Dissecting a Frog
by Nathan Brown
We begin with a whole frog* and with a sharp scalpel, tweezers and magnifying glass slowly peel away layers, muscles, blood vessels and organs, laying each piece carefully aside and cutting deeper. By examining the contents of the tiny stomach, we are able to identify some of the small bugs the frog had eaten.
Perhaps we identify the little froggy heart. Though we call it a heart, it bears little resemblance to the ox heart we may have dissected the previous week. It is so called more for function than form—while bearing many similarities, the circulatory system of a large warm-blooded mammal works differently to that of a small cold-blooded amphibian.
And so it goes through the different pieces of what was a frog. After a time of careful study, we may have a much greater knowledge of frog componentry. For those studying these creatures, such knowledge can be important in better understanding how a frog moves, eat and lives.
But at the end of the process we do not have a frog. Instead we have a small pile of rather unattractive mushy stuff that once was a living, breathing, hopping frog. The process of exploration has also been a process of destruction.
Reading is a difficult task. We are told we learn how to read in the early years of primary (grade) school but we bring a lifetime of learning to reading and understanding. To do it well, reading is something that must be practised with care and patience. And few of us do it well.
When reading the Bible we often assume the most profitable form of study is to take it apart piece-by-piece — perhaps delving into the meanings of the original languages — and the meaning will become clear. With such a background, we tend to then bring this way of reading to other pieces of writing, becoming literal, word-by-word readers. But this is just one way of reading. And, while useful to varying degrees, it can be likened to dissecting a frog.
To see a frog hopping across the dewy morning grass, frog-kicking across a shaded stream or lying in wait for a small insect — to hear a frog croaking in appreciation of an approaching rainstorm or crying out in distress as it tries to escape a predator — is a long way from the dissection lab. The frog in context is a wonder of creation, a living reality that all the dissection in all the high school science departments of the world could never discover.
Context is important. Some would go so far as to argue this realisation renders the making of worthwhile dictionaries near impossible. The use of language changes with time and words can have a variety of meaning at any given point in time, depending on context. As such, an appreciation of context is vital to the careful reader’s task.
For example, the best tool for understanding a single Bible text is an overview of the Bible as a whole, its direction, purposes and overarching themes. To explore a word, sentence or verse apart from its context can give shades of meaning. But if when taken back to that context the ‘dissected’ meaning is inconsistent with the larger meaning of the chapter or book from which it was extracted, to insist on that meaning is absurd — and a serious example of bad reading.
Which is why I am surprised — in working with our church magazines — when an article is read as somehow undermining the core beliefs of Christianity and the church. Why would a magazine whose primary focus is to share the good news of the church, encourage the faith of church members and further the kingdom of God, simultaneously work to undermine that (consider Matthew 12:25)? The context must guide the reading.
Yes, as writers, we struggle with inexactness. We don’t always express things as well as we might. But we also need readers who will read with broadness of mind and openness of heart. And together we can all continue to learn how better to read — and not just to dissect, but to live it.
*Note: This column is not about frogs. And no frogs were harmed in the writing process.
Your frog metaphor is excellent and one I have used as well when discussing the Bible. How can we get this message out? The Bible needs to be taken as a whole to be understood as a living book and not analyzed and dissected til there is nothing left but a confusion of words on paper.
Take the Bible as a whole–I think the Adventist church pioneers had this in mind when they rejected the idea of an eternally-burning hell for the wicked. There are places in the Bible that cannot be taken literally but are metaphors, allegories, and symbols. But this does not include the life stories of real people who lived and wrote about their experiences in their own languages and settings; though even those have parallels in human history to the current day.
The Bible is an overview of God's love to humans.
“Why would a magazine whose primary focus is to share the good news of the church, encourage the faith of church members and further the kingdom of God, simultaneously work to undermine that (consider Matthew 12:25)? The context must guide the reading.”
I've seen many articles that do not support the Adventist mission, and disagree with Scripture and Ellen White. For example, there was one supporting drummers and drums in the Review some years ago, and even sported a picture of a young drummer with tattoos! (Tony Yang, 2008, http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1511&page=28) The writer says, “After praying for a drummer for a few weeks, I was starting to realize how hard it was to find a drummer, let alone a good one.”
While the story is “good” in that a young person joins the church who plays drums, the concept of drumming in church is presented as if it were acceptable praise to God when it is not. I shudder to think of the evil results of this article as Adventist worship leaders take solace from this misleading work and choose to continue their baleful influence.
