Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Finis Dake on Interpreting the Bible

[victoryword]

Since this has come up, I thought I'd start a thread on it. In GPFM, Lesson Three: How to INterpret the Bible, Finis Dake writes the following:

• "The modern way of interpreting the Bible is to change the meaning of what is written to suit one's fancy and to harmonize the Bible with one's own theories. This we call, 'How not to interpret the Bible,' because it transgresses every known sensible principle of true interpretation and places man as the authority above God concerning the Bible. The Bible is clear in itself when all traditions. wrong interpretations, manifold changes, and spiritualizing of Scripture are abandoned. The average person is blind to many truths of Scripture because they have been overlaid with so many human traditions and interpretations designed to serve a church, a party, or some personal fancy." (GPFM, p. 39)

Dake was not against Bible interpretation. He was against wrong interpretation. Me too.

[macca]

I do believe Dake let the bible interpret itself.
He found 2 or 3 verses on the same subject for every doctrine and truth and chucked out all man made opinions.

macca

[victoryword]

I do believe Dake let the bible interpret itself.
He found 2 or 3 verses on the same subject for every doctrine and truth and chucked out all man made opinions.

macca

You can't get a better system of interpretation than that. The Bible is its own dictionary and its own commentary. The Bible itself defines the meanings of its own words and phrases and (as Dake has pointed out in his writings) most so-called mysteries are solved by simply referencing other passages.

TRaditional theology too often breeds unbelief and blinds us from the truth.

[bibleman]

If you read Dake's writings, personal letters, testimonies, tape transcripts... you will find that Dake did not like the word "interpret when applied to the Biblical text.

In fact when you look at his writing you will see that he used it many times to refer to the "interpretations of MEN and of OTHERS" - most of the time the word is used it is used in a bad light.

Here are a few quotes:

From the very first of my studies, I noticed that the whole Bible became literally simple and clear. It was as if I had known it all my life and understood it as much as I understood my name and address. Knowl¬edge of the Scriptures became a part of my mental and spiritual equipment, just as the divine gift of knowl¬edge became a part of Solomon. Interpretation of the verses was unnecessary. I found that a full knowledge of the scope of Truth through daily study, coupled with my ability to quote from any and all parts of the Bible as I yielded to the Spirit, brought about a gratifying result - I could so easily "rightly divide the truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men.

I concluded that any interpretation which is the least bit out of harmony with what is plainly written, must be rejected as the theory of man and not the truth of God.

Let the Scriptures themselves be the final word of authority on any question. If the reader has intelligence enough to understand what is written, he has intelligence enough to believe what is written and that is all that is necessary. …we do not need an interpretation of the interpretation!

The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course–taking the Bible to be God's own Word and Revelation to men–not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter. He found that when all passages on a subject were gathered together and harmonized, the Scripture was clear in itself without any further interpretation. Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

By the way here is a book that would include these quotes and many more by Dake. http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/DakeBo ... graphy.htm A shameless plug by me! (smile)

[victoryword]

Actually that makes sense Pastor Leon and I don't think I could disagree with him.

I have the biography (I think that you wrote) on my book shelf but it has been quite some time since I read it. Maybe I'll take a gander at it some time this week.

[branham1965]

STOP RIGHT THERE. HE IS INTERPRETING =EXPLAINING
WEBSTER INTERPRET TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING .....OF THE SACRED TEXT.HE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN P.C.NELSON OR ANY OTHER SCHOLAR.
TO AFFIRM OTHERWISE IS BORDERLINE POPERY OR CLAIMING DIVINE INSPIRATION OF HIS VIEWS.
HE WAS A GREAT MAN .BUT I THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

If you read Dake's writings, personal letters, testimonies, tape transcripts... you will find that Dake did not like the word "interpret when applied to the Biblical text.

In fact when you look at his writing you will see that he used it many times to refer to the "interpretations of MEN and of OTHERS" - most of the time the word is used it is used in a bad light.

Here are a few quotes:

From the very first of my studies, I noticed that the whole Bible became literally simple and clear. It was as if I had known it all my life and understood it as much as I understood my name and address. Knowl¬edge of the Scriptures became a part of my mental and spiritual equipment, just as the divine gift of knowl¬edge became a part of Solomon. Interpretation of the verses was unnecessary. I found that a full knowledge of the scope of Truth through daily study, coupled with my ability to quote from any and all parts of the Bible as I yielded to the Spirit, brought about a gratifying result - I could so easily "rightly divide the truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men.

I concluded that any interpretation which is the least bit out of harmony with what is plainly written, must be rejected as the theory of man and not the truth of God.

Let the Scriptures themselves be the final word of authority on any question. If the reader has intelligence enough to understand what is written, he has intelligence enough to believe what is written and that is all that is necessary. …we do not need an interpretation of the interpretation!

