WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

You're drawing unwarranted conclusions again.

Nothing in the Acts 17 passage suggests "that is the way the Holy Spirit teaches". Rather, the Bereans were commended because they searched the scriptures to see if Paul's words were consistent with them.

Jesus said in John 16:13 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

I don't know who taught you how to interpret Scripture, but you have learned some bad habits. I suggest you look at what the Scripture actually says and stop adding or subtracting ideas like a bumpkin preacher. You will never understand the Scriptures properly if you are continually adjusting them to suit some a priori notion. Don't look for verses that are on the same general subject; look for verses that actually state what you claim.

So, you go in for allegorical interpretation, whatever religious sounding whim you think, must be God speaking in your ear the truth in the passage? That's why it is so easy for you to contradict yourself so often, you can bend and twist allegory to suit your mood at the moment, or need to find an answer. That approach gives nothing but a man-made religion. From the background in churches you gave, I can understand it but it seems to be a symptom of this age of religion in which we live. Does your allegorical method include your privilege to change the meaning of "some man" in the KJV? Have you lexical evidence that the translation should be "certain one"? It seems the other main translations agree with the KJV.

When we study the scriptures, we come to find that the Bible is like a puzzle. God scattered relevant truths on any given subject all throughout His Word and he expects us to seek for it like were seeking for hid treasure because that's exactly what it is. When we have found a relevant piece of the puzzle that is in agreement with the rest of the scriptures, then we have attained wisdom and understanding.
...
This is why I posted those 2 scriptures you are commenting about. 1 Corinthians 2:13 which explains to us how the Holy Spirit teaches, "the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual with spiritual).

Now when you read a particular scripture, it seems that you want that particular scripture to tell you everything you need to know about any given topic

And when we do, we come across 1 Corinthians 12:3, that the Holy Spirit teaches when we compare spiritual things with spiritual.

.... As a matter of fact, if we want Acts 8:31 to be speaking about mere men (Bible teachers with their own interpretations), then the other 2 passages teach us that it will be leading someone into a ditch and contradict what Acts 8:31 is focusing on. The Ethiopian eunuch wanted to be guided to truth, therefore, that "some man" or "certain one" can only be God himself who guides/leads us into truth. No text twisting needed here.

So, the Bible is its own dictionary and its own commentary. We can get into that later if you wish. Therefore, if we want to get the right information, stay with the Bible and put in the hard work which God requires to uncover truth. And pray that the Holy Spirit guide us into truth as we compare spiritual with spiritual (the word of God with the word of God).

The verse doesn't say that the Holy Spirit compares 'spiritual with spiritual', but that we do so. Here is the verse from the KJV, and from three modern translations:

KJV: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

NIV: This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

NASB: We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

NET: And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

In all of them, the action is performed by "we". We are comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


Kindly don't make assumptions about me. I just don't accept your explanations when they don't align with the Scripture you quote.


This suggests that you do, in fact, understand what the verse is saying, despite your contradictory claims above.

Eddie, can you not see how pompous and full of pride you appear in refusing the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelt body of Christ through the centuries? You alone have found the true answers and reject all others, including those that time, and peer review have found to be instructional and solidly biblical? That is typical cultic thinking that is found in the SDA, JWs, Mormons, etc. It is quite similar to the typical conspiracy theorist mentality: Eureka, only I have found the real truth. You even refer to Strong's #5100 and proceed to totally misrepresent it. Here is the Strong's Greek Dictionary #5100 entry for the Greek behind the KJV "some man" -

"An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever])."

The word "indefinite" in the 1828 Webster's means "Not limited or defined; not determinate; not precise or certain"

When you check a NT Greek-English Lexicon where Greek words are given their meaning where they occur, you get a closer idea. The Thayer's Lexicon has this word as in Acts 8:31 listed under "2.b. standing alone, or used substantively, and signifying someone, something, anyone, anything:" and its use in Acts 8:31 is listed in that category. All the various translations I check never use "certain" as an English translation.

When you do use recognized references and source authorities, you distort and MISUSE them, just like the JWs! You never respond when you are caught at these misrepresentations when called on it, you just move on to more distortions as if you knew what you were pontificating about. I'm beginning to think responding to your willing ignorance elevates your standing and so I'll end replies to you here and now. I'm sure there are truly edifying discussions in the Bible Discussion Forum.

I guess you can call it allegorical, but the Bible calls it the spiritual meaning. This is because the Bible is much more than a historical document, but a spiritual living book with spiritual words. This method doesn't come from any religion that I am aware of, but I am certain that it comes from the Bible. Also, God doesn't whisper in my ear, he ceased all that supernatural activity of how his word came to man once the Bible was completed. He now speaks to his true children through his written word and the Holy Spirit guides un into all truth (in his time) as we are obedient to God's commandment to study and rightly divide the word of truth, not other men's opinions.

