Lc 11:28 « Heureux plutôt ceux qui écoutent la parole de Dieu, et qui la gardent ! »

Ap 1:3 "Heureux celui qui lit et ceux qui entendent les paroles de la prophétie..."

1 Tm 4:13 « applique-toi à la lecture [des Écritures]... »

Ac 17:11 « Ces Juifs avaient des sentiments plus nobles que ceux de Thessalonique; ils reçurent la parole avec beaucoup d'empressement, et ils examinaient chaque jour les Écritures, pour voir si ce qu'on leur disait était exact. »

2 Tm 2:15 « "Efforce-toi [KJV `Étudies'] de te présenter devant Dieu comme un homme éprouvé, un ouvrier qui n'a point à rougir, qui dispense droitement la parole de la vérité. »

Ps 119:11 « Je serre ta parole dans mon coeur, afin de ne pas pécher contre toi. »

Ps 1:2-3 « Mais qui trouve son plaisir dans la loi de l'Éternel, Et qui la médite jour et nuit ! Il est comme un arbre planté près d'un courant d'eau, Qui donne son fruit en sa saison, Et dont le feuillage ne se flétrit point : Tout ce qu'il fait lui réussit. »

The Navigators illustrate this by saying that as the thumb can touch all the fingers, we can meditate on the Word as we do any of the first four. Meditation is a key to revelation. A new Christian needs to hear and read the Bible more than they need to study and memorize it. This is so that they become familiar with the overall message of the Bible.

Choisir un thème et le suivre, via les références croisées ou par un index.

Étudier la vie d'un personnage biblique, par exemple celle de Joseph dans Gn 37-50.

Étudier un certain passage : paragraphe, chapitre ou livre.

Qu'est ce que cela signifie? Qu'est ce que cela signifie dans la texte original ? Attention aux définitions. Ne lui faites pas dire ce que ça ne signifie pas.

What do the verses around it say? "Context is king" is the rule -- the passage must make sense within the structure of the entire passage and book.

Que disent les versets à propos de ce thème à travers l'ensemble de la Bible ? Dieu ne se contredit pas, donc notre interprétation doit rester cohérente face aux autres Écritures.

Find these verses:

Let's say you wanted to do a study of the word "redemption." First you would look up that word in the concordance and look up references listed for it. Then you could look up related words and references listed for them, e.g. "redeem, redeemed, ransom," even "buy" or "bought."

What if you noticed a contradiction in the KJV between Mt.7:1 « Judge not lest you be judged » and 1 Cor.2:15 « He that is spiritual judgeth all things. » Maybe there are two different Greek words here, both being translated "judge" in English? (We're using Strong's from here out.)

À l'aide de la même méthode, il est possible de trouver la signification des noms dans les dictionnaires Grec ou Hébreu.

Recherchez ces noms et écrivez leur signification :

Jn.20:17 "Touch me not" (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't it? Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is risen, that He is too holy or something. But that doesn't seem right, so let's look it up in Spiros Zodhiates' The Complete Word Study New Testament (AMG Publishers, 1991).

Definition: Turning to John 20:17, above the word "Touch" we see "pim680." The letters give us a code for the part of speech, and the number refers to Strong's dictionary reference. Let's look up the definition (p. 879). "680. Haptomai; from hapto (681), touch. Refers to such handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from pselaphao (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates come right after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for "present imperative active (80)". On p.857, "Present Imperative. In the active voice, it may indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous or repeated action or, when it is negated, a command to stop doing something. " This is a negative command, so it is to stop doing something that is already occuring. So, what have we found?

Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying to stop holding him!

In James 5:14, Elders are told to pray and anoint someone who is sick. What is this anointing?

