Facebook Twitter Google Digg Reddit LinkedIn Pinterest StumbleUpon Email

Go to the Home Page

Bibliology, according to the opinions of almost everyone I can find, is the study of what the Bible is and what it says about itself.

Note: The outlines referenced in this page need to be updated to the 7th Edition. But these serve their purpose well enough to make the point. The 7th Edition format is far more detailed than the one seen here.

A good example of this is found in the following outline taken from a web article on Bible.org on the subject "Bibliology - The Doctrine of the Written Word" by J. Hampton Keathley, III.

Now friends, I don't disagree with much that this author had to say about the Bible, if anything. But I believe that Bibliology is much more than simply examining what the Bible "is", and what it says about itself. That is all good information, and things that every Believer should know; but in my opinion, it is not true Bibliology. If anything, it is just barely skimming the surface of true Bibliology, because it doesn't really tell you what the Bible actually says about itself.

It is kind of like saying, "The President of the United States is a human being"; and then assuming that this is all that we need to know about this person before electing him. Anyone with experience in our political system would understand that we need to know far more about this person before we will trust him/her with our votes to assume the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth. We need to know whether he/she is trustworthy, honest, upholds the basic values that most of us hold dear: free enterprise; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the value of human life, and so on.

If you really want to know what the Bible says about itself, you must examine and study each Book individually, to learn:

Now I want to be fair here: Bible.org has posted many studies of individual Bible books which are quite valuable and enlightening, as far as they go. However, their outlines of each Book are not based upon the true format of the Bible, which is based upon the Golden Ratio; therefore, studying the Bible using their material will only result in frustration and more confusion about what the Bible really teaches.

I will use some of the material from Bible.org as an example of what it is wrong with Biblical scholarship today, and since Bible.org (as far as I can tell) represents an "Evangelical" (soft Fundamentalist) perspective (since some of its posters were educated at Dallas Theological Seminary [an Evangelical institution]), I think it is typical of what you will hear and read from most Bible-believing pastors/teachers/college professors. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (usually, but not always) share similar Biblical views on core theological doctrines. There is much disagreement on other issues, which I don't want to get into here.

The following was copied from the introduction to Matthew from Bible.org:

 

Now friends, let me offer a critique of this introduction to Matthew: Have you really learned anything about the Gospel of Matthew after having read this? Have you learned anything about the central theme of Mathew? My answer is "very little".

What is correct: A, B, E(1).

What is partially correct: D.

What is false or simply confusing information: C, D, E and E(2).

I agree with A and B, but does it really provide any insight into Matthew itself? No. I don't really care what the Catholic religion did with or thinks about the Book of Matthew. It is a false religion and is not worthy of study, except what God says about it in Revelation 17.

C is just plain wrong: it is not the single most important document of the Christian faith: there is no one "most important document of the Christian faith"; all of the Bible is "the most important document of the Christian faith". Ascribing that importance to a single document in the Bible goes much too far and distorts the Bible. And Matthew is not the "fullest and most systematic account of the life and teachings of Jesus": Luke fits that bill, but not Matthew.

D: Matthew does form a logical bridge between the Old and New Covenants, but there is no such thing as an Old and New "Testament": the Golden Ratio format, which is from God, proves that this is a false concept. The rest of D is true as far as it goes.

E (main): These statements about the purposes of Matthew are just plain wrong: the Golden Ratio theme for Matthew proves that

E.1: True, Matthew is aimed directly at the Jewish people, and was clearly written to help convert Jews to faith in Christ.

E.2: Only partially true: Matthew is a record of the Jew's Messiah (Jesus) speaking to the Jews as Believers under the Old Covenant, not as Christians under the New Covenant. The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus speaking to the Jews, and teaching THEM how to live as God truly wanted them to live under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was not yet in force, and sacrificial offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem were still honored by God (Matthew 5:23-24; 23:16-21), until the veil of the Temple was torn in two pieces when Jesus died on the cross and did away with the Old Covenant completely. Trying to interpret the Gospel of Matthew without also taking this context into account leads to false interpretations and a warped theology.