I realize that what I'm teaching here may seem like a contradiction to you and others, and that is ok. All I can do is show you what the scriptures teach and how the Bible wants us to learn truth by providing biblical references as well as examples. I would still be interested in receiving (from anyone) the scriptures that support the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation.

Now, regarding your questions, "Does your allegorical method include your privilege to change the meaning of "some man" in the KJV? Have you lexical evidence that the translation should be "certain one"? It seems the other main translations agree with the KJV".

When we study the scriptures, we learn that the Bible is its own dictionary and not anyone's lexical definition. I'd like to show you, we'll begin with a simple one.

John 11:11–12 (KJV 1900)
These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

Because of the natural mind of man to take God's words at face value, Jesus, the word of God, defines what he meant by using that word.

John 11:14 (KJV 1900)
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Here God's word has defined the word "sleep" as "physical death". And at times, God assigns more than one definition per word. Now, this was an easy one, and it's very likely that the lexicons out there say the same thing, but when things begin to get more difficult, then lexicons (depending on who wrote it) part ways. Here is another method God uses to define a word, by searching each text and context in which the same words are found throughout the scriptures.

John 6:44 (KJV 1900)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Here, I want to know what the word "draw" means. And just to demonstrate a point I will do the unthinkable...... and use a lexicon. Joseph H. Thayer says that it can mean, "to draw", "to lead", "to impel" and "to win over" (Pg 204 -205). So, basically, what he is saying is that it really depends on the context and therefore can mean different things.

Now, let's use the Bible to see if God defines this word for us. There are 2 places where the meaning of this word is obscure, here in Jn 6:44 and in John 12:32.

John 12:32 (KJV 1900)
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

So, because of the obscurity of these 2 passages, and depending on what side of the fence you're on, this passage will be left open for interpretation unless we find a definite meaning for the word. Some think it means to drag and others think it means to compel. This Greek word appears a total of 8 times in the N.T., so, before arriving at a preconceived conclusion on anyone's part, let's see what these other passages teach us.

John 18:10 (KJV 1900)
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

John 21:6 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

John 21:11 (KJV 1900)
Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

Acts 16:19 (KJV 1900)
And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

Acts 21:30 (KJV 1900)
And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

James 2:6–7 (KJV 1900)
But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

For the sake of space and time I will sum up what these verses teach (you're welcome to review each one carefully). All 6 passages agree that the action being performed is a forceful one. In none of these passages can we insert the words, "to lead", "to impel" or "to win over" and not have a contradiction. This is the Bible's way of showing us what we can and can't do. So, now, when we go back to the 2 obscure passages, we are better equipped to understand exactly what Christ means by his statements. That no one can come to him unless forcefully drawn by the father. This, of course goes against the grain of many and so they seek not to study the Bible like this. Instead, using a lexicon allows them to pick which definition best suits thief belief. But this method is not being faithful to the Word of God.

But let's ask, why does God speak that way about those who are drawn to Christ? Well, first because we're likened to fish and when fish are caught in a net, the last thing they want to do is swim into your arms. No, but they will fight as hard as possible to get away and so that is why God used the word "draw" in such contexts, to teach us the truth that man has no desire to come to God as God requires it. He will "kick against the pricks" like a stubborn mule (like Saul of Tarsus). But God draws them anyway if he has chosen them for salvation, and he does so forcefully.

Now, your original question was about the words "some man" and who gave me authority to change it to "certain one". Well, not sure if you had time to look it up for yourself before commenting, but this is Strong's #5100 and I said that it's mostly translated as "certain". This is easily verifiable. Now, will the Bible permit me to insert this word into this verse,"...how can I, except certain (or certain one) should guide me?"." Now, the only reason I did this substitution was to illustrate a point, but it seems it further confused instead. So, let's leave it the way it is for now so I can show you that the final result will be the same truth, that this "some man" is none other than God himself who guides us through his spirit.

In order to see this, let's actually look at the word "guide" which only appears 5 times in the NT and in either translated as "lead" or "guide". But it has to do with leading to truth or to error. And in the context of the Ethiopian, it's guidance to truth. And all of the passages that speak of being lead (guided) to truth, it's God who does it, not man. As a matter of fact, if we want Acts 8:31 to be speaking about mere men (Bible teachers with their own interpretations), then the other 2 passages teach us that it will be leading someone into a ditch and contradict what Acts 8:31 is focusing on. The Ethiopian eunuch wanted to be guided to truth, therefore, that "some man" or "certain one" can only be God himself who guides/leads us into truth. No text twisting needed here.

