Bible-only Christians: Why do you use the Bible?

[mozart-250]

I think you misunderstood me. I was disputing the notion.

The OP’s friend said “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.” I was pointing out that’s logically impossible. For one thing, you have to know what the Bible is in order to know what’s in the Bible. Therefore, you must know the canon. So you have to know something that’s not mentioned in scripture just to know what constitutes scripture. Since that’s something that’s not in the Bible, it can’t be that **everything **you need to know to be saved is in there. You can’t even begin to read what scripture says about justification until you know what scripture is!

Actually I believe that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible” is a true statement given that you accept the dictionary definition the word “Bible”.

The dictionary definition of the Bible would allow for three different sets of books (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic). The Protestant Bible is a subset of the other two. Since I believe that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Protestant Bible, it logically follows that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible.

If you dispute this, I could eliminate any possibility of confustion by saying that “Everything you need to know to be saved is found in all three of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bibles.” (or something like that). But that seems to be a redundancy.

 

[holy_wood]

Is God not able to overrule human actions to preserve what He has inspired ?​

There is a Bible because there is a Sovereign God - not because there is a Church; the Church is an instrument, nothing else.

God is sovereign, therefore, no common consensus could exist unless His Providence allowed it - & the fact that things were as they were, provided indications as to which books were inspired, & which were not.

People overlook the use of the books before their final recognition, & their reception - and the contrasting lack of recognition, reception, or use in the Church at large (as well as the contents !) of those books that were *not *canonised.

Yes the Church is an instrument. Christ instrument. His body and his will.

The Catholic Church canonized the Bible because of these other books floating around out there.

Some were obviously erroneous but I challlenge you to read the

• Letter of Aristeas
• Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
• [Assumpt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Aseneth)ion of Moses
• Life of Adam and Eve
• Lives of the Prophets
• Ladder of Jacob
• 4 Baruch
• Jannes and Jambres
• History of the Rechabites
• Eldad and Modad
• History of Joseph
• Psalms of Solomon
• Odes of Solomon
• Prayer of Joseph
• Prayer of Jacob.
• Legendary (Haggadic),
• Apocalyptic,
• Didactic or Sapiential.
  and tell me what is so obvious that they are not inspired.
  The fact that there was not consensus in the Church is reason enough to make it set the canon of scripture.

Now relating to those Counsils and Bishops.
Those counsils and Bishops** have authority from God.**
They did not give it to themselves (as so many pastors have)
People back then were pretty much illiterate. The people reading scripture were priests and Bishops(Catholic)
And the Bible being an official canonized book by the Church makes it a Catholic Book.

Its irrational to use a religious book of a Church in which you do not believe in.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Actually I believe that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible” is a true statement given that you accept the dictionary definition the word “Bible”.

The dictionary definition of the Bible would allow for three different sets of books (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic). The Protestant Bible is a subset of the other two. Since I believe that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Protestant Bible, it logically follows that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible.

If you dispute this, I could eliminate any possibility of confustion by saying that “Everything you need to know to be saved is found in all three of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bibles.” (or something like that). But that seems to be a redundancy.

Even if I grant this (which I don’t, since some accept the gospel of Thomas), it still raises the question of interpretation. You still have to have the correct interpretation of scripture, and scripture does not interpret itself.

Akarmitage’s friend said, “The Catholic Church’s teachings are unnecessary.” I say they are necessary. One of the things you still need to know is the correct interpretation. A misinterpretation can lead you to into all kinds of heresy. Certainly you don’t dispute that there have been heretical interpretations.

You therefore need to know something outside of scripture–the correct interpretation. Therefore, not everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Actually I believe that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible” is a true statement given that you accept the dictionary definition the word “Bible”.

The dictionary definition of the Bible would allow for three different sets of books (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic). The Protestant Bible is a subset of the other two. Since I believe that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Protestant Bible, it logically follows that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible.

If you dispute this, I could eliminate any possibility of confustion by saying that “Everything you need to know to be saved is found in all three of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bibles.” (or something like that). But that seems to be a redundancy.

I just thought of something else. I think you proved my point.

One of the things we have to know is what the Bible is. After all, we can’t even begin to search the Bible until we know what it is.

You said, “You accept the dictionary definition of the word Bible.”

Well, where did I learn this definition? Surely you’re not going to argue that we’re born knowing it.

But, as you say, it came from the dictionary, which is a source outside the Bible. Therefore, something we need to know (a definition of what the Bible is) is not contained in the Bible.

But there’s more. The fact that there is a general consensus on what the Bible is does not prove that consensus is correct. Truth is not determined by popularity.