Indeed, the magazine articles that drift the furthest away from solid Adventist pillars of faith are Spectrum, and this one, Adventist Today, the bastions of liberalism in the church. The articles that undermine the true mission of the church that originate from these two publications are simply too numerous to list. As a defender of all the 28 beliefs, Present Truth, traditional Adventist teachings on Daniel and the Revelation, and not least—Ellen G. White, I’m surprised that I’m not censured—at least not yet, here. I simply do not have time to post on Spectrum as well. My prayer and hope is that some reading will see glimmers of truth and decide to truly commit to Jesus and follow Bible truth.
I began the study of Greek with the hope that it would clear up the messiness and inconsistencies I found in the English Bibles I read. Perhaps the fear I had when I began the study of Hebrew a year later that knowing one more biblical language would lead to the disovery of yet more inconsistencies and yet more messiness indicates how effectively my hope had been crushed. Yet, 21 years after my last Greek and Hebrew class, and 16 years after resigning as a pastor, I cannot bring myself to regret studying either language, and still spend time to ensure my knowledge of Greek does not entirely die. I still have hopes of relearning Hebrew and learning Latin in my retirement years – that's when I believe I will again have time for such activities. Knowing some Greek does help with understanding some parts of the Bible. But I have found my other years of study in social science also helps. In fact, life itself seems to help by teaching me more about how life really works. Sometimes that makes the Bible clearer, sometimes it forces me to look again at what the Bible says. Both are good.
During a couple of years when I was doing research for my PhD, before everything (or even anything) had fallen into place, I often took refuge in the old saying that "confusion is the beginning of wisdom". Sometimes I have to remember that when I read the Bible. If my confusion leads me to more study, then it is a good thing. If my continued confusion leads me to talk to God, that is an even better thing. I am grateful for the many people who have commented on the Bible and shared their understanding. Some of my favourite authors are people I disagree with because they push me to face the inconsistencies in my own undrstanding of the Bible. Standing back and remembering the wider context is helpful. If what I understand from a text does not fit with the bigger picture of God as our creator and redeemer, then perhaps I need to look again. Or sometimes just leave it alone until more information, or more experience, makes it clearer.
As I deal with the trauma of realising that the year I turn 50 is approaching with a rapidity I find disturbing, I also find that I am becoming more willing to allow God, and life, to bring answers more slowly than I once found comfortable. Perhaps I am becoming reconciled to the fact that I will die not knowing everything. God is good, He loves me, He is in control – the rest (even the bits in the Bible) is just 'nice to know' rather than 'need to know'.
Kevin, what a sad story you tell. Understanding the original languages is not the key to understanding the Bible–it is important though to understand the mistranslations of words in vital doctrines and certain other places even in the best Bible, the KJV and its variants (AKJV, KJV2000, NKJV). Using modern versions such as the NIV will certainly lead to confusion.
You said, “I often took refuge in the old saying that "confusion is the beginning of wisdom". While your meaning seems to make some sense, it just does not line up Scripturally. Not understanding is not confusion—confusion is a false understanding of the Bible—errors if you please. Babylon means confusion. We may at first puzzle over a text, but that is not confusion by any means.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Good article Nathan—and I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about taking the whole Bible as an overview and seeking to understand the context in which the verse or verses are contained. However, what is not stated in what concerns me, and I quote,
“For example, the best tool for understanding a single Bible text is an overview of the Bible as a whole, its direction, purposes and overarching themes. To explore a word, sentence or verse apart from its context can give shades of meaning. But if when taken back to that context the ‘dissected’ meaning is inconsistent with the larger meaning of the chapter or book from which it was extracted, to insist on that meaning is absurd — and a serious example of bad reading.”
