Bible Basics

I. Inspiration

A. Definition

B. Reliability of the documents

C. Nature of Inspiration

D. Ingredients of Inspiration

E. Erroneous Views of Inspiration

II. Canonicity

A. Definition

B. Characteristics of canonical books

C. Extent of the canon

1. Apocrypha

2. Pseudepigrapha

III. Transmission of the Text

A. Definitions

B. Textual criticism

1. Higher criticism

2. Lower criticism

C. Various translations throughout history

1. Non-English translations

2. Early English translations

3. Modern English translations

D. KJV Controversy

IV. Interpretation (Hermeneutics)

A. Definition

B. Spiritual qualifications for understanding the Bible

C. Cautions in interpretation

D. Principles of interpretation

V. Application

A. Bible study requisites

B. Bible study benefits

C. Bible study methods

D. Bible study tools

E. Bible study guides

I. Inspiration

A. Definition

It is the Divine act in which the Holy Spirit guided the human authors of the Bible so that their writings were kept without error and so that what they wrote was exactly what God wanted included in His revelation.

B. Reliability of the documents

1. New Testament

There is more abundant and accurate manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient book. COMPARISON OF ANCIENT TEXTS
Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	# of Copies	Accuracy
Caesar	1st Cent. B.C.	900 A.D.	10	NA
Livy	1st Cent. B.C.	NA	20	NA
Tacitus	c. 100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	20	NA
Thucydides	5th Cent. B.C.	900 A.D.	8	NA
Herodotus	5th Cent. B.C.	900 A.D.	8	NA
Demosthenes	4th Cent.	1100 A.D.	200	NA
Mahabharata	NA	NA	NA	90%
Homer	9th Cent. B.C.	NA	643	95%
N.T.	1st Cent. A.D.	2nd Cent. A.D.	5,000+	99+%

*Table taken from Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, p. 307.

2. Other Considerations

a) The number of witnesses to N.T. events

b) The nature of the N.T. eyewitnesses

c) The sanity of the N.T. witnesses and writers

d) Accuracy of the N.T. witnesses

e) Archeological evidence and secular support

C. Nature of Inspiration

1. Verbal

The very words of Scripture are inspired, not just the thoughts or ideas. God specifically chose the words that He wanted to communicate His message.

2. Infallible

The Bible is of such a quality that it cannot mislead or be in error. Technically, this word applies to the “soteriological” content of the Bible. In recent years some have tried to make a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy. They would posit that Jesus was infallible, but not necessarily inerrant. By this, they mean that He is correct on all issues that are fundamental to spiritual life, but that He may have erred concerning scientific or historical issues.

3. Inerrant

This is an expansion of infallibility. The Bible is without error in any portion or in any area. Though it is not an atlas, it speaks correctly about geographical locations. Though it is not a science text, when it touches on science, it is correct. Though it is not primarily a history text, it is correct on all historical matters that it addresses or alludes to.

4. Authoritative

Since the Bible is the Word of God, it has the authority to govern our lives.

5. Plenary

This word means “full, complete.” Every portion of Scripture is inspired, not just some of the parts. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 the whole of Scripture is inspired.

D. Erroneous Views of Inspiration

1. The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God (Liberalism)

This view teaches that some, but not the entire Bible is actually the Word of God. Basically, the words spoken by Jesus are considered to be the Word of God as well as passages with phrases such as “Thus saith the Lord.” The rest may or may not be considered the Word of God depending upon the interpreter.

The problem with this view is that it leaves it up to the individual to decide what parts are and are not the Word of God. It allows for a cafeteria Bible where each individual chooses what he or she likes and discards or ignores the rest.

2. The Bible BECOMES the Word of God when it speaks to you (Neo-orthodoxy)

This view teaches that the Bible does not really become the Word of God until it actually “speaks” to you. Then those portions that effect you are considered the Word of God. The emphasis is on the living nature of the text.

The problem with this view is twofold. First, God’s Word is His Word whether it speaks to us or not. Just because we ignore it or do not hear its message does not make it any less His Word. Second, it makes our “listening” the condition upon which the Word becomes the Word. This means that different parts are God’s Word for different people because each person is spoken to by a different portion of Scripture.