Definition of aleipho (218) - "to oil" (Strong's); but we also have another Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) - "to smear or rub with oil, i.e. to consecrate to an office or religious service" (Strong's). Since it's a verb, consider the tense also, "apta" aorist participle active. "The aorist participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous action...When its relaitonship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb." (Zodhiates p.851)

So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look back over the cross-references and the definitions, and sum up the difference: "aleipho" is a practical use of oil and "chrio" is a spiritual

As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the practical use of oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared for the man beat up by robbers he poured oil and wine in the wound. So oil had a medicinal use in Jesus' day.

Maintenant, mettons en pratique ce que l'on vient juste d'apprendre à Jc 5:14 "Quelqu'un parmi vous est-il malade ? Qu'il appelle les anciens de l'Église, et que les anciens prient pour lui, en l'oignant d'huile au nom du Seigneur." "oindre" désigne un acte pratique ou spirituel ? Pratique !

And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be better translated "having anointed," so the order is the anointing first, then the prayer ("in the name of the Lord"refers to the prayer, not the anointing). James 5 is saying that the elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him in the name of the Lord. Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of practical and spiritual in our God!

Dans une leçon précédente, nous avons considéré Jn 3:5 "...naît d'eau et d'Esprit..." D'après le contexte, quelle est l'eau dont on parle ici ?

Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be a big switch from the subject being discussed by Jesus and Nicodemus. Watch out for a sudden change of topic, it may be a clue that your interpretation has been derailed! The water is the amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.

1 Co 14:34 "que les femmes se taisent dans les assemblées" doit être considéré dans le contexte biblique de 1 Co 11:5 "Toute femme [...] qui prie ou qui prophétise..."

Acts 2:38 « And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins [...]" ». Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If this was the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to conclude that. But in the light of the clear teaching elsewhere that regeneration happens by faith in Christ, we have to interpret it otherwise. Peter is urging baptism as a way for his hearers to respond to the gospel. If baptism were the pathway to being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"?

« 3 days & 3 nights » (Mt.12:40) have led some to come up with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of Armstrongism. How could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise Sunday morning yet "be raised on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact meanings of "three" or "days" won't help explain the apparent contradiction.

We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a day as a full day, as we would count buckets of water (if there were six and one-half buckets of water, we would say there were 7 buckets of water even if one was only partly full). So to the Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full day, and days started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. = day 1. Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2. Saturday 6 p.m. to Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3. Interpreting within the cultural context keeps us out of trouble.

Gen.15:7-21. The historical context is that cutting animals in two and then walking between the pieces was the normal way of entering a contract in Abraham's day. Both parties walked between, taking the pledge that dismemberment would happen to them if they didn't live up to their part of the contract. But in this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral covenant.

« oeil en mauvais état » dans Mt 6:23.

Rule 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here. Rule 2, context: seems to confuse us even more. It doesn't seem to fit with what goes before and after! This should tip us off that we aren't understanding it rightly!!

What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, « evil eye ». Let's look up other uses of this idiom: Mt.20:15 "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because I am generous [lit. "good"]?" We find that having an "evil eye" is a Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious. Now go back to Mt.6 and notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the context.

Is.59:1 « Non, la main de l'Éternel n'est pas trop courte »

Dt 33:27 « Et sous ses bras éternels est une retraite. »

References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day Saints to prove that God was once a man just as we are. Once they convince people of that, they go on to teach that we can become God just like He is! At a lecture he was giving, a group of Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults) with an enumeration of verses like these. Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one more scripture: Ps.91:4 « He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings shalt thou trust ». W.M. said, « By the same rules of interpretation that you just proved God to be a man, you just proved that He is a bird ». The Mormons had to laugh as they realised the ridiculousness of their position.

The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in Lk.18:1-8. This story illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer. If we draw it into an allegory, what do we have?

Tout un éventail de brutalités se font jour : Dieu est peu disposé à protéger les droits des veuves, les prières "L'embêtent", etc.

The parable of the unrighteous steward in Lk.16:1-9. What is the point of the parable? Is it an allegory?

The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness in using what he had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have it. But he is not commended for his unethical behavior in cheating his master.