Comments on: Sword Drill

By: Jack Matthews

Jack Matthews — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:41 +0000

It seems that some are missing the point of a sword drill. It never was meant to spiritualize each found verse or chapter. It was a training to help the young, and old too, to find parts of the bible fast. At one time when asked to turn to a certain book, I had to look up the location. With training, like sword drills, I can find the chapter & verse quickly. I’ll let someone else explain it….

By: Sonya Armstrong

Sonya Armstrong — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:08:17 +0000

Hi, I am friends with Michaela from the swooney girls board. I enjoyed reading your post and the banter back and forth between your husband and “steve”. I want so badly to know the Bible as God intended us to know it. To really know the big picture and be familiar with how each story fits in with the big picture. I’ve read the books of the Bible, but not in order and I’m older and in a different place in my life and am seeing some things in a new and different light…really understanding it. I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do, since I was unfortunately mostly influenced by the cultish little charismatic church I attended during my junior high and high school years on into college. I met and married a reformed Presbytarian though =-) and I love it. (by the way, he has has posted on your hubby’s site…his name is Paul. My sister-in-law has two masters from Westminster and my father-in-law was best friends with Ray Dillard. It’s kind of a small world sometimes.

By: the Foolish Sage

the Foolish Sage — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:05:22 +0000

Justin, if you don’t comment on my blog, you can’t be my friend anymore.

I guess you can be Karyn’s, though.

By: Karyn

Karyn — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:13:10 +0000

Hey Justin–Thanks for commenting (I just never know whose gonna show up these days!). The quote from Henderson is great.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:03:31 +0000

Hey Karyn, great post! And right after i read it, i read this from David Henderson’s “Culture Shift”…it fits right in!

We also often treat the Bible as if it were the ultimate how-to book, an encyclopedia of practical wisdom and insight. But the Bible is more like a novel. I can dip into my Encyclopedia Britannica wherever I want, read a few paragraphs, pick out the information that will benefit me, and then close it. But with a novel I canâ€™t do that. I must relate every passage, every description or conversation or turn of events to the overall plot. Otherwise, it makes no sense; at least, not its intended sense.â€¦The term biblical needs to be redefined. It cannot mean merely â€œfrom somewhere within the pages of Scripture.â€ In light of the way the Bible is written, as a single fabric of thought stretching from front to back, biblical must mean â€œin keeping with what the Bible is about.â€ And the Bible is about Godâ€™s unstoppable passion to be known, loved, and servedâ€”through Jesus Christâ€”by those he has made. Many well-meaning people in the evangelical church have missed this. They will isolate a need, then reach into the Bible for insights that seem to address that need. But the individual is left untouched. The course of his or her life is left unchallenged, ambitions are left unchecked, the sinful nature is left unaddressed, and the fiber of his or her character is left unexposed.

Anyway, thanks for the post…and I wholeheartedly agree with your points in the comments section about themes of Christ in the Scriptures.
In my humble opinion, Steve, if you can only find Christ in Second Isaiah, then you’re missing a lot of good stuff.
See you in class, Karyn!

By: _steve

_steve — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:18:52 +0000

Not quite what I was talking about, but oh well.

By: Karyn

Karyn — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:55:54 +0000

Yes, but that’s the point. And a good caution. Many times we put our own interpretation on the story, or promote the personal interpretation of someone else instead of going back to the book itself to learn what the Author intends. And that can only happen by faith and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

By: _steve

_steve — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:13:54 +0000

But it’s more like if I reinterpreted Shakespeare, and for thousands of years people said “Steve is completely and totally right in all senses.”

By: the Foolish Sage

the Foolish Sage — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:02:44 +0000

Because in this case, it was the author (or co-author might be better) who was giving the interpretation! Imagine if Shakespeare came back to life today, read all the scholarly articles on his plays, and then said, “You guys have got it only partly right…let me tell you what I was really thinking.” Don’t you think we’d give an awful lot of weight to what he’d have to say, even if it meant a major paradigm shift in Shakespearian interpretation?

By: _steve

_steve — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:35:25 +0000

Why is it a good idea to completely re-interpret texts in the OT, but not anywhere else in any written work ever?