3. The THOUGHTS, not the WORDS are inspired

Some hold to a very subjective view of inspiration in which they posit that the thoughts are inspired, but not necessarily the words. God gave the thoughts to the writers, but the writers put those thoughts in their own words.

4. The Bible is correct when it speaks to SPIRITUAL matters, but not necessarily when it speaks to HISTORICAL or SCIENTIFIC matters

This is a way of accommodating modern scientific theories (i.e. evolution) and other historical events that some see in conflict with the Bible’s portrayal of those events.

There are a couple of problems with this view. First, if you cannot trust God to be right about issues that you can see or test, then how can you be sure that you can trust Him to be right about issues that are spiritual in nature? In order to trust Him in the spiritual realm, I need to be able to trust Him in the natural realm where I can test His claims.

Second, there is no conflict between the correct scientific interpretation of nature and the Scriptures. The bible is infallible and therefore correct in all areas, including history, geography, and science.

II. Canonicity

A. Definition

The word “canon” comes from kanon meaning ruler, staff, or measuring rod. It later gained the idea of “standard,” or “norm.” In the church it came to mean the rule of faith or authoritative Scripture.

B. Description of canonical books

1. Sacred

2. “Defiled the hands”

3. Authoritative

C. Difference between Discovering the canon and choosing the canon

Incorrect View	Correct View
The Church is the Determiner of the Canon	The Church is the Discoverer of the Canon
The Church is the Mother of the Canon	The Church is the Child of the Canon
The Church is the Magistrate of the Canon	The Church is the Minister of the Canon
The Church is the Regulator of the Canon	The Church is the Recognizer of the Canon
The Church is the Judge of the Canon	The Church is the Witness of the Canon
The Church is Master of the Canon	The Church is Servant of Canon

*chart taken from A General Introduction of the Bible by Geisler & Nix, p. 221.

D. Characteristics of canonical books

1. OT books had to be written by a prophet or someone with the prophetic gift

2. Writer needed to be confirmed by acts of God

3. The message had to tell the truth about God

4. It basically had to be accepted by the people of God

5. It had to be genuine, not a forgery

6. It had to have evidence of Divine authority

7. Old Testament had Christ’s approval

8. New Testament had Christ’s promise

a) John 14:26

b) John 16:13

9. New Testament had to have apostolic approval

a) Eph. 2:20

b) He. 2:3-4

E. Extent of the canon: Closed or Open?

1. Theologically it must be closed

a) There are no more apostles (Acts 1:21)

b) The gift of miracles as given in the early church has ceased

2. Historically it must be closed

a) We have no record of a gift of miracles to confirm any new prophets or apostles

b) Peter reminds us that God has given us all that is necessary for our faith. If a book were left out, then we would not have had all that is necessary. (2 Pet. 1:3)

F. Non-canonical books

1. Categories of books

a) Homologoumena: books that are accepted by virtually everyone

b) Antilegomena: books disputed by some

c) Pseudepigrapha: books rejected by virtually everyone

d) Apocrypha: “hidden,” books accepted by some as canonical or semicanonical

2. Homologoumena

a) Most have 20 of the 27 NT books in this category

b) They have been included in almost every list from the early church to the present

3. Antilegomena

a) The books listed

(1) Hebrews

(2) James

(3) 2 John

(4) 3 John

(5) 2 Peter

(6) Jude

(7) Revelation

b) The reasons being disputed

(1) Hebrews

(a) Hebrews was disputed because of the uncertainty surrounding authorship

(b) The eastern church considered it Pauline and accepted it readily

(c) Some were afraid to embrace it due to the fact that the Montanists appealed to it for some of their heretical teachings

(2) James

(a) Luther doubted James

(b) Some questioned its apparent contradiction with Paul’s statements on salvation by faith

(3) 2 Peter

(a) The genuineness of authorship was questioned

(4) 2 & 3 John

(a) Their genuineness was questioned

(b) Their limited circulation hindered their acceptance

(c) Their personal flavor worked against them also

(5) Jude

(a) Questions of authenticity

(b) It alludes to a pseudepigraphal book

(6) Revelation

(a) Its authenticity was challenged

(b) Correct interpretation (or incorrect) made it difficult to be accepted

c) They were never considered anticanonical; they were given a semicanonical status by some and treated like the apocrypha