Let’s take, for example, the letter of James. This is a letter that discusses justification (James 2:24). Now you and I both agree it belongs in the Bible. But suppose somebody wants to eliminate it from the Bible (like Luther wanted to). Well, where does the Bible say James belongs in the Bible? But isn’t the fact that it belongs in the Bible something you need to know before you read what it says about justification? But where are you getting this fact? If the Bible doesn’t say James belongs in the Bible, you must be getting it from somewhere else.

 

[akarmitage]

See, this gets so confusing for me. I just can’t “argue” and “debate” like some people can.

This was my friend’s response:
Makes me wonder though, if a person believes that the Bible is not complete, or that there is “secret” stuff that only a select group has knowledge to, how does THAT group prove that their “secret” stuff is inspired by God?

The Bible states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 1 Timothy 3:16,17

So if ALL scripture is given…and that the man of God may be perfect from studying that scripture, why would we need something else?

Why would God keep his full plan of salvation secret? That makes no sense. If a church claims that “well the Bible is good and all, but you need to know what our church founders knew that the rest of the world didn’t know about ( i.e. you need to join our club)”, then why did the divinely inspired authors document God’s plan for salvation?

 

[christcnection1]

See, this gets so confusing for me. I just can’t “argue” and “debate” like some people can.

This was my friend’s response:
Makes me wonder though, if a person believes that the Bible is not complete, or that there is “secret” stuff that only a select group has knowledge to, how does THAT group prove that their “secret” stuff is inspired by God?

The Bible states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 1 Timothy 3:16,17

So if ALL scripture is given…and that the man of God may be perfect from studying that scripture, why would we need something else?

Why would God keep his full plan of salvation secret? That makes no sense. If a church claims that “well the Bible is good and all, but you need to know what our church founders knew that the rest of the world didn’t know about ( i.e. you need to join our club)”, then why did the divinely inspired authors document God’s plan for salvation?

I would actually buy into that if the Bible itself claimed to be “the final and sole rule of faith,” and if Sola Scripturists were not so disunfied on theological grounds. The question becomes, who then has the authority to properly understand the correct meaning of scripture and articulate it to the masses. Endless private interpretation could never fill this void.

Do you not think it’s important to consider what the “Bible interpretation” was of those who affirmed what books belong in the NT in the 4th century? How about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries? At the very least, it seems reasonable to me to favorably acknowledge their understanding.

 

[Kay_Cee]

See, this gets so confusing for me. I just can’t “argue” and “debate” like some people can.

This was my friend’s response:
Makes me wonder though, if a person believes that the Bible is not complete, or that there is “secret” stuff that only a select group has knowledge to, how does THAT group prove that their “secret” stuff is inspired by God?

The Bible states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 1 Timothy 3:16,17

So if ALL scripture is given…and that the man of God may be perfect from studying that scripture, why would we need something else?

Why would God keep his full plan of salvation secret? That makes no sense. If a church claims that “well the Bible is good and all, but you need to know what our church founders knew that the rest of the world didn’t know about ( i.e. you need to join our club)”, then why did the divinely inspired authors document God’s plan for salvation?

Another question you might ask your friend is where he got his Bible.

Guess what–he got it from the Catholic Church! It was the Church that wrote, preserved, copied, and put together the New Testament.

Any why? Because it taught that the New Testament is scripture.

So much for your friend’s assertion that we don’t need the teachings of the Catholic Church. He needed that very teaching to give him the Bible.

As for the quote from Timothy, your friend is interpreting it to say that since scripture helps makes the man is God complete, that means it is all he needs.

So if X (whatever helps make us complete) = all we need, then what am I to do with this verse? “And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” James 1:4.

According to your friend’s assumption, all I need is X (in this case, perseverance) in order to be complete. Therefore, since I need only perseverance, I do not need scripture at all! But that of course is absurd.

 

[mozart-250]

I just thought of something else. I think you proved my point.

One of the things we have to know is what the Bible is. After all, we can’t even begin to search the Bible until we know what it is.

You said, “You accept the dictionary definition of the word Bible.”

Well, where did I learn this definition? Surely you’re not going to argue that we’re born knowing it.

But, as you say, it came from the dictionary, which is a source outside the Bible. Therefore, something we need to know (a definition of what the Bible is) is not contained in the Bible.

But there’s more. The fact that there is a general consensus on what the Bible is does not prove that consensus is correct. Truth is not determined by popularity.

