Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Finis Dake on Interpreting the Bible

[Justaned]

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.

MOST EXCELLENT point!!!!!!!!!!
That is why Sola Scriptura is a crock. To resolve those problems we must go back to the teachings of the Apostles and Early church fathers external to scripture to see how they taught on the particular subject. In many cases the confusion is settled in Church doctrine, creeds or proclamations that have since been rejected by many since the Reformation.

Jesus in Matthew 28 told the disciples to teach what He has taught them. If that teaching was not canonized and placed in scripture it is summarily rejected and many times replaced with contradictory teaching.

[Justaned]

"The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy -- it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly." --B. H. Carroll (1843-1914)

[branham1965]

Reverend
thank you for considering me a friend.i appreciate that.ill consider your good words.i like getting a kick in the pants.im used to that up North.
im sorry if i offended you in any way.

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.

[branham1965]

REVED THAT IS A GREAT QUOTE BY A GREAT BAPTIST.HE HAD TO DEAL FIRSTHAND WITH ADVENTISM,MORMONISM,RUSSELLISM,AND CAMPBELLISM.

"The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy -- it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly." --B. H. Carroll (1843-1914)

[Fit4theKingdom]

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."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

[bibleman]

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."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don't agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

[bibleman]

OK guys here it is...

Just for you! (smile)

Click on this link and you will hear Dake say it in his own words!

http://www.dakebibleboard.com/download/ ... tation.mp3

[Fit4theKingdom]

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."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

[bibleman]

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."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

Well Fit,

I guess you could say - that is your opinion.

I myself don't have one - I just let the Bible speak for itself.

It is a lot less stress that way!

[victoryword]

It is true that someone can place together a bunch of proof-texts to support any position but I don't see where that is a problem. When the prooftexts are "interpreted" (for lack of a better term) within their context, it can then bet determined whether or not the prooftexts support the doctrine being espoused. For example, in the centuries long "Calvinism versus Arminianism" debate quite often the Calvinists will have numerous proof-texts to support their idea of salvation by predestination. When their prooftexts are thoroughly examined the texts always DISPROVE their doctrine and teach the opposite.

The same has held true for the "continuation versus cessationism" debate. Cessationists bring prooftexts that don't hold up in the light of the context. So personally, I don't see where the issue is at. There are people who affirm the Trinity and those who deny the Trinity. Anti-Trinitarian doctrine is easily disproven quite often by their own prooftexts. People against an eternal hell (annhilationists, universalists, etc.) have prooftexts but again, their positions are easily disproven when their prooftexts are examined within the context.

Furthermore, if someone's prooftexts contradict other portions of Scripture then it is clear that someone is right and someone else is not understanding the Bible correctly. An examination of all texts pertaining to a subject should resolve that.

Finally, any doctrine of God must be seen in the light of Jesus Christ. If the doctrine doesn't give us a picture of Jesus, then it isn't a true doctrine of God..