# Picture/Graphic Bibles



## Afterthought (Jun 9, 2015)

Do picture Bibles or graphic Bibles inherently cause its readers to worship God by an image, even if there are no pictures of a Divine Person? The idea behind the question is: Images are not supposed to be "books for the laymen" but instead "teach lies," so isn't making a picture or graphic Bible doing this? Especially if the Bible is intended for either people who cannot read or for providing "enhanced" or more "detailed" information than the Scriptures alone give (pictures speak a thousand words)? And if the picture Bible does not add anything to what the Scriptures give, then why make one to begin with?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 10, 2015)

I am thinking mainly of children's Bibles and materials- I definitely avoid those with pictures of Christ, and find myself more and more of the opinion that illustrations of any kind create a change to what would be understood if only words were used. I think people believe that pictures help children visualize and grasp stories and concepts better, but I think words/story-telling holds pride of place in teaching children. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## clark thompson (Jun 11, 2015)

I thank they are no substitute for the bible but they could be helpful with teaching kids, it would be better to read them a story the bible with picture than to read them a fictionally story.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 3, 2015)

clark thompson said:


> I thank they are no substitute for the bible but they could be helpful with teaching kids, it would be better to read them a story the bible with picture than to read them a fictionally story.


Maybe, but if images are lies in matters of religion is that possible for it to be "helpful?" Or are images only lies except for when teaching Bible content by illustrating it or providing graphic images in a comic book format?


----------



## Edward (Jul 3, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> The idea behind the question is: Images are not supposed to be "books for the laymen" but instead "teach lies,"



Since this seems well beyond what is set out in our confessional standards, perhaps you need to prove the propositional foundation for your argument rather than assume it.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 3, 2015)

I was thinking about arguments by those such as Calvin. He makes an attempted proof in the bolded paragraph. He believes that the verses rely on some more universal principle. He applies the same technique when arguing for the "regulative principle of worship."

*"5. I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than threadbare, “that images are the books of the unlearned.” So said Gregory: but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit’s school, he never would have spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that “the stock is a doctrine of vanities,” (Jer. 10:8), and Habakkuk, “that the molten image” is “a teacher of lies,” the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add (what must be obvious to all), that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom—viz. that images are substitutes for books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the passages which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing there is one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions; and all, therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably deceived. In short, were it not true that all such knowledge is fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not condemn it in such general terms. This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.*"

"7. Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned—a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their peculiar idols....Let Papists then have some little regard to decency in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility to the false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity. But even then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which the Christian people should be taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments,—a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.

And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to instruct them?"

"12.... Visible representations are of two classes—viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged (a point to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7). I only say, that though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.

13. But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9). Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness....

And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still, when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the incomparable blessing of images—a blessing, the want of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!"


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 28, 2015)

Giving this thread one more go. Bumping.


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> Giving this thread one more go. Bumping.



The inclusion of images to assist in religious devotion (and reading the Bible is an act of religious devotion) is dependent on a psychological theory of human learning which cannot be proven. "Is" is argued as the basis for "ought," where the "is" itself is doubtful. The fact is, God gave to the church His revelation in words. The only images He has appended to this verbal revelation is baptism and the Lord's supper. As the use of these images depends on a positive divine institution, we should look for a positive divine institution in the use of other images. In the absence of such an institution, man is playing with fire when he assumes the power of God to institute images for himself. If the fire burns, it is no wonder! And since a psychological effect is acknowledged to be the result of these images, one should think twice before instituting something which will psychologically affect people, especially where religion is concerned, since religion deals with the highest and deepest matters of human experience.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 28, 2015)

MW said:


> The inclusion of images to assist in religious devotion (and reading the Bible is an act of religious devotion) is dependent on a psychological theory of human learning which cannot be proven. "Is" is argued as the basis for "ought," where the "is" itself is doubtful.


What is this psychological theory and why is it doubtful?



MW said:


> As the use of these images depends on a positive divine institution, we should look for a positive divine institution in the use of other images.


My first instinct wants to say this makes sense: it would be presumptuous otherwise. By why is it presumptuous otherwise? Why, given a positive divine institution, must we look for another positive divine institution in the use of something similar (or perhaps of the "same kind" is better language?) to the institution?



MW said:


> The inclusion of images to assist in religious devotion (and reading the Bible is an act of religious devotion)


Also, what of using images for understanding things in the Bible? E.g., drawing a cross or showing some historical picture of some ancient item, animal, or region? And if these are useful images, might one argue that this is all that is happening when making a picture or graphic Bible?


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> Also, what of using images for understanding things in the Bible? E.g., drawing a cross or showing some historical picture of some ancient item, animal, or region? And if these are useful images, might one argue that this is all that is happening when making a picture or graphic Bible?



I quote this paragraph to answer the question raised in your first paragraph. Your questions assume a psychological theory, namely, "using images for understanding things." The idea that this "is" what humans do is provided as a possible reason why they "ought" to do it. But an "is" does not prove an "ought." Even if this theory were correct it would not lead to a moral conclusion which has been established on the basis of moral norms. It is also a conclusion which ignores the fact that humans are idol factories, and God has given us a verbal revelation to counteract this tendency among others.