Let’s take, for example, the letter of James. This is a letter that discusses justification (James 2:24). Now you and I both agree it belongs in the Bible. But suppose somebody wants to eliminate it from the Bible (like Luther wanted to). Well, where does the Bible say James belongs in the Bible? But isn’t the fact that it belongs in the Bible something you need to know before you read what it says about justification? But where are you getting this fact? If the Bible doesn’t say James belongs in the Bible, you must be getting it from somewhere else.

OK…so then we can modify that statement slightly to say that everything we need to know to be saved is in all of the (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bibles). That way we eliminate the dictionnary from the equation. Since nobody is seeking to remove James from the Bible we are safe. If somebody in the future actually succeeds in getting the Catholic, Orthodox or Protestants to remove James from the Bible…then we can adjust that statement as necessary.

But I think the likelyhood of that happening is remote.

 

[christcnection1]

If all you need to do to be saved is accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, is there ever a need to open the Bible in order to get to heaven?

 

[mozart-250]

Even if I grant this (which I don’t, since some accept the gospel of Thomas), it still raises the question of interpretation. You still have to have the correct interpretation of scripture, and scripture does not interpret itself.

Akarmitage’s friend said, “The Catholic Church’s teachings are unnecessary.” I say they are necessary. One of the things you still need to know is the correct interpretation. A misinterpretation can lead you to into all kinds of heresy. Certainly you don’t dispute that there have been heretical interpretations.

You therefore need to know something outside of scripture–the correct interpretation. Therefore, not everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.

The issue here is can a person with no knowledge of God be led to faith in Jesus Christ with just the Bible and nothing else.

Imagine the movie Castaway where Tom Hanks has a Bible. Could he be led to faith in Jesus Christ in that scenario.

I think I there are testimonies of this actually happening. So I would conclude that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit this can happen.

Now Tom Hanks probably would not become theologically sophisticated on this island. He probably would not know even what questions to ask. But I believe he could be led to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Now if you believe that he could not be, that is your prerogative I suppose. Unless we set up a controlled expirement, this is an unprovable hypothesis. But I still believe it.

 

[mozart-250]

If all you need to do to be saved is accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, is there ever a need to open the Bible in order to get to heaven?

On day 1 it is not necessary. On days 2-end_of_life it is highly advisable (neglecting for a moment the issue of Bible availability and literacy in third world and persecuted countries).

 

[christcnection1]

On day 1 it is not necessary. On days 2-end_of_life it is highly advisable (neglecting for a moment the issue of Bible availability and literacy in third world and persecuted countries).

I also agree it is advisable; however, this doesn’t answer my question. If we are saved by faith alone, then what makes it necessary?

 

[mozart-250]

I also agree it is advisable; however, this doesn’t answer my question. If we are saved by faith alone, then what makes it necessary?

Well it isn’t necessary in an absolute sense. For one thing you have issues of Bible availability and literacy in third world and persecuted countries.

…and the issue of being “saved by faith alone” is a separate one.

We might be dealing with separate definitions of “saved”. To the evangelicals like me “saved” typically refers to “day 1”. To the Catholic “saved” typically deals with day “end of life”

 

[christcnection1]

Well it isn’t necessary in an absolute sense. For one thing you have issues of Bible availability and literacy in third world and persecuted countries.

…and the issue of being “saved by faith alone” is a separate one.

We might be dealing with separate definitions of “saved”. To the evangelicals like me “saved” typically refers to “day 1”. To the Catholic “saved” typically deals with day “end of life”

I agree with everything you said here, and yes, we have different definitions of “saved.” (Imputed vs. Infused rightousness)

 

[Kay_Cee]

OK…so then we can modify that statement slightly to say that everything we need to know to be saved is in all of the (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bibles).

But how do we know this? This information is not contained in the Bible.

That way we eliminate the dictionnary from the equation. Since nobody is seeking to remove James from the Bible we are safe. If somebody in the future actually succeeds in getting the Catholic, Orthodox or Protestants to remove James from the Bible…then we can adjust that statement as necessary.

But I think the likelyhood of that happening is remote.

I agree, but it has happened before that books have been removed. The Jesus Seminar would like to add the gospel of Thomas. And the Mormons claim other writings as scripture.

And then we still get into the whole sticky business of whose translation and interpretation is correct.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The issue here is can a person with no knowledge of God be led to faith in Jesus Christ with just the Bible and nothing else.

Imagine the movie Castaway where Tom Hanks has a Bible.

It’s right here that I have a problem with your scenario. You’re asking me to assume what you’re trying to prove, thereby begging the question.

You’re assuming we already know what the Bible is. I say the knowledge of what the Bible is is one of the things we have to know–that is, that it is the word of God and has the correct canon–before we can even begin to look within it to see what it says.