Now let's examine an outline of Matthew from Daniel B. Wallace, from Bible.org (sub-points omitted to make it easier to follow).


Now I want to say before proceeding any further, that I greatly respect Dr. Wallace, and his ability with the Scriptures. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has authored a standard textbook on Biblical Greek, and currently is a professor of "New Testament Studies" at his Alma Mater. My purpose here is not to put him down, humiliate him, or denigrate him in any way.

I have used his outline of Matthew merely as an illustration of how poorly understood the Bible in general is among even the most eminent Bible scholars, such as Dr. Wallace. The reason for the haphazardness and lack of any real information in this outline of Matthew is because Dr. Wallace was using either the King James Version or some other modern Bible versions that follow the false Old and New Testament format, along with the "chopped-up" format of Chapters and Verses that other Bible versions have inherited from the Robert Stephanus Chapter and Verse system.

The Stephanus Chapter and Verse system of organizing (or rather, disorganizing) the Bible makes it almost impossible to discern the true "flow" and "movement" of Scripture, even by such eminent and capable theologians as Dr. Wallace. It places a "grid" of confusing and false organization of the Bible text over the Bible, so that interpreters feel compelled to follow it, and try to interpret the Bible using it in spite of its obvious shortcomings.

Therefore, the reason for the poor outline of Matthew from Dr. Wallace has nothing to do with how smart or capable he is with the Scriptures, because I have read his textbook on Greek, and believe me, he has probably forgotten more about Greek than I will ever know! He is probably one of the best there is on that subject, and on the subject matter that he has been teaching for a number of years. Nonetheless, even Dr. Wallace wasn't able to correctly discern the true outline for Matthew, because of the Stephanus format "grid" which blocks a clear view of the Scriptures, and forced him to come up with the best outline that he could, which is not much different than other outlines of Matthew that you could find from other Bible scholars.

I want to emphasize here that I am not picking on Dr. Wallace! I am merely using him as an example of what you will find with other Bible scholars of all Evangelical or Fundamental stripes. I'm sure that he is a wonderful Christian, and loves the Lord. But we can learn much by studying his material, and comparing it with the Golden Ratio format, which is why I am doing this.

One other shortcoming of Wallace's outline that I would like to note is this: each outline point just makes a statement: "The Incarnation of the King", "The Crucifixion of the King" etc. But these kind of statements do not provide any real information or interpretation of Matthew itself. For example, VI.E. says, "The Predictions of the King concerning the Judgment of the Nation and the Consummation of the Kingdom". But what are those predictions? Here is his sub-outline for that point:

In short, Dr. Wallace provides no information in this outline about what the predictions are, or what they mean in the context of the Bible. To be completely fair, in the "argument" section of the webpage, Dr. Wallace does fill out his outline with comments about the content. Here are his remarks about the short section from Matthew 24:1-26:1:

"The ultimate proof that the nation had been rejected by God would, of course, be the demise of its religious infrastructure. Thus Jesus led his disciples out of the temple—in symbolic rejection of it (24:1-2)—and brought them to the Mount of Olives (24:3). There he revealed not only signs of the end of the Jewish cult (24:2, 15), but also of the consummation of the kingdom as seen in the king’s return in glory (24:26-45). Speaking as a human prophet—rather than as the omniscient God (24:36)—Jesus not only did not know when his own return would be. He also did not know that the (initial) destruction of Jerusalem would take place at least two thousand years before his return. One thing is for sure: Jesus saw the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, in some sense, taking place within a few years (24:34).

The Olivet Discourse then concludes with three analogies—all of which are designed to strengthen the disciples’ resolve for perseverance and preparedness. (25:1-46). The parable of the ten virgins addresses preparedness (25:1-13), the parable of the talents addresses faithfulness and perseverance (25:14-30), and the analogy of the sheep and goats addresses judgment and reward at the end of the age (25:31-46).

The Olivet Discourse concludes with the now familiar refrain, “When Jesus had finished saying all these things” (26:1). Thus ends the final major discourse of the king."