But the "is" itself is doubtful. The understanding creates the image. When the understanding sees an external image it only correlates the image it knows with the image it perceives and proceeds to exercise discriminating judgment on it. The idea that the image is used for understanding is an attempt to deceive the individual into thinking that the image can mean something in and of itself.

Words are verbal images. Images are pictorial words. Both depend on belief and understanding in order to be meaningful and purposeful. God uses verbal revelation to address our understanding. Even the images He has instituted are dependent on the "Word" for their validity and effect. The problem with men's images in religious devotion is that they impose a belief system which stands in competition with what God has revealed in His word.

Images have a place in the process of thinking through a subject. But this is discriminatory. Religious devotion presupposes an act of discrimination has already taken place and one is giving Himself up to God in truth, righteousness, and goodness.


----------



## chuckd (Jul 29, 2015)

MW said:


> The understanding creates the image. When the understanding sees an external image it only correlates the image it knows with the image it perceives and proceeds to exercise discriminating judgment on it. The idea that the image is used for understanding is an attempt to deceive the individual into thinking that the image can mean something in and of itself.



This is true. Never do you hear someone say "that movie corrected my understanding of the book." It is always "the movie did not correctly portray the book."


----------



## MW (Jul 30, 2015)

chuckd said:


> This is true. Never do you hear someone say "that movie corrected my understanding of the book." It is always "the movie did not correctly portray the book."



Brilliant example! You can look behind the movie to the written script, and there it becomes obvious that a rationality is behind the production of the image, and it is a rationality which will differ in various ways to the book.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 30, 2015)

Edward said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> > The idea behind the question is: Images are not supposed to be "books for the laymen" but instead "teach lies,"
> ...



Heidelberg:


> Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?
> Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of his word.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 30, 2015)

MW said:


> Images have a place in the process of thinking through a subject. But this is discriminatory. Religious devotion presupposes an act of discrimination has already taken place and one is giving Himself up to God in truth, righteousness, and goodness.


Suppose one modified the initial argument to say that the images in picture Bibles, although fallible, can nevertheless accurately portray and illustrate the teaching of the Scriptures, just as a sermon could. Then the form of religious devotion would be none less than the form taken when listening to a sermon. And this is useful to have because images do have a place in the process of thinking through a subject?



MW said:


> The problem with men's images in religious devotion is that they impose a belief system which stands in competition with what God has revealed in His word.


Similarly, might one say that the belief system is the same as the Scriptures if the images were made properly? Or by "belief system" do you mean the use of images rather than the Word that God has given? (Is it presumptuous to add images, where God has already instituted them, for the simple reason that we could not discriminate between true and false worship otherwise?)


----------



## MW (Jul 30, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> Suppose one modified the initial argument to say that the images in picture Bibles, although fallible, can nevertheless accurately portray and illustrate the teaching of the Scriptures, just as a sermon could. Then the form of religious devotion would be none less than the form taken when listening to a sermon. And this is useful to have because images do have a place in the process of thinking through a subject?



The argument then is that the "images" are taking the place of notes. In the case of notes the reader would examine them according to the ordinary process of discursive thought. The problem remains that the image has an underlying rationality which is giving its own message and leading the reader to bypass his understanding and accept the image according to aesthetic values.



Afterthought said:


> Similarly, might one say that the belief system is the same as the Scriptures if the images were made properly?



Impossible! The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. The image is drawn from the imagination of fallen human beings.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 3, 2015)

MW said:


> The argument then is that the "images" are taking the place of notes. In the case of notes the reader would examine them according to the ordinary process of discursive thought. The problem remains that the image has an underlying rationality which is giving its own message and leading the reader to bypass his understanding and accept the image according to aesthetic values.


So I want to see if I understand this correctly. Both words and images have a rationality to them. They both thus require a person to use discrimination and judgment. Although the fall affects the mind as well as the imagination, we are especially prone to abusing our imagination as idol factories. Hence, the rationality given by images is more easily passively accepted on the basis of an aesthetic judgment. And so a separate religious system can be set up. And so it would not be good to use images to teach religion, or to be used as "notes" like in a study bible. But maps and images of things (like ancient objects or maybe ezekiel's temple) could be used with discretion since they don't teach religion, which requires acceptance on the part of the learner that belongs only to the bible.


----------



## MW (Aug 4, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> So I want to see if I understand this correctly. Both words and images have a rationality to them. They both thus require a person to use discrimination and judgment. Although the fall affects the mind as well as the imagination, we are especially prone to abusing our imagination as idol factories. Hence, the rationality given by images is more easily passively accepted on the basis of an aesthetic judgment. And so a separate religious system can be set up. And so it would not be good to use images to teach religion, or to be used as "notes" like in a study bible. But maps and images of things (like ancient objects or maybe ezekiel's temple) could be used with discretion since they don't teach religion, which requires acceptance on the part of the learner that belongs only to the bible.



That looks about right. The point regarding aesthetics is that people's views tend to be a matter of taste rather than rationality. Few people would have philosophically worked out how their values and beliefs affect their aesthetic judgements. So appeal to something aesthetic tends to circumvent the need for discrimination based on belief and understanding.


----------