And where do we get this knowledge? We don’t get it from the Bible. Therefore, we must get it from an extra-Biblical source. Hanks would first have to begin by knowing the Bible is the word of God and has the correct books.

Could he be led to faith in Jesus Christ in that scenario.

He would have to assume the Bible is the word of God first. If he assumes it’s just a fairy tale or a novel, he could come to a very different conclusion.

I think I there are testimonies of this actually happening. So I would conclude that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit this can happen.

Now Tom Hanks probably would not become theologically sophisticated on this island. He probably would not know even what questions to ask. But I believe he could be led to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Now if you believe that he could not be, that is your prerogative I suppose. Unless we set up a controlled expirement, this is an unprovable hypothesis. But I still believe it.

That’s not what I’m trying to prove. I’m trying to prove that some of the things you have to know are not contained in the Bible. One of those things is what the Bible is.

 

[mozart-250]

But how do we know this? This information is not contained in the Bible.

This is beginning to sound like "It all depends upon what the definition of “is” is.

An underlying assumption of any statement is that terms are defined. That is how we communicate in language…with a common understanding of common terms. We generally use a dictionnary to define terms (but in the case of some very technical writings a dictionnary is insufficient…but in this case it is). If we can not accept common definitions of common terms, then communication is impossible.

In the case of the term “Bible” there are three Bibles commonly used by Christendom. So if you define Bible with the common dictionary definition which includes any or all of the common Bibles used in Christendom the statement works. If you define Bible otherwise (example “The Fisherman’s Bible”) it may not work.

So the issue here is “What is your definition of the term Bible”. Depending upon what your definition is, the statement may or may not be true.

I agree, but it has happened before that books have been removed. The Jesus Seminar would like to add the gospel of Thomas. And the Mormons claim other writings as scripture.

And then we still get into the whole sticky business of whose translation and interpretation is correct.

If the underlying meaning of words change, then statements pertaining to these words must change.

If the Jesus Seminar is successful in changing the common definition of the term Bible, then any statements pertaining to the Bible need to be revisited. But since that has not happened, these statements do not need to be revisited.

The Book of Mormon does not fall under the dictionnary definition of Bible. But if your definition includes the “Book of Mormon” the statement is obviously not true.

As far as translations the statement works for any translations that exist today that I know of (yes even the JW translation). But if a translation is brought forth where this is not true then either (a) the definition of the term Bible must be clarified or (b) the statement must be refined.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Well, from what I understand the church that compiled the bible as we know it today was not the same church back then. Plus the church back then did not write the bible. The bible was written by 40 different people inspired by God. The church merely discovered(im not sure that is the right word)through God of course which ones were inspired. The church had a very specific way of deciding which books were inspired and which were not.

Also, the letters were in circulation during the apostles lifetime(obviously since they wrote them )and people did already consider them authoritative.

Of course the OT was already approved of by Christ Himself so that is good enough for me.

Im sure someone more scholarly then I will give you a more specific answer.

Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg wrote The Old Testament of the Early Church (Harvard U Press). It’s probably out of print, but still available in libraries and used book stores. It does not talk about the development of the New Testament canon, but it does illustrate conclusively that the Protestant (and modern Jewish) Old Testament is not the Old Testament of the early Church --that the early Church recognized the all the books in the present Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) OT canon. And, again, this is a PROTESTANT scholar admitting this --in fact, he proves it; and no one has been able to refute him.

As for the New Testament, here are the facts. Perhaps he would like to look them up. If he does so, he will see that they are all true:

1. Before A.D. 397, each Apostle-founded city-church (or metropolitanate / patriarchate) had its own (different) NT canon. Some city-churches excluded certain books that are in our present NT canon (e.g. James, Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation). Other city-churches included certain books that are excluded from our present NT canon (e.g. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, 1 Clement to the Corinthians, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.). And there were also other early Christian writings which none of the Apostle-founded city-churches accepted, but which were only used by heretical sects which could not trace themselves back to the Apostles (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, etc.).
2. The reason why different Apostle-founded city-churches possessed different Biblical canons was because each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed their own distinct, native liturgical traditions (that is, distinct styles of worship). While they all agreed with each other in terms of orthodox doctrine, they did not worship the same exact ways. Rather, as in the modern Catholic Church, which consists of over 24 separate liturgical rites (e.g. the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Antiochian rite, the Coptic rite, the Armenian rite, etc.), each of the early city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) worshipped according to it own native culture, adapting the celebration of the Eucharist (as instituted by Christ) to suit and speak to this own native culture. And, since each of the city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) had its own native liturgical traditions, this also meant that each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed its own native liturgical calendar, meaning that different city-churches celebrated certain Christian feast days on different dates (e.g. the feast of Easter --the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection --was not celebrated on the same date in Rome as it was in Ephesus, etc.). So, what does this have to do with the Biblical canon?? Well, quite simply, the liturgical traditions of a particular church dictated the Biblical canon of that particular church because a church’s “canon” merely meant those books that were considered fit for reading at the liturgy --that is, at Sunday Mass. For ancient Christians, “canon” did not mean that these books are inspired whereas other books are not. On the contrary, it was quite possible (in the understanding of the early Church) for a book to be inspired by God, yet not “canonical.” So, if a book was excluded from the canon of a particular city-church, it DID NOT mean that this church rejected this book’s Divine inspiration. Rather, it merely meant that this particular book (e.g. the Epistle of James) was not used in the yearly, liturgical READINGS of that particular city-church. For, there were only so many feast days throughout the year (and so only so many public liturgies); and this limited the number of books which would be used for liturgical readings within a given city-church. This is why the early city-churches all had different canons.

