How Do I Know For Sure......Interpreting the Bible: Methods and Mistakes!!!

[Borealis]

This is why it's good to be a Catholic. Instead of going through mental contortions to try and understand what the Bible 'really' means, if I come across something I can't figure out in the Bible, I'll just ask someone who knows more about it...like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or any of the other men who've been inspired by the Holy Spirit for the past two thousand years. People talk about the changing interpretations of the Bible...the Catholic Church hasn't changed its interpretations since the beginning. What was true in 45 A.D. is still true today.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

This is why it's good to be a Catholic. Instead of going through mental contortions to try and understand what the Bible 'really' means, if I come across something I can't figure out in the Bible, I'll just ask someone who knows more about it...like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or any of the other men who've been inspired by the Holy Spirit for the past two thousand years. People talk about the changing interpretations of the Bible...the Catholic Church hasn't changed its interpretations since the beginning. What was true in 45 A.D. is still true today.

Are you not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

JMW

 

[artybloke]

What was true in 45 A.D. is still true today.

No doubt a very comforting thought. However, as none of the NT had actually been written at that time, that would be somewhat unlikely. That, and the fact that if took a further 400 or so years of often vicious and frankly unChristlike wrangling for the church to actually agree on its core beliefs.

And I'm sure that Augustine and Aquinas were very wise and we can still learn from them. But I doubt they're anymore inerrant than any biblical scholar of today; and they would have had considerably less knowledge of such things as historical context.

And besides, do you really think that the Holy Spirit has stopped doing new things in the church?

 

[Borealis]

Are you not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

JMW

I believe I am, yes. But how do we know for certain? We know that Satan wants to turn us away from Christ and His Church. We also know that Christ promised that His Church would withstand Hell itself. If there's an army rolling toward you, are you going to stand on the open plain or take refuge in a fortress? True, you might not get steamrollered. But the odds are not, shall we say, in your favour. I'm brave, but not that brave.

The Holy Spirit does work through us all, but through His Church, the Holy Spirit provides us with infallible truth. I simply don't have the time to put in years of study to understand what God is telling me through the Bible. But for two thousand years, countless studies have been made by men who made it their life. I'll listen to what they have to say, because they've had more time to consider it than I have.

 

[Borealis]

No doubt a very comforting thought. However, as none of the NT had actually been written at that time, that would be somewhat unlikely. That, and the fact that if took a further 400 or so years of often vicious and frankly unChristlike wrangling for the church to actually agree on its core beliefs.

Nice theory, but wrong. The teachings of the Church don't come from the Bible; they come from the teachings of Christ. Those teachings were being spread around before Paul wrote his first epistle. Do you think that Paul is the one who told everyone what to believe? Peter and the Apostles were already doing that. They didn't write it down at first, but they were certainly teaching. Those teachings have been passed down to our time as Sacred Tradition.

Don't forget, Paul was persecuting Christians before Christ convinced him to do the right thing. First Thessalonians is believed to be the oldest writing of the New Testament, and it was written around 51 A.D. That's about eighteen years after Christ was crucified. The Apostles did not stand around for those eighteen years waiting for someone to start writing letters. Paul didn't articulate the teachings of the Church for the first time when he wrote his epistles. He merely explained what was already being taught. His writings were and are inspired, yes. But they are not all that matters.

Remember, there's one central figure of the Church who did not write a single word of the New Testament: Jesus Christ. He taught orally, as did his Apostles. And what they taught has been handed down to our day, through His Church. Yes, there have been some additions as society has 'evolved' and progressed; birth control and cloning, as a couple of examples. But that which was taught then is still taught today, in the Catholic Church.

As for those 400 years, the Church wasn't wrangling about what was Sacred Scripture. True, there was no official canon until Carthage and Hippo, but isn't it interesting how those councils independently came up with the same canon? If that's not inspired, please tell me what is.

And I'm sure that Augustine and Aquinas were very wise and we can still learn from them. But I doubt they're anymore inerrant than any biblical scholar of today; and they would have had considerably less knowledge of such things as historical context.

Augustine was around when the canon of the Bible was set, and wrote some of the greatest theological works ever (City of God, Confessions, On Christian Doctrine). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote THE finest work of theology ever written, the Summa Theologica. They might not have 'historical' context, but they certainly had a deeper understanding of Christianity than just about anyone this side of the Apostles themselves.

And besides, do you really think that the Holy Spirit has stopped doing new things in the church?

Of course not. The Holy Spirit will work through the Church forever. But if you think I'm going to take it upon myself to say that I know more about what God is saying than two thousand years of scholarship, sorry. I freely admit I have an ego the size of Ontario, but I know my limits.

 

[Philip]

As for those 400 years, the Church wasn't wrangling about what was Sacred Scripture. True, there was no official canon until Carthage and Hippo, but isn't it interesting how those councils independently came up with the same canon? If that's not inspired, please tell me what is.

Carthage and Hippo are not that far apart. Are you certain the same people did not attend both councils?

 

[Trench777]

First of all, please let me apologize in advance for what I know is going to wind up being a long post.

Secondly, let me just thank you ALL for your very valid insights, intellegent discourse, and civil manner of dealing with one another. It is like a breath of fresh air and I feel invigorated just knowing that I have some worthy minds to contemplate this topic with.

I would like to preface this by stating I am a rank amatuer when it comes to this subject, but I would like to offer some of my observations.