No so. The best and most foundational tool that we must bring to God first is a seeking and longing after Him—a desire for righteousness. We must humbly come to Him who gave the Word asking God to reveal its meanings to us. When we are converted as a consequence of studying God’s word and are baptized—we then have the fuller guidance of the Holy Spirit to help our studies.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
1Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
These verses speak of what I previously stated. Obedience to Him and that desire to be like Jesus will open the door to the great truths of the Bible where no humanistic methods will work. Dissecting a frog as an analogy for correct Biblical understanding gives the impression that we can do it our way—apart from how God’s says we must seek Him to understand His Word. Yes, context is important in the overall picture, and I also note you have left out another Biblical principle that is vital to understanding truth, and that is simply letting the Bible interpret itself:
Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, and there a little:
While learning from good teachers is vital, we should also be “weaned from the breast” and do our own studies under God’s guidance. Difficult verses—especially that of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation require “line upon line” “precept upon precept” and “here a little, and there a little,” going to the proper places in Scripture that interpret the chosen texts. Sadly Nathan, not once have you given Bible or EGW references in its proper context in just how we are to understand God’s Word to the saving of our souls. Instead, we see a human attempt to put only man’s limited measuring stick on something that is eternal truth—that which we should handle with the utmost reverence and awe coming to Him only for understanding.
He who will study the Bible with a humble and teachable spirit will find it a sure guide, pointing out the way of life with unfailing accuracy. But what does your study of the Bible avail, brethren and sisters, unless you practice the truths it teaches? That holy book contains nothing that is nonessential; nothing is revealed that has not a bearing upon our actual lives. The deeper our love for Jesus, the more highly we shall regard that word as the voice of God directly to us. {5T 303.2}
Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost. The ingenuity of men has been exercised for ages to measure the Word of God by their finite minds and limited comprehension. If the Lord, the Author of the Living oracles, would throw back the curtain and reveal His wisdom and His glory before them, they would shrink into nothingness and exclaim as did Isaiah, ‘I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips’ (Isa. 6:5).” — Ms 16, 1888; (1SM 15-18). (Written at Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the autumn of 1888.)
Steve,
Isaiah 28 is a perfect example of a chapter that requires its context. If you consider even the full paragraph, you will find that God is looking at the leaders in Israel including its priests, and He finds that they are all drunk. They give judgement while being to drunk to stand up straight. God then asks, who is teachable? Maybe the smal children are sober enough to listen.
Then verse 11-13
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,
12 To whom He said, “This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest,”
And, “This is the refreshing”;
Yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was to them,
“ Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,”
That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.
You may notice in verse 12, God clearly tells the people 'rest and refreshing for the weary', but the people are too drunk to hear. Verse 13 explains that what they understood from Gods clear word offering rest and refreshment was "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little".
It is clear even from the immediate context that this phrase is not a divine recommendation for how to do biblestudy, but quite the contrary represents a total breakdown in communication between God and man.
Thomas,
I understand the context I've read it before. However, a truth is a truth still, in principle and other applications besides the obvious context.In fact, I am correct still in what I say, and your analysis is quite narrow. Please consider:
9. Whom shall he teach? The priests and prophets whose business it was to teach the people were themselves misled, and therefore in no position to carry out their responsibilities (see on Matt. 23:16). They were so befogged that God could not teach them. It was necessary, therefore, that they be put aside and new leaders chosen—men who were both meek and willing, alert and spiritual-minded. The old leaders whose minds were spiritually befogged must be replaced by men to whom God could speak His messages of truth and wisdom. These might be regarded as babes by the learned priests, but they were humble and teachable and able to learn the ways of God.
10. Precept upon precept. Truth must be presented clearly and logically, one point leading naturally on to another. Only thus can men become thoroughly acquainted with truth. Instruction must be given as if to children, by repeating the same point again and again, and going on from one point to another by easy and gentle degrees as men whose minds have been darkened by sin are able to follow. Such instruction may appear simple, but it is effective.
[1] Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 210
Those who are in responsible positions are not to become converted to the self-indulgent, extravagant principles of the world, for they cannot afford it; and if they could, Christlike principles would not allow it. Manifold teaching needs to be given. "Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Thus the word of the Lord is patiently to be brought before the children and kept before them, by parents who believe the word of God. "For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people. To whom He said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Why?–because they did not heed the word of the Lord that came unto them. {TM 418.2}
This means those who have not received instruction, but have cherished their own wisdom, and have chosen to work themselves according to their own ideas. The Lord gives these the test, that they shall either take their position to follow His counsel, or refuse and do according to their own ideas, and then the Lord will leave them to the sure result. In all our ways, in all our service to God, He speaks to us, "Give Me thine heart." It is the submissive, teachable spirit that God wants. That which gives to prayer its excellence is the fact that it is breathed from a loving, obedient heart. {TM 419.1}
Steve
Am I correct in surmising from what you write and quote that these verses from Isaiah 28 represents such a scripture where a metaphorical understanding is to be preferred over a literal one?
