01. The Bible
THE BIBLE In what sense is the Bible the Word of God? In Psalms 19, verses 7 to 9, there are six titles for the Scriptures, associated with six attributes and six effects. The Scriptures are defined as (1) the law of Jehovah; (2) the testimony of Jehovah; (3) the statutes of Jehovah; (4) the commandment of Jehovah; (5) the fear (that is, the reverence) of Jehovah, and (6) the judgments of Jehovah. There are ten such titles for the Word of God in Psalms 119. They are (1) the way; (2) the testimony; (3) the precept; (4) the commandment; (5) the saying; (6) the law; (7) the judgment; (8) the righteousness; (9) the statute, and (10) the word. The expression “the law of Jehovah” has no particular reference to the commandments of Sinai; it is rather a generic term for the Scriptures. About all the Scriptures David had was the five books of Moses, and this collection of books is known throughout the Bible as the Torah or the Law. It is equivalent to our term, “the Scriptures.”
Let it be noted that here are six definite propositions set forth concerning the Scriptures. Every one of these propositions is capable of demonstration; and indeed every one of them has been worked out to a satisfactory conclusion by millions of God’s people throughout the ages. It is true that the law of Jehovah is perfect and complete, converting the soul; that the testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple; that the statutes of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; that the commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes; that the fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever; and that the judgments of Jehovah are true and righteous altogether. That these things are so is just as certain as that two plus two makes four.
How are the Scriptures inspired?
Writing on The Extent of Inspiration, Dr. James H. Brookes says:
“It is a foolish objection often urged against the statements of the Bible upon this subject, that it permits the witness to testify for himself. Of course it does, and the testimony is unavoidable. The argument is not with the infidel, although even here it is perfectly fair to see what claims the book makes, and then to discover whether these claims can be substantiated. But the argument is with those who profess to believe the Bible as a whole, and therefore recognize the credibility of the witness. If a man whose reputation is unimpeached should be summoned to the witness stand, his testimony is to be received, even when it affects his own interests, and goes far, it may be, to establish his own side of the controversy. What then does the Bible itself say as to the extent of its inspiration?
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (2 Timothy 3:16); or if the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,’ it only makes the affirmation the stronger, because it refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the preceding verse, and comprising the Old Testament books which existed then precisely as we have them now. The testimony is not that the writers were inspired, but the writings; and writings are made up of words and the letters which form the words. Therefore the words are inspired, or God-breathed, including every inflection of the words, and every little particle. This must be so from the nature of the case, because if only the thoughts of the writers were inspired, and they were left to the haphazard and chance selection of words which weak, fallible, and for the most part illiterate men might choose to use in order to express their thoughts, it is obvious that we have no revelation at all. We can get at the thoughts of others only through their words, and if the words of the Scriptures were not the precisely prepared and suitable vehicle for the transmission of the thoughts of the writers, it is plain to any man of common sense that so far as we are concerned, the inspired thoughts would be of no value whatever.
“But happily we are not left to good-for-nothing human reasoning to settle this great question. It is the declaration of the Bible concerning all the Old Testament prophets and writers that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Peter 1:21), or as Alford renders it, ‘men had utterance from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit,’ or as the Revised Version has it, ‘men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.’ It is not that they thought, but they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, often indeed uttering thoughts, the significance and scope of which they themselves did not understand, and often using words contrary to their own natural will and purpose, as we see from Numbers 22:35-38; 1 Samuel 19:20-24; 1 Kings 13:11-22; John 11:49-52.”
Why should we believe that the Bible is from God?
Because it proves itself as God’s revelation of Himself. We quote from Frederic Bettex: Is there a God? Yes. Without Him the material and the spiritual world is an unintelligible chaos, without sense and purpose. This God must be a personal, living God; an impersonal God is no God; and a dead God is folly.
If this God of life created us, why is death in us? Because we have fallen away from Him. Is this God and our Creator nevertheless concerned about our temporal and eternal welfare? Yes. How can we know it? Only through a revelation on His part. Has He given us such a revelation? Yes. He has at all times revealed himself to individuals through appearances, visions, and dreams, and to mankind as a whole through the written Word, the Bible, given to His servants.
What is the Bible therefore? A divine revelation. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard . . . God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1). “The mystery of Christ is revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by his Spirit.”
How did this revelation take place? In this manner, that the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, ever and ever enthused, filled, inspired a man, so that he could not do otherwise than speak and write what the Triune God wanted to impart to mankind through him. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before” (Acts 1:16). “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Isaiah 51:16; Isaiah 59:21; Jeremiah 1:9).
