Why The Bible Should Be Read Literally


Yesterday I was listening to a sermon from SermonAudio defending the king James Bible. It was being preached by a man who was an Independent Baptist.

Something to be aware of, is that Independent Baptist is not a denomination. It’s more like a way of saying, “Unaffiliated Baptist”.

Yes, quite a few Independent Baptist churches are Fundamentalist. Quite a few are “quiver-full” if you know that phrase. As long time readers will note, I consider myself an Independent Baptist even though I am currently at a Southern Baptist church.

Sadly, one characteristic that you also find at some Independent Baptist churches usually is that it means “I never went to seminary.” There are some truly gifted Independent Baptist churches whose pastors were never trained nor ordained. My old church was indeed one, and you’d never know it! The pastor had an amazing grasp of preaching and the Bible.

What was startling about the sermon I listened to, was that the Pastor announced he was going to preach about the King James Bible – then began preaching expositorally from Acts 27. It took a little while (one thing you can count on from an Independent Baptist church that is fundamentalist, is long sermons. They don’t hang a clock on the wall, they hang a calendar). And finally it dawned on me – he’s preaching allegorically.

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible is a strong no-no. While I can honestly say that we had one class in Seminary completely dedicated to allegorical thought, it was touched on many times, and repeatedly. Think of it this way.

Allegorical thought is the complete opposite of literal interpretation.

9 Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them, 10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. 11 Nevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul. Acts 27:9-11 (KJV)

What is this passage referring to? Is it referring to the King James Bible?

Nope. It’s referring to the fact that on Paul’s ship, during the hurricane, Paul told them, “if they leave the ship, they’re going to die.”

I’m all for King James defense. But if you want to write a sermon on defending the King James, hey, great! Let’s use literal interpretation of the Bible.

“well, we were preaching our way through Acts, and…”

well, do a MacArthur, and deviate from your topic for a week. See, that’s what Sunday Nights are for! Or if you feel the need to preach this on a Sunday morning, then by all means, let everyone know “Today, we’re talking about something special…”

I personally have found that a congregation does very well with being told what’s going on. It makes life easier on everyone.

There are a lot of other passages you could have drawn on… Jeremiah reading from the Scroll and the king cutting off leaves and throwing them in the fire… Psalm 12… Psalm 119… the re-discovering of the scrolls of the Bible and King Josiah, hey, lots of passages!

The problem with allegorical interpretation is, that’s a Pandora’s box. If you say, “We accept Genesis 1:1-5 as literal, but we don’t accept verse 6…” it may start that way now… but believe you me, it’s going to be an issue ten years from now. Because it’s going to spread. Once you open that door, and bring in fanciful interpretations, I can spiritualize and allegorize away any verse in the New Testament.

Because if you accept all 52,280 verses as Scriptural except one… then you accept none of them. If you say, “We don’t accept Genesis 1:6 literally” then someone can argue John 3:3 is not to be taken literally. And you can’t argue against it.

Either every word in the Bible is true, or every word is parables, to be interpreted in whatever happy way you like.

How do I know it’s literal?

Because all the prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled literally. If they were fulfilled literally, then they were meant to be read literally.

There are a few parables in the Bible. We know certain hallmarks of what is a parable and what is not. Names are not mentioned in parables. By the way, Luke 16 is not a parable. It’s real. It really happened.

There are visions in the Bible. Literally, seven visions are in Revelation, and each one has meaning. There’s three distinct visions in Daniel. In almost every case, an Angel is standing by to give the explanation of the vision. Or the vision is one of those told to be sealed up until the time of the end.

Why? They help to serve as a barometer of how close we are to the Rapture. If you read the old commentaries, they had literally no understanding of what these passages mean, and offer a combination of allegorical thought and what amounts to a shrug. The earliest Christian communities understood a pre-trib rapture, taught it… but Rome allegorized it along with everything else, and so much of Christianity lost the understanding of the end times. When you read the writings of some Waldensians, Albigenses, the early Mennonites, they all believed in a pre-trib rapture. Why? Because it’s pretty clearly stated in the Bible.

But the vision passages were just completely incomprehensible. Why? they were sealed until the time of the end. As the age of grace began drawing into the Laodecean age, people began to understand, a little at a time, what the vision passages mean. I’ve seen more understanding come around since the 1990’s, literally. We’re now comfortable we understand the open doors in Revelation (two of them – hint – it’s proof of a pre-trib rapture), we understand more about Gog and Magog and its timing, we understand more about Petra…

We even now see how the initial attack against Israel is supposed to be between Arab states and Russian, and very possibly Germany (that one goes back and forth all the time). Three years ago, I had thought it meant we still had 20 years, because Russia would have to be rebuilt. Amazingly, it happened right in front of my eyes. We’re a lot closer than 20 years. The Rapture will probably be in my lifetime. I’m not going to say how close it is (because nobody on this planet has any idea) but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was today. I used to pray that I got a full-time pulpit before the Rapture. I’m starting to believe strongly the answer to that prayer has been “no”.

So, there you go – I dealt with the allegorist’s favorite objections. You have sealed visions that are understood in the end times (hint – Song of Solomon falls partly in that category), you have a very few parable passages (in every case identified as one) and explained (almost all of the parables have their own explanation given).

There’s no scriptural basis for allegorizing. If the Bible says it, it means it.

Advertisements

KJV Only


When I say I am KJV only, what does that mean? I’ve come to discover that other people have incorrect pre-conceived notions about the meaning of what that is. And I’ve discovered that Ruckman-ites and Riplinger-ites have coined a phrase for me and others with my beliefs – “Textus Receptus Only.”

Let me state it a different way. Textus Receptus only means King James Only since the King James version is the only translation that comes solely from the Textus Receptus, the New Testament in Greek.

To believe like Peter Ruckman is to be a Ruckman-ite. To believe in Gail Riplinger is to be a Riplinger-ite. Please don’t hijack the title claimed by Dean Burgon, the Dean Burgon society, and countless thousands of others who by conviction are King James Only, but fail to believe in cultish, bizarre unScriptural notions such as “Second Inspiration” and “King James above the Original Texts”.

Do I believe that you cannot be saved reading an NIV? No. There’s a sufficient amount of the truth and power of God’s word in the NIV to save someone. It greatly weakens the overall message, and can attempt to mislead one from following true biblical doctrine. But yes, I believe someone can be saved reading the NIV. I was reading an NIV at the time I was saved. And I think anyone who hears my testimony of that night will agree I was completely and thoroughly saved. I was still reading the NIV at the time that I became, by conviction, KJV only. I also had an NASB and an RSV.

King James Only means that by conviction, I will use the King James Bible to read from, study from and preach from. It means I am convinced it is the complete Bible, the inspired word of God. It represents the best English translation from true copies of the Bible as it was passed down to us from the Apostles.

It means (to most KJVO Believers) that the Modern Bibles are based upon a fraudulent attempt to reconcile two manuscripts that disagree with one another in over 10,000 places, and which have been edited in every verse by two, three and as many as twenty other hands, verses erased, words changed, notes added in margins… If most Christians ever read the writings of Tischendorf about the Textus Sinaiticus, they would put away their other bibles.

It means that we reject the work of Wescott & Hort because they had an agenda, they were unsaved men, and that they deliberately compiled the verses that best represented their particular doctrinal stands, whenever there was a choice.

It means we reject Nestle-Alland for the same reason, as their manuscripts are almost letter for letter identical to Wescott-Hort.

I think that translations such as the NASB was best described by Kent Hovind with the phrase, “A good translation of the wrong manuscripts“.

Which translation is better, the NASB or the King James? Well, since only one comes from the received text, which came to us from the churches separate from Rome from the times of the Apostles until now… it’s a moot question. Were the NASB to be translated afresh from the Textus Receptus, it would be a different story!

And then… it won’t be as precise as the KJV. Here’s an example:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7 KJV)

Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (NASB)

The second “you” in the verse… is that singular, meaning Nicodemus? or is it plural, meaning “everyone?”

In the modern “Precise, accurate” language of the NASB, it is vague. It could be either. In the “antiquated” language of the King James, it is precise…. It means “Everyone”.

“Y” words… plural. You, yours, ye. “T” words… singular. Thee, Thou, Thine. In the KJV, It’s specific… I tell thee (Nicodemus) Ye (everyone) must be born again. It reflects the difference between σοι and υμας in the Greek.

Quick Explanation of The Bible


Sorry, lately my indignation button has been pressed.

The Bible is the word of God.

If I tell you that 140 years ago, men conspired and acted covertly to deliberalty gut the Scriptures of any verse that they didn’t agree with, it should concern you.

If I tell you they deliberatly changed the verses they didn’t remove but still didn’t like – it shoud greatly concern you.

We reject the New World Translation for doing exactly that. But then we smugly open our NIV’s or ESV’s, and start our devotionals, and feel sudden nagging doubts about the deity of Christ. Or we feel no urge to fast, because the Bible doesn’t emphasize it.

Uh, the New World Translation was translated from the same Greek manuscripts that the ESV comes from.

Doesn’t that concern you?

“well, no, the NWT is deliberately mistranslated to support their doctrinal views.”

Sure. And the Wescott-hort, Nestle-Aland, and United Bible Society Greek texts all did the same thing, just in Greek. Doesn’t that concern you?

The Bible is God’s word. Any attempt to change that should arouse our immediate anger. You touch my Bible, them’s fightin’ words.

And I see dozens of videos, articles and books by people who’ve NEVER researched the issue defending their Bibles. That’s great! But investigate this issue FIRST! You may suddenly conclude you’re on the wrong side.

I know, I did! I loved the NIV. I had just got an expensive NASB bible when I became aware of this controversy. I began investigating it, to disprove it – and was convinced in a matter of minutes. The more I look into it, the more convinced I become.

I have a perfect Bible. I have an english version of God’s word. I can hold it in my hand and say, “This is God’s word.”

And then I see links to articles and videos saying, “the myth of the perfect Bible debunked.” And the same arguments, baseless and long since disproved by D. A. Waite, David Cloud, Edward Hills and many others, are repeated.

The reality is, they’re not investigating the issue. And I notice NONE of these New Bible advocates EVER address the issues of WEscott & Hort’s redactionism. So, the bible publishers moved to using a near-duplicate (almost letter for letter identical), the Nestle-aland, whose authors admittedly simply were duplicating Wescott & Hort’s work. With the same motive. They avoided the controversy of W/H, but kept the same result.

None of the New Bible advocates ever address that issue, either. Geisler trys to prove that we can trust translations done from a Greek Text deliberatly done in secret by men who were being paid to translate from the established Greek Texts, but instead covertly and without authorization turned to two other manuscrpts, and attempted first to harmonize their wildly contradictory readings. Why? THey were opposed to the plain sense of the Greek Text of the Bible. They never adress that.

They never address the fact that W&H called the Greek Text of the complete Bible “Villainous.” They never address the fact that Tischendorf, when searcihng for ancient Bible manuscripts, was searching for ANY texts that differed from the Textus Receptus. He was looking for ANY text that was different.

Why? HE WAS OPPOSED TO GOD’S WORD!

It’s almost amazing to watch Ankerberg, a staunch opponent of King James Only’ism, routinely side with anyone who opposes Fundamentalism on his TV show.

STOP. THINK.

Fundamentalism means “I believe the bible literally.”

Why would you oppose that?

If you are saved, the Bible is your rulebook. Your marching orders. There’s no ROOM for you to say, “Well, I don’t like that.” I have to start asking uncomfortable questions about people when they oppose the word of God!

The obvious conclusions is that you’re backslidden, there’s sin issues in your life, or you’re not saved. Which is it? first two are fixed by getting back to God’s word. The last one is fixed by getting saved. Just don’t try to fix #3 with the solutions for 1 or 2.

And that’s what this boils down to. I see opposition of the Bible as being a sin issue. so many pastors have said, “The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible.” So if you’re opposed to the Bible, it means it’s convicting you – and so you try to avoid it.

Most people read the NIV because it’s easy. Sure! And it’s misleading. NASB and ESV as well. It takes a little while to understand the King James Bible. But you CAN understand it. And once you understand WHY its written the way it is, you’ll appreciate it for what it is.

Bottom line – the Bible is your marching orders. God says, you do. “Yes, sir!” Like the army. You got your orders.

Pray? yup.

Fast? from time to time, when you understand WHY. Gotta know what a tool does in order to use it right.

Jesus is God? Yup.

Get back to the Bible. The real one.

Weakening The Christian Mind


Christian MindThe Bible says…

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Romans 2:1 (KJV)

Here’s where it gets weakened.

Romans 2:1(RSV)

1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Romans 2:1(NASB)

1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(NKJV)

1Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(TLB)

1“Well,” you may be saying, “what terrible people you have been talking about!” But wait a minute! You are just as bad. When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are talking about yourselves, for you do these very same things.

Romans 2:1(TMSG)

1Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. It takes one to know one. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes and misdemeanors.

See how at first the separation is in “wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself” to finally, absolving you of the guilt? “THerefore thou art inexcusable” becomes “therefore you have no excuse” (reducing it) to “What terrible people have you been talknig about (in other words, I’m not without excuse, I’m no longer making excuses, to terrible people…)

to “those people are on a dark downward spiral.”

A Christian without a Bible is weaponless,and ineffectual.

Get back to the King James Bible.

The King James Bible issue explained (for people who don’t know)


King James BibleIn light of Phil Stringer’s speech to the King James organizations last year (which I finally just listened to!) I thought I’d explain the whole King James issue.

One person who reads my blog wrote on their own blog, “I don’t mind the King James issue, but I hate the people who defend it.” And to a certain extent, I can’t blame them for thinking this way. Presumably that means me as well, but hey… a lot of us do deserve the comments. I’ll explain.

For starters, no one person speaks for the King James only movement. There’s a lot of people who speak for the issue. And there’s several that most of us frankly wish, would shut up.

I don’t own any writings, ebooks or audio recordings by Gail Riplinger. She’s written some things that I’ve seen quoted that I agree with… and she’s written many things that I do not agree with.

She’s said many mean-spirited things… and honestly, some wild-eyed things that make us KJV defenders all look like idiots. I own – and use – a Strong’s concordance. From what I’ve seen quoted in it, the “Toxic” book sounds like, well, lunacy. She’s done a poor job of research, and makes the same mistake a lot of evangelical Christians do as well.

Briefly, if I get a book published by Tyndale, I’d probably be bouncing like an idiot. “I got published! Yes!!!” I’d send my manuscript off, check my proofs carefully, and very possibly, if the editor was feeling generous, I might even get to okay the book cover.

It does not mean I’m having any secret meetings with any of the other Tyndale publishers. Let’s just hypothesize that James White also landed a publishing deal with Tyndale. It doesn’t mean we’re getting together and having coffee. It also doesn’t mean he and I are plotting to edit (HORRORS!) or destroy the King James Bible.

Gail Riplinger does make those kinds of leaps of logic. But so do a lot of evangelical Christians I’ve seen books by. Many of the people who investigate the Illuminati, new world order, etc make those very same leaps of logic. I guess it’s okay for Texe Marrs to do it, but not a King James only person?

Let me briefly distance myself from another King James defender I wish would shut up. Or at least tone it down. Peter Ruckman. The man’s a cult leader. He makes some very strange statements, is very bigoted, and no doubt would dismiss me as a “jackass” and a “kike”. Yes, he does talk like that. My seminary president visited his church once, and testified that yes, Ruckman says the “N” word from the pulpit. Racism really is not helping the cause of the King James Bible any.

Those kind of people really do the King James world a disservice. NO, I don’t stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting, “You’re going to hell! You’re going to Hell!” Peter S. Ruckman’s church does that, from what Marc Monte says.

Okay, there you go. I know I’m rough. I know I speak very strongly. But then again, I’ve read the Bible a lot, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and many others did so as well. I get so absolutely fed up with people – heretics, really – question the bible, deny the Bible, make up their own doctrine, and steer my Christian brethren on a sleepwalking road back to Rome. So, I tend to speak very harshly about such people.

So, let me explain the King James issue. I know you’re not James White. I know you’re not Ron Rhodes. I know you’re not John Ankerberg. These people all speak against the King James issue, and in reality,most of the people who speak against the King James Issue have never studied it.

When you see us slam the opponents of the King James issue, pause and consider this – we’re defending our beliefs. And many of the people that oppose us often have agendas. And many of them hold to secret heresies they won’t admit to. That’s very often the people we’re mentally imagining when we write these articles.

The first thing you should be aware of is… who is on these Bible translating committees? Check these people out. Read about the names of these people. Oh, wow… hey, James White is on the translating committee of some modern translations – that means financially he’s got a stake in attacking the ing James Only movement!

What about Virginia Mollenkot? What are her beliefs about Bible inerrancy, God, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture?

What about Cardinal Carlo Martini? The Jesuit? What agenda does he have?

What about some of these other names? Kurt Aland. Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren? what do these people believe? What are their statements of faith? Should these people be deciding how to translate the Greek texts into English? Some words such as Uranos can mean heaven or sky. Do you want someone who does not believe in heaven translating your Bible?

Let me ask a question – and again, I understand that many of you have simply never been educated in the Bible issue.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)

Okay, we all understand, agree, and are aware the Bible says that in the last times heretics will arise.

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1-3 (KJV)

Even the most trusting evangelical Christian begins to suspect this may not be a person in the congregation, but also pastors as well.

If Satan was going to weaken Christians and lead them astray, where’s the best places to get his tools? His wolves? In the pulpits.

And translating your Bibles

Are you aware that Kurt Aland, of the Nestle’-Aland Greek Texts, is a heretic? He does not even accept that the 66 books we have in our Bible belong there. And he’s open to other books being put in, and probably even some of ours being taken out. There’s quotes from Aland about that very subject. Read them.

And keep in mind, he’s the man responsible for the Greek texts used by the Bible societies.

Scared yet? You should be.

Because the truth is that all the modern texts come from codex sinaiticus – a Greek text that a known manuscript forger confessed to forging over 100 years ago… – and from a copy of Codex Vaticanus. Not the original, but a copy. Vaticanus is exhibited at the Vatican library, but if it looks like you’re reading it or translating it, it’s yanked away and placed back in the back rooms.

Neither of these books are complete. Sinaiticus has several apocryphal texts and pseudopigraphal texts in it. Does that mean we should be accepting these books as canon?

Sinaiticus is written in the wrong Greek, Attic Greek, not in Koine greek – this places it either in the wrong era (100 BC) or… as a clumsy forgery. And remember, Constantinus Simonides (a known Bible and manuscript forger) had already admitted to forging it early in his career. Even he admitted it was a clumsy forgery!

Here’s the issue. Vaticanus does not have some books. Sinaiticus does not have some books. They disagree with each other in tens of thousands of places.
If I were to translate the New Testament from these texts, I’d have years of heartache about it, trying to decide which of the texts are correct. Do I choose the verse that is missing half the words, or do I choose the one that has left out some words? One verse is missing in one text the name of God, the other is missing the name of Christ. Almost every reference to fasting is removed from one of the manuscripts.

And both of them disagree GREATLY with over 5200 other Greek Texts, that all the Christian churches had been using since the times of the Apostles.

Now, those 5200 agree. There’s some minor copying errors between them, and a few misspelled words – but aside from that, they all agree. You can go from one to the other of those 5,200 manuscripts and find that they all pretty much say exactly the same thing word for word.

So, which would you choose? The copy of Vaticanus and the possibly forged, incomplete Greek text that disagrees with Vaticanus in 10,000 places? Or the 5,200 other manuscripts?

You and I would find this one a no-brainer. Go with 2 flawed manuscripts, or go with the 5,200 ones that agree? I think we’d all turn to the really big pile. The work would actually go faster. You don’t have to decide which version to go with! You just simply read them, and when you come to a repeated word or a space that looks like a word was misspelled or left out, you consult another. You could do it with three or four manuscripts.

Or, you could use one of the manuscripts that’s already been compiled by men who’ve done just that! The compilation often bears the same name as the same family of texts, the Textus-Receptus.

But what do Nestle and Aland choose? Or Wescott and Hort? What did they ALL choose for the modern translations? Why, the forged manuscript and the copy provided by the Vatican.

Huh. The… very choice you’d expect men who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration, preservation and canon of the Bible to make.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to. The protests of James White and John Ankerberg cannot sweep away that fact. They’re choosing texts that are flawed, incomplete, and possibly forged.

By an amazing coincidence, these Greek texts neglect almost every reference to fasting. They omit many references to the Blood of Jesus Christ. There’s a few Charismatics who follow this blog. They’d be shocked to find that out!