 

[E.E.N.S]

(cont’d)

1. But, by the late 300’s, all this began to change. The Church had just succeeded in putting down the Arian heresy, which had disturbed the Church’s universal unity from A.D. 320 until A.D. 381. Now, during the Arian controversy, the Arians would often cite various books that were used in the city-churches to support their heretical beliefs. So, in order to make sure such heretics never had the oppotunity to do anything like this again, Pope St. Damasus I called for the creation of a UNIVERSAL canon of Scripture, which would be used in common by all the city-churches. He did this at a synod held in Rome in A.D. 382. And, at that time, he put forward a proposed canon, which was a synthesis of the canons used by the Patriarchate of Rome and the Patriarchate of Alexandria --Alexandria being the second ranking see of the universal Church (after Rome), and the primate in the East. Pope Damasus then submitted this canon to the bishops of North Africa, so that they could put it to the test and debate it. And the reason that Damasus sent it to the N. African bishops is three-fold: a) N. Africa had the most bishops per capita in the world at the time; and so a consensus among them would reflect the consensus of all bishops everywhere. b) The Church in N. Africa traditionally met twice a year in a regional council, held either at Hippo or at Carthage; and this would help to foster the debate; and c) The N. African bishops were known for their Biblical scholarship and had many great scholars among them (e.g. St. Augustine of Hippo). And so, the Africans took up the challenge and began to debate the canon --that is, to decide which books should be used in the liturgies of the churches and which books should not. Their criterion for deciding this was to go over each book, verse by verse, and to make sure that it agreed with the substance of the Catholic Faith that these CATHOLIC bishops believed in. And this, of course took some time. But, by 393, at the Council of Hippo, the first serious debate took place. It tentatively ratified the canon submitted by Pope Damasus back in A.D. 382, but there were still certain objections. These objections were ultimately addressed and dispelled by the Council of Carthate in A.D. 397. At this time, our present NT canon (and Catholic *OT *canon) was officially defined, and the debate came to an end. Here, it should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation were held in serious dispute, and they were almost rejected. It was only the tireless arguments of St. Augustine of Hippo that got them included.
2. With the canon finally decided at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the African bishops submitted their Carthaginian canon to Rome for final ratification. This ratification came in about A.D. 401, when Pope St. Innocent I officially sanctioned the Carthaginian canon, and sent it to the bishops of Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyria for observation. Pope Innocent also sent it to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt (the Church’s second see), which immediately accepted it and sent it to all the other bishops of the East. However, in the Patriarchate of Antioch (the Church’s third see), there was an obstacle to implementing it. Antioch, at this time, was torn by an internal schism, with two Catholic bishops both claiming to be the true Patriarch of Antioch. This schism dragged on for a long time, and it effected many churches in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. It also effected the imperial capital of Constantinople. And, because of this, the implementation of the Carthaginian canon (our present Biblical canon) was delayed in these regions for many centuries. Indeed, it was only in A.D. 787, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, that these Eastern churches finally accepted the Carthaginian canon of the Bible --that is, our present Biblical canon.

And THIS is where the Bible comes from. It is the liturgical Book of the Catholic Church, and Protestants received it through their Catholic ancestors.

 

[mozart-250]

That’s not what I’m trying to prove. I’m trying to prove that some of the things you have to know are not contained in the Bible. One of those things is what the Bible is.

In reference to any document there is an underlying assumption that the reader has reading comprehension level appropriate to the document. Also that the reader understands the language the document is written in. If these assumptions are not true, the document is gibberish to the reader.

If the reader has reading comprehension level to read the Bible, the reader has reading comprehension level to look in a dictionary and determine what the definition of “Bible” is.

Sheesh.