Some of his remarks I cannot agree with, such as the comment that Jesus "did not know that the initial destruction of Jerusalem would take place at least two thousand years before his return." On what basis does he draw this conclusion? Jesus was Jehovah God, walking in a Temple of flesh; therefore He did know that Jerusalem would be destroyed in 70 AD.

In his human condition (he set aside the independent exercise of his Divine attributes for the purpose of becoming a perfect Man, so that He would be able to die for the sins of all mankind), He "did not know", but as God, He certainly did know. This is all very difficult theology, so we need to be careful to make statements that are fully consistent with the written Word of God and not go beyond it on our own authority. I think that Dr. Wallace erred slightly with this statement.

If all that you knew about the Bible was the outlines provided to you by the Golden Ratio format outlines, you would have a good starting point to analyze the text on your own, even if you had no formal training in the Bible. I'm not saying that formal training isn't a good thing: it is, and I believe in it; I've earned my own Bachelor's and Master's degrees from an excellent Bible college and Seminary. All I'm saying that we need more than just formal training: we need a Bible version which is accurately organized and formatted with the true Themes of each Scripture division, so that we can see, at a glance, what the Bible really teaches; and the Golden Ratio Format provides that.

Most Believers are forced to rely upon what someone else tells them about the Bible, and they never really know for themselves whether it is true or not; and that is a neccesary thing in most cases, since most people don't have time to really dig into the Scriptures and learn it in a systematic way. The Golden Ratio Format provides all Believers with the tools to see the Bible as it really is, and understand the Bible apart from their "interpreter". It gives the people of God something that they don't have now, and I believe is desperately needed.

Here is the high-level outline of Matthew from the Kingdom Bible, down to the Chapter Level:

The Book of Matthew: Volume, Parts, Chapters

 

O   Book 4.1: The Gospel of Jesus Christ explained for Old Covenant Jews (Matthew)

C   Part 1: The Son of David presented himself to the Old Covenant Jews as their King and Messiah

U   Chapter 1.1: The Son of David fulfilled the Old Covenant prophecies of his Virgin Birth and Lineage

C   Chapter 1.2: The Son of David fulfilled the Old Covenant prophecy of a Prophet like Moses

C   Chapter 1.3: The Son of David fulfilled the Old Covenant prophecies of the Messiah with miracles

O   Chapter 1.4: The false teachers rejected the Gospel of the Kingdom from Jesus and his Apostles

O   Chapter 1.5: The false teachers had corrupted the Kingdom of Heaven, so the people could not receive the truth

C   Part 2: The Son of David rejected the Old Covenant Kingdom of Zion in favor of the New Covenant

U   Chapter 2.1: The Son of David began building the first New Covenant Assembly with his Apostles as his first members

C   Chapter 2.2: The Son of David prophesied the destruction of the Old Covenant Kingdom of Zion

C   Chapter 2.3: The Son of David prophesied his return to establish the New Covenant Kingdom of Zion

O   Chapter 2.4: The Son of David was betrayed and denied by his closest friends according to the Prophets

O   Chapter 2.5: The Son of David was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead according to the Prophets

 


A careful study of the Golden Ratio outline of Matthew down to the paragraph level (shown only to the Chapter level here) shows that the purpose/theme (singular) of Matthew was to show that Jesus Christ came to the Jews as their Messiah, offered them the Kingdom of Heaven right then, if they would believe in Him. But, of course, the Jews did not do that, and so Jesus withdrew his offer of the Kingdom and created the first Assembly of Believers using the Apostles as the core of his new congregation. From there, the Book shows him preparing his Assembly for his crucifixion and resurrection. The Golden Ratio outline of Matthew shows this clearly through the Themes of the entire Book, the Themes of each Part, Chapter, Section, and Paragraph.

In short, saying that the purposes of the Book were evangelism and discipleship is giving only a teeny-tiny sip of information about what is actually in the Book of Matthew, and doesn't really tell you what Matthew is all about. In fact, this illustrates perfectly something that I have noticed recently: it is very easy to say something that is true, and yet not really be saying "the whole truth".

