 

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Asterix and OBliex? I read those comix as a child in Europe. My mother was from Luxembourg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Asterix and OBliex? I read those comix as a child in Europe. My mother was from Luxembourg


Ummmmmmm.......


Yes.... (embarrased smiley here).

One time reading Ephesians and the opening pages of them came to mind - you know, where they described the shield formations - tortoise, phalanx, a few others - and then "hare", where they were all running away in disarray? :lol::lol:

Turns out that some of those formations were true. This led me to investigate further and the details of the Roman battle shield have amazing implications when applied to the shield of faith.
That led me to investigate the Roman forms of the other articles.

Amazing study.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.

How is it a misuse of scripture? Part of building on that foundation comes from pastors/teachers and both pastors and teachers many times write commentaries and books.

 

And where did I say to follow a man? (Although the bible says God has appointed spiritual RULERS in our lives that we are to SUBMIT to).

 

Why are you being so contentious as usually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will consider my pride as you accused me before changing the post.

Would you care to consider the context of my comments.

Yes, I changed my post before you responded. It's good to do that when you typed things you may regret typing. But the one I have up I'll stick with.

 

No how is that a misuse of scripture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would suggest a "study Bible" rather than a commentary. I started with the Bible Society "Jubilee Bible" which had lots of maps, dates & diagrams simply to clarify the text. I moved on to a Bible with cross references, so one could build up an understanding from parallel passages & OT sources of NT quotations, etc.

 

Commentaries do have their uses, but I only use them now to explain details of the text, rather than interpret it. e.g. Scofield is particularly bad because it imposes one interpretation system on the text.

I've come across more than one individual who has their own 'interpretation system'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would suggest a "study Bible" rather than a commentary. I started with the Bible Society "Jubilee Bible" which had lots of maps, dates & diagrams simply to clarify the text. I moved on to a Bible with cross references, so one could build up an understanding from parallel passages & OT sources of NT quotations, etc.

 

Commentaries do have their uses, but I only use them now to explain details of the text, rather than interpret it. e.g. Scofield is particularly bad because it imposes one interpretation system on the text.

 

ASOD:

You should have said, "Scofield is bad because he still believes God's promises still belong to the nation of Israel".

Sorry - I stand corrected :) But I doubt if he still believes that, for whether in heaven or hell (& I hope heaven) he knows the truth. 

 

But no - it is his doctrinaire imposed interpretation - whether it's right or wrong. Note this distortion of Scripture:

 

Gen. 12

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8 . Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Genesis 12:1 to Exodus 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" ; Galatians 3:19-29 ; 4:1-7 . Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.

So how do we read the account of Joseph, & God's providential care of his people leading them to Egypt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...