I like John 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
The Jews searched the scriptures and the leaders studied them extensively but did not see Christ in them. I would say Christ was an over-riding truth in the OT, yet I suspect the Jewish leaders dissected the scripture and missed the bit picture.
As I read your above EGW quotes, they seem to indicate that studying the Bible precept upon precept is taking it as a whole. But it must also be done in humility and not with pride as did the Jewish leaders who did not have "a teachable spirit." Who is to say just who has "cherished their own wisdom" here?
BTW there are different mindsets–one dwells on specifics and details; the other tends to see the whole picture. But both can be right, and no one should say the other is wrong. It does depend on motive and dependence on the Holy Spirit that speaks to us where we are.
" Some of my favourite authors are people I disagree with because they push me to face the inconsistencies in my own undrstanding of the Bible."
How few dare to read with what they might find disagreeable? But how is one to learn if his conceptions are not challenged? Good lawyers must be able to prosecute or defend both sides of any argument. Only then can they be assured that they are fully informed.
As I have already passed 80, I have discovered many new and challenging facts about the Bible: its writers; it's many changes; its inconsistincies; and it's many contradictory statements. Also, realizing that there are NO original manuscripts and that all have been orally passed down and copied and recopied many times should give us caution at presuming any text is exactly as it was heard!
Some of the most challenging books I have read are by Orthodox Jews on the Hebrew Bible; Karen Armstrong on all world religions and especially the discordant history of evolving Christianity through the tumultous years following its birth; the Bible as literature; and how the text has been corrupted through the years by scribes and even additions of entire stories to the earlier manuscripts. How, and why were the final choices made for inclusion in the NT when there were as many or more "Gospels" and Letters being used throughout the Christian world? Were the compilers inspired? Or was inspiration only with the writers?
One may not find answers to all questions, but not to ask them is to remain where one has always been. The purpose of education is to have your presuppositions challenged.
Elaine,
You are quite mistaken. There are no contradictions or inconsistancies in the Bible, unless you compare the KJV and the NIV, which is Satan's attack on His word. God has given suficient evidence in His Holy Word that not one person needs to be lost unless that person so chooses to do so. If you think or suppose there is such a thing, then why don't you post your questons so they can be answered?
For me this is found in the belief of a Holy Spirit that leads our understanding. I do not think one can read the bible for spiritual understanding without the Spirit or we will only find the inconsistencies and focus on doubts and cynicism. The Bible is for our character and spiritual journey more than the legalistic (what we call human reason??) belief that it should be perfect thus resulting in a doubting cynicism or a literal interpretation that makes no sense. It is inspired poetry, stories, experiences, and symbolic prophecy. It has the joy of mystery, hope, comfort, peace, and the pointing to Christ.
It was the Holy Spirit who guided the minds of our ancestors who chose what would be in the Holy Book and the scribes so that they would not miss the overview of God's love. This is my belief and I feel a logical one for one who believes in the God family of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as found in the Bible and experienced in the life of the believer (and even in other religions to those of an honest and open heart of love).
This doesn't mean I don't read other books, but we need to read them with prayer for the Holy Spirit for understanding where the writers are coming from. Sometimes one can even find that flash of intellect in these other writings that may add to one's Christian experience; but to do so means leaning on God for understanding and not one's own reason.
I found that if I applied what I learned in Psychology at Whittier college years ago to my Christian belief system, it fit so well, and I became closer to Christ through learning more of His wonderful works.;
Ella,
I have had, and still have to take psychology in college, and I find almost all of it wars against Christ and the Bible. Please give an example of which you speak of, and perhaps I can better understand what you mean. My take is that psychology is man's attempt apart from Bible truth to understand and prevent deviant behaviour, as well as to understand the basic workings of the human mind. Some of this "understanding" is through faulty studies and research that becomes false science.Only the Creator understands the human mind that He made.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
1Ti_6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Maybe we find what we look for.
How is it that two people can earnestly seek the Spirit while reading the Bible and come up with entirely different concepts? How is one to "know" that his conclusions are what the Spirit intended when they may be different than others, even the majority>
How is one to understand the Bible apart from his own reasoning ability? If the mind is not the access to our understanding, what is? Do we doubt the Spirit's leading or others' reasoning ability if it differs from ours? Shouldn't God alone be the judge?
Elaine,
My view is that most of us are not acquainted enough with the Spirit to have confidence in His leading. Adventists, of different leanings (progressive, traditional, etc.), for different reasons, depend on other sources of authority (intellect, EGW) to interpret the Bible for us. We have unwittingly avoided intimacy with The Holy Spirit, rendering our confidence in His leading weak — increasing our dependence on these other sources, all of which lack the power and authority of the Spirit.
Actually for Steve Billiter babylon means "gate of the gods"
"Babylon
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper"
The play on words of what happened in Bable is what you seem to be thinking of:
"
" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Babel
I am not certain as to the point of the article a sentance deconstructed does not real damange to the sentace it can be read as before no assembly required it is nothing like a frog deconstructed. In fact we do this all the time in language, why in language we even use tone and facial expression nearly instantly. I am thinking this is all from some article he was accused of writing which did not uphold traditioal Adventist views. As if someone from the church or even published by the church could never do such a thing. Praise God they can still slip such things through. But then I don't look at these things from the perspective of someone under the thumb of the denominations employement power. So my views may differ.
Ron,
Babylon comes from "Babel" which in the Hebrew means confusion. This is my meaning. "Gate of the gods" must have applied directly to the city of Babylon itself and is simply an additional definition. Our word "babble" as a baby might attempt to speak, or as someone may say, "what are you babbling about? Is similiar.
H894
בּבל
bâbel
baw-bel'
From H1101; confusion; Babel (that is, Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire: – Babel, Babylon.
I like Strongs definitions in the KJV–to me they make the most sense and are very clear. My free Bible software, E-sword, has the Strong's embedded numbers in the KJV+ version, so I can instantly see the Hebrew, or Greek definition of every word in the Bible.
Do you know why Strong's agrees with the KJV? Because he does not set out to tell you how the Hebrew or Greek people understood the words, but how the KJV translated them. If you look at any modern standard lexicon of Biblical Hebrew you will find the match is not so good. I prefer not to use the KJV or Strongs, but more reliable sources.
That is one of the classic mistakes people make, thinking the root word means the same as the word in question. It is rather like in English when we say butterfly thinking that the root word is butter therefore a butterfly is butter.
My favorite is the Spanish "embarasada" – which contrary to many novice language students, doesn't mean embarrassed but rather "pregnant."
But it is hard work actually learning a foreign language..
A proper interpretation and understanding of the Holy Scriptures is at ALL times PRIMARILY dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit and Secondarily the sincere teachable heart that humbly seeks after truth and embraces it by faith. I have asked this before: are there any Biblical Study or Christian Theology teachers/lecturers/professors who start their class off with a prayer inviting the Holy Spirit to be their Guide in the study of the Scriptures (on any campus for that matter)?
We shouldn't question/doubt the Holy Spirit for the many 'different' Christian denominations around but rather the mess of dodgy theology that has crept in as a direct result of 'major dissection'.
That's one reason why God gave us the gift of prophecy in the writings of a truly 'inspired' Christian woman: Mrs. Ellen G. White.
Are theologians or scholars of biblical studies not then guilty of 'dismembering' the 'BODY OF CHRIST' which has resulted in so many different churches?
T
Even at the beginning of the early church there were followers of Cephas, followers of Appolos, followers of Paul. Many of the various churches had their favorite leader and there was a variety of position in the very earliest Christian church: see the separation that began in Jerusalem between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. When has there ever been complete harmony?
It does get a bit hilarious doesn't it with these words that are often misunderstood? For example, the word "SEVENTH" as in Seventh-day, to some does not really mean seven to some but the FIRST! : )
T
Nathan has reviewed a simple approach to understanding any ancient literature, even modern, If a reader does not come to the text with some sense of who the author is and what the general idea of why he wrote the letter or book, then the reader is only exercising his eyes. For me, no part of the Bible makes any sense to me unless I have some idea of the Big Picture for which I am promised when I keep reading the Bible. And that Big Picture must be logical, interconnected and personal. That means we need context. Courage to Nathan, Herb
Herb, but first one CHOOSES his paradigm or theme in which he then reads and interprets Scripture. Reading it for the first time allows the individual to form an unbiased opinion without any particular "theme" to look for.
It is impossible for most people raised in a Judeo-Christian environment not to have heard something of the Bible and their impressions may have developed in Sunday school, listening to a preacher, or hearing Bible stories.
Which allows for personal interpretation best: given a theme first, or letting things fall into place according to the reader?