Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[Split Rock]

Yes and no --- only where my interpretation disagrees with God's Word, would it be errant.

If it agrees with God's Word, whether accidentally or on purpose, then God's Word gives my opinion its credibility.

For instance, if I claim God exists --- my interpretation would be inerrant.

If I claim evolution exists --- my interpretation would be errant.

How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??

How would I know if 'my' interpretation disagrees?

Again --- any interpretation I put forward --- if it can't be backed up in Writing, then it's subject to error.

 

[Split Rock]

How would I know if 'my' interpretation disagrees?

Again --- any interpretation I put forward --- if it can't be backed up in Writing, then it's subject to error.

What do you mean by "backed up in writing?" Are you refering to scriptual support? Scripture can be used to support just about any interpretation you want. Again, I ask... how do we determine which interpretation is the correct interpretation?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean by "backed up in writing?" Are you refering to scriptual support? Scripture can be used to support just about any interpretation you want. Again, I ask... how do we determine which interpretation is the correct interpretation?

Use the one Jesus used --- the grammatical-historical interpretation.

 

[Split Rock]

Use the one Jesus used --- the grammatical-historical interpretation.

Can you explain exactly what that means?

 

[Catherineanne]

why do they insist that the bible is still printed using old English? perhaps they think that 'thee and thou' somehow adds a little weight to the words?

That is not Old English, that is technically Modern English; the language of Shakespeare and the KJV. We now speak one or other variant of New English.

This is Old English:

Hwæt, ic swefna cyst secgan wylle,
hwæt mē gemætte to midre nihte,
syðþan reordberend reste wunedon.​

 

[Catherineanne]

Creationists are loathe to admit that what they claim as “God’s Word,” or “The Bible” is really nothing more than an opinion based on their interpretation of scripture. Why? Because a personal opinion based on fallible interpretation is not “inerrant.” Without Divine Inerrancy, the creationists have nothing to argue but their own opinion and speculation. In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.

And that is why creationism is not based on The Inerrant Word of God.

This is correct. Moreover, the Bible does not authorise interpreting the Scriptures as equal in authority to God himself. Such behaviour is idolatrous, in setting up that which is in creation, and part of creation, and treating it as if it were the Creator.

The Bible is not God. The inerrant Word of God is Christ himself, not a book.

The Bible is to God what the A-Z is to London. Useful for finding your way there, and finding your way around, but not to be mistaken for the real thing.

 

[Catherineanne]

How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??

Any interpretation whatever which is required before understanding can be fully achieved, is ironically enough evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and against its sufficiency.

If the Bible were inerrant and sufficient, no interpretation would be needed. Anyone adopting a Sola Scriptura position who then attempts to interpret 'properly' for the rest of us, only succeeds in demonstrating the inconsistency of their own position.

 

[Hespera]

Any interpretation whatever which is required before understanding can be fully achieved, is ironically enough evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and against its sufficiency.

If the Bible were inerrant and sufficient, no interpretation would be needed. Anyone adopting a Sola Scriptura position who then attempts to interpret 'properly' for the rest of us, only succeeds in demonstrating the inconsistency of their own position.

Interesting post, thank you. i will try to remember just what you said here.

 

[Catherineanne]

Interesting post, thank you. i will try to remember just what you said here.

The best evidence for the Bible not being inerrant is that it doesn't claim to be. And if it is not, then our interpretations certainly can't be.

The following article gives more information about the authority of Scripture; it was linked on another thread, and I found it most interesting. It is written by an evangelical, so there are some conclusions I would not necessarily agree with, but on the whole it gives a very balanced introduction to this issue.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

 

[Hespera]

The best evidence for the Bible not being inerrant is that it doesn't claim to be. And if it is not, then our interpretations certainly can't be.

The following article gives more information about the authority of Scripture; it was linked on another thread, and I found it most interesting. It is written by an evangelical, so there are some conclusions I would not necessarily agree with, but on the whole it gives a very balanced introduction to this issue.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

Hmm, ok, I will read that.

To me the best evidence that it isnt inerrant would simply be the
errors! But then I dont look at anything from a theological pov.

 

[Split Rock]

The best evidence for the Bible not being inerrant is that it doesn't claim to be. And if it is not, then our interpretations certainly can't be.

The following article gives more information about the authority of Scripture; it was linked on another thread, and I found it most interesting. It is written by an evangelical, so there are some conclusions I would not necessarily agree with, but on the whole it gives a very balanced introduction to this issue.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

Thank you for presenting that link to us... I found it quite refreshing, especially coming from an Evangelical Christian.

There is one part I want to cite here (emphasis mine):

"There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition. We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’. This is rather like the frequent Anglican assumption (being an Anglican myself I rather cherish this) that Anglicans have no doctrine peculiar to themselves: it is merely that if something is true the Church of England believes it. This, though not itself a refutation of the claim not to have any ‘tradition’, is for the moment sufficient indication of the inherent unlikeliness of the claim’s truth, and I am confident that most people, facing the question explicitly, will not wish that the claim be pressed. But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’"

This is the main problem which I have with most creationists and their assertion of Divine Authority. They claim to not only represent "The Word of God," but to do so inerrantly."

 

[BananaSlug]

Yes and no --- only where my interpretation disagrees with God's Word, would it be errant.

Do you mean thinking of an idea and seeing if it matches scripture or actually reading scripture and making an interpretation of what that passage means? Like using a single verse to back up your "embedded age" rather than reading Genesis and intepreting it literally.

If it agrees with God's Word, whether accidentally or on purpose, then God's Word gives my opinion its credibility.

Okay, it sounds to me that you are thinking of things and checking to see if God's word agrees. In other words, you read the creation story as literal and use it to check your ideas about creation. Why do you have a literal interpretation of Genesis?

For instance, if I claim God exists --- my interpretation would be inerrant.

Correct because the Bible specifically states that God exists.

If I claim evolution exists --- my interpretation would be errant.

Wrong. Your interpretation is that Genesis is literal history. Other Christians see it as metaphor but can still believe the spiritual significance. Is their interpretation of Genesis wrong? If it is, how do you know it is wrong? What if they claim God inspired them as well?

 

[BananaSlug]

Preposterous. Why common descent and the big bang are wrong, etc, is not because of the word of God. The word of God simply clues us in that you are dead wrong. And if you were not, you could prove it. Of course you can't.



The whole idea of God speaking to man, and getting a record to us is that it is inspired. Holy men of God did speak as led by God, of course. No way round it.


It gives that lineage to within a small margin of interpretation. Do you doubt Adam lived 930 years or whatever? The changes in kids we can see, that came after they got off the ark. The bible also mentions changes to come in kinds, like lion eating straw...




The universe changes that were after effects of putting man's universe into a temporary state, are too numerous to list. Neither are they important, as they will all be changed again. What is important is that God sent His son to save us from ourselves, and death forever. Whether His living here on earth will mean the sun starts to revolve around the earth, we don't know. Just as whethher it used to in anotther state is unknown..



Or the tooth fairy! So??? It does mention in the latter days men will worship the creation more than the creator.



No more than interpreting Adam lived 930 years.



Not all ancients were goat herders. Really. The wise men, for example. Or Daniel. Many things were written for the latter times, not just in the US, but Israel, and etc.



Not at all. The years from Adam till Solomon are pretty well mapped out. Opinion comes into play only in a minor way, to the tune of max hundreds of years.

Yes, they do,, if we are talking the garden, the flood, or Babel, or etc. Also the timeframes, within a small margin of possible interpretation. That is why it is such a raging debate.

Creation, and creation week is sacrosanct, untouchable, immutable, absolute, written in stone, divine, confirmed in the mouth of New Testament witnesses, impervious to science, and certain.

Still waiting on that debate...

 

[theFijian]

Any interpretation whatever which is required before understanding can be fully achieved, is ironically enough evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and against its sufficiency.

If the Bible were inerrant and sufficient, no interpretation would be needed. Anyone adopting a Sola Scriptura position who then attempts to interpret 'properly' for the rest of us, only succeeds in demonstrating the inconsistency of their own position.

This is not an accurate representaion of sola scriptura, which states that the bible is sufficient in that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and it is the only authority to govern christian life as (opposed to the church, sola scripture is one of the doctrines arising out of the reformation which was opposed to extra-biblical demands being forced upon people by the church)

Sola scriptura in no way negates a person's own mind or intellect in coming to understand what it contains. To set up one's interpretation of scripture as being opposed to the doctrine of sola scriptura a bit of a strawman.

 

[dad]

This is correct. Moreover, the Bible does not authorise interpreting the Scriptures as equal in authority to God himself.

If the word is from God, it is part of God. He cannot lie. This is news?

Such behaviour is idolatrous, in setting up that which is in creation, and part of creation, and treating it as if it were the Creator.

In the beginning was the word and the word.... was God...all things were made by Him..

 

[dad]

Yes I doubt Adam lived 930 years. No human being lives that long and the evidence from buried human skeletons shows they never did. Oh, and lions don't eat straw.

Glad you noticed that. Indeed. They will in the new reign of Christ, though, the bible says.

More state nonsense you cannot provide evidence for..

Science is base3d on state stuff, same state. They cannot provide evidence for..

I thought everyone will worship The AntiChrist?

No, only those not written in the book of life./ Like Sturgeoun, and Dr Magee said, 'I am glad that the names in that book were added before the world began, if they were added after, I never would have made it,,'

An incorrect interpretation leads to incorrect conclusions.

True. So...?

It was written for goat-herders to understand, not by them.

Ah, so goat herders were the target audience. Not sheep herders, musicians, warriors, slaves, Hebrews, or etc etc? Ok.

"Begat" only indicates ancestry, not whether it was direct or not. My great-great grandfather begat me... it doesn't mean he was my father.

In the order given, however, the years can be added up. Not rocket science. Adam begat someone. Seth, for example. Can you show us before the flood where the dad that begat was actually the great grand dad? No? Aw...too bad.

What CAN you do?

 

[Catherineanne]

Hmm, ok, I will read that.

To me the best evidence that it isnt inerrant would simply be the
errors!

This is perfectly true. But the problem with addressing the Bible in terms of truth and error is that this feeds into the literalist agenda. In other words, the Bible only contains errors if you expect it to meet a literal or scientific standard.

If you do not have any such expectation, then it can be error free, because what it talks about is the gradual revelation of God to mankind, and that revelation is necessarily limited by our perception, not by God's perfection.

But then I dont look at anything from a theological pov.

Are you sure?

 

[Catherineanne]

since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth

Exactly.

Ironically, he sees the problem, but then still falls in to the trap himself, but claiming there is more than a grain of truth in it.

 

[Catherineanne]

This is not an accurate representaion of sola scriptura, which states that the bible is sufficient in that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and it is the only authority to govern christian life as (opposed to the church, sola scripture is one of the doctrines arising out of the reformation which was opposed to extra-biblical demands being forced upon people by the church)

Sola scriptura in no way negates a person's own mind or intellect in coming to understand what it contains. To set up one's interpretation of scripture as being opposed to the doctrine of sola scriptura a bit of a strawman.

Meanwhile, Sola Scriptura constitutes an extra Biblical demand forced on people by Luther. Who incidentally set himself up as an authority above Scripture by editing whole books out of the existing Bible and changing the wording of others.

If you want to call this a strawman, then go ahead.