4. Pseudepigrapha

a) By the ninth century there were some 280 of them

b) Pseudepigraphal gospels

(1) More than 50 of them

(2) Gospel of Thomas

(a) Fanciful stories of Christ’s childhood

(i) Creating sparrows out of clay at age 5

(ii) Cursed a lad to become like a tree

(b) Written in the 2^nd Century

(3) Gospel of the Ebionites

(4) Gospel of Peter

(5) Gospel of the Hebrews

(6) Gospel of the Egyptians

(7) Gospel of Philip

(8) Gospel of Judas

(9) Gospel According to Matthias

c) Pseudepigraphal Acts

(1) The Acts of Andrew

(2) The Acts of Thomas

(3) The Acts of John

(4) The Acts of Peter

d) Epistles

e) Apocalypses

f) Value of the pseudepigrapha

(1) Help in understanding the culture

(2) Help in understanding some of the heretical teachings of the early church

(3) They help in distinguishing the genuine from the false in that they show the tendencies of those who would fake apostolic writings

5. Apocrypha?

a) OT Apocrypha

(1) Arguments for their acceptance

(a) NT allusions to some of the books

(b) NT writers’ usage of the Septuagint

(c) Some of the earliest complete manuscripts contain the Apocrypha

(d) Early Christian art depicts events mentioned in the Apocrypha

(e) Some early church Fathers accepted the apocrypha or at least used it

(f) The influence of St. Augustine

(g) Council of Trent

(i) Proclaimed them canonical in 1546

(ii) They have been binding on the RCC since that time

(h) Copies found among the Dead Sea community

(2) Arguments against their acceptance

(a) NT never cites an apocryphal book as inspired

(i) NT does cite it just as it cites pagan poets

(ii) Canonical OT books are quoted as inspired

(b) The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as canonical

(c) Jesus did not accept the Apocrypha

(d) The center for the Jewish canon was in Jerusalem, not Alexandria where the Septuagint was translated

(e) No early church father accepted the Apocrypha before Augustine accepted the Apocrypha

(f) The Council of Trent upheld the Apocrypha mainly because the Apocryphal books contained false teachings that would help them in their debates with Luther (i.e. prayer for the dead).

(g) The Dead Sea Scrolls contained many non-canonical books

(h) The nature of the books themselves prove they are not canonical

(i) Do not have the stamp of Divine authority

(ii) Are fanciful

(iii) Contain historical errors

(iv) Contains contradictions to other doctrine

(v) Were not written by a prophet or someone with prophetic authority

(vi) Conspicuous absence of prophetic material

b) NT Apocrypha

(1) They enjoyed a temporary or local acceptance, but never a church-wide acceptance

(2) No major canon or church council ever accepted them

(3) Value of the Apocrypha

(a) They are of more value and of higher quality of the Pseudepigrapha

(b) Provide early documentation of canonical books

(c) Contain much historical data that is helpful

(d) They reveal the culture and practices of some of the church at that time

III. Transmission of the Text

A. Definitions

1. Translation

2. Version

3. Revision

4. Recension

5. Paraphrase

6. Textual Criticism

7. Manuscript

8. Preservation

9. Masoretic Text

10. Received Text

11. Majority Text

12. Eclectic text

13. Alexandrian Texts

14. Formal Equivalency

15. Dynamic Equivalency

B. Textual criticism

Criticism here is used in its original sense. It means to make a discerning judgment about an issue. In our case, it refers to making judgments about the Bible and the text of the Bible. There are two types of criticism as it relates to the Bible¾higher and lower. The two terms have nothing to do with their importance.

1. Higher criticism

Generally speaking, this type of “criticism” deals with the genuineness of the text. In and of itself, it is not harmful. However, it is in the area of higher criticism that liberalism has flourished. Higher criticism deals with authorship, dates, literary style and structure of the text. It is in these areas that liberals have questioned the genuineness of the authorship of many of the books of the Bible. Liberals have used the erroneous theories of higher criticism to undermine the veracity of Scripture.

