| You are here: Home >> The Bible & Our Perspective >> The Bible - God's Word: Introduction |
This flow chart illustrates various issues related to the Bible. It is not intended to be a complete explanation of everything, but a framework which shows the relationship between these issues. Some of them are discussed in greater detail in other articles, such as those found in the "Understanding the Bible" and "From God to Us" web pages.
The difference between God (as the Creator) and us (as created beings) is so great, that it is beyond our comprehension. Because of this, God's ways and thoughts not identical to ours. (Compare to Isaiah 55:9.) This is so, even when we don't take into consideration the negative effects of sin, which reduces even further our ability to comprehend God. Because of this, God "translates" his thoughts into terms that we can comprehend. He interacts with us on our level - and he is fully capable of doing so, without introducing any error! (An article that looks at the two ways God interacts with us can be found here: God: What is He Like? How Does He Interact With Us? )
This word, also translated (more accurately) as "God-breathed," is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. This part of the chart deals
with issues related to God's use of the prophets and apostles to
accurately write down his thoughts on paper, while at the same
time allowing them to express their individual personalities,
vocabularies and writing styles. God
"breathes" his message into the prophet's words. (This
concept is summarized in 2 Peter 1:21, which tells us that the Holy
Spirit "moved" - led or prompted - them.) There are several
other issues related to this concept of "inspiration" - issues
such as:
Of course,
this requires us to understand what is written in the Bible within its
context, or we may reach false conclusions. For example, when
the Bible was written, the
concept of "star" referred to a point of light in the sky, not a
huge ball of fiery plasma somewhere out in space. Using their definition
- which was
accurate for what it said - it would be totally correct to describe
planets as "wandering stars." However, with our definition of
"star" - which is also accurate within our context
- a planet would not be considered a "wandering star."
(For a study on the topic of "stars," see:
Selected Verses About Stars.)
By "God's people," we are referring to those who have chosen to be followers of Jesus,
rather than to those who have chosen to become "members" of an institutional "church."
(See the topic, "Becoming a Disciple," for more information.)
Who were the human authors? In some cases we know, but in other cases we don't. Why? In many instances it wasn't necessary. If the book was prophetic (such as the book of Isaiah), the people would need to know who the author was, so they could verify the prophet's accuracy, and put him to death if he proved to be a false prophet. (Compare to Deuteronomy 18:20-22. God says that being a false prophet is a serious matter!) But if it was a record of history (example, the book of Judges) or a song (such as the Psalms), knowing the human author was unimportant. In such cases the human author frequently did not tell us who he was. Why? One of the factors has to do with humility. Being followers of the true God, the human authors wanted God to receive the attention!
For the first 14 centuries, hand-written copies were made from the original manuscripts and passed on from generation to generation. After that, the printing press was invented and copies of the Bible could be mass-produced. This section of the chart would include the issue of manuscript variations, as well as the need to translate the Bible into languages that people can understand. After translation, copies would be printed and distributed for people to use. (Of course, if a person understands the original languages of the Old and New Testaments, he could skip the translation step. But that would not apply to most people!)
One of the issues included here involves the collecting and recording of any manuscript variations which may have occurred because of human error. We do not have the original manuscripts, but we have many good copies of them. As they were being hand-copied, down through the centuries, people sometimes made mistakes - spelling errors, accidental omission or repeating of a line of text, misreading a blurred or worn part of an old faded manuscript, etc. (Even with the printing press and computers, there are still occasional mistakes, when a book is printed!) By comparing the many copies we have, we can tell where these mistakes are. Most are obvious mistakes and easy to correct. Of the relatively few places where uncertainty still exists, we know the options, and none of them make any serious impact on our understanding of the message of the Bible. No other ancient book can boast this fact!
This analysis of manuscript differences is called "Textual (or 'Lower') Criticism." As used here, the word "criticism" is not a negative word. It is unlike the "Higher Criticism," which often tends to focus so much on the human aspect of the Bible's origin, that it ignores, or even denies its God-breathed nature. Frequently, this "higher criticism" treats the Bible as a mere human book (no different than any other) that "evolved" (frequently changed) down through the centuries. They reach such conclusions, not because of genuine manuscript evidence, but because of preconceived assumptions, which they have superimposed into the text.
Our goal, when studying Scripture, should be this: "Neither adding to it, nor subtracting from it." Exegesis focuses on studying the text within its context, in order to gain an accurate understanding of what it says.
