Dake Bible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

Rick4Him -> Dake Bible (6/11/2009 3:15:38 PM)

Hi All,

A good friend of mine at church just purchased a Dake Bible. He's not the only one at our church who uses one. I have read some comments from various apologetic websites concerning this study bible. I have a few concerns about Mr. Dakes bible. As I understand he makes his own study notes and he has very questionable takes on the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The question I have is, "does he rely upon his own interpretation or does he have a team of scholars to help in his endeavors?

Do you all have any concerns or positive comments on this Dake Bible? Thanks

Rick



EStan -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 3:42:05 PM)

I've never heard much good about the Dake Bible, Rick. I seem to remember RC James commenting on the Dake one time, a while back. Maybe if he drops in, he can share more about the problems.



navyblueret -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 4:12:14 PM)

Rick4Him, Shalom.

I too, know nothing about the Dake Bible, nor the man. A quick Google on 'Dake Bible,' brought up the following three sites, plus others. These site appear to have some commercial, some pro, and some con, articles for you to judge.

In Messiah. Arley

http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/drakesbible.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finis_Jennings_Dake

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d47.html



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 4:19:14 PM)

The Dake's Bible is an interesting read, with so many statistics that one can hardly keep up with them; but I do have a problem or three with some of his docritnal conclusions.

It has been a number of years since I have read it, but as I said what I enjoyed was the footnotes that seem to bring the Strongs concordance and dictionary to every page in easy reading form.

I am speaking to the number of times a certain word was used, great references to places mentioned and where else they are mentioned, people mentioned and where else they are mentioned; bloodlines, etc.

Thanks
RC



Rhomphaia -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 4:31:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick4Him

Hi All,

A good friend of mine at church just purchased a Dake Bible. He's not the only one at our church who uses one. I have read some comments from various apologetic websites concerning this study bible. I have a few concerns about Mr. Dakes bible. As I understand he makes his own study notes and he has very questionable takes on the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The question I have is, "does he rely upon his own interpretation or does he have a team of scholars to help in his endeavors?

Do you all have any concerns or positive comments on this Dake Bible? Thanks

Rick


I've owned a Dake Bible for 32 years, and not only have I read it from one end to the other numerous times, I have also read several of Finis Jennings Dake's books, including God's Plan for Man and Revelation Expounded. Very good scholarship, but I cannot say that I agree with all of his ideas.

So I'm pretty sure that I can answer any questions you might have about him and his study bible.

I can tell you that I do NOT agree with everything that Dake says (for example, I disagree with him about what he calls "the Pre-Adamite World"), but I can also tell you that while he does put some of his own spins on doctrines, there is nothing that I have ever encountered that was contrary to basic, orthodox Christianity in terms of the fundamentals of Christianity.

He does not accept most Calvinist interpretations, he does believe that Jesus is God and that salvation is ONLY through Him. He does accept the Trinity (his explanation of "tri-une God" really does walk right up to the edge of Tri-theistic, but even so, He acknowledges that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but there is ONE God).

Some of the web sites out there do NOT present his position accurately, so you may want to be careful about that.

Anything else you want to know, just ask, and I'll fill you in.



Rhomphaia -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 5:57:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navyblueret

Rick4Him, Shalom.

I too, know nothing about the Dake Bible, nor the man. A quick Google on 'Dake Bible,' brought up the following three sites, plus others. These site appear to have some commercial, some pro, and some con, articles for you to judge.

In Messiah. Arley

http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/drakesbible.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finis_Jennings_Dake

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d47.html


I have to give you an example of what I mean when I say these web sites do NOT present Dake's views accurately.

The first web site makes the claim that Dake denies the deity of Jesus by quoting the following note from his Bible:

"Gr. Christos, 'Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30 years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is 'Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

Then they go on to say:

No Biblically solid minister or Bible student would accept the quote above. It is rank heresy and must be totally rejected or our view of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God is compromised.

The thing you have to understand about Dake is that he speaks as a SCHOLAR, NOT as a theologian. So what he is saying here is that he does NOT believe the word "Christ" points to Jesus deity, because the scripture specifically says that the Father "made" Him the Messiah (and since Jesus was eternally God, the Father did not "make" Him God, the "Messiah" title cannot point to His divinity).