2. Lower criticism

Lower criticism deals with the text of the Bible. It compares the various manuscripts (over 10,000 of them). It is concerned with the text itself, not necessarily who wrote it or what it says. A more subtle approach of attacking the Scriptures is to cast doubt on the text behind the translation.

C. Various translations throughout history

1. Non-English translations

2. Early English translations

3. Modern English translations

D. KJV Controversy

1. Broad Divisions of the Various Positions on the Bible

a) Liberal: The Bible is a man-made book

b) Neo-orthodox: The Bible becomes the word of God

c) Neo-Evangelical: The Bible is errant

d) Evangelical: The Bible is inerrant in the original but the preferred text is the Nestle-Aland/Westcott-Hort editions. Thus, translations using that are superior.

e) Various Positions Held by Fundamentalists as Delineated in Point 3 Below

(1) When we get to that point, I realize that there are many who would not consider some of the positions as fundamentalist. However, there are those who claim to be fundamentalists who hold the views espoused in number 3 below.

(2) The views of fundamentalists have been grouped according to their position on the KJV. This is due to the fact that most of the debate about Scripture among fundamentalists revolves around the position one takes on the KJV.

2. Five Camps of KJV as delineated by Waite

a) Those who like the KJV best,

b) Those who support the KJV textually,

c) Those who are Received Text only,

d) Those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant,

e) Those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation.

3. My division of the positions on the KJV

Note #1: See point 1e above for the thoughts given there. Fundamentalism has its various “factions.” These groups can be delineated by their varying views on the following issues: Personal separation (women’s clothing, men’s hairstyles, movies, contemporary music, etc); ecclesiastical separation (Secondary separation, tertiary separation, etc.); soul-winning methods (To what lengths do you go to get a crowd?); and most recently, the KJV.

Note #2: It is helpful to take the points below and put them on a continuum with point a being at the far right and point j at the far left. (I realize that this lettering is backwards. However, for the sake of explaining the various positions I found it easier to start the explanations at the far right and move left.) Below this you can make a second continuum showing the positions of liberals to evangelicals from point 1a-d above with the conservative evangelical position being on the far right and the liberal position on the far left. If you do this, you will notice that the positions to the left of the fundamentalist continuum will overlap with the positions on the right side of the evangelical continuum. This will then provide you with a continuum from liberal to extreme KJV with everything in between.

Note #3: As a general rule, people tend to separate from those who do not hold the same position on the KJV as they do. Those on the right will usually separate from those who are to the left of them because from their perspective, anything to the left is a compromise on the Word of God. Also, most try to distance themselves from the Ruckmanism or at least from Ruckman himself. Remember, this is not a hard fast rule, just a generalization.

Note #4: Whenever I read someone on an issue, if possible, I like to know where he or she stands on that issue. It gives me better feel for what they are saying. So, for those of you who want to know where I stand before going on, I am at position d & e below.

Note #5: There are two issues involved in the debate. The first is the textual issue: Which text underlying the translation is best? This deals with arguments over the Received Text, Majority Text, and the Eclectic Text. The second issue is that of translation. What is the best philosophical method of translation? Is it word for word, idea for idea, thought for thought, grammatical equivalency, dynamic equivalency, thought equivalency? Thus, it is possible to hold to a correct view about translation philosophy and an incorrect view on the text. It is also possible to be correct on the text and wrong on the translation philosophy. In dealing with people, it helps to know where they are on these two issues.

Note #6: Those who hold to positions b-e below will argue that God preserved His Word in the Received Text. Any other position would leave us with some doubt as to what is actually the preserved word of God. Those who hold to positions f - j hold that the MANNER of God’s preservation is not spelled out in Scripture. In other words, God has left the MANNER of preservation open to debate. They will then argue for the belief that the MANNER God used to preserve His Word is through the multitudes of manuscripts available rather than through the line that gave us the Received Text.

a) It is advanced or new revelation

This is the view of Peter Ruckman, often called Ruckmanism. His view is that the KJV is advanced revelation and that it replaces the Greek and Hebrew texts. This view confuses inspiration and preservation. Ruckman himself is a brilliant man with a photographic memory and great artistic ability. However, he is also very coarse and mean-spirited in his language. Anyone who disagrees with his position is literally of the devil out to undermine the Word of God. He will call them all kinds of names, rationalizing that He is doing God’s work by “outing” the sissies who don’t believe in the pure Word of God. He is a twisted, yet brilliant man who is wrong in both his position and his demeanor.

