Hermenutics and selective retention

[JohnLocke]

Hey folks,

Been considering things for a long time and I'm tripping over the same issue

"What is the system whereby certain verses of the Bible are given literal weight, some interpretative, and some entirely discounted?"

For example, it seems that despite the prevalence of slavery in the Old Testament, including laws on how to treat one's slaves, some Christians have found slavery to be incompatible with Christianity.

It was required under the Law to marry one's brother's widow, but now such a thing is considered incest in most states.

Women wearing pants was an abomination, as I recall, but now not so much.

Mark and John give massively different chronologies to Jesus' life and works, which I can't rationalize with linear time.

Anyway, any help would be appreciated, because it seems that modern Christianity doesn't take all of the Bible literally, and I'm trying to figure out which parts to skip and why.

Cheers

 

[Confess]

For example, it seems that despite the prevalence of slavery in the Old Testament, including laws on how to treat one's slaves, some Christians have found slavery to be incompatible with Christianity.

Slavery in the Bible was not a harsh thing, but many Christians who have not studied it tend to lash out with their own understandings of slavery. Just the term makes them think of pre-civil war slavery which is not at all what the Bible taught. So here, you have ignorace playing a key role.


It was required under the Law to marry one's brother's widow, but now such a thing is considered incest in most states.
Jesus did not come to condem but to fulfill the law. The laws of the OT are no longer needed or required. The OT shows us that no matter how hard we try, we cannot fulfill the laws of God that would make us holy and clean in his eyes. This is why Jesus came. This is not to say that we should not try, but that we should realize that it is because we cannot fulfill them that we look to Jesus. Just as we were commanded not to eat unclean animals, and now are allowed to eat unclean animals. Same holds true with your example above.

Women wearing pants was an abomination, as I recall, but now not so much.
That is no where in the Bible.



Mark and John give massively different chronologies to Jesus' life and works, which I can't rationalize with linear time.
They are not massively different. They are different in-so-much as two people having seen the same things from two different angles, but they tell the same story. Trust me, if you saw the twin towers get hit by the 2 airplanes and your mother saw them as well, both of you will tell the same story. Your mother may have more or different details then you have, this does not make the stories wrong just because of that.

Anyway, any help would be appreciated, because it seems that modern Christianity doesn't take all of the Bible literally, and I'm trying to figure out which parts to skip and why.
Liberal Christianity is what doesn't take the bible litterally. Because of this, many people stumble and fall into agnostisism or become apathetic to the faith. It is a huge curse IMO.

The Lutheran Church (LCMS, ELS, WELS and other independant Lutheran churches like ELDONA.org) stay with the inerrant word of God. They say that where Scripture is silent, so am I. They do not interject their own reasonings into Scripture and say that where I do not understand, I will continue to research and pray for wisdom. They teach the Historical Grammatical Method of Scripture interpretation while the liberal churches tend to teach Historical Critical. Notice the term "critical" it says a whole lot about their views of the Bible.

 

[Robinsegg]

Well, there are a couple of considerations to be included in any such determination:
1. Historical context
2. Cultural context
For instance, I have no reference to anyone wearing pants in the Bible. Women are not to wear men's clothing to look like a man. This came from a practice in which women would go about bare-breasted to hunt, as men did in that culture. It was disgraceful for them to do so, therefore Christian women were informed not to do this. The same goes for hair length (short hair being the mark of a prostitute in those days) and the like.

Another example is stoning people to death for varied sins committed. This was done in setting up a theocratic government country out of a nation who only recently stopped being slaves in a pagan country. These laws tell us much about what God likes and dislikes (what is sin or not), but little about what we should do about it, since we're not setting up a theocratic government country out of a nation of former slaves of pagans.

Does that help?
Rachel

 

[JohnLocke]

Thanks for the replies,

If I may sum up:

The Old Testament is irrelevant.

 

[Blesss]

Thanks for the replies,

If I may sum up:

The Old Testament is irrelevant.

The NT would have no foundation without the Old, so it is most neccisary and we may still learn from it...

God Bless

 

[Key]

The OT, is a building block, but if you wished only to read the NT, that would be acceptable.

As Christians are just that.. Christians.

God Bless

Key

 

[Confess]

Thanks for the replies,

If I may sum up:

The Old Testament is irrelevant.

The OT shows us the consiquences of our sins, our utter uselessness in saving ourselves. It is equally important to the NT.

 

[katealpha]

The OT is the Jewish law and it's hard to understand what it means to Christians without the NT - when everything changed.

In its cultural context, however, the OT is illuminating but it's difficult and I'd recommend you read along with a good commentary.