This is an example of how a scholar thinks. Ok, maybe technically true, but it misses something that even Dake acknowledges elsewhere: that only God could pay for our sins, which MEANS that only God could take on the mantle of the Messiah (showing that "Messiah" DOES point to divinity).

If you think from this footnote that Dake does NOT believe Jesus is God, you would be very mistaken.

Let me quote his notes on John 1:1

"The Word refers to Christ (v. 14; Rev. 19:13) and proves His pre-existence (Mic 5:1-2; Rev. 1:8, 11; 2:8; 22:13-16). He is an eternal Being as are also the Father and the Holy Spirit (Ps. 90:1-2; Heb. 9:14) They make up the Divine Trinity (1 Jn. 5:7)" (the underline is Dake's)

and he follows with this footnote:

"Not only was the Word "with God," but He "was God" and always will be as much divine as the other two members of the Trinity (Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 9:6-7; Jn. 1:1; Heb. 1:8-12; Rev. 1:8,11; 22:13-16)"

Again, the underlines are Dake's.

So the bottom line here is that when Dake is speaking about something, he gets very specific, he speaks as a scholar, NOT a theologian, and he expects the Bible to fully and completely line up with itself.

I cannot think of any fundamental theological issues upon which Dake is suspect. But let me know if you have any specific questions.



navyblueret -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 7:50:31 PM)

Rhomphaia, Shalom.

Thank you for the info. I was just trying to help find sites, as I have never had a Dake Bible.

From what you say, above, Dake and I see Jesus the same, although I have been called 'Hairy-Tick' by a number of people. The only way I have been able to reconcile Tri-une God was to insert the word 'as,' God as the Father, God as the Son, and God as the Holy Spirit; One God, three Facades; with the 'Son' having a full time earthly type body. Right or wrong, the calm, soft voice in my echo chamber, is content with that feeling.

I do enjoy reading your teaching, especially the Greek, and Hebrew.

In Messiah. Arley



EStan -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 8:57:56 PM)

If I may add to the discussion once more: the only copies of the Dake Bible that I've ever looked at appeared to be facsimile pages - the type was quite small and kind of hard to read, in my opinion. Not that that's necessarily a reason to dismiss a Bible outright! but for old dudes like me, even with reading glasses, it can make a difference.



Rhomphaia -> RE: Dake Bible (6/11/2009 10:05:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

If I may add to the discussion once more: the only copies of the Dake Bible that I've ever looked at appeared to be facsimile pages - the type was quite small and kind of hard to read, in my opinion. Not that that's necessarily a reason to dismiss a Bible outright! but for old dudes like me, even with reading glasses, it can make a difference.


Oh yes, the print is so small that I have to use reading glasses now. Also, the translation version is the KJV, which many find difficult to use, so those two facts will probably discourage many from getting it.

I have seen a large print version that is large enough for me to read, but I didn't bother to get it as I don't use the Dake Bible much anymore (since he spends lots of time explaining Greek and Hebrew, and I can read those for myself now).



Rick4Him -> RE: Dake Bible (6/13/2009 12:06:16 AM)

Thanks everyone for the info. Rhomphaia is agree thatsome critical websites are quick to find error without giving the whole picture. I don't know why people do this. I think of myself as an apologist and this kind of heretic hunting hurts the ministry of apologetics. Thanks for you info.

Rick



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/13/2009 10:29:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

If I may add to the discussion once more: the only copies of the Dake Bible that I've ever looked at appeared to be facsimile pages - the type was quite small and kind of hard to read, in my opinion. Not that that's necessarily a reason to dismiss a Bible outright! but for old dudes like me, even with reading glasses, it can make a difference.


I fully understand the small print thingy. If I got a Bible with big enough print for me to easily read it would probably weigh over 100 lbs.[;)]

I do most of my reading on the computer anymore, I have a large digital monitor and can make the print any size I want to match up with the daily change in vision from problems caused by retinopathy.

The Dakes Bible and all his books and study guides are available with Wordsearch8 HERE for anyone interested.

As I said earlier, it is an interesting read that will absolutely overwhelm one with the amount of statistics that are presented.