b) It is inspired and inerrant along with the original text

This view holds that it is possible for there to be more than one inspired text. Namely, that it is possible to have an inspired text in Greek as well as in English or any other language. This view states that it is possible to have God’s Word INSPIRED and PRESERVED in several languages at one time. This would mean that each language would only have one official text and in the English it is the KJV. Again, this view seems to confuse inspiration and preservation. If God preserves something, He preserves the original; He doesn’t make a new Word in a different language.

c) It is the ONLY English translation which is the Word of God

This view is similar to that above but it doesn’t go so far as to say that the KJV is inspired, only that it is PRESERVED.

d) It is inerrant, but could have changes such as replacing “charity” with “love”

(1) There are NO mistakes in the KJV

(2) The KJV is a correct translation of the RT and is therefore the inspired Word of God.

(3) There are some words which could be changed without affecting the inerrancy of the KJV

(4) This is the view of David Cloud. He has a lot of helpful literature on the subject at his website http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/

(5) While it may be possible to make changes (realizing that you are not changing an error but making the text clearer), it may not be desirable to do so

(a) Just because you could make a change does not mean you should make a change

(b) When you make an acceptable change, you open the door to making UNACCEPTABLE changes

(c) The same approach is to leave the text as it is and explain obscure passages rather than change them to make them less obscure

e) Received text only

(1) The KJV is the best English translation of the received text, but is inspired only as it correctly translates the Received text

(2) Preservation is in the Received text, not necessarily in the translated text

(3) Inspiration is in the originals

(4) The preserved text insures that we continue to have the Word of God

(5) Inspiration passed on to a translation is only as good as the translation reflects what was written (i.e., the accuracy of the translation)

(6) The Received Text is the correct text. It is the preserved Word of God. A translation of this text is the Word of God if it accurately translates the received Text.

(7) As an illustration, before the KJV was translated, God’s Word was preserved somewhere, i.e. the Received Text. When the translators finished their work, PRESERVATION did not jump from the RT to the KJV. The RT was still the preserved word of God and the KJV was a correct translation of the preserved Word.

(8) This position allows for other translations as long as they are accurate renditions of the RT.

f) Majority text proponents

(1) Often people who speak of the majority text actually mean the received text and vice versa. There are a few minor differences but many combine the two positions as being one position

(2) This view holds that God has preserved His Word in the Majority Text rather than the Received Text or the Eclectic text.

g) Those who think it is the best translation

(1) Those in this camp do not argue over the text, holding that the differences between the RT, MT, and ET are actually minor and do not damage major doctrines

(2) They do think that the KJV is still the best translation to use based on its accuracy, beauty, and tradition

h) Those who just like the it best, but may not agree that it is the best translation or the only usable translation

(1) These like the KJV best for its beauty and memorization possibilities

(2) They often do not want to change for the fear of the consequences of change and that it may bring with it other undesirable changes

(3) They use the KJV but think that other translations may actually be better. For example, in college and seminary I was taught to use the KJV but that my study Bible should be the NASB because of its literalness in translation.

i) Those who argue for the other Greek texts as possibly being superior to the received text

(1) People in this category have not made up their mind on the text issue. In fact, they may not want to make up their mind.

(2) They think that any “accurate” translation, even if it may be of an inferior text, is sufficient.

(3) They hold that many of the translations on the market are acceptable and do not make an issue of which ones are used

j) Those who argue that other translations are superior to the KJV

(1) Some based on the belief that the other Greek texts are superior

(a) They prefer the “older” manuscripts

(b) They prefer the modern critical method of ascertaining the original text

(2) Some based on the belief that other translation philosophies, styles, etc. are superior

(a) They prefer a thought for thought translation arguing that it is impossible perfectly translate from one language to another

(b) They put the emphasis on readability, not accuracy when it comes to translation

(i) Thus, the NIV is superior to the KJV because the modern English in it is supposed to be easier to read than the KJV

(ii) This ignores that fact that the KJV actually has a lower grade on the Flesch-Kincaid scale than the NIV

(iii) They feel the NIV’s translation philosophy is superior also to the KJV

4. Arguments for KJV and the Received Text

a) We need a sure word of God for today.

