Can a fine leather-bound gilt-edged study bible become a negative influence?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Usually when someone is so unwilling to explain what they meant, it was something they shouldn't have said.

That is not the case here. in Post #28 I underlined the text in the posts that I saw as a burdensome labour for anybody.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the word of truth.

The word of truth is not "scripture". in Greek scripture is spelled γραφὴ, graphe (using roman letters) while "the word of truth" is spelled τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, "ton logon tes aletheias" in Roman Letters. Had saint Paul intended to say "scripture" in 2Tim 2:15 he would have said γραφὴ, but he instead said τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. One might say, rightfully and skillfully teaching the word of truth. The idea seems to be, that the minister of the gospel is to make a proper distribution of that word, adapting his instructions to the circumstances and wants of his hearers, and giving to each that which will be fitted to nourish the soul for heaven. And what is the "word" in question here in our thread, it is the gospel not the scriptures but the message of both scripture and apostolic tradition. And what is it to "rightly handle" the gospel? That deserves a thread of its own. However, a good study bible might give some helpful information from which an attentive reader may find a good answer.

Rightly handling. In the Greek, cutting or dividing the word of truth, according to the capacities of the hearers, and for the good of all. Heretics change and adulterate the word of truth, as the same apostle affirms, 2 Corinthians 11:4. These he admonishes us (as he did before, 1 Timothy 6:20) to avoid, for they have a popular way of expression, by which the unlearned are easily beguiled. "Nothing is so easy," says St. Jerome, "as with a facility and volubility of speech to deceive the illiterate, who are apt to admire what they cannot comprehend."

John Wesley writes: Rightly dividing the word of truth - Duly explaining and applying the whole scripture, so as to give each hearer his due portion. But they that give one part of the gospel to all (the promises and comforts to unawakened, hardened, scoffing men) have real need to be ashamed.

John Calvin (definitely not a favourite with me) writes:

Dividing aright the word of truth. This is a beautiful metaphor, and one that skilfully expresses the chief design of teaching. “Since we ought to be satisfied with the word of God alone, what purpose is served by having sermons every day, or even the office of pastors? Has not every person an opportunity of reading the Bible?” But Paul assigns to teachers the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father, in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread, by cutting it into small pieces. ​

​

He advises Timothy to “cut aright,” lest, when he is employed in cutting the surface, as unskilful people are wont to do, he leave the pith and marrow untouched. Yet by this term I understand, generally, an allotment of the word which is judicious, and which is well suited to the profit of the hearers. Some mutilate it, others tear it, others torture it, others break it in pieces, others, keeping by the outside, (as we have said,) never come to the soul of doctrine. (175) To all these faults he contrasts time “dividing aright,” that is, the manner of explaining which is adapted to edification; for that is the rule by which we must try all interpretation of Scripture.​

So, Wesley and Calvin who think that "the word of truth" is "scripture" and would be apt to add "alone" advise that readers might benefit from hearing a preacher explain the scriptures. Catholic commentators say something similar but allow "the word of truth" a wider scope. MY purpose is to point out that using commentaries is useful but spending one's time "discerning" which preacher is reliable is, in my opinion, a mug's game. It's too much hard work and too judgemental.

CCC 1587 The spiritual gift conferred by presbyteral ordination is expressed by this prayer of the Byzantine Rite. The bishop, while laying on his hand, says among other things: Lord, fill with the gift of the Holy Spirit him whom you have deigned to raise to the rank of the priesthood, that he may be worthy to stand without reproach before your altar to proclaim the Gospel of your kingdom, to fulfil the ministry of your word of truth, to offer you spiritual gifts and sacrifices, to renew your people by the bath of rebirth; so that he may go out to meet our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, your only Son, on the day of his second coming, and may receive from your vast goodness the recompense for a faithful administration of his order.

Here the full ministry of a priest is presented in summary form; he is to explain the gospel, to divide the message into portions that the hearers can digest, to offer the Holy Eucharist to the faithful, and to baptise those who come to him for baptism.

 

[Strong in Him]

I did not reply saying that. That is your spin, not mine.

It is a huge burden to be the pioneer interpreter of the scriptures for oneself. No commentaries, no view but one's own to decide a complex matter. How did you decide the canonical books of the bible for yourself?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is useful to pay attention to who is addressed in each post and from that to learn what the post is replying to. So, here is the proper context for the second quote you gave.

I really do not like the people I study with using any commentary other than the Bible, so that is all I can use also. A concordance is good to have, but when a commentary is quoted, I am in a discussion with some dead scholar, who can't defend what he wrote. We can sincerely ask the Holy Spirit for help believing we will get help and the help will come (We have to have a real honest need and being willing to change).

It is a huge burden to be the pioneer interpreter of the scriptures for oneself. No commentaries, no view but one's own to decide a complex matter. How did you decide the canonical books of the bible for yourself?

My post is a reply to @bling; it presents my view about how much work is involved in, effectively, eschewing commentaries, building one's own theology from one's own studies without the help of commentaries and other sources of information, perhaps even going as far as to decide for oneself which books are acceptable in "the scriptures" as some did in the early centuries of Church history, and again as some did in the sixteenth century, and also as some today and over the last two centuries have done. This is why we have "The book of Mormon", and also why we have Mary Baker Eddy's works, and Helen White's works.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ronald Knox translates: 2Tim 2:15 Aim first at winning God’s approval, as a workman who does not need to be ashamed of his work, one who knows how to handle the claims of the truth like a master.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The word of truth is not "scripture". in Greek scripture is spelled γραφὴ, graphe (using roman letters) while "the word of truth" is spelled τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, "ton logon tes aletheias" in Roman Letters. Had saint Paul intended to say "scripture" in 2Tim 2:15 he would have said γραφὴ, but he instead said τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. One might say, rightfully and skillfully teaching the word of truth. The idea seems to be, that the minister of the gospel is to make a proper distribution of that word, adapting his instructions to the circumstances and wants of his hearers, and giving to each that which will be fitted to nourish the soul for heaven. And what is the "word" in question here in our thread, it is the gospel not the scriptures but the message of both scripture and apostolic tradition. And what is it to "rightly handle" the gospel? That deserves a thread of its own. However, a good study bible might give some helpful information from which an attentive reader may find a good answer.

Oh come on now xeno, while what Paul wrote and taught wasn't scripture at that time, it became scripture. And referring to or describing scripture as the word of truth isn't particularly off base.

Rightly handling. In the Greek, cutting or dividing the word of truth, according to the capacities of the hearers, and for the good of all. Heretics change and adulterate the word of truth, as the same apostle affirms, 2 Corinthians 11:4. These he admonishes us (as he did before, 1 Timothy 6:20) to avoid, for they have a popular way of expression, by which the unlearned are easily beguiled. "Nothing is so easy," says St. Jerome, "as with a facility and volubility of speech to deceive the illiterate, who are apt to admire what they cannot comprehend."

John Wesley writes: Rightly dividing the word of truth - Duly explaining and applying the whole scripture, so as to give each hearer his due portion. But they that give one part of the gospel to all (the promises and comforts to unawakened, hardened, scoffing men) have real need to be ashamed.

John Calvin (definitely not a favourite with me) writes:

Dividing aright the word of truth. This is a beautiful metaphor, and one that skilfully expresses the chief design of teaching. “Since we ought to be satisfied with the word of God alone, what purpose is served by having sermons every day, or even the office of pastors? Has not every person an opportunity of reading the Bible?” But Paul assigns to teachers the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father, in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread, by cutting it into small pieces. ​

​

He advises Timothy to “cut aright,” lest, when he is employed in cutting the surface, as unskilful people are wont to do, he leave the pith and marrow untouched. Yet by this term I understand, generally, an allotment of the word which is judicious, and which is well suited to the profit of the hearers. Some mutilate it, others tear it, others torture it, others break it in pieces, others, keeping by the outside, (as we have said,) never come to the soul of doctrine. (175) To all these faults he contrasts time “dividing aright,” that is, the manner of explaining which is adapted to edification; for that is the rule by which we must try all interpretation of Scripture.​

So, Wesley and Calvin who think that "the word of truth" is "scripture" and would be apt to add "alone" advise that readers might benefit from hearing a preacher explain the scriptures. Catholic commentators say something similar but allow "the word of truth" a wider scope. MY purpose is to point out that using commentaries is useful but spending one's time "discerning" which preacher is reliable is, in my opinion, a mug's game. It's too much hard work and too judgemental.

CCC 1587 The spiritual gift conferred by presbyteral ordination is expressed by this prayer of the Byzantine Rite. The bishop, while laying on his hand, says among other things: Lord, fill with the gift of the Holy Spirit him whom you have deigned to raise to the rank of the priesthood, that he may be worthy to stand without reproach before your altar to proclaim the Gospel of your kingdom, to fulfil the ministry of your word of truth, to offer you spiritual gifts and sacrifices, to renew your people by the bath of rebirth; so that he may go out to meet our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, your only Son, on the day of his second coming, and may receive from your vast goodness the recompense for a faithful administration of his order.

Here the full ministry of a priest is presented in summary form; he is to explain the gospel, to divide the message into portions that the hearers can digest, to offer the Holy Eucharist to the faithful, and to baptise those who come to him for baptism.