I also agree with Rhomphaia in that Dake's writings are written more from a scholarly point of veiw than a theological one. And that does make for a good read.

Thanks
RC



bob97 -> RE: Dake Bible (6/13/2009 11:56:15 AM)

Thanks RC, that really looks to be an interesting Bible study tool and well priced.

Bob



benelchi -> RE: Dake Bible (6/15/2009 1:37:37 PM)

quote:

there is nothing that I have ever encountered that was contrary to basic, orthodox Christianity in terms of the fundamentals of Christianity.


Gr. Christos, 'Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30 years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is 'Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

I haven't read Dake's bible, but if this is an accurate quote from the commentary in that bible then he certainly is teaching things contrary to orthodox Christianity. The idea that Jesus became God is something that was addressed as heretical in the early church.



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/15/2009 5:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

there is nothing that I have ever encountered that was contrary to basic, orthodox Christianity in terms of the fundamentals of Christianity.


Gr. Christos, 'Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30 years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is 'Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

I haven't read Dake's bible, but if this is an accurate quote from the commentary in that bible then he certainly is teaching things contrary to orthodox Christianity. The idea that Jesus became God is something that was addressed as heretical in the early church.


Oh I don't know about that; considering that after the resurrection when Jesus was no longer "God incarnate", but God He said;

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

And Jesus had never made that claim before.

Thanks
RC



benelchi -> RE: Dake Bible (6/15/2009 7:08:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

there is nothing that I have ever encountered that was contrary to basic, orthodox Christianity in terms of the fundamentals of Christianity.


Gr. Christos, 'Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30 years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is 'Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

I haven't read Dake's bible, but if this is an accurate quote from the commentary in that bible then he certainly is teaching things contrary to orthodox Christianity. The idea that Jesus became God is something that was addressed as heretical in the early church.


Oh I don't know about that; considering that after the resurrection when Jesus was no longer "God incarnate", but God He said;

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

And Jesus had never made that claim before.

Thanks
RC



It would be off topic to debate this false doctrine in this thread, but there is no debate that this doctrine is not considered part of orthodox Christianity. It was a false doctrine that was addressed by the early church within the first few centuries.



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/16/2009 1:15:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
It would be off topic to debate this false doctrine in this thread, but there is no debate that this doctrine is not considered part of orthodox Christianity. It was a false doctrine that was addressed by the early church within the first few centuries.


It does seem that you brought forth the first "Debate" of this doctrine of the Dake Bible which is the topic of this thread.

So do you have a point or was that just a drive by posting.

Thanks
RC



benelchi -> RE: Dake Bible (6/16/2009 8:48:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
It would be off topic to debate this false doctrine in this thread, but there is no debate that this doctrine is not considered part of orthodox Christianity. It was a false doctrine that was addressed by the early church within the first few centuries.


It does seem that you brought forth the first "Debate" of this doctrine of the Dake Bible which is the topic of this thread.

So do you have a point or was that just a drive by posting.

Thanks
RC



The point is that the idea that Jesus was not God, but became God (taught in the Dake bible) is not part of orthodox Christian doctrine. Someone who wants to adhere to the historical Christian faith should be wary of this bible because it does not conform to the historical Christian faith.



bob97 -> RE: Dake Bible (6/16/2009 9:23:28 PM)

benelchi...I don't think that what the note in the Dake's Bible was intended to do...I think we are misunderstanding the statement based on the information in post 5, below is an excerpt.

quote:

If you think from this footnote that Dake does NOT believe Jesus is God, you would be very mistaken.

Let me quote his notes on John 1:1

"The Word refers to Christ (v. 14; Rev. 19:13) and proves His pre-existence (Mic 5:1-2; Rev. 1:8, 11; 2:8; 22:13-16). He is an eternal Being as are also the Father and the Holy Spirit (Ps. 90:1-2; Heb. 9:14) They make up the Divine Trinity (1 Jn. 5:7)" (the underline is Dake's)

and he follows with this footnote:

"Not only was the Word "with God," but He "was God" and always will be as much divine as the other two members of the Trinity (Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 9:6-7; Jn. 1:1; Heb. 1:8-12; Rev. 1:8,11; 22:13-16)"

Again, the underlines are Dake's.


