The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world
Posted by Paul Ackermann on Sunday, May 10, 2009
Under: Scripture
Bible is the most wonderful book in the world. No other book in the world has been used as much to save souls and to better society, to heal families and save lives.
The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world. No other book in the world has been used as much to ruin society, to break up families and to destroy lives.
Both of these are true! The Bible is wonderful book! The Bible is a dangerous book! The Bible is a dangerous book if used in the wrong hands. In the middle ages, their was a heretical called the Albengians who went around telling Christians, with just enough Bible knowldege to be dangerous, that God wanted them to commit suicide! Jim Jones persuaded his disciples, no doubt with the Bible, to kill themselves. After all, does not the Bible say that we should die to ourselves? Recently I recall seeing the news coverage of cult leader David Koresh giving a Bible Study implying how he was the second coming of Christ. The Children of God cult persuades young people to have nothing to do with their parents. After all, does not Christ say in the Bible “Anyone who does not hate his father or mother is not worthy of me.”? And how many unsuspecting Christians have been talked into giving all their savings to charlatan preachers because of some verse in the Bible takeb out of context?
Even Satan himself used scripture against Jesus when He was fasting before He started his public ministry. No other book has been misused as the Bible, to the danger of people’s souls, lives, and savings.
The Bible itself warns of this:
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Pet 3:15, 16
Peter is saying that the letters of Paul are hard to understand. This flies in the face of Protestant thinking.
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the "perspicuity of Scripture") teaches that "the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will."
http://www.theopedia.com/Clarity_of_Scripture
Protestants will say that the Bible is clear to the ordinary reader. But Peter says wrote that the writings of Paul, being part of scripture, are difficult to understand, and that people who are ignorant and unstable distort scripture to own destruction.
To be fair, the article from the above link does admit that are many wrong interpretations of the Bible. The article excuses this by saying this is not the fault of scripture, “but in the baggage many people bring to the Scriptures”. But that is missing the point. No Catholic would disagree with this. It is not the fault of scripture, but our own baggage we bring to the scripture. But since all who read scripture use have a fallen nature and is not without sin, who among us is without any baggage?
It should be obvious that most people who read the Bible are the kind of people that Peter described – ignorant and unstable. I have been on several forums on the internet, and I am sometimes shocked of how people misuse the Bible! These are the kind of people the cults prey on.
I remember taking a class on Business Law in high school. I was amazed by how knowledgeable my teacher was concerning the law. But then my teacher said “I know just enough about the law to be dangerous to myself”. That is how it is with the average Christian – he or she know just enough of the Bible to be dangerous to himself. Let’s be honest here. How many Christians have read the Bible all the way through – from Genesis to Revelation? If I would guess, I would say only 5%. And of those 5%, how many of them have read it in its original languages – Hebrew and Greek? And how many of those have studied Old Testament history and New Testament history, to make sure they take into account the historical context when they interpret a controversial passage? And how many know of any issues of textual criticism concerning that passage they are trying to interpret?
And yet Martin Luther said
A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it
http://wordalone.org/docs/wa-layman-guide-jepsen.shtml
I myself have spent some time reading the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Their knowledge of theology, philosophy, the history of thought, and scripture is amazing! Even if I did not believe in papal infallibility, I would still have to admit that they know far more than I do – and I went to seminary! It is just absurd to think that a simple layman knows more than these two popes! I challenge anyone to read JPII’s "Theology of the Body" or Benedict’s Book, Jesus, and say honestly then that he has a better understanding of scripture than they do. This argument is fallacious because there never has been a pope or council without scripture. They always had, and always used it in their teaching. The writings of all the popes and councils are filled to scripture verses.
Would you trust a simple layman armed only with a medical journal to heal you? Would you trust a simple layman armed with law books to defend your case? Or would you not feel more comfortable with a professional?
Even without the Catholic teaching of infallibility, the pope and the councils are still professionals. They have dedicated themselves to studying scripture, theology, history, etc. to make themselves far more equipped to determine what scripture is actually teaching. It is far more likely that a simple layman such your or me, would misinterpret scripture than these men of God. “But it s not just a matter of scholarship, it is also a matter of the Holy Spirit!”. I agree. But again, why should we assume that you or I are closer to God that they are? If you think this is the case, I challenge you to read a biography on JPII or Benedict XVI. You then see how these men were and are spiritual giants.
I recall a Jehovah Witness coming to my door once when I was a Protestant. I let him in. We argued for hours. But no matter what scripture I used, he was able to twist it to his advantage. I was getting frustrated. Then, just as he was about to leave, I said something that at time I did not realize how strong this argument was. But after I said it, I noticed his smug smile left his face, and I can see that gave him some real doubts on his religion. I said “For 2,000 years of Christianity, Christians interpreted scripture to be saying that Christ is God, He died for our sins, and that He rose for the dead. Your small group just came out recently this past century that Jesus was just a prophet. Who is more likely to be right? Is it more likely that 2,000 years of Christianity got it wrong, or that your recent group got it wrong?”. This bothered him. As long as I just argued from scripture, he felt comfortable with that. But when looked at 2,000 years of Christian tradition, he had no answer.
Atheists also prey on unsuspecting Christians with a shallow knowledge of the Bible. By taking a verse completely out of context, they convince these poor believers that there is a contradiction in the Bible, and so Christianity must be false. I once ran across this kind of argument on the internet. The atheist quoted this passage:
Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
Matthew 2:23
He argued, “I checked everywhere in the Old Testament. There is no verse at all in the Old Testament where it is written that ‘He will be called a Nazarene’. So obviously, since it is not in the Old Testament, that would mean that the writer is in error. Since the writer of this gospel is in error, then that means that the Bible has errors. Since it has errors in it, it is not the Word of God”. This post was on this particular forum for a year, without any rebuttal from a Christian. So that would tell me that the average Christian could not find the fallacy in his argument. The average Christian would find his argument persuasive. I am afraid that the Protestant would be persuaded by this argument: “Gee, I believe that scriptures are clear to understand. It clearly says in Matthew that a prophet said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, but clearly this is not taught in the Old Testament. Maybe he is right! Maybe the Bible is not the Word of God! Maybe I should give up the Christian faith”. But the faithful Catholic is invincible to this kind of argument., even if he cannot find the fallacy with his argument. The Catholic could reply “Yes, on the surface you present a very good argument. But you assume one thing. You assume that scripture is clear enough that you, on your own, without the aid of God’s Church can interpret the Bible correctly. But that is a huge assumption. Your argument only seems to me to be valid if your assumption is correct. But if your assumption was correct, then 2,000 years of Christianity would have been aware of your interpretation. Great minds throughout these centuries – people like Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Pope John Paul II; would have rejected Christianity if they had agreed with your interpretation. So I think it is far more likely that you are wrong than the Church these last 20 centuries being wrong”.
BTW, this atheist made an obviously wrong interpretation of this passage. When I pointed out his fallacy, even he did not try to pursue this argument any further. Matthew 2:23 does not say that this was written down by the prophets. It says “what was said through the prophets”. Nowhere does Matthew imply that this was ever written down, it was merely spoken. So a prophet once said this, it was never written down, it was carried on through oral tradition.
Now I want to ask you, the reader, did you miss this obvious blunder in the atheist’s argument? If yes, good for you! But if no, then how can ever trust your own interpretation of the Bible over the greatest religious minds these last 2,000 years? Just as the Bible says: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your understanding”. It takes a lot of humility to be a faithful Catholic. It means that you do not trust in yourself and your even own interpretation of the Bible. You do not lean on your own understanding of the Bible. Instead, you lean on the Holy Spirit guiding God’s Church throughout the centuries.
So, by all means, read the Bible. If it is read correctly, in accordance to the teachings of the Church, it can do wonderful things for you. But remember that, if misused, it can lead to your destruction. The Bible says that we should “tremble at His Word”. Read his Word with all humility. Pray earnestly to the Holy Spirit for guidance. And if your interpretation goes against the teachings of the greatest Christian minds ever (St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Teresa de Avila, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI) remember that it is far more likely that your interpretation is wrong than these great saints, who are far closer to God than you or I will ever be in this life, got it wrong. Be humble on your own private interpretation of the Bible. Your interpretation is only right to the degree it falls in line with the rest of His Church.