The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course–taking the Bible to be God's own Word and Revelation to men–not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter. He found that when all passages on a subject were gathered together and harmonized, the Scripture was clear in itself without any further interpretation. Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

By the way here is a book that would include these quotes and many more by Dake. http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/DakeBo ... graphy.htm A shameless plug by me! (smile)

[Fit4theKingdom]

I do believe Dake let the bible interpret itself.
He found 2 or 3 verses on the same subject for every doctrine and truth and chucked out all man made opinions.

macca

This is a good practice to follow.

However there are doctrines where people will not always agree that the "supporting" scriptures truly support the principle in question. Those people will support conflicting opinions by the use of different scriptures . So, the question then becomes which position, when both are supported by scripture is one going to support?

It is unfortunate that the Bible does not comes with a cross reference from God. All cross references are "man made" opinions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they aren't. And it is wise not to elevate the notes, commentary, cross references, etc to the level of scripture, even when they contain scripture.

[bibleman]

STOP RIGHT THERE. HE IS INTERPRETING =EXPLAINING
WEBSTER INTERPRET TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING .....OF THE SACRED TEXT.HE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN P.C.NELSON OR ANY OTHER SCHOLAR.
TO AFFIRM OTHERWISE IS BORDERLINE POPERY OR CLAIMING DIVINE INSPIRATION OF HIS VIEWS.
HE WAS A GREAT MAN .BUT I THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

If you read Dake's writings, personal letters, testimonies, tape transcripts... you will find that Dake did not like the word "interpret when applied to the Biblical text.

In fact when you look at his writing you will see that he used it many times to refer to the "interpretations of MEN and of OTHERS" - most of the time the word is used it is used in a bad light.

Here are a few quotes:

From the very first of my studies, I noticed that the whole Bible became literally simple and clear. It was as if I had known it all my life and understood it as much as I understood my name and address. Knowl¬edge of the Scriptures became a part of my mental and spiritual equipment, just as the divine gift of knowl¬edge became a part of Solomon. Interpretation of the verses was unnecessary. I found that a full knowledge of the scope of Truth through daily study, coupled with my ability to quote from any and all parts of the Bible as I yielded to the Spirit, brought about a gratifying result - I could so easily "rightly divide the truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men.

I concluded that any interpretation which is the least bit out of harmony with what is plainly written, must be rejected as the theory of man and not the truth of God.

Let the Scriptures themselves be the final word of authority on any question. If the reader has intelligence enough to understand what is written, he has intelligence enough to believe what is written and that is all that is necessary. …we do not need an interpretation of the interpretation!

The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course–taking the Bible to be God's own Word and Revelation to men–not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter. He found that when all passages on a subject were gathered together and harmonized, the Scripture was clear in itself without any further interpretation. Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

By the way here is a book that would include these quotes and many more by Dake. http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/DakeBo ... graphy.htm A shameless plug by me! (smile)

OK Billy,

You disagree with Dake... again....

Not a problem, it is no sin to disagree with Dake.

I think you have the 8 tapes of Dake, listen to the first one about the first 5 minutes and you will hear this quote.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

But you think Dake was not being truthful in that statement. That is OK, you have the right to your own opinion.

BUT I have the right to mine as well, and after studying the man ofr over 30+ years, I agree with him.

[branham1965]

SO A PERSON CANNOT DIFFER AT ALL WITH REVEREND DAKE NOW???

HE HAD TO INTERPRET THE WORD LIKE ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.NO
BIBLEMAN I DISAGREE WITH YOU. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF SOMEONE EXPRESSES A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU AND YOUR CLIQUE YOU MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE A HORSES RUMP.

STOP RIGHT THERE. HE IS INTERPRETING =EXPLAINING
WEBSTER INTERPRET TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING .....OF THE SACRED TEXT.HE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN P.C.NELSON OR ANY OTHER SCHOLAR.
TO AFFIRM OTHERWISE IS BORDERLINE POPERY OR CLAIMING DIVINE INSPIRATION OF HIS VIEWS.
HE WAS A GREAT MAN .BUT I THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

If you read Dake's writings, personal letters, testimonies, tape transcripts... you will find that Dake did not like the word "interpret when applied to the Biblical text.

In fact when you look at his writing you will see that he used it many times to refer to the "interpretations of MEN and of OTHERS" - most of the time the word is used it is used in a bad light.

Here are a few quotes:

From the very first of my studies, I noticed that the whole Bible became literally simple and clear. It was as if I had known it all my life and understood it as much as I understood my name and address. Knowl¬edge of the Scriptures became a part of my mental and spiritual equipment, just as the divine gift of knowl¬edge became a part of Solomon. Interpretation of the verses was unnecessary. I found that a full knowledge of the scope of Truth through daily study, coupled with my ability to quote from any and all parts of the Bible as I yielded to the Spirit, brought about a gratifying result - I could so easily "rightly divide the truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men.

I concluded that any interpretation which is the least bit out of harmony with what is plainly written, must be rejected as the theory of man and not the truth of God.

Let the Scriptures themselves be the final word of authority on any question. If the reader has intelligence enough to understand what is written, he has intelligence enough to believe what is written and that is all that is necessary. …we do not need an interpretation of the interpretation!

The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course–taking the Bible to be God's own Word and Revelation to men–not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter. He found that when all passages on a subject were gathered together and harmonized, the Scripture was clear in itself without any further interpretation. Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

By the way here is a book that would include these quotes and many more by Dake. http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/DakeBo ... graphy.htm A shameless plug by me! (smile)

OK Billy,

You disagree with Dake... again....

Not a problem, it is no sin to disagree with Dake.

I think you have the 8 tapes of Dake, listen to the first one about the first 5 minutes and you will hear this quote.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

But you think Dake was not being truthful in that statement. That is OK, you have the right to your own opinion.

BUT I have the right to mine as well, and after studying the man ofr over 30+ years, I agree with him.

[bibleman]

SO A PERSON CANNOT DIFFER AT ALL WITH REVEREND DAKE NOW???

HE HAD TO INTERPRET THE WORD LIKE ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.NO
BIBLEMAN I DISAGREE WITH YOU. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF SOMEONE EXPRESSES A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU AND YOUR CLIQUE YOU MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE A HORSES RUMP.

STOP RIGHT THERE. HE IS INTERPRETING =EXPLAINING
WEBSTER INTERPRET TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING .....OF THE SACRED TEXT.HE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN P.C.NELSON OR ANY OTHER SCHOLAR.
TO AFFIRM OTHERWISE IS BORDERLINE POPERY OR CLAIMING DIVINE INSPIRATION OF HIS VIEWS.
HE WAS A GREAT MAN .BUT I THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

If you read Dake's writings, personal letters, testimonies, tape transcripts... you will find that Dake did not like the word "interpret when applied to the Biblical text.

In fact when you look at his writing you will see that he used it many times to refer to the "interpretations of MEN and of OTHERS" - most of the time the word is used it is used in a bad light.

Here are a few quotes:

From the very first of my studies, I noticed that the whole Bible became literally simple and clear. It was as if I had known it all my life and understood it as much as I understood my name and address. Knowl¬edge of the Scriptures became a part of my mental and spiritual equipment, just as the divine gift of knowl¬edge became a part of Solomon. Interpretation of the verses was unnecessary. I found that a full knowledge of the scope of Truth through daily study, coupled with my ability to quote from any and all parts of the Bible as I yielded to the Spirit, brought about a gratifying result - I could so easily "rightly divide the truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

I soon learned that one must either believe what the Bible alone teaches, or spend his life wrestling with the confusing and varied interpretations of men.

I concluded that any interpretation which is the least bit out of harmony with what is plainly written, must be rejected as the theory of man and not the truth of God.

Let the Scriptures themselves be the final word of authority on any question. If the reader has intelligence enough to understand what is written, he has intelligence enough to believe what is written and that is all that is necessary. …we do not need an interpretation of the interpretation!

The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course–taking the Bible to be God's own Word and Revelation to men–not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter. He found that when all passages on a subject were gathered together and harmonized, the Scripture was clear in itself without any further interpretation. Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

By the way here is a book that would include these quotes and many more by Dake. http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/DakeBo ... graphy.htm A shameless plug by me! (smile)

OK Billy,

You disagree with Dake... again....

Not a problem, it is no sin to disagree with Dake.

I think you have the 8 tapes of Dake, listen to the first one about the first 5 minutes and you will hear this quote.

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

But you think Dake was not being truthful in that statement. That is OK, you have the right to your own opinion.

BUT I have the right to mine as well, and after studying the man ofr over 30+ years, I agree with him.

Hi Billy,

Above you said: "SO A PERSON CANNOT DIFFER AT ALL WITH REVEREND DAKE NOW???"

If you had read my post you would have read me saying: "Not a problem, it is no sin to disagree with Dake. - But you think Dake was not being truthful in that statement. That is OK, you have the right to your own opinion."

Above you said: "BIBLEMAN I DISAGREE WITH YOU. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That is fine, you have that right. But I also have the right to disagree, don't I? we don;t have to agree to be friends!

Above you said: "IF SOMEONE EXPRESSES A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU AND YOUR CLIQUE YOU MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE A HORSES RUMP."

Now Billy my friend I have never said that.

If yo feel that way then you need to judge you own life as either being under condemnation THAT YOU DON"T DESERVE OR being under conviction that maybe you should change your beliefs.

It is up to you.