(1) The originals are no longer available

(2) Logic dictates that God’s word must be preserved somewhere

(3) Therefore, it must be in the KJV

b) The KJV is time-tested for its influence and the number saved under its influence

c) English is the worldwide language for today as Greek was in NT times

d) Rejecting the received text in favor of an eclectic text has led to theological error and compromise

e) The doctrine of biblical preservation requires that we reject the modern texts and versions based on the eclectic text.

f) The theological apostasy which has characterized modern textual criticism requires that we reject the modern texts and versions.

5. Textual and Translational Issue

a) As stated above, there are two issues involved: Which Greek text and which translation philosophy

b) The KJV passes both tests because it is a correct translation of the right text

E. Common Modern Version Arguments

1. The KJV should be replaced because it is antiquated

a) There are only a few antiquated terms in the KJV and they can be easily explained in the margin

b) The KJV uses a smaller vocabulary and shorter words than the NIV or NASB

c) The KJV uses some 6,000 words while Shakespeare uses 21,000 words

d) We should NOT remove the “Thees” and “Thous” because we lose accuracy of translation in the process

e) Even making acceptable changes (i.e. “love” for “charity”) is dangerous because it cracks open the door for further unwarranted changes

2. The KJV should be replaced because it is difficult to read

a) Readability and accuracy are two different animals

b) In translation, the most important factor is accuracy, not readability

c) We are to search the Scriptures so they can search us

d) The KJV has a lower Flesch-Kincaid scale reading than NIV and NASB

3. There have been changes in the KJV since 1611

a) These all fit within the parameters discussed in pt. 3d above. The changes were not corrections (except spelling errors) of errors, but changes that indicate the language changes over time

b) As stated, these types of changes (not corrections) could be done today, but probably shouldn’t be because of the other problems it could lead to

4. The text is corrupted and needs to be “recovered” by textual critics

a) God has promised to preserve His Word (Is. 40:8). If it has been lost and needs recovering, where has it been for the last few centuries?

b) How do we know that the Received text is corrupt? Why not the other texts?

c) This makes the textual critics the final determiners of God’s word

5. The received text underlying the KJV is founded on Erasmus's hasty collation of a few manuscripts; further, a great many more manuscripts have been discovered since the 16th and 17th centuries.

a) Erasmus had knowledge of a wide variety of manuscript evidence which represented practically every alternate reading proposed in our day

b) The Received Text underwent a process of careful revision by Erasmus as well as by other Reformation editors,

c) Erasmus's few manuscripts represent the vast majority of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament

d) The vast majority of all newly discovered manuscripts continue to support the Received Text

6. There are texts that are more ancient than the ones Erasmus used, i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

a) There are also texts older than those two

b) Erasmus, while his texts THEMSELVES may not have been ancient, they were based on ancient texts

c) Both the eclectic Greek text and the Received Greek text are based on ancient texts, the question is which represents the original

d) Older is not necessarily better. The older manuscripts generally come from Alexandria, Egypt. The dry climate there was conducive for preserving texts. It is also from Alexandria that many of the early heresies came to the church.

e) Illus. Often I will give out copies of my notes to the class. I will discover errors in the notes and go make changes. I will then print a new corrected copy for myself. This means that both the majority of the texts containing my notes as well as the older texts containing my notes are not correct! I realize that this illustration has its drawbacks, but it does show that older and more is not always better.

7. Modern textual scholars have more materials and better methods available to them

a) They definitely have more materials as more texts are being discovered

b) However, their methods are not necessarily better

(1) They are based on human reasoning

(2) They make unwarranted assumptions

(a) Older is better

(b) Longer is better

(3) They treat the Bible text as if it is just another piece of HUMAN literature

(4) They do not recognize that Scripture is supernaturally preserved by God

F. Westcott-Hort Theological Errors

1. Westcott and Hort held a vague or erroneous position on inspiration, revelation, or inerrancy.

2. Westcott embraced the heresy of the universal ‘Fatherhood of God.’

3. Westcott denies that God had to be ‘propitiated.’

4. Westcott taught that men could be ‘divine’ in some way.

5. Westcott espoused ‘evolution’ in various ways.

6. Westcott had a heretical theory of man’s sinfulness and depravity, believing in man’s perfectibility in various ways.

7. Westcott and Hort failed to affirm the personality of the Devil, calling him only a ‘power.’

8. Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place, speaking of it as a ‘state.’

9. Westcott believed that the ‘redemptive efficacy of Christ’s work’ was to be found ‘in his whole life’ rather than in his death.

10. Westcott questioned the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ.

11. Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Jesus Christ.

12. Westcott explained away some of the miracles of Christ.

13. Westcott and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ.

14. Westcott and Hort had a false and heretical view of the vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

IV. Interpretation (Hermeneutics)

A. Definition

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Bible. It deals with the principles involved in correct biblical interpretation. Paul admonished Timothy to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

B. Spiritual qualifications for understanding the Bible

Note: The following are generalizations, not hard and fast rules. For example, a person who is unsaved can understand the Scripture and reject it or he may not be able to understand it because sin, self, and Satan blind him. However, if you truly want to understand the Bible, the following are necessary.

1. You must be born-again (John 3:3; 1 Co. 2:14)

2. You must be guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13)

3. You must be willing to obey the truth (John 7:16-17)

4. You must be diligent in your study (Acts 17:11)

5. You must ask God for divine wisdom (James 1:5)

C. Cautions in interpretation

1. Accepting tradition as authoritative

a) “We’ve always done it that way” or “believed this way”

b) Accepting official church interpretation (Catholic view)

2. Elevating reason above Scripture

3. Elevating experience above Scripture

a) Charismatic approach is to interpret the Scripture by their experience rather than interpret their experience by the Scripture

b) Experience can teach the wrong lessons as well as the right lessons. It depends on how you use experience.

D. Principles of interpretation

1. Seek to find the author’s meaning

a) Don’t look for hidden meanings

(1) The bible is a revelation, not a puzzle

(2) You could never know if a hidden meaning was really intended or not. It would be totally subjective in nature.

b) Determine what the author meant to say, not what you want him to say or what he could have been saying

2. Interpret literally

a) This does not mean to interpret every figure of speech as literal. It means to interpret normally, as you would any other writing. If something is a figure of speech, then treat it as such. Interpret word in their normal, customary usage.

b) Don’t interpret symbolically unless you are sure the words are being used as symbols

(1) In the early centuries, much damage was done by trying to find symbolic or hidden meanings in the text

(2) Prophecy is to be interpreted literally unless the text is clear that the statement is to be taken in some other way.

3. Interpret according to context

a) Words taken out of context can be made to mean anything

b) Illus. Newt Gingrich was vilified for wanting to let Social Security “whither on the vine.” His “whither on the vine” remarks, however, were taken totally out of context and twisted to mean something that he did not mean.

4. Consider the genre or type of literature involved

a) Different genres of literature used in Scripture

(1) Narrative

(2) History

(3) Didactic

(4) Poetry

(5) Prophecy

b) General thoughts on genre

(1) Narratives

(a) Make up the bulk of the OT and the gospels

(b) Primary purpose is storytelling. Be careful in formulating precise doctrinal decrees from this genre.

(2) Didactic

(a) This is the epistalatory material

(b) It is best used for formulating doctrine

(3) History

(a) See thoughts on narrative above

(b) Historical sections can contain descriptions of accounts that depict people doing sinful or wrong actions. Don’t assume that just because it is recorded, that it is also considered acceptable.

(4) Poetry

(a) Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

(b) Uses many figures of speech that are meant to be interpreted that way

(c) Its primary purpose is not didactic, but exhortational

(5) Prophecy

(a) Interpret literally

(b) All OT prophesies were fulfilled literally, not figuratively

(c) When figures of speech and symbols are used in prophecy, it is usually evident and the meaning explained elsewhere in Scripture

5. Use plain passages to understand difficult ones

a) In difficult passages, remember that when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense

b) If the plain sense contradicts the simple truths taught elsewhere, then interpret by the simple, not vice-versa

c) Illus. The Church of Christ view of baptism is based on using about five baptism verses that on the surface could be construed as teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, this ignores the fact that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of Scriptures that teach that salvation is by faith alone. Also, there are whole books of the Bible whose purpose is to give us assurance of salvation and they do not even mention baptism! John’s purpose for writing his gospel was so that we “might have life.” Yet he never once mentions baptism. Then in 1 John he states that one of his purposes is that we might “know that we have eternal life.” Yet, the book never mentions baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation, then it should have been included in a book about knowing you are saved.

d) This illustrates the danger of interpreting difficult passages as the controlling passage rather than using the simpler passages to interpret the difficult ones.

6. Interpret historically/culturally

a) Try to have an understanding of the culture then. It will help in interpretation.

b) Many of the difficulties we face in interpretation come from our lack of knowledge of the history and culture of the original writers.

V. Application

A. Bible study requisites

1. The Bible is a REVELATION, not a RIDDLE

2. Knowing the Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to an end

3. A knowledge of the Bible is necessary in order to know God

B. Bible study benefits

1. It increases our faith (Ro. 10:17)

2. It is spiritual food for spiritual growth (1 Pe. 2:2, He. 5:12-14)

3. It cleanses from sin (Ps. 119:9)

4. It gives us guidance (Ps. 119:105)

5. If keeps us from error (Mt. 22:29)

C. Descriptions of the Word

1. Light (Ps. 119:105)

2. Food (1 Pe. 2:2)

3. Fire (Jer. 5:14)

4. Hammer (Jer. 23:29)

5. Mirror (James 1:23-24)

6. Seed (Mt. 13:18-23)

7. Sword (Eph. 6:17)

D. Bible study methods

1. Word study

2. Paragraph study

3. Topical study

4. Book study

5. Character study

E. Bible study tools

1. Study Bible with notes

a) MacArthur study Bible has excellent notes (Remember: the notes are not inspired. Every study Bible has some notes that are wrong but that does not mean that most of the notes can’t be helpful)

b) Schofield reference Bible

c) Thompson chain reference Bible

2. Exhaustive concordance

a) Strong’s

This is the most popular exhaustive concordance. Contains every word with every verse reference in the Bible, including the “the’s” and “and’s.” Has a numbering system used by most study helps that point you to a dictionary of Greek and Hebrew of the words that underlie the text.

b) Young’s Analytical

This is my favorite concordance. Has every English word with verse references categorized by the Greek or Hebrew word underlying the English word. For example, if you were to look up the word “love” in Strong’s, it would list the verses in order from Genesis to Revelation that contained the English word “love.” If you were to look it up in Young’s, the words would be categorized based on the Hebrew of Greek word that the English word was translated from. Thus, there would be a category for filew (love like in a friendship) with the verses in order from Matthew to Revelation and then there would be a category for agaph (love like a divine love) with the verses in order from Matthew to Revelation.

3. Bible Atlas

4. Commentaries

a) Types

(1) Devotional

(2) Grammatical

(3) Lexical

(4) Practical

b) Suggestions for the layman

(1) There are several good commentaries out there. For simple study and understanding I suggest the following three commentary sets

(2) Warren Wiersbe “Be Series”

(a) His is the best reading commentary. It is both devotional and instructional

(b) His use of words and explanation is “poetic” and simple to understand

(3) J. Vernon McGee

(a) “He being dead, yet speaketh.”

(b) He does a good job of” putting the cookies on the lower shelf.”

(c) Again, simple to understand yet not simplistic

(4) John MacArthur’s commentaries

(a) Some object to him because of his erroneous views on the blood, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and equal-elder rule. However, if you know this ahead of time, you will find his commentaries the best available for explaining what the text means.

(b) His commentaries do not “read” as well as Wiersbe’s. They are not so much homiletical as they are explanatory.

F. Bible study guides

1. Through the Bible in a year: Genesis to Revelation

2. Through the Bible in a year: Read passages in both the NT and OT each day so that you do not get bogged down in some of the more difficult or “boring” reading

3. I have both types free for the asking