Micaiah
Active Member
“The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:2, KJV)
How to Study Your Bible
- Thread starter Alive
- Start date
“The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:2, KJV)
Micaiah
Active Member
“Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Peter 3:22, KJV)
synergy
Active Member
So what was he "in the beginning with God"?
Micaiah
Active Member
Well, tell me where you are going with this and then cite the scripture please.
The balancing concern about studying scripture is about having some humility if finding something different from others. It is kind of good and kind of bad that seminary students are told to interpret scripture but not to expect to find something new. Partly that is true because pastors may start with the commentaries and just end up choosing which view they like best. Another issue is that few people will have the skill to read the text in fashion to recognize previous errors. I tend to trust my new findings since, at times, I do find some confirmation by other interpreters (but usually not completely matching ideas).
Oops. I meant to include that people may assume they have a great insight (like on the nature of Christ) gleaned from one letter. However, that so-called insight may not take into account the broader scripture and may miss the intricacies of discussions on a topic.
(These type of issues is partly why I had presented a survey about people's level of Bible study they do.)
Oops. I meant to include that people may assume they have a great insight (like on the nature of Christ) gleaned from one letter. However, that so-called insight may not take into account the broader scripture and may miss the intricacies of discussions on a topic.
(These type of issues is partly why I had presented a survey about people's level of Bible study they do.)
Last edited:
synergy
Active Member
Clearly, I am referring to the verse you just quoted which is John 1:2. If you don't wish to answer my question I will fully understand why.
I just thought of something clever. Someone could start a discussion on the Trinity.
Micaiah
Active Member
Let’s see it again:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1-2, KJV)
A cryptic scripture.
Divisions should not come from cryptic scriptures.
Unity should come from scriptures like these:
“…I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37, KJV)
I’m not following… what is your assumption of me?
Aeliana
Active Member
Yes I understand they can be tedious. But you never know what treasures you may find.
Aeliana
Active Member
That makes my head hurt.
But what I want to know is was Saul riding a horse on his way to Damascus or was he walking. Because I've heard it said he was knocked off of his high horse. Now that's a bible study.
Since he was blinded why would they take him by the hand and lead him and he couldn't see where he was stepping. If he was on a horse all they would have to do would be lead the horse and Saul of Tarsus could just sit on the back of the horse.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Sure. We have to make sure our concept of God is resolved by figuring out this detail of Paul's life.
Aeliana
Active Member
We could, After all God used him to author almost 3/4 of the new testament. And Paul actually gives us quite a few details of his life. So I'm sure we could learn something about God by learning why he chose Paul.
Sounds like a good bible study to me. Take this for example.
When you study the Book of Acts — the history of the early church — and Paul's Epistles, you can see quite clearly why God set Paul apart for this crucial role. Paul was fluent in the Greek language and Greek culture and learned in Greek literature, which enabled him to relate to the Greeks (gentiles) on their level.
Just pick up and any acceptable bible that you can lay your hands on, pray and start reading it. The Holy Spirit will guide you into the truth of God's word. The book of John is a good place to start.
Some "bad" Bible translations are criticized for theological biases, textual inaccuracies, or being overly interpretive paraphrases. Examples include The Passion Translation for its lack of textual accuracy and added material, the New World Translation for altering the divinity of Christ, and some modern translations that have been criticized for political correctness or being based on different manuscript traditions.
So you may want to do a little research.
Some "bad" Bible translations are criticized for theological biases, textual inaccuracies, or being overly interpretive paraphrases. Examples include The Passion Translation for its lack of textual accuracy and added material, the New World Translation for altering the divinity of Christ, and some modern translations that have been criticized for political correctness or being based on different manuscript traditions.
So you may want to do a little research.
There are passages that I have spent weeks studying -- even two verse units -- before I figured out the important details behind them -- like Rom 4:1-2. The weakness we have is that we do not read it in the context of the original readers -- the situation they are in, their knowledge and thinking patterns.
The odd thing when reading Romans is that the text reads so smoothly it seems as if it makes sense. But then when trying to figure out what Paul is saying, that can be much harder. Remember though that a difficult passage is not just solved by giving it an explanation. The passage has to be easily discerned in the original reading of it. By this, I mean the text has to be understood in a single reading/hearing. (There could still be some moments where people had to originally ponder an idea here or there.)
The odd thing when reading Romans is that the text reads so smoothly it seems as if it makes sense. But then when trying to figure out what Paul is saying, that can be much harder. Remember though that a difficult passage is not just solved by giving it an explanation. The passage has to be easily discerned in the original reading of it. By this, I mean the text has to be understood in a single reading/hearing. (There could still be some moments where people had to originally ponder an idea here or there.)
One of the Attributes of the Bible I like is it's infallible, has no mistakes. Specifically, in its original autographs it is without errors. In Psalm 19:7 the Bible says of itself, “The law of the Lord is perfect.” It is flawless because it was authored by God—and He is flawless.
Therefore, if God wrote the Bible, and if He is the ultimate authority, and if His character is flawless, then the Bible is flawless and is the ultimate authority. You see, the fact that God is perfect demands that the original autograph, the original giving of the Word of God, must also be perfect.
So, the Bible is infallible, and that’s the first reason to study it; it is the only Book that never makes a mistake—everything it says is the truth.
Therefore, if God wrote the Bible, and if He is the ultimate authority, and if His character is flawless, then the Bible is flawless and is the ultimate authority. You see, the fact that God is perfect demands that the original autograph, the original giving of the Word of God, must also be perfect.
So, the Bible is infallible, and that’s the first reason to study it; it is the only Book that never makes a mistake—everything it says is the truth.
I agree that the English translations can work well for general study by Christians. It helps also to use a set of translations to get a better sense of alternative meanings. Some cases, though, like Rom 4:1-2 can mess up the meaning. So some caution is required.
I also note that scholars miss details studying the Greek that are general mistakes that can be corrected even just in the English. For example, Gal 2:14 does not state Peter's misbehavior. This verse forms a conditional interrogatory. I call this a contextualized question which makes no statement of error -- how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” As a question, Peter could deny he does anything like that. But the real thing is that this can sound like a problem while not actually saying Peter is wrong.
There are times however that the translations are consistently wrong. In Zeph 1:2-3, the word "earth" can mean "land" and the word "mankind" can just mean "people." Obviously, the scope of this judgment is of less reach when translated with the second meaning. This also applies to "heaven" which may just mean "sky." The same problem happens whether in the Greek or Hebrew.
So, the deeper study sometimes requires knowing details like these of the Greek and Hebrew.
Complete
Active Member
'And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:
who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.'
(Act 17:10-11)
'Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.'
(2Ti 2:15)
'So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.'
(Rom 10:17)
who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.'
(Act 17:10-11)
'Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.'
(2Ti 2:15)
'So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.'
(Rom 10:17)
Last edited:
