Inductive Bible Study

[h***@gmail.com]

Inductive Bible study uses the Bible as the main source of information
about the Bible. Here is a good illustration I heard about what this
means.

If I decided that I wanted to learn about frogs, I could use one of two
methods. One way would be to go to the library and check out all the
books that had information about frogs. I could then read them and find
out what each different author had to say about frogs. When their
information conflicted, I would have to try and decide who was right.
This could all be done without a lot of effort and I wouldn't even have
to touch a frog.

The other way I could go about my research is to go down to the pond
and find a frog. I'd observe the surroundings, which insects it ate,
which it left behind, when it was awake, when it went to sleep, how it
mated, where, when and how it laid it's eggs, etc. When I was finished,
I'd take the frog back with me to the lab and dissect it so that I
could see the inner workings of a frog. I would then have first hand
experience with the frog and would know for sure that my information
was accurate. It would take more time and effort, but I would not
quickly forget what I had seen for myself.

I'm sure you can see my point. If we study the Bible itself, asking the
Holy Spirit to teach us, we will know it because we know it - not just
because we heard someone else say it.

Visit our group Better Bible Study:
http://groups.google.com/group/Better-Bible-Study

[B.G. Kent]

Post by h***@gmail.com
I'm sure you can see my point. If we study the Bible itself, asking the
Holy Spirit to teach us, we will know it because we know it - not just
because we heard someone else say it.

B - Fantastic! I believe the very same thing although I use different
words perhaps. Use the Inner God or Christ to guide you to what is
right...be it the Holy Bible or the Holy Koran etc.

I.M.O
Blessings
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by h***@gmail.com
Inductive Bible study uses the Bible as the main source of information
about the Bible. Here is a good illustration I heard about what this
means.
If I decided that I wanted to learn about frogs, I could use one of two
methods.

What? Do you really believe that these are the only two? And do you
really believe they are mutually exclusive?

Post by h***@gmail.com
One way would be to go to the library and check out all the books
that had information about frogs. I could then read them and find out
what each different author had to say about frogs. When their
information conflicted, I would have to try and decide who was right.
This could all be done without a lot of effort and I wouldn't even
have to touch a frog.

Not having to touch a frog will sound like a big advantage to a lot of
people;)

But seriously: this first way is the only way to profit from the many
decades of serious frog research that has already been accomplished by
other people. To refuse to take advantage of this research would just
be foolish.

Post by h***@gmail.com
The other way I could go about my research is to go down to the pond
and find a frog. I'd observe the surroundings, which insects it ate,
which it left behind, when it was awake, when it went to sleep, how
it mated, where, when and how it laid it's eggs, etc. When I was
finished, I'd take the frog back with me to the lab and dissect it so
that I could see the inner workings of a frog. I would then have
first hand experience with the frog and would know for sure that my
information was accurate. It would take more time and effort, but I
would not quickly forget what I had seen for myself.

Yes, it would take more time and effort. In fact, you have _seriously_
understated how much more. It would take you several decades of your
life to learn enough to be a useful frog biologist if you rely on this
method alone.

This is why people who are really serious about knowledge do NOT rely
solely on either of your two ways. On the contrary: they recognize
_early on_ in their endeavor that they have to mix the two, taking
full advantage of the work of their predecessors, but at the same
time, rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty
themselves.

This is why, for example, Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen
further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of
giants".

Post by h***@gmail.com
I'm sure you can see my point.

Why yes, I can. In fact, I can see it so clearly, I can see where you
have gone wrong.

Post by h***@gmail.com
If we study the Bible itself, asking the Holy Spirit to teach us, we
will know it because we know it - not just because we heard someone
else say it.

And just as you were wrong with your example of studying frogs, so you
are wrong here, and in much the same way. For many have tried to
approach the Bible following your excessively self-reliant method,
ignoring the work of all those who have gone before us, and they ended
up in disaster. Remember Jim Jones? He was convinced he was "studying
the Bible itself, asking the Holy Spirit to teach us". And he
certainly convinced his followers, too. Yet look at how he ended up.
Yeah, if you really want _worse_ Bible study! For your endorsement of
such bad methodology really does guarantee that it will be worse.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by h***@gmail.com
I'm sure you can see my point. If we study the Bible itself, asking the
Holy Spirit to teach us, we will know it because we know it - not just
because we heard someone else say it.

B - Fantastic! I believe the very same thing
although I use different
words perhaps.

They are not just different words; they are different words meaning VERY
different things.

Post by B.G. Kent
Use the Inner God

This is already a HUGE difference. This is closer to Hindu paganism than to
Christianity. Come to think of it, so is a LOT of what you say.

Post by B.G. Kent
or Christ to guide you to what is
right...be it the Holy Bible or the Holy Koran etc.

And here is another big difference. He said specifically "Bible", you play
bait-and-switch on us, saying "Bible or Koran".

But these are as different as oranges and apples. So no, you are not saying the
same thing at all, no matter how hard you try to hide this fact.

Post by B.G. Kent
I.M.O
Blessings
Bren