Misunderstanding the Bible

Soyeong · Mar 21, 2023

When should someone who is reading a verse from the Bible conclude that they have must have misunderstood it, or if they have correctly understood it, then when should they conclude that they should not accept its validity?

For example, someone could read that Psalms 14:1 states "there is no God" and go around teaching that according to the Bible we should deny the existence of God, but it would be better for them to have the self-awareness to recognize that it is completely absurd to interpret the Bible as saying that and that they must have misunderstood it rather than teaching their interpretation as what the Bible says, especially when it is clearly taken out of context. However, if they did correctly understand that verse as affirming that we should deny the existence of God, then it is clear that they should not accept its validity rather than teaching it as being correct.

So we can take the position that we should not accept that what someone is saying is correct because they have misinterpreted a verse, but even if they have correctly understood it, then we should reject its validity, so either way we should not accept that what they are saying is correct. I think that we should all accept the validity of everything that is taught in the Bible, which is why I do not think that we should interpret any part of it a manner that would mean that we should reject its validity, so it is difficult to be willing to reject the validity of a verse if it is correctly understood to be teaching certain things, but again, if it were actually teaching something like that there is no God or that we should rebel against Him, then we should reject its validity. The Bible does contain some difficult teachings, so there a danger in incorrectly rejecting valid teaching of the Bible because it is not in accordance with our understanding of the Bible, though there is also a danger in wrongly following a teaching that we should been willing to reject. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so according to that precedent, there is a standard by which we should accept or reject the validity of what he taught.

While we should seek to correctly understand everything in the Bible, it is ok for someone to take the position they don't understand a verse, but they look forward to a time when God reveals its meaning to them. Someone can also take the position that they don't know what the correct interpretation of a verse is, but they do know that certain interpretations are not it. It is better for someone to have the self-awareness that their understanding of a verse is incorrect than for them to promote it as though they are just believing what it is saying.

Akita Suggagaki · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
It is better for someone to have the self-awareness that their understanding of a verse is incorrect than for them to promote it as though they are just believing what it is saying.

It is better still for one to have the self-awareness to realize that their understanding is limited and always subject to correction, development and deepening. Perhaps even with time they themselves may change and grow that that scripture is not so much about "believing" a certain way as it is about nurturing that growth.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
While we should seek to correctly understand everything in the Bible, it is ok for someone to take the position they don't understand a verse, but they look forward to a time when God reveals its meaning to them.

It is therefore okay to perpetually take a position that they do not understand the law, and only seek to apply the new testament.

BobRyan · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
When should someone who is reading a verse from the Bible conclude that they have must have misunderstood it, or if they have correctly understood it, then when should they conclude that they should not accept its validity?

For example, someone could read that Psalms 14:1 states "there is no God" and go around teaching that according to the Bible we should deny the existence of God, but it would be better for them to have the self-awareness to recognize that it is completely absurd to interpret the Bible as saying that and that they must have misunderstood it rather than teaching their interpretation as what the Bible says, especially when it is clearly taken out of context. However, if they did correctly understand that verse as affirming that we should deny the existence of God, then it is clear that they should not accept its validity rather than teaching it as being correct.

So we can take the position that we should not accept that what someone is saying is correct because they have misinterpreted a verse, but even if they have correctly understood it, then we should reject its validity, so either way we should not accept that what they are saying is correct. I think that we should all accept the validity of everything that is taught in the Bible, which is why I do not think that we should interpret any part of it a manner that would mean that we should reject its validity,

Exegesis is the method a lot of Christians in different denominations use to help them step away from their own bias - and try to get to the best understanding of what a given text is teaching.

Soyeong said:
In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so according to that precedent, there is a standard by which we should accept or reject the validity of what he taught.

Amen to that!

Soyeong said:
While we should seek to correctly understand everything in the Bible, it is ok for someone to take the position they don't understand a verse, but they look forward to a time when God reveals its meaning to them. Someone can also take the position that they don't know what the correct interpretation of a verse is, but they do know that certain interpretations are not it. It is better for someone to have the self-awareness that their understanding of a verse is incorrect than for them to promote it as though they are just believing what it is saying.

Agreed.

But a third case may be "This is the best interpretation of this text that I have found - and it makes sense. If I find a better one in the future - I will gladly take it".

timothyu · Mar 21, 2023

One cannot except a verse as truth unless in context with the chapter or the book or the entire Bible. The same truth is shown throughout.

BobRyan · Mar 21, 2023

Michael Collum said:
It is therefore okay to perpetually take a position that they do not understand the law, and only seek to apply the new testament.

So not a good conclusion since it begins with the idea "I am willing tow toss out 39 or 43 books of the word of God" (depending on your willingness to throw out the gospel accounts describing events before the cross)

BobRyan · Mar 21, 2023

timothyu said:
One cannot except a verse as truth unless in context with the chapter or the book or the entire Bible. The same truth is shown throughout.

ahh yes -- exegesis. IT is a good way to reduce the influence of prior-bias when reading the text.

Soyeong · Mar 21, 2023

Michael Collum said:
It is therefore okay to perpetually take a position that they do not understand the law, and only seek to apply the new testament.

The NT instructs us to repent from our sin and that sin the transgression of God's law, so contradictory for someone to do that. Again, they're a danger in incorrectly rejecting valid teaching of the Bible because it is not in accordance with our understanding of the Bible. Someone interpreting the Bible as speaking against obeying what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow would be an example of when they should have the self-awareness to recognize that their interpretation is completely absurd and that it must be wrong.

timothyu · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
The NT instructs us to repent from our sin and that sin the transgression of God's law,

That was taught and shown all through the OT.

timothyu · Mar 21, 2023

Michael Collum said:
It is therefore okay to perpetually take a position that they do not understand the law, and only seek to apply the new testament.

Look at how the early 'church fathers' ignored the Hebrew language and the OT to create the NT and the religion in their own image. What happened as a result? We are expected to accept tradition instead.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 21, 2023

BobRyan said:
So not a good conclusion since it begins with the idea "I am willing tow toss out 39 or 43 books of the word of God" (depending on your willingness to throw out the gospel accounts describing events before the cross)

Soyeong said:
The NT instructs us to repent from our sin and that sin the transgression of God's law, so contradictory for someone to do that. Again, they're a danger in incorrectly rejecting valid teaching of the Bible because it is not in accordance with our understanding of the Bible. Someone interpreting the Bible as speaking against obeying what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow would be an example of when they should have the self-awareness to recognize that their interpretation is completely absurd and that it must be wrong.

timothyu said:
Look at how the early 'church fathers' ignored the Hebrew language and the OT to create the NT and the religion in their own image. What happened as a result? We are expected to accept tradition instead.

My point was .. that a caveat was left out.

It is okay to be ignorant on some issues, unless it's something that the speaker finds important.

Philip_B · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
When should someone who is reading a verse from the Bible conclude that they have must have misunderstood it, or if they have correctly understood it, then when should they conclude that they should not accept its validity?

For example, someone could read that Psalms 14:1 states "there is no God" and go around teaching that according to the Bible we should deny the existence of God, but it would be better for them to have the self-awareness to recognize that it is completely absurd to interpret the Bible as saying that and that they must have misunderstood it rather than teaching their interpretation as what the Bible says, especially when it is clearly taken out of context. However, if they did correctly understand that verse as affirming that we should deny the existence of God, then it is clear that they should not accept its validity rather than teaching it as being correct.

So we can take the position that we should not accept that what someone is saying is correct because they have misinterpreted a verse, but even if they have correctly understood it, then we should reject its validity, so either way we should not accept that what they are saying is correct. I think that we should all accept the validity of everything that is taught in the Bible, which is why I do not think that we should interpret any part of it a manner that would mean that we should reject its validity, so it is difficult to be willing to reject the validity of a verse if it is correctly understood to be teaching certain things, but again, if it were actually teaching something like that there is no God or that we should rebel against Him, then we should reject its validity. The Bible does contain some difficult teachings, so there a danger in incorrectly rejecting valid teaching of the Bible because it is not in accordance with our understanding of the Bible, though there is also a danger in wrongly following a teaching that we should been willing to reject. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so according to that precedent, there is a standard by which we should accept or reject the validity of what he taught.