Someone said, "The Bible is about Jesus!" Well, that statement on one level is true: the Bible is "about Jesus", but it is "about" far more than "just Jesus": the Theme of the Bible is "The Kingdom", which is why the Kingdom Bible is named the "Kingdom Bible" version.

The Bible is not about "King James" or "The New Century" or "The New King James" or "The New International Version" etc; it is about "The Kingdom": how it began in the Garden of Eden, how it was lost by Adam to the devil, how God replaced the Kingdom which was lost by creating the Old Covenant Kingdom of Zion using the nation of Israel, how the Jews lost their Old Covenant Kingdom and how it was temporarily replaced by the Universal Kingdom of God (not the "church" per se) where many Assemblies of Jesus Christ around the world are preaching the Gospel of Christ to bring as many souls as possible into the Kingdom of God before the Great Tribulation comes, the restoration of the Kingdom of Zion using the Jews after the Great Tribulation is complete in the future Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the ultimate restoration of the unified Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Zion under God the Father in the "Final State" (Revelation 21). The Bible is about the Kingdom: how it was lost, and how it will be ultimately restored; it is not just "about Jesus", although certainly the Lord Jesus Christ is the King of Zion and the only Way to Heaven, etc. But we are talking about what "the Bible" as a whole is about, not about particular "actors" in the Bible, the most important of whom is the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the Theme of the Bible.

The Golden Ratio outline of the Bible on the Division and Volume level illustrates this perfectly:

 

The full details of how those Themes are justified are found within the sub-themes of each Volume.

Now the point I'm driving at is this: the Golden Ratio Format shows us what true Bibliology is: it is the study of each Book of the Bible in detail, learning what the correct organization (format) of the text is, and what are the true Themes of each division of that format; then assembling a unified view of the Bible overall, based upon the Themes of each Book, which are based upon the Themes of each sub-division of each Book.

The process is very similar to building a house: you start with a foundation, then build the floors, walls, ceiling, and roof: all based securely upon the foundation. Now if your foundation is not solid (e.g. based on sand or a peat bog, the house will be unstable, and prone to shifting, which causes the floor, walls, and ceiling to crack. And if it is bad enough, your entire house will eventually fall apart: not a good thing.

 


So, what is Theology? We have just examined in detail what Bibliology really is, but what is Theology, per se?

Literally, "Theology" is "the study of God". In other words, (in the Bible-believing Christian context) it is the study of God and his dealings with man on a TOPICAL level versus a Bibliology level.

For example, a study of God and his dealings with man using "Theology" would go like this:

Do you see the difference between Bibliology and Theology? Bibliology is far more difficult to learn than Theology, because it involves a complete study of the Scriptures, using a correct organization of the Scriptures with accurate Themes for each Scripture text division, and all organized in a way that makes sense. The Golden Ratio format is the ultimate in the study of Bibliology, because it provides all of those things.

In Bible College and in Seminary, typically the students learn the Bible through topical theological studies, and not Bibliology. This is a necessary shortcoming, because they are really just getting their first taste of the Bible in a formal training environment, and teaching something like the Golden Ratio outline in a Bible college setting would probably overwhelm most of the students, if not the faculty.

The level of detail in the Golden Ratio outlines is completely unprecedented in the history of Biblical studies, and will challenge even professors with many doctorates. But the great thing is that, because the Golden Ratio format "makes sense" once you understand how the Golden Ratio works through the UCCOO scheme, it is not difficult to master if you are willing to put forth the effort.

Do you think you could master Dr. Wallace's outline of Matthew? I couldn't, and don't want to!! It is irregular and confusing; and, it isn't right, so you shouldn't bother trying to learn it anyway (with all due respect to Dr. Wallace).

By the way, I am not attempting to exalt myself over anyone or anything: if there is anything good or meritorious about the Golden Ratio format, it is because of the Lord Jesus Christ, and ONLY because of Him. The Lord Jesus Christ called me to this ministry, and I want to be careful to give Him all of the honor and glory.

"But “he that glories, let him glory in [Jehovah]”: for not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends." (2 Corinthians 10:17-18)