So, the Bible is its own dictionary and its own commentary. We can get into that later if you wish. Therefore, if we want to get the right information, stay with the Bible and put in the hard work which God requires to uncover truth. And pray that the Holy Spirit guide us into truth as we compare spiritual with spiritual (the word of God with the word of God).

If I twisted the meaning of your words in any of my replies to change the meaning of what you actually stated, then please post them here so I can publicly apologize. If I alluded to you first going to the scholars, that may be because what they had to say, made up the majority of your post.

There was no need for you to list your credentials unless you just wanted to do so. I'm interested in what comes from the mouth of people not what hangs on their wall. I think we should all be in agreement (but perhaps we're not). And I don't usually list my credentials, well, because I have none, at least none on paper.

I'm a fulltime electrician, husband, and father. My job serves only to pay my bills, but I study the Bible to make my living. I grew up pentecostal and then ended up in a "non-denominational church which was sorta Baptist like. It wasn't till I was in my early 20's that I began to analyze what I was taught in both churches and that they teach actually opposing doctrines from the same Bible.

So, I began doing my own research and studies and realized that the root of the problem, not just for these 2 denominations, but for every denomination, is hermeneutics. I realized that the method people use to study the Bible is what affects the way they understand what they read.

I studied the method which I was taught growing up which was the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation. This hermeneutic teaches that if what we read in the Bible makes sense, then seek no other meaning. But if it doesn’t make sense, then seek another meaning. But this makes each reader the authority as to what does and doesn't make sense.

I was taught that I should be trying to understand the scriptures as those who received it understood it.

But when I began studying on my own, I realized that no part of the literal historical grammatical method is taught in the scriptures. Even to this day, I have always asked anyone who holds to this method, to provide the scripture references for me to look up. I still have never received any.

I also realized that the Bible (God) actually provides everything we need to know as to how to approach, study and understand his word. And perhaps that would make for another good thread. So, when people use the wrong method to start with, then there's no way that they will end up properly understanding the spiritual truths that God has placed in His Word.

And if you're a Baptist, then I suspect that this is the very same method you have been taught to use in all of your schooling and have done that very thing which you are condemning. Of believing something simply because it has beenbtaught to you without first checking against the scriptures to see where these methods came from.

So, I don't hold to this hermeneutic, or any confessions or creeds or denominations. For all these are are just traditions of men, which men (not God) have placed spiritual value on while they reject God's own method of Bible study written in his word.

Mark 7:5-9 (KJV) 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, -- Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Now, regarding the way you prove the conclusions in your own studies, by checking with the scholars to make sure you're not way off, is a grave mistake. But I'm just an electrician. Instead, the way to make sure you're not out in left field is to compare your conclusions against everything the Bible has to say on that subject. If any part of the Bible contradicts your conclusion, then it's you (and me) who need to make correction and not the Bible.

So, relying on the translators notes as evidence or even confirmation of the way we should be understanding Psalm 12:7 is not the way to truth.

Matthew 18:15-16 (KJV) 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) 7 For there are three that bear record (WITNESS) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Going to the scriptures is the only way we can confirm all things. And what we're looking for is harmony within all the pages.

I would like to comment here - that there are no allegories in the Scriptures. The excepted definition of Allegory is: a story, poem or picture that implies a certain understanding. The Scriptures do not contain these. They do contain parables - not the same as an allegory. It also contains: Facts, history, prophecies, literal meaning and symbolism. While I have heard some, call the Psalms, a poetic book, it is not. It is a collection of verses meant to be sung.

When it comes to a spiritually discerning mind, Scripture must be understood in both the "literal" message and the potential "spiritual" message hidden within. This spiritual message, is not to be understood as some sort of mysticism but as needing a discerning and spiritually enlightened mind, to see the Truth therein. Without this, a reader can only gloss over the actual teachings of the Scripture and can discern nothing, apart from the literal meaning.

I have always believed, since God saved me, that the proper form of Hermeneutics is guided by these three things:

1) Protects God's Sovereignty in all conclusions.
2) Keeps God as the author and finisher of Salvation.
3) Debases mankind at every turn. (Nothing good in us but what God has put there.)

If by some chance, in ones study, they violate these three principles, you had better start again. The Devil is the father of lies, so he turns the three upside down. His three, look something like this:

1) God is Sovereign but so is mans choice.
2) God has done his part, now it's your turn.
3) Man's not fallen or depraved, he has the spark of goodness in him.

Thank you for your reply. If we search the scriptures, God actually does teach us that his word contains allegories. The only problem is that we can't ever define a Biblical word with a secular dictionary or even a Christian dictionary for that matter.

The definition you gave is what led to your conclusion that there are no allegories in the scriptures, but I'd like to show you why it's incorrect.

Galatians 4:21-26 (KJV) 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Historically, no where do we read that these 2 women were actually allegories. That doesn't mean that everything we read in about them in Genesis is not Historically true and accurate. They were real women with real children and real lives, just like we read. But God wrote about them and used their Historical account to paint a spiritual picture, that these two women and their sons, represented something else altogether.

Something that we would have never figured out on our own. Here, God is holding us by the hand and showing us what a Historical parable looks like. It looks like a typical iteral historical account, that's it.

I can guarantee that if anyone had come along today and said, "You know, the account of Sarah and Hagar are actually an allegory because they actually represent something else altogether". I can hear the accusations that would arise of heresy for daring to say such things.

But God is the one who does it, and as he does this over and over in His Word, God's people get it. We get that God is teaching us that the entire Bible is written the same way. It was written using Historical parables to conceal a spiritual truth because most people only look for the literal and historical facts in the Bible, with the occasional "how can I apply this verse in my daily life" way of thinking.

But an allegory is defined by the example given with it. It's a historical account designed to conceal a spiritual truth. We also learn that that's exactly what a parable is too.

Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV) 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Thus word "figure" is the same word "parable" as used in the Bible. This teaches us that God, historically commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son was a parable of God sacrificing his own Son, Christ. And even though Abraham was stopped from sacrificing his son, God actually did sacrifice his own Son and received him back when he rose from the dead. Yet, even though Abraham didn't finish what he started, we are to see it as though it was done and as though his son rose from the dead. This allows us to find the gospel message here beautifully.

So, an allegory, a figure and a parable us one and the same thing in the Bible. But according to a dictionary, it may not be. That is why we have to be extremely careful when relying on outside sources in order to understand a spiritual book.

I have heard the same thing you described about the Psalms, but I also heard that they are not as authoritative as the rest of the scriptures, which of course is untrue. The Bible tells us that All SCRIPTURE is profitable for doctrine.

I fully agree with your last paragraph. The Bible teaches us that the natural man (as opposed to the spiritual man) cannot discern the spiritual things of God.


1 Corinthians 2:9-14 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God has done his part, now it's your turn.

But this is exactly what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost!

GOD HAS DONE HIS PART
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

NOW IT'S YOUR TURN
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I know your Arminian stand and will not be drawn into further useless conversation.

Thank you for your reply. If we search the scriptures, God actually does teach us that his word contains allegories. The only problem is that we can't ever define a Biblical word with a secular dictionary or even a Christian dictionary for that matter.

If a word does not have meaning outside of the Bible, it won’t have meaning in the Bible either. Words are chosen by translators because of their meanings.

Of course, you are correct in the part that translators chose out the English words that we use read in our Bibles. However, they did not choose the contexts in which those words are placed nor how God intended to use those words, God did. This is what I meant by my comment about using a dictionary to define a word.

I would like to comment here - that there are no allegories in the Scriptures. The excepted definition of Allegory is: a story, poem or picture that implies a certain understanding. The Scriptures do not contain these. They do contain parables - not the same as an allegory. It also contains: Facts, history, prophecies, literal meaning and symbolism. While I have heard some, call the Psalms, a poetic book, it is not. It is a collection of verses meant to be sung.

When it comes to a spiritually discerning mind, Scripture must be understood in both the "literal" message and the potential "spiritual" message hidden within. This spiritual message, is not to be understood as some sort of mysticism but as needing a discerning and spiritually enlightened mind, to see the Truth therein. Without this, a reader can only gloss over the actual teachings of the Scripture and can discern nothing, apart from the literal meaning.

Of course, you are correct in the part that translators chose out the English words that we use read in our Bibles. However, they did not choose the contexts in which those words are placed nor how God intended to use those words, God did. This is what I meant by my comment about using a dictionary to define a word. I believe I used the word "draw" from John 6:44 as my example and listed several dictionary definitions which provided various possible meanings for this particular Greek word, which basically left the reader in the position to determine which correct meaning goes where.

When in fact, we have to let the Bible (based on how God uses that Greek or Hebrew word in the Bible) define the meaning of a word. This Greek word "draw" for example is never used to mean "compel" as given in certain Christian dictionaries, but the fact that it becomes an option for translation, which allows those who trust in these dictionaries to apply it to John 6:44, thus creating a false understanding of the word.

I acknowledge that Christian dictionaries don't get it wrong all the time, but in the end, they cannot be our authority in understanding of any word in the scriptures. Only the scriptures can do that.

This is what I meant by letting the Bible define its own words.