Must a Christian believe the whole Bible? Yes. It is a unit, and man dare not select what he would believe, and what not. Whoever does not believe the Old Testament does not believe the New either. Paul testifies before Felix, “I believe all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14). Christ came into the world in order that “all things be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning him” (Luke 24:44). But cannot a man honor Christ, love Him, strive to follow Him, and call himself a Christian, without acknowledging His deity? No; that is self-deception. Thus man “maketh God a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son” (1 John 5:10). And the end is terror. “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall the in your sins” (John 8:24). Christ is the “king of aeons”; “He upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). “He came of the fathers as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever” (Romans 9:5). This or nothing. But where does reason come in? Nowhere.
Then why did God give us reason? For planting and building, buying and selling, marrying and being given in marriage. Did God not give us reason also for the purpose of judging His Word? No. To want to judge the Bible by reason is unreasonable, since the Bible rests upon miracles, which reason cannot grasp. But if my reason is to be the criterion, and is able to tell me how much of the Bible I am to believe, then by equal right this must be true of every other man’s reason; and if we listen to them all in succession, not a word of the Bible remains valid. But must not human erudition and science prove valuable even in view of the Bible, and for Bible study? No. “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent” (Matthew 11:25).
What shall the Christian answer the scoffer who wants to prove to him that the Bible contains all lands of mistakes, and errors, and contradictions, and things that are untenable? Nothing. He is not concerned about the reason of the faith that is in you (1 Peter 3:15), but about the expression of his own conceited wisdom in holy things. We are not to give that which is holy unto the dogs, and it does not pay to contend with a blind man concerning light and colors. On account of his faith in the Bible, the Christian must suffer to be considered a fool by the world.
Let us once for all abandon all hope of ever inventing a faith in the Bible that will find grace in the sight of the world, no matter whether it call itself Christian or godless. Just as the “wisdom of this world is foolishness with God,” so the wisdom of God is and will remain foolishness with this world. If your faith in the Bible does not bring upon you the opposition, the more refined or the grosser mockery, the silent or the outspoken contempt and hatred of the world, the educated, and the scholars, you may know thereby that it is not the true faith. Or do you claim to be greater than your Master? He spoke “words of eternal life,” “and they mocked Him.”
Whoever had such faith in the Bible? Those who overcame the world by faith, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs. But why must such be the only correct, true, and Christian faith in the Bible? Because it is and was the faith of Christ Was any of the Bible left out when our Bible was translated (Revelation 22:19)?
No. We have a complete Bible.
What is the meaning of the phrase, “The Canticles’?
It is the name sometimes applied to the Song of Solomon. Its full name is given in the first verse of the first chapter, “The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.” In the Latin Vulgate the title is literally translated Canticum Canticorum, meaning “Song of Songs.” The Song was read on the eighth day of the passover festival, the book being allegorically interpreted by the rabbis as having reference to the history of the exodus. The book has a twofold significance: first, it is “the expression of pure marital love as ordained of God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust—the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. The secondary and larger interpretation is of Christ the Son and His heavenly bride the Church” (Scofield).
What is the Septuagint?
“The word “septuagint” is from the Latin septuaginta, meaning “seventy”; and it is the name of a Greek version of the Old Testament books made between 280 and 130 B.C. It contains also the apocryphal books. According to a legend preserved in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, the translation was made at Alexandria in Egypt in 72 days by 72 learned Jews from Jerusalem (six from each of the twelve tribes) at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before Christ. It is the version used by the Greek church. The traditional 70 or 72 translators became known as “The Seventy,” and their translation as The Septuagint. Where does the Old Testament end, and the New Testament begin?
According to the printer, the Old Testament ends with the book of Malachi, and the New Testament begins with the book of Matthew. But, strictly speaking, this is not true. John the Baptist was not a New Testament character, but the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, according to the Lord Jesus Himself (Matthew 11:11-12). The New Testament did not begin until the blood of Christ was shed. Just before going to the cross our Lord established the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. Taking the cup in His hand, He said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25). This was just after He had celebrated the last passover with His disciples. The New Testament began with the crucifixion of Christ, His resurrection and ascension into Heaven, and the descent of the Holy Spirit as recorded in the second chapter of Acts, in which chapter the New Testament Church had its birth.
Why do we have four Gospels instead of one? The reason for this is that it has pleased the Holy Spirit of Truth to present the Lord Jesus in four characters, corresponding to the four cherubim of Ezekiel and The Revelation. The first is like a lion, the second like a calf or ox, the third has a face as the face of a man, and the fourth is like a flying eagle. In Matthew the Lord Jesus is presented as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the King of Israel. In Mark He is shown as the devoted Servant, toiling patiently according to His Father’s will, and finally yielding up His life as a substitutionary sacrifice. This is the ox character, always ready for service. In Luke He is presented as the Son of Man, representing a lost race and bearing its sins. John describes Him as the Son of God, who, like a flying eagle came from Heaven and returned to Heaven, the eternal God incarnate. Therefore we have four Gospel records instead of one. The Holy Spirit of Truth has been pleased to have it so and it is not for us to cut up His work and patch it together into “harmonies” or “interwoven Gospels.” Let us rather take up these books reverently and separately as we have received them from Him, and let us seek to know His mind concerning them and the Person presented in them.
I have long believed that Matthew’s Gospel is the most misunderstood book in the Bible. The reason for this is that the average reader looks into Matthew’s Gospel and reads it without remembering that it is preeminently the Gospel of the Kingdom rather than the Gospel of the Grace of God. We look in vain in Matthew for any such statements of the way of salvation as we find on almost every page in the Gospel of John, which latter Gospel was written that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing, they might have life in His name (John 20:30-31). Matthew sets forth our Lord as the King preeminently, rather than as our individual Savior, and it is only as we remember these distinctions that these books become intelligible to us.
Why are the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke called The Synoptical Gospels, and why is the book of John not in included? The reason is that the first three Gospels present a synopsis of the life and work of our Lord, as John does not. “Synopsis” is really a Greek word, brought over into the English without change, and it is made up of sin, meaning “together,” and opsis, meaning “view.” The synoptics give a generally parallel view of our Lord’s life and work, while John presents his facts from another perspective, keeping in view all the time his purpose, as stated In John 20:30-31, that the reader “might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” thus obtaining “life through his name.” Are there two chapters alike in the Bible?
Yes. The 19th chapter of 2 Kings and the 37th of Isaiah are practically identical.
Why are so many, even among God’s people, ignorant of the Bible? The Bible is said to be the best seller of all books, and yet it seems to be that only one here and there among God’s people knows much about the Bible. Can you explain this? The answer is that God’s people who generally at their conversion love the Bible and read it and study it, do not go on obeying it. There is a law of Revelation by which God reveals truth only so far as His child obeys it. When God reveals the truth, and the Christian obeys that truth, then God reveals more truth. So long as the Christian goes on submitting himself to the truth already revealed, God goes on revealing more truth. When the time comes that the Christian shrinks back from obeying that which God sets forth in His Word, that Christian stops loving the Word and stops understanding it. There is no use in saying, “I do not quite understand this, and I will set it aside and go on,” for one cannot go on that way. The only way on is through that road which God has pointed out. You cannot go around it, you cannot go under it, you cannot go over it, but you must go through it, and you must be fair with God if you would grow in grace and in knowledge. It is a great tragedy that so many of God’s people seem to be perfectly willing to go on in ignorance of His Word.
What doesRevelation 22:18mean?
Revelation 22:18-19 should be taken together, and the whole passage constitutes a solemn warning against tampering with the Book of the Revelation. Whoever does such a thing will suffer for it at the hand of God.
It ought to be added that the words in verse 19, “book of life,” are incorrect, and the matter has been set right by the Revised Version which reads, “God shall take away his part from the tree of life,” instead of the “book of life.” No one’s part is ever taken away from the book of life. Can you tell us why the Greek language was chosen for the first writing of the New Testament books? A very interesting question. The probable answer is that God in His wisdom chose Greek as the medium of the New Testament message, because Greek was already a finished language and was almost universally employed throughout the world of that day. We ought to thank God that the Hebrew and Greek languages were employed for the original manuscripts of the Bible because both of these languages were already finished, and therefore subject to little or no change through the centuries that followed. If a new language had been employed such, for example, as English is now, it would have been a tragedy, because as the centuries came and went the language would be so changed as to make it unintelligible to modern readers. All this is just another sign of the immeasurable wisdom of God.
I have heard reference made to “the principle of the norm in Bible study.” Can you explain what is meant? The principle of the norm is a familiar principle in the commercial world. There is a Bureau of Standards in Washington where may be found the standard yardstick, the pound weight, bushel measure, and so on, and all over this country these standards must be conformed to in obedience to law.
Just so, there are in the Bible standards or norms. Every doctrine of Scripture has its norm. That is to say, every doctrine of Scripture has some place in Scripture assigned to it where the Spirit of God gives us full information about that particular doctrine. For example, the norm of the doctrine of resurrection is the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians; of the doctrine of faith, the eleventh chapter of Hebrews; for the doctrine of love, the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians; of the doctrine of the glorious second coming of Christ, the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and of the doctrine of the Rapture, or the catching away of the saved to meet the Lord in the air, the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians.
Much confusion would be avoided if the principle of the norm were always observed. To illustrate: If we were to listen to the Spirit of God as He unfolds the doctrine of the Rapture in the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians, we should stop talking about “a partial Rapture,” or the catching away of only a certain few of God’s born-again people. Here we are taught that those who are to be caught up include all “who sleep in Jesus,” and all “who are alive and remain at His coming.” The doctrine of the Rapture is frequently mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, and every mention of it when interpreted in view of the principle of the norm will be made perfectly clear as conforming to that principle. It is only when we avoid the principle of the norm and build up our doctrine upon isolated passages independently of that principle that we come into trouble. The Bible is its own best commentary. Would you tell us the meaning of the words in1 Corinthians 2:13, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual”? Does this mean that Paul in writing the New Testament searched through the Old Testament for material? By no means. In this second chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul is setting forth the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, “the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (verse 9). In the tenth verse he declares that these “things which God hath prepared for them that love him” have been revealed to him, in common with the other writers of the Scripture, by the Spirit of God who “searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” In verse 13 he says that these things thus revealed to him are transmitted by him, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men” (R V., margin). In other words, the Bible is written for those who love God and for none other. There is no use in anyone else even trying to understand the Scriptures, for “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerneth all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man” (verses 14,15, literal translation).
It ought to be said in this connection that the Gospel of John is addressed primarily to unbelievers that they may be saved. It is written that men “might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” in order that believing they “might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31). The Gospel of John, therefore, is the book which unbelievers should read to lead them to salvation; and after they are saved, then they have a share in the rest of the Scriptures which are “prepared for them that love” God.
What is the meaning of the words in the intersections of the 119th Psalm?
They are the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in their proper order; and in the original text each verse of the section bearing a certain letter begins with that letter. The Psalm is an “acrostic.” The same thing is seen in the book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and you will observe that each chapter in Lamentations has 22 verses, except chapter 3, which has 66 verses, or three times 22. The chapters containing 22 verses each begin each verse with a Hebrew letter, using all the letters of the alphabet in succession; and the third chapter has three verses for each letter. This question has been put to me, and I pass it on to you: If it be true that more space is given in the Bible to the restoration of Israel than to any other one theme, why is not the Bible more for the Jews than for us?
It is beyond question that the Bible is preeminently a Jewish book, and that it was written, first of all, for the Jews; as it is written, “To them were committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). The Gospel itself is “to the Jew first” (Romans 1:16). It is only “through their fall,” or through their failure to receive the Gospel, that “salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them [that is, the Jews] to jealousy” (Romans 11:11). Moreover, it is only through their future salvation as a nation that universal blessing is to reach the Gentile world. “For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15).
Someone made the statement that no passage of Scripture can have more than one true and right interpretation. If this is so, how are we to know what is that true and right interpretation? No passage of Scripture can have two interpretations which conflict with each other. I am sure that many passages on prophecy have a local application as well as a broader one, but that is another matter.
What is the meaning of italics in our Bible? I have been asked the meaning of this and every explanation I offer is rejected. I should like very much to have your word on it.
Words printed in italics in the English Bible are usually words supplied by the translators “to make sense.” That is to say, there are no words in the original which are represented by these supplied words, but the translators have supplied them, believing them to be needed to convey the idea intended by the writer. They ought to be carefully watched, for very often they confuse the sense instead of clearing it. Is the Bible always to be understood literally?
I answer by quoting from Dr. C. I. Scofield. He says there is a difference between the historical and the prophetical portions of the Word of God. Of the Historical Scriptures he says: “These are (1) literally true. The events recorded occurred. And yet (2) they have (perhaps more often than we suspect) an allegorical or spiritual significance. Example, the history of Isaac and Ishmael (Galatians 4:22-31). Who can doubt that the narrative portions of Scripture abound in spiritual analogies? For example, the story of Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:1-13); of Isaiah’s cleansing (Isaiah 6:1-8), etc. It is then permitted—while holding firmly the historical verity—reverently to spiritualize the historical Scriptures.”
Continuing, Dr. Scofield says of the Prophecies: “Here we reach the bound of absolute literalness. Figures are often found in the prophecies, but the figure invariably has a literal fulfillment. Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfillment of prophecy. Since God has invariably fulfilled prophecy with exact literalness, this rule for the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is established by God Himself. Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel always Israel, Zion always Zion. But the inspired rule given in 2 Peter 1:20 must ever be obeyed by the student of prophecy: ‘Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.’ In other words, no prophecy is to be interpreted by itself, but must be collated with all the other prophetic utterances on that subject. The sum total of all revelation concerning any subject is the true doctrine of Scripture upon that subject. A further caution forms the golden rule of Scripture interpretation—study the context. Simply to read what precedes and what follows any passage will, in most cases, clear up its difficulties.” An illustration of the statement, “Figures are often found in the prophecies, but the figure invariably has a literal fulfillment,” follows: “It would be, perhaps, more accurate to say, the thing figured, or the meaning hidden in the figure, has a literal fulfillment. For instance, in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel the prophet sees a vision of a valley full of dry bones. Then as he views the bones, he sees them covered with flesh and skin; and they stand up, an exceeding great army. This is the figure. Verses 11 to 14 explain the figure. These bones are the whole house of Israel, and the meaning of the new life given to the bones is explained to be a future restoration of Israel to their own land—the land of Palestine. The thing figured by the vision of the valley of dry bones will be literally fulfilled. Israel will be literally brought back to her own land, according to verses 11-14. Then follows the figure of the two sticks that become one stick in the hand of the prophet. That is explained to mean a future reunion of the ten-tribe kingdom with Judah and Benjamin. There shall no more be two nations, but one nation, like the one stick made out of the two sticks, and that will be literally fulfilled. In other words, we have but to ascertain the meaning of the figure, and we have then something that in the plan of God will be fulfilled literally.”
1. During His earthly ministry did the Lord Jesus have the Old Testament books just as we have them?
2. Did He have and quote from other books not now included in the canon?
3. Do we find quotations in the New Testament from all the books now found in the Old Testament?
1. The Scriptures of our Lord’s time upon earth were the same 39 books as are now included in the Old Testament, though they were not arranged in the same order. They were grouped in three parts or sections: (1) The Law; (2) The Prophets; and (3) The Psalms; and this was in our Lord’s mind when He used the language of Luke 24:44; His endorsement covered the whole body of Old Testament books.
2. Doubtless our Lord knew of the many writings claiming to be inspired, but I am not aware that He quoted from any but the recognized canonical book.
3. Not from all of them, but from very many of them, and particularly from those books which latterly have been the object of severe criticism on the part of those who deny inspiration; for example, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel, Jonah, etc. Our Lord Himself and the apostolic writers gave special endorsement to those books which have been attacked by the enemy. Is the Catholic Bible in any respect like the Protestant Bible? The Roman Catholic Bible is a translation from the same manuscripts as the Protestant Bible. The translation is not fair in some places, however. The Roman Catholic Bible includes certain Apocryphal books between the Old and New Testaments which are discarded by the Protestant churches. The Roman Catholic Bible is called the Douay Version and may be purchased at any bookstore where religious books are sold.
I have always been accustomed to believe in the truth of the Holy Scriptures, from beginning to end. But now I find a difficulty. For instance: 2 Samuel 23:8 says that the Tachmonite slew 800 men at one time. In 1 Chronicles 11:11, where he is called “the Hachmonite,” the number of men he slew is reduced to 300. One of these statements is not true.
Again, compare 1 Samuel 28:6 and 1 Chronicles 10:14. You cannot believe both.
These are just samples and it is not important that we believe either of these accounts. But Jesus Christ said, “The scripture cannot be broken.” Then what is scripture?
These are very obviously instances of copyists’ errors. It is only the original manuscripts that are inerrant. Yet it is truly wonderful how free from error even the translations are, for there is no error even in them that affects any vital doctrine.
I have heard it said that the latter part ofRomans 8:1should be omitted; that is, the words, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. But how may we know that these words should be omitted? Who says so? and by what authority do they say so? And if they should be omitted, why are they not omitted from the English Bible itself?
There is no dispute among textual critics about it: they all agree that the verse should read simply, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” and that the remainder of the verse as found in the common English version is an interpolation, which should be omitted. Evidently, some copyist thought the statement as it stood was “just too good to be true” and therefore tried to improve upon it. The interpolated words are not found in the ancient manuscripts, and they are omitted from the revised edition of the English Bible, as indeed they should be. Which book, apart from the Bible, has been the greatest blessing to you?
Without hesitation I answer, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, by Dr. C. I. Scofield. It is only a little book, but I personally know of many Christian workers who declare that they got their first intelligent understanding of the Word of God through this little book; and this also is my own personal testimony.