Studying the Scriptures, which I wrote about in the previous blog, is something totally different than what is known as "Biblical Studies". Wikipedia says of the latter the following:
Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible. For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences.
About "the historical-critical method", Wikipedia says, elsewhere:
The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense.
The biblical text, in what is called a scientific study of the Bible, is understood and explained in its own historical context. Undoubtedly, this is all very scientific, but it has nothing to do with the proper study of the Scriptures, as the Bible itself, speaks of it. Peter wrote (2Pet. 1:20,21) that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," because prophecy originates not from the human will, but comes forth by the Holy Spirit, so that men of God could speak on God's behalf. Prophecy of Scripture does not have its own explanation, because the prophecies of Scripture explain each other! Not the (supposed) historical context in which a Bible book arose determines the meaning of the text, but the correlation with all other Bible books. If it is true what the Bible itself claims, namely that all Scripture is divinely directed, then this forges the Scriptures together into an inseparable unit. And from Jesus' words: "Scripture (singular!) can not be broken" (John10:35).
"The Scriptures" form a unity as do the pieces of a puzzle or as do the notes of a piece of music. Only as a complete whole, can they be understood and appreciated. Without this approach, the Bible is a closed book.
Translation: Peter Feddema