Bob



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/16/2009 10:12:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The point is that the idea that Jesus was not God, but became God (taught in the Dake bible) is not part of orthodox Christian doctrine. Someone who wants to adhere to the historical Christian faith should be wary of this bible because it does not conform to the historical Christian faith.


That is not Dake's take on the Diety of Christ.

The only point that I have any problem with is the pre-adam thingy, and who really knows about that; even if there was a prior world that Adam and Eve was to "Replenish" it would make no difference in our realtionship to God.

The same would be true if there were other folks on other planets, it would have no effect on our relationship with our creator. I mean I don't see where God is obliged to tell us everything He has ever done.

Thanks
RC



Lapidoth -> RE: Dake Bible (6/17/2009 10:13:41 AM)

The Pre-Adamite doctrine and the GAP theory are
only two reasons I would take the Dake's Bible
with a grain of salt.

Like I said, for the historical dating, etc. I like that.
At best it would give me direction to check out if
what is said is true or not.

Personally, I would never recommend the Dake's Bible to anyone.
A seasoned researcher can find some good in it, but the innocent
can definitely be lead down a bad trail.



benelchi -> RE: Dake Bible (6/17/2009 11:22:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob97

benelchi...I don't think that what the note in the Dake's Bible was intended to do...I think we are misunderstanding the statement based on the information in post 5, below is an excerpt.

quote:

If you think from this footnote that Dake does NOT believe Jesus is God, you would be very mistaken.

Let me quote his notes on John 1:1

"The Word refers to Christ (v. 14; Rev. 19:13) and proves His pre-existence (Mic 5:1-2; Rev. 1:8, 11; 2:8; 22:13-16). He is an eternal Being as are also the Father and the Holy Spirit (Ps. 90:1-2; Heb. 9:14) They make up the Divine Trinity (1 Jn. 5:7)" (the underline is Dake's)

and he follows with this footnote:

"Not only was the Word "with God," but He "was God" and always will be as much divine as the other two members of the Trinity (Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 9:6-7; Jn. 1:1; Heb. 1:8-12; Rev. 1:8,11; 22:13-16)"

Again, the underlines are Dake's.


Bob


This is how Dake reconciles these contradictory statements.

"Passages such as Luke 2:26; Gal. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:11 should be understood in the same sense as we would say that President George Washington was a surveyor. He was not this when he was president, but since he became president we could speak of any event of his life before he became president as what President Washington did. So it is with Christ. Since He became God's Christ we can now speak of Christ doing certain things even before He was anointed."



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/17/2009 2:42:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
This is how Dake reconciles these contradictory statements.

"Passages such as Luke 2:26; Gal. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:11 should be understood in the same sense as we would say that President George Washington was a surveyor. He was not this when he was president, but since he became president we could speak of any event of his life before he became president as what President Washington did. So it is with Christ. Since He became God's Christ we can now speak of Christ doing certain things even before He was anointed."


And how do you handle the passage that I posted before;

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Did Christ have all power before this when He was God/man or was it given to Him after the Cross and resurrection?

If Christ had all power before the Cross/Ressurection then why did he seek the Father to keep him from the Cross?

Thanks
RC



rcjames -> RE: Dake Bible (6/17/2009 2:44:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lapidoth

The Pre-Adamite doctrine and the GAP theory are
only two reasons I would take the Dake's Bible
with a grain of salt.

Like I said, for the historical dating, etc. I like that.
At best it would give me direction to check out if
what is said is true or not.

Personally, I would never recommend the Dake's Bible to anyone.
A seasoned researcher can find some good in it, but the innocent
can definitely be lead down a bad trail.


The Dake's Bible is absolutly a great tool to help the seasoned study the Bible, it is not a Doctrinal Statement, but a scholarly in depth look at Scripture.

Thanks
RC



bob97 -> RE: Dake Bible (7/1/2009 2:53:36 PM)

Based on sound advice I have ordered the software and plan to get involved...[:D]

Thanks RC...

Bob



bob97 -> RE: Dake Bible (7/1/2009 3:00:05 PM)

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Philippians 2:5-8 ( ASV )

If Christ had all the power of God, as a man He could not have died.

Bob



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI