___________________________________________________________________

The ABC’s of
Bible Study

___________________________________________________________________
 Study Paper

The A. B. C.'s of Bible Study

W hile on earth, Jesus taught one gospel and one faith, yet now there are over 30,000 Christian
denominations! All claim to have the truth and many claim that the other denominations
are wrong! Ten Christians from ten different denominations could read the same verses from the
Bible, and then probably come up with ten different doctrines about the same subject, depending
upon how they interpret the particular subject in question. Take, for example, the belief in the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The differing ideas of how He returns vary so much, that you
would think that different Christians are waiting for different events to take place, yet all quote
the same verses, and most seem to be able to justify the position they take.

It can be very confusing! So how does the sincere Christian arrive at Biblical truth in an unbiased
manner - particularly when Bible study “helps” are usually denominationally biased?

In order to rightly divide the Word of Truth (2nd Tim. 2:15) the sincere Christian should first
employ the proper tools to enable this to be done. These tools are called the A.B.C's of Bible
Study. These are:

A = Assume that God does not lie.

B = The Big Picture

C = The Context of the subject at hand.

A = Assume that God does not lie.

S eriously! If we assume that God teaches doctrines that contradict each other, then this not
only makes God look foolish - but a liar as well! Therefore, the first assumption that the
sincere Christian must start with is that God is not saying one thing in one place and then
changing His mind and saying something totally different in another. After all, if God were able
to lie to us, then He would be no God at all! What He reveals at any given time will never
contradict what He has revealed in the past. Deeper levels of understanding may expand upon
earlier levels, they will not make void the plain, clearer levels. Note that the following verses
reinforce this principle.

Numbers. 23:19 “God is not a man that He should lie;...”

Malachi. 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I change not; ....”
2nd Tim. 2:13 “ ..... he cannot deny Himself.”
Titus 1:2 “ ..... God that cannot lie, ....”
Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”
James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and
cometh down from the father of lights, with whom there
is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

2
 Study Paper

If we assume that God does not lie, then one view must be true and therefore the remaining view
(or views) must be false! Sometimes a certain view or doctrine which at first seems to be appealing
may on closer study prove to be false. The assumed doctrine (which later proves to be false)
usually carries with it a denominational bias toward other doctrines, the implications of which are
not at first apparent to those who advocate that particular teaching.

B = Big Picture

S oon after the sincere Christian begins to study God's Word, they find what appear to be
contradictory statements about certain subjects that make a clear-cut answer about the truth
of the matter next to impossible without taking a denominational bias in one way or another.

If the Bible is correct when it claims to be inspired by God, then it's impossible for it to contradict
itself. (2nd Peter 1:20 - 21.) Logically then, if the Bible appears to contradict itself, then the
problem is not with the Scriptures, but how I have interpreted them! If the Bible appears to contradict
itself, then there could be three possible reasons why I don't understand it correctly:

1/ I have interpreted it by my own preconceived ideas or traditional beliefs, which leads to

confusion and error.

2/ I have built a doctrine (such as the Second Coming of Jesus) around two or three texts.
At first glance they appear to support each other, but when lined up against all of the texts
pertaining to that particular subject reveal the meaning, much different from the first
superficial interpretation.

3/ I don't understand the historical context of the events which led to the formation of the
scriptures in their present form, which can lead to a wrong interpretation of the Big
Picture.

Unfortunately, it's human nature to believe what we want to believe, which does not necessarily
equate with Biblical Truth! For instance, most people have some very definite preconceived ideas
about what happens to the “soul”, even when the Bible plainly contradicts their personal belief.
Some people believe that when we die, we go straight to “heaven” or straight to “hell”. Others
believe that we “do time” in purgatory, before we are “allowed” into heaven. Others believe that
we “sleep” in the grave until Jesus comes, Who then “awakens” or resurrects us to eternal life.
Still others believe that Jesus was a highly evolved prophet or avatar, and that man can eventually
become God through the processes of evolution and/or genetic engineering. As most people will
choose two or three texts to support their preconceived ideas, therefore most people will also fall
into error. So what does the Bible say about how we study the Scriptures?

If we misinterpret the Bible, we demonstrate that we have not been following the procedure the
Lord has set out in His Word. It is possible to understand Biblical Truth. In Isaiah 28:10, we are
instructed that “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon
line, here a little, there a little.” The basic idea here is to build your understanding by one concept
at a time as you search through the Scriptures. Not only does this help us to understand Truth,
but it also helps us to understand that if we build a doctrine upon two or three isolated texts
which support our own preconceived ideas, we will usually embrace a doctrine which is false.

3
 Study Paper

When we study any subject in the Bible, we might often find verses that will appear (upon a
superficial examination) to contradict each other. If there are 15 verses on any one subject of the
Bible, you'll find that the majority of the texts will point toward one teaching, while the minority
usually seem to suggest a teaching which is completely at odds with the majority. Now, if we line
up 15 verses (on any given subject) they will look like this:

TRUTH
1. text 6. text 11. text
2. text 7. text 12. text
3. text 8. text 13. text
4. text 9. text 14. text
5. text 10. text 15. text

If two or three from that 15 seem to contradict, it means that our study isn’t over yet! However,
some teachings are based on only those 2 or 3 texts (the minority), even though the majority of
the texts point in an opposing direction. When we study the context surrounding these texts we
will find that they only appear to point in one direction. In reality, they actually point in the same
direction as the rest of the verses and give support to our original assumption - God does not lie!
When we base our belief on the minority of the texts, we make God look like a liar on the
majority of the texts. So, build your beliefs on the majority of texts. They will give you the
clearest picture of what the correct view is. Ask God to reveal to you the true meaning of the
‘contradicting’ texts and wait for Him to answer that prayer in time, and see the weight of
evidence. Seeing the Big Picture, or reviewing the Weight of Evidence, is an important principal to
follow.

MANY ERRONEOUS TEACHINGS ARE BASED ON ONE TO THREE TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE TEXTS ON THE SAME SUBJECT ARE IGNORED – AND SO
ERROR IS TAUGHT IN THE PLACE OF TRUTH.

C = Context

W e have seen that there are at times some texts on subjects of the Bible that appear (at first
glance) to contradict the rest of the verses pertaining to a particular subject or doctrine.
When the context of these verses is studied carefully, you will find that they line up with the
majority of the verses and in reality all the verses are actually saying the same thing. This
demonstrates that God does not lie and teach two opposing views.

When the three or four “deviant” verses are studied carefully, the serious Bible student will find
that they also point towards TRUTH - thus giving the “Big Picture”.

In order not to “wrest” or “twist” a verse (and make it say something which the original writer
did not intend) we must always consider it's context. There are two contextual areas one must
consider as one studies the Bible for answers.

1. Literary context

2. Historical context

4
 Study Paper

Literary context - It's important to always read the verses before and after the verse you are
studying to make sure you are rightly dividing the writer's intent. In some books of the Bible,
(such as Romans) it is sometimes best to read the preceding and following chapters, as the writer
may be slowly building a case for what he intends to say.

Historical context - Many times 21st century Christians become confused with their
understanding of the Bible when they put a 21st century understanding upon a word or phrase
that did not have that meaning back in the seventeenth century when King James first ordered
that the Bible be translated into English.

For the most part, the Bible was written by Hebrew authors and shows God's dealing with
mankind through the Jewish nation. We must take this into consideration as we rightly divide the
Word of Truth, in order not to twist the meaning of a verse and end up with an incorrect
doctrine.

All doctrines derived from the Bible should be in agreement with the way the Bible authors
themselves used a word or phrase. If this is done, the careful student will not inadvertently take
liberties to make the Bible say something the original authors did not intend - and will help to
give the overall context of the “Big Picture”.

Some ask why we need to search out the truth, why couldn’t God just make everything clear so
there is no confusion? In 2nd Peter 3:15,16 we learn that “unlearned and unstable” people would
“wrest” the Scriptures – twist them to suit their own interpretation. Scripture exhorts us to
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” – 2nd Tim. 2:15. Paul talks of a class of people who he met at a town
called Berea. These people “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.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men,
not a few.” Acts 17:10-12.

So we see that Scripture warns us not to be “unlearned and unstable”, but to be “noble and
rightly dividing the word of truth.” The latter will be approved of God, for they will “Prove all
things;” holding “fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21. So, in our Study of the Word, we will
not be led to our own interpretation, but will compare Scripture with Scripture, and all the Word
to be its own interpreter. Peter warned “that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20. The more texts we find on any given topic, the less chance there is
of arriving at our own private interpretation. Looking at the “Big Picture” in context, weighing
up the evidence, eventually the truth will become clear for itself, just as a jigsaw becomes clear
when all the pieces are in place.

The Bible was written for the common, everyday people; you do not need to be a scholar with a
degree to understand it, and it should be within the comprehension of all. When reading, we
should accept the language of the Bible according to its obvious meaning, unless there is an
obvious symbol or figure in the text. Any evidence we feel we might have from Scripture on any
belief or doctrine should be clear and plain, unequivocal, and easy to understand.

5
 Study Paper

Bible, which Bible?

Some people think that because it's the oldest English Bible, the King James Version is the most
accurate. Others think that because the revised translations (Revised Standard Version, R.S.V,
New International Version, N.I.V., etc.) are based upon the oldest manuscripts in existence, then
therefore these are the most accurate. As inaccurate translations based upon erroneous
manuscripts could lead the serious Bible student to embrace error instead of truth, a most
pertinent question must then be asked - which translation of the Bible is the most accurate?

First, let's briefly look at using the King James Version of the Bible for study.

Historical context of the challenges associated with reading the King James Bible.

Although it is a much beloved translation, the King James Bible was written in the 17th century,
and the meaning of some of the words in it are entirely different now to what they were then. For
example, take the word conversation. In the letter to the Philippians the apostle Paul says to “only
let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ ....” (Phil. 1:27.) In 20th century English
we would read this as “only let the manner in which you speak do justice to the gospel of Christ.”
However, this is not what the King James Bible meant when it was speaking to us in 17th century
English. What it was really saying is “only let your behaviour be as such, that it will do justice to the
gospel of Christ ....” Conversation (in 17th century English) meant behaviour - and this is how we
should interpret the King James whenever we come across that word, as otherwise we could end
up making Paul say something other than he intended! In many cases, where the meaning of a
word has changed over the centuries, the newer translations will give a much better
understanding of what that word means in modern English.

There is another problem inherent with the King James Bible with which the serious Bible
student has to contend. As the grammar itself is quite archaic, the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’', etc. can
make it quite difficult to read - particularly if you find it tiresome or difficult to read at the best of
times. Another problem, which is found in all translations, is punctuation.

The New Testament Greek was written in capital letters with no punctuation between letters or
words. Therefore Rev. 1:11 (in English) would look like this:

"IAMALPHAANDOMEGA"

In the original koine (people’s) Greek it would look something like this:

"EGOIMITOALPHAKAITOO"

The Bible was first divided into chapters in the 13th century. Verse divisions came about three
centuries after that. As the original manuscripts did not contain punctuation, we can therefore
safely assume that God did not inspire the commas and other forms of punctuation in the Bible.
A misplaced comma by the translators can have a serious effect on doctrine. For instance, in Acts
19:12, the King James Version is translated:

"So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from
them."

You will notice that if this statement is read as it is punctuated, it says that the handkerchiefs and
aprons were sick, which is of course rather silly! When the comma is correctly placed after the
6
 Study Paper

word “sick”, then this statement say's that God performed special miracles through Paul, even
allowing him to heal people by touching his handkerchief. This obvious mistake was corrected in
all of the newer translations. Does this therefore mean that the newer translations are the most
accurate? To answer this question, we must first consider the historical context of the events of
the Reformation which led to the settling of the scriptures into their present form.

The historical context of how the Reformation affected the formation of the Scriptures in
their present form.

By the advent of the second century of New Testament history, the last of the disciples who had
sat at the feet of Christ was dying. While John the Revelator was still living, he was able to
personally instruct the churches in apostolic Biblical truth; indeed, in his later life he helped to
collate the Scriptures. Yet within the brief span of fifty years after his death, the early Christian
church began to fall away into apostasy. In particular, the western churches (especially Rome and
Alexandria) were heavily influenced by Greek Platonic philosophy, while the eastern churches in
Syria and Palestine were noticeably less so. Some of these Greek converts refused to relinquish all
of their beliefs, and in essence were semi-converted pagan philosophers.

They believed that the simple teachings of the scriptures should be interpreted according to the
wisdom of “the philosopher” (Plato) and that the Scriptures were of little value if taken literally;
thus corrupting many simple Biblical truths. They believed that the scriptures consisted of
mystical and allegorical ideas through which the Scriptures could only be interpreted by those
fortunate enough to have the keys to unlock this “hidden wisdom”, so that man could then begin
to understand the inscrutable will of God. This resulted in placing God so far away from man,
that man has gone in search of God to try and find Him through earthly mediators, which
eventually evolved into the priesthood with the confessional, etc., instead of finding Him through
the Word of the Bible.

Perhaps the most infamous of these second century Gnostics was Origen, who was a textual
critic of the manuscripts of that era. He “corrected” numerous portions of some of the early
manuscripts so that they agreed with his mystical and allegorical ideas. The belief that “the
Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written” originated with
Origen. - McClintock and Strong, Art. "Origen."

Origen's “predilection for Plato led him into many grand and fascinating errors.” - Dr. Phillip
Schaff, Church History, Vol. 2, p. 791. Today we have many translations of the Bible which are
based on some of the work of Origen. The Jehovah Witness’s Bible (The New World
Translation) is one example and was heavily influenced by manuscripts (the Vaticanus and the
Siniaticus manuscripts) which have resulted from the work of Origen. If they were correct in
maintaining that the earliest manuscripts must therefore be the most accurate, then the Jehovah
Witness’s religion would indeed be the ultimate repository of Biblical Truth. However, this is
clearly not the case, once the historical context of Origen's apostasy and his influence on some of
the early manuscripts is taken into consideration. Just because a manuscript is thought to be the
oldest does not necessarily mean that it is the most accurate, as the following quotation shows:

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which
the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed; that Iranaeus (A.D. 150) and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a
portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or
Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”
- Scrivener, Introduction to N.T. Criticism, 3rd. Ed. p. 511.
7
 Study Paper

Some scholars (such as Burgon and Miller) believe that the Siniaticus and Vaticanus originated
with one of the early church fathers named Eusibius, who was the Bishop of Caesaria in the
fourth century. Eusibius closely followed Origen in the allegorical method of interpretation of the
scriptures, “and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend
Pamphilus, and in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again,
Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter.” - Burgon and Miller, The Traditional Text, p.
163.

The Vaticanus manuscript eventually became the basis for Jerome's Latin translation (the
Vulgate), which in turn later became the basis for the Catholic Douay Bible. This Bible has been
textually criticised by some Biblical Scholars as being an unreliable translation, as the same line of
thought which moulded it can be traced in an unbroken line directly back to Origen, via the
willing conduits of Jerome and his Vulgate, and Eusibius and the Vaticanus; which is an
undeniably corrupt manuscript.

Dean Burgon, a scholar of the last century said of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that:
“The impurity of the texts exhibited by Codices B and Alpha (Siniaticus and Vaticanus) is
not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. These are two of the least trustworthy documents in
existence. . . .Codices B and Alpha are, demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the class
thus characterized.” - Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 315, 316.)

For some reason, most of the newer translations (R.S.V., N.I.V., etc.) are also heavily influenced
by the Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Oddly enough, the same reason given for why these particular
manuscripts are relied upon as the most accurate translations of the early Greek manuscripts is
precisely the same reason the Jehovah's Witnesses give to substantiate their claim for Biblical
Truth - i.e as these manuscripts are the oldest extant manuscripts, then therefore they are
therefore the most accurate! What then, does the sincere Bible student believe? Can any version be
trusted as the word of God? After all, while most of the newer translations are based upon
manuscripts which were influenced by Origen's gnosticism, the archaic language of the King
James often renders it difficult for the layman to read!

Before this question can be answered, one must first be aware that historically only two streams
of manuscripts have ever professed to be the uncorrupted word of God. One stream (about ten
percent of all extant manuscripts) comprises those manuscripts which follow the Vaticanus and
the Siniaticus in text, and are undoubtedly influenced by the pen of Origen. As stated above,
most of the new translations (N.I.V, R.S.V, T.E.B., etc.) closely follow these manuscripts. The
other stream of manuscripts (which compose roughly ninety percent of all extant manuscripts)
closely follow the King James Bible, which is in turn based upon the Textus Receptus, which
means “received text”; or “that which has been handed down”. The Textus Receptus claims to
be the text which has been handed down from the apostles of Christ to the present day. Can this
claim be verified?

Jesus instructed His disciples to flee into the mountains when they saw the “abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the Holy Place.” (Mat. 24:15.) In 70 A.D.,
the pagan Roman standard was placed in the holy temple area of the Jews by the advancing
armies of Titus, a Roman general. The temple was desolated - raised to the ground and
completely destroyed. When the Christians inside Jerusalem beheld the advancing Roman armies,
they heeded the words of Christ, and fled for their very lives. Now, a little simple logic tells us
that the majority of the early Christians in Jerusalem were of course Jews, and it was the Jewish
Christians who fled Jerusalem at that time to a city named Pella, in Syria.

8
 Study Paper

Pella is known as one of the ten silent cities of Syria, which were all eventually destroyed
centuries later with the advent of Islam. From Pella, these Jewish Christians dispersed further east
to Antioch, their capital, which the Apostle Paul had evangelised twenty years earlier. As a rule,
these people rejected the allegorical method of interpretation of the scriptures which Origen and
the western churches of Rome and Alexandria favoured.

“In the great Christological controversies of the fourth and following centuries,
Alexandria and Antioch were always antagonists, Alexandria representing a mystical
transcendentalism and promoting the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures: Antioch
insisting on the grammatico-historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and having no sympathy
with mystical modes of thought.” – Newman, A Manual of Church History, vol. 1, p. 297.

The ten silent cities of Syria became the capital of culture and learning in the first few centuries
after Christ, and their inhabitants spread the gospel throughout the known world. Eventually
their manuscripts were handed down to the Waldensians in Northern Italy, who were the bastion
of Bible Truth during the Dark Ages of Western Europe, when all knowledge of Biblical Truth
had been well nigh extinguished in the fires of the Inquisition. The Waldensians handed their
manuscripts down to Erasmus and Luther, and it was these uncorrupted Waldensian manuscripts
which formed the pillar of the Reformation; and culminated with the publication of the King
James Bible.

As the Jews were absolutely meticulous in transcribing their manuscripts, we can be sure that the
manuscripts which originated with the Jewish Christians who fled to Antioch at the time of
Christ are authentic and uncorrupted texts. These uncorrupted manuscripts have a pedigree
reaching back through the centuries to the Syriac Bible, of which the King James follows closely.
The Syriac Bible (called Peshitto, which means “correct” or “simple”) is in fact even older than the
Siniaticus and Vaticanus, and is thought to have been translated from the Greek into the Syriac in
about 150 A.D, - shortly after John the Revelator, the last of the disciples died. Ironically, in this
case - oldest is the most accurate!

The manuscripts which became the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and which later became the
King James Bible are without a doubt the most reliable. Therefore, by extension, the King James
Bible is also the most accurate English translation; as it has not been corrupted by the Gnostical
teachings of the Alexandrian School of (Platonic) Philosophy and the pen of Origen. However,
this does not solve the problem of correctly interpreting the archaic language of the King James
Bible, which means that the serious Bible student can still be unwillingly led into error by
studying that Bible alone and having to contend with its tiresome archaic language. What is the
answer?

The King James Bible has also been revised to make it more easily readable, by rendering the
archaic language of the King James into more modern English without destroying the structure
and syntax of the text. However, as the New King James follows the King James in only 90% of
the texts, some 10% of texts follow the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which opens the way for error.
An obvious example of this is 2nd Peter 2:9, of which the New King James and the other “new”
translations closely follows the Gnostic teachings of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Therefore, to
“rightly divide the Word of Truth”, it is best for the serious Bible student to first study a text by
using the King James, and if difficulty occurs, then compare it with the New King James, which
may give a clearer rendition of the text in the modern language. If difficulty in understanding the
context of the text still occurs, sometimes a “new” translation, such as the N.I.V. (New
International Version) or R.S.V. (Revised Standard Version) may give an even clearer
understanding of the text. However, remember - the main problems with the King James Version
9
 Study Paper

are not problems associated with doctrine, but how the language of that particular Bible should be
interpreted. An example of conflicting doctrine is given below:

“The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the
unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished...” (2 Peter 2:9. K.J.V.)

“The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust
under punishment for the day of judgment...” (2 Peter 2:9. N.K.J.V.)

It is obvious that the problem with the two preceding texts is not one of language, but of doctrine.
The incorrect transpolation of the words in the N.K.J.V. (and in this case the other "new"
translations) appear to make Peter say something entirely different to that which he originally
intended. In these versions of the Bible, (in this verse at least) God is made to appear as a God of
vengeance and hate, who gleefully waits for people to sin and thereby offend Him, so He can
then hit them with the "hammer" of judgment, and keep on unjustly torturing them until that
time. On the other hand, the King James merely says that the unjust (sinners) are "reserved" or
kept until the day of judgment. Only then are they punished, when it is obvious to the watching
universe that they are literally as guilty of rejecting Him as sin itself.

Therefore, when comparing "new" translations with the King James, if the problem is obviously
doctrinal, then the only safe option is to discard the doctrinal problems inherent with the "new"
translations and follow the King James instead. If the problem is merely that of the archaic
language of the King James, then the answer is to follow the New King James or the other "new"
translations if this serves to give a clearer understanding of what the writer originally intended to
say. One last word - if possible, try to use a good Concordance in conjunction with your Bible.
Strong's Concordance will usually give a fairly precise rendition of the particular word or doctrine
you might decide to study, although, it to is not perfect. And of course, pray that the Lord will
lead you into all Truth, as:
"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man
will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of it myself. . . .
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For
every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be
opened." (John 7:16-17; Luke 11:9-10.)

In closing, we need to remember that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. So too
must our understanding be led by His Spirit. Therefore it is necessary to ask God in prayer for
wisdom and understanding whenever you study His Word, so that the words may become living
words from God.

*******

Further copies of this study and others are available from:

Truth vs Tradition. PO Box 97, Eagle Heights, Qld. 4271. Australia.

Email: discern@hotmail.com

Please feel free to write or email for a free catalogue.

10