Rightly dividing the Word of Truth

[peh]

Do any of the rest of you posters out there see that a lot of the Word is misused/read/translated consistently?

Like the ever-famous,  "The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb"?   There are pictures of it, preachers "quote" it, writer's include it, and IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Then there is the famous preaching of "learning God's word'..precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little", this is how you learn the Word, and about God, precept upon precept...."

Look at this: Isa 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."  And verse 12 says "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The whole gist of this passage is that those who learn precept upon precept...here a little, there a little..are those who don't hear, don't chose His rest, who "have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:(v15)  

This is what Matthew Henry wrote about verses 9-13

Precept upon precept. It must be so, or (as some read) it has been so. They have been taught, as children are taught to read, by precept upon precept, and taught to write by line upon line, a little here and a little there, a little of one thing and a little of another, that the variety of instructions might be pleasing and inviting,—a little at one time and a little at another, that they might not have their memories overcharged,—a little from one prophet and a little from another, that every one might be pleased with his friend and him whom he admired.  

It is clearly a negative passage yet it is taught by some who should have studied the Word extensively, ie preachers of the Word, as a primer for Word study.  Not that precept upon precept is a bad concept, but if we only learn what makes us pleased with our friend and pleasing to those we admire, what good is it?

I'm going to start making a list of the times I see examples of mis-teaching, mis-preaching, and mis-speaking of the Word.

How about "every tub must sit on its own bottom", and "cleanliness is next to godliness".   Any takers on finding them in the Scripture?  

I'm going to create a new book for "scripture" and call it the Book of Hezekiah.  In it I'm going to put every example of this trend I can find.  

Any of you have examples for me?    

[JudgeNot]

peh -
Look or do a search - I'm pretty sure there is a HUGE thread with almost the exact same title that someone started a year or so ago(?) (forgive me, I'm senile...but I'm betting a moderator can find it) that you may want to link this one to.

I don't know if anyone on the original thread said this (I was not an active part of that discussion), but the phrase...
"Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" is an oxymoron that's right up there with 'fresh frozen'.  

Truth cannot be divided.  

That's okay I know what you're talking about - and I agree that "taking Truth out of context" in order to propogate a lie is a huge problem... particularly as it partains to the Bible and as new and prospective believers understand the Word.  But I'm a simple mind, and I believe the Word is intended for minds like mine - 'simple'.  

"Let he who has ears hear..."  I believe Jesus was talking about folks like me when He said that.  I'm so gullible I usually agree with the current speaker during a debate.    However, when I read His Word when I'm all alone I'm positive I know what He's talking about.  

Jesus makes it so easy to be saved, a child can do it.    

Uhuhnmmm - sorry for getting off track - back to your discussion about dividing the Word...

Uh... I got nothing constructive to say...

 

Sorry.

 

[Shammu]

I believe that is one of the threads that got, lost. Last year when we had the "attack, of the morons," back in nov. I remember which thread you are talking about. I haven't been able to find it since.

Resting in the embrace, of the Lord.
Bob

Job 24:8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for want of a shelter.

[nChrist]

Do any of the rest of you posters out there see that a lot of the Word is misused/read/translated consistently?

Like the ever-famous,  "The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb"?   There are pictures of it, preachers "quote" it, writer's include it, and IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Then there is the famous preaching of "learning God's word'..precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little", this is how you learn the Word, and about God, precept upon precept...."

Look at this: Isa 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."  And verse 12 says "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The whole gist of this passage is that those who learn precept upon precept...here a little, there a little..are those who don't hear, don't chose His rest, who "have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:(v15)  

This is what Matthew Henry wrote about verses 9-13

Precept upon precept. It must be so, or (as some read) it has been so. They have been taught, as children are taught to read, by precept upon precept, and taught to write by line upon line, a little here and a little there, a little of one thing and a little of another, that the variety of instructions might be pleasing and inviting,—a little at one time and a little at another, that they might not have their memories overcharged,—a little from one prophet and a little from another, that every one might be pleased with his friend and him whom he admired.  

It is clearly a negative passage yet it is taught by some who should have studied the Word extensively, ie preachers of the Word, as a primer for Word study.  Not that precept upon precept is a bad concept, but if we only learn what makes us pleased with our friend and pleasing to those we admire, what good is it?

I'm going to start making a list of the times I see examples of mis-teaching, mis-preaching, and mis-speaking of the Word.

How about "every tub must sit on its own bottom", and "cleanliness is next to godliness".   Any takers on finding them in the Scripture?  

I'm going to create a new book for "scripture" and call it the Book of Hezekiah.  In it I'm going to put every example of this trend I can find.  

Any of you have examples for me?    

peh,

I would say that much of this is your misunderstanding.

Isaiah 11:6  The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 65:25  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

In terms of the "line upon line and precept upon precept" comment, that is also completely accurate. It is impossible to learn and understand the entire Bible all at once. An extremely serious student of the Holy Bible studies the Bible "line upon line and precept upon precept." A lifetime is an insufficient period of time to even delve into all of the deep things of THE WORD, much less understand all of them.

Regarding the "right dividing of the Word of Truth", that would be an excellent Bible study all by itself. This verse does not mean what some people believe it to mean. In fact, this would be a large and important topic - how to study the Bible. All of the Holy Bible is TRUTH, but all of the Bible is not for specific application to Body of Christ right now (i.e. burnt offerings). This does not hint that parts of the Bible should be ignored, rather it is important to know that parts of the Bible pertain specifically to Israel, some to the CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, etc., etc., etc. Some portions of the Holy Bible are specific to how to be saved, some for Christian living and testimony, etc., etc., etc. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth is the only way to study and understand what you have studied.

I really don't think it is time for you to write a book about the errors of preachers, rather time for you to learn the basics for yourself.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2nd Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[peh]

"How do these things get started? Do you think it is a matter of tradition? "

Great point, hopes_daughter, and then there's the hymn that goes "we three kings of orient are..", (sorry don't recall the name of the song).  

I think sometimes things like this get started because there are those who are convinced their studies have "proven" them correct.  And that those who follow the 'tradition' oftentimes either don't think about it or don't know the difference.  Maybe too it's part of our human tendency to sentimentality attached to things traditional.

You'll notice in Matt 2:11, it says  "And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child."  House, not stable, and young child, not babe.   Herod tried to have all the boys killed "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men"(v16), so perhaps it was close to 2 years before the magi arrived in Bethlehem.  

I've read that because there were 3 gifts it was assumed there were 3 magi.  I've read from other studies that there was more likely to have been an entire procession of magi, on camel back, because no one who had possessions as valuable as what they carried, or who came to see such a dignitary, would travel in such small numbers, due both to the honor of the visit and the dangers of the road.

It'll be interesting to see what others have to say on this topic.

[Bernie]

Hi, I'm new here.  Thought I'd jump in as the topic has elements of interest to me.

peh's original post raises a question in my mind: what are the proper standards for establishing the truth of an interpretation?

Take the Isa 28:13 quote, for one example.  peh appears to agree with the MH interpretation...but is this agreement adequate to invalidate the interpretation of those who see a positive message in the passage?  Don't know if anyone in this thread has studied the nature of truth, but it is actually a very slippery, elusive thing.  It's hard to pin down.  This is not to say that truth is not based on absolutes, I believe it is.  And truth can certainly be an objectively apprehended set of standards that are able to secure a clear consensus, as in the agreement that freedom is a good which ought to be sought by all whenever possible.

But what actual test do we have of declaring with any kind of certainty that one man's interpretation is more or less legitimate than another's?

Second example, the "lion shall lay down with the lamb" thing.  I used to attend a church in which the pastor once told me that he cringed when anyone messed up a quote like this.  He went so far, as I recall, as to suggest that the one who make mistakes like this was sloppy in their theology, and his teaching was to be mistrusted if he could not recite the Bible verbatim from the pulpit.

This raises the question: what is more important, the words that project the idea or the idea behind them?

Does swapping "lion" for "wolf" actually lessen the truth of the passage in any significant way?

[Shammu]

You'll notice in Matt 2:11, it says  "And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child."  House, not stable, and young child, not babe.   Herod tried to have all the boys killed "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men"(v16), so perhaps it was close to 2 years before the magi arrived in Bethlehem.  

I've read that because there were 3 gifts it was assumed there were 3 magi.  I've read from other studies that there was more likely to have been an entire procession of magi, on camel back, because no one who had possessions as valuable as what they carried, or who came to see such a dignitary, would travel in such small numbers, due both to the honor of the visit and the dangers of the road.

Now in my Bible it says.
Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

I use the King James Version. I have nothing against the other versions, but they leave thing out.