While we should seek to correctly understand everything in the Bible, it is ok for someone to take the position they don't understand a verse, but they look forward to a time when God reveals its meaning to them. Someone can also take the position that they don't know what the correct interpretation of a verse is, but they do know that certain interpretations are not it. It is better for someone to have the self-awareness that their understanding of a verse is incorrect than for them to promote it as though they are just believing what it is saying.

I think that Psalm 14 is a poor example:

To the leader. Of David.
Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.

One of the maxims I was brought up with was A text out of context in a con. I have since learned that there are a lot of things that are part of the context, including the situation that surrounds the writing of the text. Yet before you get to that, context also involves looking at the verses around the text that provide greater clarity.

Soyeong · Mar 21, 2023

Philip_B said:
I think that Psalm 14 is a poor example:

One of the maxims I was brought up with was A text out of context in a con. I have since learned that there are a lot of things that are part of the context, including the situation that surrounds the writing of the text. Yet before you get to that, context also involves looking at the verses around the text that provide greater clarity.

I thought Psalms 14:1 was an excellent example and I picked it because it was something that everyone could clearly see was taken out of context and clearly see that if the interpretation were correct then it is something that we should all reject. If I picked a verse as an example that was more hotly disputed like Matthew 16:18, then would not be a clear example where someone should conclude that they must have misunderstood it, or if they did correctly understand it, it would not be a clear example that they should reject its validity.

Philip_B · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
I thought Psalms 14:1 was an excellent example and I picked it because it was something that everyone could clearly see was taken out of context and clearly see that if the interpretation were correct then it is something that we should all reject. If I picked a verse as an example that was more hotly disputed like Matthew 16:18, then would not be a clear example where someone should conclude that they must have misunderstood it, or if they did correctly understand it, it would not be a clear example that they should reject its validity.

Psalms 137 may have been a better example where the context is beyond the simple written text imho

Soyeong · Mar 21, 2023

Philip_B said:
Psalms 137 may have been a better example where the context is beyond the simple written text imho

What is an interpretation of Psalms 137 should cause someone to conclude that they must have misunderstood it, or if they have correctly understood it, then they should not accept the validity of Psalms 137?

timothyu · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
an excellent example and I picked it because it was something that everyone could clearly see was taken out of context and clearly see that if the interpretation were correct then it is something that we should all reject. If I picked a verse as an example that was more hotly disputed like Matthew 16:18,

Matthew 16:18 without the context of 17 means nothing. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Philip_B · Mar 21, 2023

Soyeong said:
What is an interpretation of Psalms 137 should cause someone to conclude that they must have misunderstood it, or if they have correctly understood it, then they should not accept the validity of Psalms 137?

Psalms 137:8-9
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!

This sentiment is generally not thought to be very Christian, and indeed in many lectionaries, these verses will not make an appearance in the Sunday Lections. Given the emphasis to go the extra mile, turning the other cheek, and forgiveness. The destruction of infants seems incapable of being understood in terms of justice, kindness, or walking humbly.

The context that helps us understand this passage is not the words around it so much as the reality of seventy years of captivity in a foreign land.

Hawkins · Mar 22, 2023

The Temple is built by Jesus in 3 days, which cannot be corrupt. Our earthly Church is the Bride of Jesus. Our Church, though intangible, enforces the truth of the Bible perhaps till the point where the physical churches go corrupt. So our Church still holds the truth of God and any physical entities (i.e., physical churches) deemed inside God's Church will provide guidance to the truth of the Bible to a large extent. The Holy Spirit is also poured upon us. Our individual responsibility is to sort out a reliable church to stay, the more conservative ones are usually easier to spot. Then there are the pastors with biblical knowledge backed by God the Holy Spirit inside the church.

The most basic guidline for spotting a valid church is how well the church is sticking to the faith statements of the Apostles' Creed. Actually, the message of salvation itself is not difficult. Other knowledge are nice to have, but some of them maybe difficult, such as the term 'predestination' and etc. Then it relies on your humility not to cause unnecessary arguments inside a church. To simply put, as long as you are in a valid Christian church, humble yourself and listen more to the ministers. While an invalid church will have the salvation message twisted, and thus is heretic.

timothyu · Mar 22, 2023

A valid church's foundation is truth from God, not from man. That truth is already written in the Bible,.

Misunderstanding the Bible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads