Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.
. . . .
The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.
. . . .
Any comment on this point?
|
Actually, fairly well said. But almost always ignored by the one saying it.
Lee was so full of "spiritual overlays" that he used to ignore the literal meaning of the words even negating them and in some cases declaring them virtually out of the Bible. And while I do not recall him saying this directly, certain of his followers sure came around here (or the other forum years ago) using 1 Cor 2:14 to declare that only spiritual discernment could understand what the literal words really meant. You couldn't take the words at face value, but needed spiritual seeing.
Then we come back to this passage concerning John the Baptist. And when you get down to it, Lee said a lot that was not in the Bible. Without digging into the rest of the Bible (as has now been done) it may or may not have been true. But Lee said it, so it was considered as good as original scripture. And then no one had their mind on when they came to the parts where Jesus taught in the Temple. Or where the apostles taught daily in the Temple.
Of course they noted that last one and probably claimed that the destruction of Jerusalem was designed to chase them away from the Temple yet another baseless claim that needs spiritual seeing but no literal words.
In short, despite some statements of sound theology in the past, Lee was busy rewriting scripture and its meaning with his footnotes, and in a few cases with his translation through peculiar renderings.