The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world. No other book in the world has been used as much to ruin society, to break up families and to destroy lives.
Both of these are true! The Bible is wonderful book! The Bible is a dangerous book! The Bible is a dangerous book if used in the wrong hands. In the middle ages, their was a heretical called the Albengians who went around telling Christians, with just enough Bible knowldege to be dangerous, that God wanted them to commit suicide! Jim Jones persuaded his disciples, no doubt with the Bible, to kill themselves. After all, does not the Bible say that we should die to ourselves? Recently I recall seeing the news coverage of cult leader David Koresh giving a Bible Study implying how he was the second coming of Christ. The Children of God cult persuades young people to have nothing to do with their parents. After all, does not Christ say in the Bible “Anyone who does not hate his father or mother is not worthy of me.”? And how many unsuspecting Christians have been talked into giving all their savings to charlatan preachers because of some verse in the Bible takeb out of context?
Even Satan himself used scripture against Jesus when He was fasting before He started his public ministry. No other book has been misused as the Bible, to the danger of people’s souls, lives, and savings.
The Bible itself warns of this:
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Pet 3:15, 16
Peter is saying that the letters of Paul are hard to understand. This flies in the face of Protestant thinking.
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the "perspicuity of Scripture") teaches that "the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will."
http://www.theopedia.com/Clarity_of_Scripture
Protestants will say that the Bible is clear to the ordinary reader. But Peter says wrote that the writings of Paul, being part of scripture, are difficult to understand, and that people who are ignorant and unstable distort scripture to own destruction.
To be fair, the article from the above link does admit that are many wrong interpretations of the Bible. The article excuses this by saying this is not the fault of scripture, “but in the baggage many people bring to the Scriptures”. But that is missing the point. No Catholic would disagree with this. It is not the fault of scripture, but our own baggage we bring to the scripture. But since all who read scripture use have a fallen nature and is not without sin, who among us is without any baggage?
It should be obvious that most people who read the Bible are the kind of people that Peter described – ignorant and unstable. I have been on several forums on the internet, and I am sometimes shocked of how people misuse the Bible! These are the kind of people the cults prey on.
I remember taking a class on Business Law in high school. I was amazed by how knowledgeable my teacher was concerning the law. But then my teacher said “I know just enough about the law to be dangerous to myself”. That is how it is with the average Christian – he or she know just enough of the Bible to be dangerous to himself. Let’s be honest here. How many Christians have read the Bible all the way through – from Genesis to Revelation? If I would guess, I would say only 5%. And of those 5%, how many of them have read it in its original languages – Hebrew and Greek? And how many of those have studied Old Testament history and New Testament history, to make sure they take into account the historical context when they interpret a controversial passage? And how many know of any issues of textual criticism concerning that passage they are trying to interpret?
And yet Martin Luther said
A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it
http://wordalone.org/docs/wa-layman-guide-jepsen.shtml
I myself have spent some time reading the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Their knowledge of theology, philosophy, the history of thought, and scripture is amazing! Even if I did not believe in papal infallibility, I would still have to admit that they know far more than I do – and I went to seminary! It is just absurd to think that a simple layman knows more than these two popes! I challenge anyone to read JPII’s "Theology of the Body" or Benedict’s Book, Jesus, and say honestly then that he has a better understanding of scripture than they do. This argument is fallacious because there never has been a pope or council without scripture. They always had, and always used it in their teaching. The writings of all the popes and councils are filled to scripture verses.
Would you trust a simple layman armed only with a medical journal to heal you? Would you trust a simple layman armed with law books to defend your case? Or would you not feel more comfortable with a professional?
Even without the Catholic teaching of infallibility, the pope and the councils are still professionals. They have dedicated themselves to studying scripture, theology, history, etc. to make themselves far more equipped to determine what scripture is actually teaching. It is far more likely that a simple layman such your or me, would misinterpret scripture than these men of God. “But it s not just a matter of scholarship, it is also a matter of the Holy Spirit!”. I agree. But again, why should we assume that you or I are closer to God that they are? If you think this is the case, I challenge you to read a biography on JPII or Benedict XVI. You then see how these men were and are spiritual giants.
I recall a Jehovah Witness coming to my door once when I was a Protestant. I let him in. We argued for hours. But no matter what scripture I used, he was able to twist it to his advantage. I was getting frustrated. Then, just as he was about to leave, I said something that at time I did not realize how strong this argument was. But after I said it, I noticed his smug smile left his face, and I can see that gave him some real doubts on his religion. I said “For 2,000 years of Christianity, Christians interpreted scripture to be saying that Christ is God, He died for our sins, and that He rose for the dead. Your small group just came out recently this past century that Jesus was just a prophet. Who is more likely to be right? Is it more likely that 2,000 years of Christianity got it wrong, or that your recent group got it wrong?”. This bothered him. As long as I just argued from scripture, he felt comfortable with that. But when looked at 2,000 years of Christian tradition, he had no answer.
Atheists also prey on unsuspecting Christians with a shallow knowledge of the Bible. By taking a verse completely out of context, they convince these poor believers that there is a contradiction in the Bible, and so Christianity must be false. I once ran across this kind of argument on the internet. The atheist quoted this passage:
Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
Matthew 2:23
He argued, “I checked everywhere in the Old Testament. There is no verse at all in the Old Testament where it is written that ‘He will be called a Nazarene’. So obviously, since it is not in the Old Testament, that would mean that the writer is in error. Since the writer of this gospel is in error, then that means that the Bible has errors. Since it has errors in it, it is not the Word of God”. This post was on this particular forum for a year, without any rebuttal from a Christian. So that would tell me that the average Christian could not find the fallacy in his argument. The average Christian would find his argument persuasive. I am afraid that the Protestant would be persuaded by this argument: “Gee, I believe that scriptures are clear to understand. It clearly says in Matthew that a prophet said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, but clearly this is not taught in the Old Testament. Maybe he is right! Maybe the Bible is not the Word of God! Maybe I should give up the Christian faith”. But the faithful Catholic is invincible to this kind of argument., even if he cannot find the fallacy with his argument. The Catholic could reply “Yes, on the surface you present a very good argument. But you assume one thing. You assume that scripture is clear enough that you, on your own, without the aid of God’s Church can interpret the Bible correctly. But that is a huge assumption. Your argument only seems to me to be valid if your assumption is correct. But if your assumption was correct, then 2,000 years of Christianity would have been aware of your interpretation. Great minds throughout these centuries – people like Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Pope John Paul II; would have rejected Christianity if they had agreed with your interpretation. So I think it is far more likely that you are wrong than the Church these last 20 centuries being wrong”.
BTW, this atheist made an obviously wrong interpretation of this passage. When I pointed out his fallacy, even he did not try to pursue this argument any further. Matthew 2:23 does not say that this was written down by the prophets. It says “what was said through the prophets”. Nowhere does Matthew imply that this was ever written down, it was merely spoken. So a prophet once said this, it was never written down, it was carried on through oral tradition.
Now I want to ask you, the reader, did you miss this obvious blunder in the atheist’s argument? If yes, good for you! But if no, then how can ever trust your own interpretation of the Bible over the greatest religious minds these last 2,000 years? Just as the Bible says: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your understanding”. It takes a lot of humility to be a faithful Catholic. It means that you do not trust in yourself and your even own interpretation of the Bible. You do not lean on your own understanding of the Bible. Instead, you lean on the Holy Spirit guiding God’s Church throughout the centuries.
So, by all means, read the Bible. If it is read correctly, in accordance to the teachings of the Church, it can do wonderful things for you. But remember that, if misused, it can lead to your destruction. The Bible says that we should “tremble at His Word”. Read his Word with all humility. Pray earnestly to the Holy Spirit for guidance. And if your interpretation goes against the teachings of the greatest Christian minds ever (St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Teresa de Avila, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI) remember that it is far more likely that your interpretation is wrong than these great saints, who are far closer to God than you or I will ever be in this life, got it wrong. Be humble on your own private interpretation of the Bible. Your interpretation is only right to the degree it falls in line with the rest of His Church.
In : Scripture