How do You interpret the Bible |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )
Welcome to ThoughtVent, a free community where you can talk to your peers about whatever you want. Using the site is easy and fun. Once registered, simply click on the category that fits your topic and click on the New Topic button to start talking with our other members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
Click here to Register!
  |
How do You interpret the Bible |
 Oct 23 2007, 08:31 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 Distinguished Venter  Group: Members Posts: 549 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Salem VA Member No.: 10  |
This is beginning to HiJack another thread so I've decided to move this discussion to the Religion Section of the forums.
How do you interpret the Bible? --------------------  Speak softly and carry a weighted baseball bat. Then people have to listen to you. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 23 2007, 10:38 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Distinguished Venter Group: Members Posts: 549 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Salem VA Member No.: 10 |
Heres the posts in full thus far.
QUOTE (cowsgonemadd3 @ Oct 23 2007, 10:32 AM)  More on how to interpret the Bible. I Asked a retired pastor and he told me this: As far as how we interpret the Bible, it is always to be done with the following chronological sequence of forethoughts: 1. Literal first, unless the literal interpretation doesn’t fit the overall context. 2. Once it is determined that the passage of scripture is nonsensical when taken in the literal sense, then the student must determine whether the passage uses symbolic, figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic, prophetic, typological, emblematic, or other forms of illustrative language as a representational type of written communication. This hermeneutical approach not only holds true with interpretation of the Bible, but also applicable with any other written document or manuscript. 3. Who wrote the book; who is the author? (e.g. it is generally believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of the Bible). 4. To whom & about whom/what was the individual book or passage of the book of the Bible written? In other words, WHY was the narrative recorded; what was the purpose? What was the author’s intent? Was it meant as an inspired historical account of events, as for example is the case with the Genesis account of creation? Were parts of the book written as historical, or all of it? If not all, then what portions of scripture are written for a different purpose (e.g. penned as a direct set of commands given to Israel concerning the Levitical code in the Law)? 5. What is the dialect used to write the passage of scripture being interpreted? The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, but it is also rendered in Syriac, Latin, and other dialects. The New Testament manuscripts are written in Greek, Latin, Syriac (also known as in its ancient form as Aramaic); later date mss. There are also manuscripts of the New Testament written in Syriac, Classic Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc, which today have been discovered by archaeologists in great quantities (over 2500 quality mss that I’m aware of). 6. For example, in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Samaritans preserved the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is the only portion of the Old Testament that was accepted by the Samaritans as being inspired by divine authority. The division of the Pentateuch into five books, as we now have it, however, was adopted by the Samaritans, as it was later by the Jews, in all their priests' copies of "the Law," (for the sake of convenience). Samaritans never called the Septuagint by this name, but always "the Law," which they read as one book. After the exile, since the Jews refused them worship in Jerusalem, the Samaritans instituted similar worship to that of the temple at Jerusalem, which was founded upon the Law. . As a result, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied in Israel as well as in Judah. The form of the letters in the manuscript copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch is different from that of the Hebrew copies, and is probably the same as that which was in general use before the Captivity. There are important differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. In about 2000 occurrences the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the Septuagint agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish. Thus Exodus 12:40 in the Samaritan reads, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years" (compare Galatians 3:17). The Septuagint has the same reading of this text in Galatians. QUOTE (Zarathustra @ Oct 23 2007, 12:02 PM) I would hope everyone would take to heart and fully understand not only the meaning but the implications of the first four points just mentioned. Point in question, for example: "Once it is determined that the passage of scripture is nonsensical when taken in the literal sense, then the student must determine whether the passage uses symbolic, figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic, prophetic, typological, emblematic, or other forms of illustrative language as a representational type of written communication. This hermeneutical approach not only holds true with interpretation of the Bible, but also applicable with any other written document or manuscript." Let us suppose that the story of creation and of Adam and Eve, etc., is not strictly factual if taken literally. There are many arguments, both from within the Christian denominations as well as from independent groups and thinkers, that would tend to lead to that opinion. This opinion could neither be dismissed as "stupid" or "the devil's work" since it is possible to see the story as non-literal. It then becomes possible to understand the story as allegorical or symbolic, and containing these kinds of profound truths, without accepting either the creation myth or the garden myth as a reporting of actual facts. To correctly say that the hermeneutical approach applies to the Bible as well as, for example, Macbeth or The Magus, is to put its interpretation and meaning in human hands, and to say that the same rules guiding interpretation, establishing a critical edition,and understanding the meaning of a text as intended by its author apply. The above also discusses the problems involved in translation. These include whether to provide a literal, word-for-word translation or to attempt to capture the rhythm and tone of any text. Another problem is caused by the subtle differences in words and phrases between differing languages. Any given word, for example, can have (in either language) more than one definition, and which of these to use in a particular sentence can be a difficult choice. This is compounded when the text to be translated is written in an ancient language; definitions and word usages are determined from samples and writings that we know more from accident than from a wide range of contemporary texts. If one wishes to translate a French text to English, one has literally libraries of French writings for all sorts of purposes. But what has accidently survived from both Greek and Latin, including fragments and monumental inscriptions---the total would scarcely fill the average living room. This is a somewhat lengthy and terse review, but I think the point is obvious. Any discussion of any text becomes a matter of interpretation, given the many levels of meaning that the text can provide. One can argue over coffee until the wee hours of the morning about the interpretation of Shakespear's Hamlet, or Genesis. Now while there are better and worse interpretations, they are nevertheless interpretations of very great, complex, and profound works and should be acknowledged as such. Thus spoke Zarathustra QUOTE (mz30 @ Oct 23 2007, 01:20 PM) Will post my final thoughts on this ,cgm3 while i commend your beliefs,i find your statement above a little disturbing for as you posted earlier 1. Literal first, unless the literal interpretation doesn’t fit the overall context. If i m reading this right you can make anything fit your beliefs,therefore the bible cannot be an accurate guide ,as how i interpret and how you interpret scripture will be totally different. While i have responded to this as a religious matter i would like to apologise too mara for going off topic. QUOTE (arcman @ Oct 23 2007, 03:52 PM) Interesting how you call someone with a different interpretation of scripture than the one you've been taught as "confused". Why is it that your interpretation is superior to theirs? I would think you would need to first read the argument before you would even begin to make that determination. As you bring up languages and translations in your fifth point about biblical interpretation, I'd like to point out that nowhere in the Greek texts does the New Testament contain the word "homosexual" as we are discussing it here. Same-sex relationships were widespread in Greek culture, and they had a word they used to refer to homosexuals, "arrenokoites." Paul never uses this word to condemn sexual sins, instead he uses the word "arsenokoites", a word used to describe a temple prostitute which did not come to take on the meaning of any other sexual behavior until many years later. See: http://www.crossroadscommunitychurch.us/scriptures.php --- Scientists agree that there likely isn't a gay gene, and that there are likely several development and psychological factors, but to take that and say it is a wholly learned behavior is quite a stretch. Indeed, to call all human behavior learned is inaccurate in itself. Now you're disagreeing with yourself here, is it a learned behavior or is it a mental illness? It cannot be both. [emphasis mine] They need help? What do they need our help for? Are there people out there dying of the gay? Is not liking woman somehow a horrible fate worse than death? QUOTE (cowsgonemadd3 @ Oct 23 2007, 09:17 PM) Maybe not but they do choose to enact on the gay feelings. So a killer does not choose to become a killer either he is born that way? I do not think so..... How sad and how untrue. Lets do a example of how you are thinking. I will make a statement up out of my head....Lets say: Holstein cows are black and white. Now its said clearly just like the verses in the Bible I quote on earlier in this topic. How can there be any different interpretation with something so clear? I wanted to add this. I did not earlier. Mara some of the dumbest people on this planet are scientists and theologians. QUOTE (blackspyder @ Oct 23 2007, 09:26 PM) Ummm....hate to burst your bubble.... but not all Holstein Cows are Black and White (Farmboy to Farmboy)
Note: I'm gonna make a whole new topic on this "Interpreting the Bible" as its Hijacking this thread Find it here. -------------------- Speak softly and carry a weighted baseball bat. Then people have to listen to you. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 23 2007, 10:46 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Venting Addict Group: Moderator Posts: 996 Joined: 26-August 07 From: Canada Member No.: 37 |
Thanks for moving these posts to a more suitable thread here, BlackSpyder!
 For myself, there in lies the woe of most organized religions. Not only it it often believed their particular Faith is the 'one and only', often they feel their own personal interpretation within their own Faith is the 'one and only'. Quite staggering. And to make matters even more filled with woe - who (of the very human people interpreting the Bible written by very human people) makes the decision what should be taken at face value or literally from within the Bible. One tiny instance ... isn't there a passage in there somewhere that to eat pork is a huge no-no? And yet, don't most Christian people eat pork? And who decided the Old Testament was too 'blood filled/cruel' for our modern society so most quotes are restricted solely to the kinder New Testament? |
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2007, 10:32 AM
Post
#4
|
|
 T.V'S AGONY UNCLE Group: Global Moderator Posts: 1,254 Joined: 14-August 07 From: liverpool,england Member No.: 20 |
QUOTE 1. Literal first, unless the literal interpretation doesn’t fit the overall context. 2. Once it is determined that the passage of scripture is nonsensical when taken in the literal sense, then the student must determine whether the passage uses symbolic, figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic, prophetic, typological, emblematic, or other forms of illustrative language as a representational type of written communication. This hermeneutical approach not only holds true with interpretation of the Bible, but also applicable with any other written document or manuscript. How sad and how untrue. Lets do a example of how you are thinking. I will make a statement up out of my head....Lets say: Holstein cows are black and white. Now its said clearly just like the verses in the Bible I quote on earlier in this topic. How can there be any different interpretation with something so clear? Just reading your post's above shows that you can make it fit anyway you want QUOTE Once it is determined that the passage of scripture is nonsensical when taken in the literal sense so if its not taken literally then you move on,so what i am saying is the way you translate the bible is diffrent from the way i would. For instance what if the literal sense meant something to you ,but nothing to me but the symbolic sense was the true meaning to me and meant nothing to you. I will always say that the bible and its meanings have been lost in translation and if the bible is gods word why have so many gospels been removed from the oridginal text i.e The book of enoch? -------------------- god my head hurts
if you don't ask you don't know  |
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2007, 11:01 AM
Post
#5
|
|
 Vented Out Group: Administrators Posts: 1,388 Joined: 10-August 07 From: USA Member No.: 8 |
What does Rule 1 mean?
For example, I read something to the effect that I should become fishers of men. Now it seems obvious that if I got in my rowboat and I tried to catch men using different kinds of lures and bait, that someone would tell me, "but Z, you took the advice in the wrong way." I read another passage that tells me to go unto the four corners of the world. Does this mean that Z is forced to believe that the world is flat like a map of France, and that there are actually corners to which he should travel? I realise these are fairly obvious examples, but nevertheless they serve to illustrate what I take Rule 1 to mean, and I think reasonable people would be able to distinguish between taking either of the examples above as literal or as metaphorical. But certainly not all cases are this obvious. Now I think there are other valid reasons for rejecting a literal meaning besides its context, and I think there can be--and are----a variety of notions about what is meant by "context." But are not almost all of the discussions really about how one determines whether a certain text is meant to be taken literally or not? Z This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Oct 24 2007, 11:10 AM -------------------- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2007, 11:54 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 Advanced Venter Group: Members Posts: 168 Joined: 23-September 07 Member No.: 100 |
I often find that Context is key.
Often the passage itself tells you how it should be understood. Revelation 1:1 for example tells you that the book is made up of signs. It's not literal. Other passages are clear that they are visions or dreams that were given to humans by God. Much of the writing is historical. Some are Genealogical records. Much is also history written to show how God has dealt with humans in the past to teach future generations of conduct that is approved by God, and conduct that God condemns. Understanding these Basics makes for much easier reading and making sense of the Bible. -------------------- The smart man learns from his own mistakes.
The wise man learns from the mistakes of others. The stupid man never learns. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 12:57 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Venting Addict Group: Moderator Posts: 996 Joined: 26-August 07 From: Canada Member No.: 37 |
Not trying to start an argument here but am curious about ...
Noah and his ark. The impression given is that God is so unhappy with the wicked people on earth he deicdes to kill every single person, tiny babies and all, except for Noah and his family and select animals. If one took that story to be the literal truth, I honestly feel (and this is just my opinion) that God made himself the biggest mass murderer ever, even topping Hitler in later centuries. Ugh. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 10:00 AM
Post
#8
|
|
 Advanced Venter Group: Members Posts: 162 Joined: 5-September 07 Member No.: 38 |
QUOTE If one took that story to be the literal truth, I honestly feel (and this is just my opinion) that God made himself the biggest mass murderer ever, even topping Hitler in later centuries. Ugh. God gives everyone a chance to come to him. If they reject him one day he will reject them. He gave them all a chance but they did not choose him. God does not tolerate sin. Gods ways are not our ways and our ways are not Gods ways the Bible says. Isaiah 55:8-9 (New International Version) 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. -------------------- "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1) If you were to die today where would you go? Learn how to go to heaven today click here! Have a look at some of the videos I have made on Metacafe! -Austin Z If we are what we eat then I am fried,greasy and 99 cents.(nah I eat healthy most of the time) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 03:11 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Venting Addict Group: Moderator Posts: 996 Joined: 26-August 07 From: Canada Member No.: 37 |
So the tiny babies and small children are included in this 'needing to come to him'? If God created mankind, surely he would understand small children and infants doesn't understand the concept of 'coming to him'. Ergo, once again ... either it's not literally or egad!! Other Christians can accept it this story as not 'literal', so why is it only some feel this way if they coth study the same Bible and follow the same God's teachings?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 11:19 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Advanced Venter Group: Members Posts: 162 Joined: 5-September 07 Member No.: 38 |
QUOTE So the tiny babies and small children are included in this 'needing to come to him'? The age of accountability. Kids that do not know right from wrong wont go to hell. People who do but still refuse to accept Jesus then they go to hell when they die. QUOTE Other Christians can accept it this story as not 'literal', so why is it only some feel this way if they coth study the same Bible and follow the same God's teachings? A little more detailed please. I got lost on that one. -------------------- "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1) If you were to die today where would you go? Learn how to go to heaven today click here! Have a look at some of the videos I have made on Metacafe! -Austin Z If we are what we eat then I am fried,greasy and 99 cents.(nah I eat healthy most of the time) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2007, 12:16 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Venting Addict Group: Moderator Posts: 996 Joined: 26-August 07 From: Canada Member No.: 37 |
So it didn't matter that the tiny babies and young children (and all the people who had never been exposed to Christianity too) were innocent and God had no reason to murder them. But he throw a major hissy-fit and murdered them anyway. But it was okay to kill them too because they, being innocent, then got to go to Heaven.
Still a huge sad sigh and egad. Sorry about confusion ... by literal I meant that some Christians believe the story to have actually happened - and other Christians believe it to be a story intended to teach, rather than an event that really happened. What I'm truly trying to ask is it seems there are two choices on how people interpret the Bible ... 1. Believe every single word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally and every single story told as actually having happened ... and yet praise a God that was capable of such a vicious temper and brutal murders (even more so than Hitler did in later years) ... or 2. Believe that some words in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally and not every single story told actually happened, rather they were told as a learning lesson, etc ... and choose to believe in a gentler, kinder and more tolerant God. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2007, 06:46 AM
Post
#12
|
|
 Venter Group: Members Posts: 39 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Bossiaer City, Louisiana Member No.: 13 |
Mara, the account of Noah and the Ark is one that shows that humanity, at that time, had sunk to a point of total depravity.
First part of Noah and the Ark Notice verse 5 of Genesis ch6. God can and does see into the minds and harts of all people. The description of the human race was " everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil ". The construction of the Ark took 100 years (Noah's age before the command to build the Ark was 500 and the bible states that he was 600 when he and his family went into the Ark). Think about it. In 100 years time humanity never improved itself. We stayed completely evil in God's sight. Also remember that at the time of Noah, Christianity didn't exist yet. The only way at that time to get right with God was to Repent (or turn from) of the sins you have committed and the sacrifice of an animal (not going to go into the whole animal sacrifice rules and whys in this post). Humanity at this point had so saddened God that He regretted ever creating us. Yes he killed every last human on the face of the earth, except Noah and his family because they had turned to God and lived rightly in His eyes. Yes that does mean every man woman and child was killed and that all of them that had reached the age to understand the choice between right and wrong went to hell (i.e. the lake of fire) those children that were too young to understand the difference between right and wrong are going to be in heaven with God. God is a god of absolutes. There is sin and there is righteousness. There is no middle ground, no "shades of gray", no this sin is worse than that sin. In God's eyes all sin is the same and has the same punishment. Death and eternal separation from Him. With this standard in mind, would it be just for God to allow some one into heaven even if the only sin they had committed was to tell a lie against their neighbor? No, it would not! That is why God, even though humanity had turned it's back on Him in the garden of Eden, provided a way to atone for their sins until the final sacrifice of His son on the cross. God provided a way to avoid hell and eternity separated from Him, even though He didn't have to. The people that perished in the flood died because they refused to listen to the warnings, 100 years of warnings. In old testament days Gods would make Himself know to people that He knew would follow Him (remember God knows us better than we know are selves). even in this day and age He is doing the same thing. There are accounts of missionaries in the middle east that have encountered people that said Jesus appeared to them in dreams and told them the way to salvation and told them were to meet the missionaries. When the missionaries asked these people what Jesus said about the way to salvation in their dreams the response from these people matched what is in the new testament about salvation. These people that talked to the missionaries have never seen a bible in their life. God does reveal Himself to those He knows will choose Him, Even in places where the bible has never been. I know you may be thinking what about all the other people. The simple fact of the matter is that the others, even if they had the gospel preached to them directly by an angel, would still refuse to accept it. Just look at America, the "Christian nation". You have a country where the Message of the gospel is preached everywhere and still you have those that either reject it out right or just give it lip service but still truly reject it in their harts. You also have those that Think they are Christians and are raised in the church, but never truly accepted Jesus and latter fall away and leave the church due to some of their experiences in this life. To those that will never truly accept God and salvation, the Word of God will never truly make sense to them. Even if it is explained to them several times. I used to be like that, until events in my life turned me towards God. He answered. My life changed drastically. Many of the things I used to enjoy, that are sinful (ex. porn, just one of several), I no longer enjoy. Not because some preacher told me it was wrong, but because God took the love of sin out of my hart. Do I still sin? Yes there are times I do stumble and fall in my walk with God, but when I do God lets me know that what I did was wrong and that I need to turn from it (i.e. repent). I am not perfect. I never claim to be. I'm just forgiven. That is why the Gospel message about Jesus is called the Good News. What you do with that good news is up to you. I can only point the way and shine a light along the path for you. I can't make you or anyone take that path. All I can do is tell you seek God read His word and ask Him as many questions as you want to. If you are sincere and expect an answer, He will answer your questions. Though some times in a manner that you may not always expect. Seafox14 -------------------- "So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world." Colossians 3:5
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2007, 12:44 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Vented Out Group: Administrators Posts: 1,388 Joined: 10-August 07 From: USA Member No.: 8 |
To put a slightly different perspective on Mara's two general ways of interpretation, it seems that one can attempt to understand the text in question either by using special rules of interpretations or by using universal rules of interpreting it. That is to say, one can---at least initially---consider the text as an historical document like any other, or one can attempt to understand it only in a unique and special context without "bracketing" certain religious pre-conceptions.
If we are talking about understanding a text (rather than proving it right, for example), then it seems to be that much more is to be gained by applying the same rules to the Bible as we do any written document. This does not undermine the value or the status of the Bible, but rather increases the many ways it and it's passages can be understood. We are dealing with a collection of writings by many different hands with many different purposes, and I think our understanding of what is written is enhanced by looking at the differences of each. Even within a text, not everything can be understood the same way or by using the same interpretative rules. To use a text perhaps less provoking passion, in Plato's Symposium we have: 1. Passages designed to enhance the literary frame Plato chose for the occasion (someone tells another what yet another has told him about events at a party). Hence there is some "small talk" included to convince us that the events actually happened at a dinner-party. 2. Passages narrating some actual events in the life of Sokrates. 3. Passages discussing a philosophical topic from non-Platonic points of view. 4. Passages that suggest Plato's own point of view even though attributed to other speakers that evening. We also consider that the Symposium was a "published" work, which Plato meant to be read by his contemporaries, and what this implies for the content of the various speeches. Z -------------------- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2007, 12:48 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Venter Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 19-October 07 Member No.: 168 |
Just my thought and observation when reading the bible........there would have been a great possiblility that those babies , had not they died in the flood, would probably have grown to sin like the others. After all, God waited patiently 100 years, still none of those babies in that period of time (who would have grown by then) listened to God's warning thru Noah.
I believe so because I'm looking at Adam and Eve who commited one sin, then Cain commited murder and lie, then there is Abraham who lied, Isaac's son Jacob lie in a greater way by deceiving him, David sin and Solomon sinned greater. The pattern seems to be one generation sin leads to a greater sin in the next. May I share my thoughts again....the world is really corrupt at its present state but like in the flood and Sodom and Gomorroh, God is very patient. He waits until when all hope is gone, he waits further. I am pretty sure that is what he is doing too at our world's situation. He really is not out there to get us or babies, Mara. He is lovely when you know Him. Smile |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2007, 12:54 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Venter Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 19-October 07 Member No.: 168 |
I forgot to add, if you read about Sodom and Gomorroh, it kinda shows you God doesn't really want to destroy mankind. In all probability, if Abraham had asked Sodom and Gomorroh not to be destroyed if he he could find 1 righteous man, God would have said ok. Abraham mistake was he didn't, I suppose. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
| Topic Title | Replies | Topic Starter | Views | Last Action | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
85 | CrazyDwarf | 2,428 | 27th February 2008 - 08:27 PM Last post by: CrazyDwarf |
||
 |
1 | JohnWho | 85 | 6th January 2008 - 06:43 PM Last post by: garmanma |
||
|
1 |
