Official Bible Interpretation Thread

In this thread we will interpret certain Bible verses and then using our reason and the Bible we will come to a conclusion.

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." 1 Corinthians 14:33

The first question that I would like us to discuss is which is the proper way to interpret scripture? We will cite verses in scripture and go into why we believe that the verse is saying what we believe it is saying.

I would like to see us answering each other in kindness and in patience.

 

The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers.
“The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the spirit of god, for they are folly to him and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2:14.
Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment.
He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to babes” Matthew 11:25.

The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “When the spirit of truth comes he will guide you unto all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16:13.

II Peter 3:16. supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy."Speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do with the other scriptures. You therefore beloved knowing this before hand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability, but grow in the grace and knowledge in our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

 

So, in my own clumsy attempt to deconstruct this scripture,

the Holy Spirit will reveal truth to us according to our ability to hesr it
it is relayed from God to us through the Holy Spirit
we will, through these communications, become intuitive about truth?

 

Moreover it is the spirit that informs the written word not the other way round.
We grow in understanding.

 

Then why do so many believers support war? Still trying to figure that one out.

 

For the same reasons non believers do.

 

I've decided to edit this post as, on re-reading it, it may lead to contentiousness. I don't want to start a contentious debate in this thread.

 

Bravo! But I doubt that everyone will get it.

 

Awesome post my man.

 

You may not know it but you just helped me a lot by saying some things I needed to be reminded of. Thanks.

 

1. I think Scripture should be interpreted, to the greatest extent possible, in a light that's consistent with reason and our other knowledge, including documentary evidence concerning Scripture. For example, I think the early fathers of Christianity were well-justified in rejecting the popular Gospel of Peter, with its giant Jesus and talking cross, from the canon. I'm grateful to them for sparing me the task of having to argue that really happened. I tend to agree with Hume: given a choice between an explanation that invokes miracles and one which is consistent with a naturalistic explanation, I'd go with the naturalistic one. This doesn't mean that the miraculous one is wrong, or that I'm right, but I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb to safeguard against believing in celestial teapots and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. If believing in Scripture requires rejection of mounds of empirical evidence from rigorously tested, peer reviewed hypotheses, I'd wonder if possibly that passage might be interpreted metaphorically. After all, God set up these natural laws in the first place.

2. Relatedly, I think sound, peer reviewed research and empirical evidence deserve some respect as at least establishing rebuttable presumptions. Science, like any human enterprise, isn't fallible, but it's the gold standard of knowledge. Rigorous testing of refutable, peer-reviewed hypotheses, carry more weight with me than apologetic tracts that start with the conclusions and marshal evidence to support them. I reject the notion that Christianity is somehow at war with science or reason.

3. Likewise, I tend to accept the principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor, as a reasonable rule of thumb. Given a choice between the law of gravity and the intervention of angels to explain why a given object falls, I go with gravity, even though it would be possible for supernatural beings to be specifically intervening every time I or somebody else drops something. Given a choice between the geocentric theory that the earth is the center of the universe and the heliocentric theory that the sun is the center, I go with the latter to avoid the complexities of the epicycles used to salvage the former viewpoint. I agree with Christian evolutionary biologist Kenneth Milller that the notion that either God or the Devil planted the fossil evidence for evolution to deceive us must be rejected. If that can be the case, we can no longer trust our senses or reason, and rational discourse is no longer possible.

3. I regard Scripture as inerrant in doing what it was intended to do: to give us guidance as to God's plan and the things necessary for our salvation, not to provide a textbook on astronomy, geology, biology, archaeology, or history. I also think it uses the appropriate means for conveying the message, which can include metaphor, allegory, and parable. I allow for a degree of hyperbole and exaggeration in the context of the oral tradition prevalent at the time. For example, I think the tearing of the curtain in the Great Temple during or after the crucifixion can be treated as symbolic without denying the truth of Scripture.

4. I think that the meaning of Scripture must be judged not only from the standpoint of the grammar and syntax of particular passages, but in total context, including the historical and social context that produced it.

5. I don't accept that the Bible was "written by God", or even that the humans who wrote it were simply taking dictation. I think God inspired the writers, but they were trying to put into words their own understanding of truths they perceive "through a glass darkly". I reject the notion of a "self-interpreting' book, for reasons that the Dope has compellingly argued: ... "it is the spirit that informs the written word not the other way round" .I also think the notion that the Bible is true because it says so is too obviously circular to be taken seriously. On that basis we'd believe everything we read, and follow every false prophet on the street corner, until the next one comes along.

6. I accept argument and evidence, as opposed to sarcasm, derision, and winking or grinning icons, as the best way to proceed in discussing Scripture. Absent a showing that anyone has a private revelation or superior wisdom concerning the true meaning of Scripture, I think we must proceed the way we do other areas of knowledge--through reliance on logic, empirical evidence, experience, and our best judgment.

7. I reject the notion that we must accept what seems to be immoral because it is attributed to God, because morality is whatever God says it it, or God because has a superior knowledge that we must blindly trust when ordered to do what might seem unjust or genocidal. If we said things are good or evil just because God said so, it would be meaningless to say that God is good. We might as well say God is what He is. And our own best judgment, in the final analysis, is all we have to go on. That's why God gave it to us.

8. In sum, I'd interpret Scripture on the basis or reason, personal experience, judgment, and the intuitive risk-taking we call faith, and the agape principle, guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that God ever commanded genocide, nor condoned slavery, the subordination of women, or homophobia.

 

Religion is the endeavour of returning to the source. Religion = back to the source (God).

Religion and science are generally perceived as different, but that is gradually changing as the fear of studying scripture in a non-literal sense falls away. The old way of 'saving' souls through authoritarianism, punishment and admonitions against free-thought is loathe to relinquish its control, but science cannot be ignored unless one deliberately makes oneself blind.

Science may not presently embrace religion as its equal but that's only because science hasn't yet learned everything. Eventually, science and religion will be seen as being the same thing. All that remains is for science to 'discover' proof of religious law in the universe (creation).

As for the centre of the universe, it's neither our sun nor the earth. It's God.

 

Scripture is the word of God. Inspired by the Holy Ghost, put onto the page by the writers. I don't think there are "rules of thumb." I'm not sure about your last paragraph either. Surely we have to be able to accept the word of God instead of putting our own opinions above it? Although I do agree with you that there is an element of risk involved for all of us by virtue of being human.

 

Where is the biblical support for your statement? I happen to agree that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but you make it sound like (S)he's giving dictation. A majority of people who consider themselves followers of Christ don't think that faith is about believing the Bible in every detail. In traditional Christianity, as opposed the the Southern U.S. variety, the Bible itself wasn't an object of faith. Look at the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the other statements of Christian faith don't mention belief in the Bible. For most Christians, Christianity is about believing in Christ and God.

I don't think we can understand the word of God apart from our best judgment in light of reason, evidence, experience and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit and the underlying agape principle. Since we are fallible beings, we have to use "rules of thumb" in making our way through the ambiguities of existence and understanding the Bible, just as we have to use rules of syntax, grammar and hermeneutics. Just reading the words without understanding the historical context and underlying principles doesn't give us understanding, and confuses our uninformed judgments with God's word. The history of Christian efforts to decide what the Bible means is a sorry and bloody one, and deciding it means what it seems to us to mean on first impression is, I think, naive. Just saying something is so doesn't make it so. Do you have any other basis for your assertions?

 

True, and it is for me too. But that's part of allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to you personally with the aid of the Bible. If you do that than the Bible can't lead you astray.

Yes but if God put the Bible together we don't really have to think of its canonization in the same way that we think about our interpretation. Also, much of the interpretation is revealed to our hearts, not our intellect. I think that intellect follows the heart.

Maybe if you gave specific examples. In general I think the Bible is made to be complete in of itself. Part of it's "magic" is that it can lead you to the answer of virtually any question in any situation at any time.

I don't fully trust any account of history. Too many agendas out there. I don't think any amount of [extra biblical] historical data is necessary for the faithful understanding of God's word.

Let's not confuse the "efforts" of various people under the banner of Christianity as a name with the true faith in and message of Christ. I'm not sure which assertion needs proving in your eyes, I thought everything I said is standard Christian belief?

 

Jesus speaks of the comforter that leads us to all truth. It seems to be a kind of guide to the Bible, whether the person is an intellectual or not, does not seem to matter, at least that is how I read into what Jesus was saying. In this case, it seems intellectualism wasn't the end goal to understanding scripture.

At John 16:13, Jesus says: "When the spirit of truth comes he will guide you unto all truth, for
he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." In that same chapter, Jesus also says "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Jesus spoke of many commands and how they are to be followed. In the case when we need to be reminded, the holy spirit will remind us: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. " In this case, the comforter will remind us and what he reminds of us are matters that Jesus has said to us. What Jesus has said to us in included in the Bible. If Jesus is God, or the ultimate interpretor of the Bible, or the word, then it seems like he felt that the rest of the word is something also that he has said and should therefore be acknowledged. Jesus himself address that he is the owner of the word, "Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone'?".

This is not to say that code is the end all to understanding God's commandments but that they can be used to remind us what those commandments are.

This is including what the dope has also said, so the dope, I want you to know that I am listening to what you are saying and responding in kind. I will go into more a little later, maybe in a day or two. In the mean time, I will think about what you all said and respond accordingly.

In my next post, I would like if we can talk more about the agape principal

Thank you for the beginning responses.

 

I would think that the value of the bible is obvious. It is certain that we would not be having discussions about the bible if there were no bible.
In the verse above, Jesus asks for "interpretation."

 

.

 

Sometimes, it does.