And many of the verses deliberately change many of the verses that affirm the deity of Christ. Would you trust the manuscripts that affirm many times that Jesus Christ is God, that ye must be born again, that Christ rose from the dead? Or do you want the ones that omit these references?

this is the King james only issue. This is the issue at hand. And Christians who love the Bible, once they become aware of it and begin looking up the translations of various verses, all become convinced of the issue. And they get fighting mad!

I’m furious we have allowed men like Bruce Metzger who denies openly the deity of Jesus Christ and calls Genesis “a fable” to translate our Bibles. We allow Unitarians to suggest wordings they can live with. After all , the thought of Hell makes Unitarians uncomfortable! If they deny the existence of Hell, and give it names like “tartarus” “gehenna” and “hades”, they can sleep a little easier at night.

Because they deny that Jesus Christ is God. And if you believe that, you are not saved. And if you’re not saved, where will you go when you die?

If you’d like, I can list verse after verse after verse that will scare you and will make you put away your other Bibles. And even get you to the point that you will start calling the Modern Bible Versions… well, you’ll start adding the prefix “per” to “version.”

I’m betting that if you can stay a follower of my often-too blunt blog for more than a week, you must be a committed Christian with a love for Christ and His Bible. And if that’s the case, you need to look into this issue. Because a lot is at stake.

Pure Cambridge Edition


Going back through entries from 5 years ago, I can see that I was using the Pure Cambridge Edition exclusively. It was made possible by the fact originally I was using E-Sword.

Now, of course, I’m using Logos. Oddly enough, although Logos doesn’t boast about it, they’re using the PCE King James as well.

It’s funny, but at this point, I’m siding with David Cloud that, yes, it really doesn’t matter if you’re using the regular Cambridge edition or the Pure Cambridge edition. Indeed, some old-time KJV purists have actually found one spot where the PCE is actually in error (a lower case s instead of an upper case in Holy spirit. It should be Holy Spirit). It’s been so long since I looked at that, I really can’t remember where. The King James has I believe only seven instances of Holy Spirit instead of Holy Ghost.

Shouldn’t be hard to find and compare.

Cloud’s attitude is, “it’s typos and capital letters.”
The important part is that you’re reading the King James. If you really want to get picky about it, make sure it’s a Cambridge Edition.

Being a Pastor 5 and Being a Christian – Bible Study 2


Yesterday I gave a really-way-too-brief explanation on how to combine your devotional reading and Bible Study.

Let’s detail how to do this. Some people simply want to read their Bible without distraction. If that’s your case, then you may want to try reading your Bible readings FIRST, THEN doing your study.

I can keep track of the flow easily as I study. At first, I tried the “read then study”, but I guess over the years I’ve been too interested in the details, and started studying as I read. If you’re this kind of person, great! Start your reading and study at the same time.

The way I’ve got it in yesterday’s article is a whopper. It’ll take you a while every day to study like that. If you want to try… you’re really going to progress in your knowledge of the Bible and your walk as a Christian. If on the other hand you just don’t have the time to committ like that, then… get Cooktimer, and set it for 15 minutes. Cooktimer is a small program that quite simply just counts down.

“What things should I add to my study notefile?”

Let me remind everyone that different Bible programs use different names for notefiles. There’s user books in Quickverse and Wordsearch. There’s commentary in Theword. There’s Study Notes in E-Sword (I presume most of you are using E-Sword as your main program). Scripturepad in Bible Analyzer. It doesn’t matter what it’s called, you just need some way to make your notes, commentary, etc on your study.

So, what should you add to your notes? Overall impressions. A summary of what the chapter is about. What’s its theme? I gave a suggestion of things you should be taking notes of yesterday.

For example, today in my readings…

“And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.” (Genesis 35:1, KJV)

I noted that the second use of “God” in that verse is El in Hebrew.

“But Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried beneath Beth-el under an oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bachuth.” (Genesis 35:8, KJV)

I noted that Allon-Bachuth means “great tree of weeping”.

Got a place name? Look it up. Is there a measurement or weight? write down how much it is.

For highlighting your text in Bible programs, it’s important to highlight something so that important words stand out at a glance. Quick, what was created on what day of creation? Highlighting can help those words to stand out. In the Sermon on the mount, I used two different highlight colors to differentiate the “Blassed are you when…” and the reward “for yours is the…”. This way at a glance, I’m seeing the distinctions in the Bible.

I am so craving potato chips right now it’s not funny.