This section focuses on how to gain an accurate understanding of God's Word, with minimal error. To whatever degree a person can understand language and communication, he will reach approximately the same understanding of the Word, as would someone else who was examining it - if he restricts his view to what can be obtained by exegesis. It is impossible for it to be otherwise! On this level, the only type of disagreement we could have would involve issues such as a person's preference of one manuscript variation over another (which won't drastically change the meaning of the text), the precise definition of a word, etc. Such disagreements are relatively insignificant, when compared to the differences in opinion that can occur when people rely on the things listed below the line, in the "eisegesis" section. When we keep to the "exegesis" level, we cannot stray very far. For more about the issue of accurately understanding the Bible, see: The Bible - God's Word to All People.
As we have listed it, the first level of exegesis involves understanding the words, and the way they fit into sentences. Here we focus on the definitions of the words, as well as special uses of words - legitimate figures of speech, idioms, etc. The second level has a greater focus on the immediate context, which defines the significance of the words. This will limit the range of potential interpretations. For example, many words have several "dictionary definitions," yet the context would determine which of those definitions could be applicable in a specific verse.
There is some potential for error on this level, but not much. This would involve issues such as faulty word definitions, the misunderstanding of symbolism, etc. But even then, there would be a limit as to how far we could stray from the truth. If we simply strive for accuracy and clarity in our comprehension of the words and the way they fit together, any potential for error will be kept to a minimum. This stands in great contrast to the "eisegesis" described below.
We could describe this section as: "Adding to it and subtracting from it." Eisegesis refers to instances in which we read into the text something that is not actually there.
This is where we get into trouble - and even heresy. This section focuses on the typical reasons why there are so many different opinions about what the Bible says. Once people start allowing influences outside the Bible to determine its "meaning," the sky is the limit, as to the potential differences in interpretations. Even relatively accurate "facts" - which do have value - can have the potential for error. (Example: Archaeology, which can often provide us with background information about various events in the Bible, has occasionally been found to be wrong, when "new" evidence was discovered.)
Once we start to choose what criteria is necessary for understanding the Word, we have abandoned the realm of objective fact and entered the realm of subjective opinion. Even pasting together various verses ("proof texts") from unrelated contexts, can open the door for error. Opposite "interpretations" can result, depending on which verse we choose, for "explaining" (or "explaining-away") the verse in question!
There is one additional word of caution we must give: Some of the things listed in this category may have value, but not for determining what God says. If we needed the information, in order to have an accurate understanding of what God meant, he would have included it! We need to remember that anything that is vital to our understanding of the Bible is already in the Bible. God didn't accidentally forget anything! It must be our goal to maximize our understanding of what the text itself says, and to minimize the input of external influences. Every time we add something to the Scriptures, we subtract something from it. For more about this issue, see the articles, Understanding the Bible, and Three Characteristics about the God's Word, the Bible.
As we have listed it, the first level of "eisegesis"
includes information that tends to be more objective, such as
archaeological discoveries and Bible "proof texts." Yet the very fact
that it involves people, who decide the significance of the information,
opens the door for potential error. If the things in this first level
are kept in their place, they can provide useful insights. If
used properly, these things will not cause us to go in
directions we wouldn't have gone, if we relied on the Word of God
alone. A good principle to consider is this: If it doesn't reinforce
what we get when we examine Scripture alone, we should be suspicious.
(It wouldn't hurt to also re-evaluate our understanding of the text
itself - in case we had a faulty understanding of the words and
sentences. But we need to avoid the temptation of
"adjusting" what the text actually says, so that it better
"conforms" to the supposed "facts" we have brought to it.)
The second level of "eisegesis" is more subjective
and opinionated. This would include the assumptions and
interpretational schemes that people claim are "needed," in
order for us to understand the Bible correctly. Many false religions and
cults try to
get a person to accept something which seems "obvious," and
then lead them down a path that reinterprets (or blinds them to)
significant portions of the Word.
The words deduction and induction are included in the chart. These words are often misunderstood by people who have not studied formal logic. As used here, deduction refers to the conclusions that can be legitimately stated, based on the evidence of the text. (Nothing is being added which isn't already implied by the text.) Induction involves reaching conclusions that go beyond the text, and which might or might not be true. (Without other direct evidence, the most we could say is that the conclusion may or may not be probable. Evidence not currently known could later prove a "probable" conclusion wrong.) When applied to the Bible, we have no right to condemn people who do not accept our "induced" conclusions. Nor do we have a right to treat our "induced" conclusions as "God-breathed truth," or to allow those conclusions to "redefine" what can be objectively known in Scripture (by exegesis).
Dennis Hinks ©
2001, 2004
040827