I have found that looking back into the original language at some of the words I read in KJV has unlocked things in The Word for me, in ways I couldn't have even hoped for. I'll give a quick (hopefully, heh) example.

The word "Kingdom"...as in "a drunkard can not enter the kingdom of God" or "it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven". My 21st century mind reads that and without even thinking, interprets "Kingdom of God" as meaning "Heaven; the location"...when in fact the original Greek word used for kingdom, means "rule, dominion, authority". Suddenly, these scriptures and many others opened themselves up to my heart and mind like treasures just waiting to be unearthed! The "drunkard" can not enter into the state of being which allows God to be the drunkards Adonai, because the alcohol is his ruler....the rich man finds it hard to enter into the condition of being submissive to God, if he puts his riches in the seat of authority in his life...there can not be 2 kings over a mans "territory". Interpreting the simple word "kingdom" in the way the writer meant it, has opened up so many scriptures to me....it has been a huge blessing to me!

(DISCLAIMER: I know the word "kingdom" is also used meaning physical territory in some instances in the NT, but it becomes plain to see when the speaker is talking of territory instead of "the state of being ruled by the king of the territory")

There are many other instances where I have been led to look up words, that I thought I knew the meaning to, but found out that I didn't. There are other words that mean several different things and of course have to be taken in micro and macro context (for lack of a better term, I say micro & macro...looking at them in the immediate context, and the context of the gestalt nature of The Word). The most beautiful thing about the Hebrew language (to me), is its poetic way of putting things...but I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to try to translate it into English!

I imagine it like this: A Hebrew translator picks up the notes off my desk and finds one that reads "The blind man, picked up the hammer and saw". Poor fellow...he didn't heard me SAY the sentance, so he had no idea which word I emphasised. Even if he had heard it, I could have said it in a way that still left it up to interpretation. Did I mean "The blind man was cured when he picked up the hammer"? Or did I mean "The blind man picked up two tools". Am I seeing this right, when I conclude that it almost becomes a flip of a coin, as to the true intent of my statement, without having me there to clarify?

Ok, I'm sorry for kind of going off on a tangent there, I'm not as clear or concise as you folks, but I do share your love of the Truth and look forward to reading your posts in the future! (and maybe even having something a bit more useful to input, heh)

Shalom!

T777

 

[praying]

The advice that several have offered (Scripture interpreting Scripture) is an excellent point. But it is only one of many basic tools that we should master if we are going to study God's Word in depth.

I would recommend that anyone seriously interested in improving their ability to interpret that Bible find a reliable (and relatively comprehensive) book on the subject. I have benefited greatly by "Principles of Biblical Interpretation" by Louis Berkhof. Also of great worth is Milton Terry's "Biblical Hermeneutics." I would suggest starting with Berkhof (only 161 pages as compared to Terry's 700+).

For any of us it is also of great value to compare what ever interpretations we arive at with the interpretations set forth in commentaries by trusted teachers/theologians. Yes, I know, "the writings of men." Please note however, that I advise that you first interpret the text for yourself, and then compare your understanding to that of godly men you have learned to trust.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but the science of hermeneutics can be complex. One of the wonders of the Scriptures is that a child can read God's Word and find within the text the wisdom unto salvation, yet its depths are so great that we will never be able to fully exhaust its capacity to teach us the things of God.

Mike

I think you make excellent points. I also think that many are afraid to comapre their interpetation with scholars for fear of being wrong in their interpetation.

 

[tigersnare]

This is why it's good to be a Catholic.

Because some brilliant minds have written what they think the bible says? Agreed..

In the same way, that's why it's good to be a Protestant

Instead of going through mental contortions to try and understand what the Bible 'really' means, if I come across something I can't figure out in the Bible, I'll just ask someone who knows more about it...like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or any of the other men who've been inspired by the Holy Spirit for the past two thousand years.

Agreed...I fancy Calvin, and Luther on Galatians is just splendid...

People talk about the changing interpretations of the Bible...the Catholic Church hasn't changed its interpretations since the beginning.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Catholic Church has officially interpreted...what 15 versus in the entire bible?

 

[clinzey]

This is why it's good to be a Catholic. Instead of going through mental contortions to try and understand what the Bible 'really' means, if I come across something I can't figure out in the Bible, I'll just ask someone who knows more about it...like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or any of the other men who've been inspired by the Holy Spirit for the past two thousand years. People talk about the changing interpretations of the Bible...the Catholic Church hasn't changed its interpretations since the beginning. What was true in 45 A.D. is still true today.

The Catholic Church changes its positions from time to time.

 

[Borealis]

The Catholic Church changes its positions from time to time.

Such as?

 

[uncle david]

All passages of scripture have multiple meanings according to what the Holy Ghost reveals to you . Don't even try reading the Bible thinking that your gonna figure ANYTHING out. Have faith in the Holy Spirit, pray EVERYTIME you read(even for one passage) otherwise you waste your time. Flesh cannot understand spirit. All spiritual meanings of scripture can only be revealed by God, "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in Heaven." Have faith kids.

 

[uncle david]

"I believe I am, yes. But how do we know for certain? We know that Satan wants to turn us away from Christ and His Church. We also know that Christ promised that His Church would withstand Hell itself. If there's an army rolling toward you, are you going to stand on the open plain or take refuge in a fortress? True, you might not get steamrollered. But the odds are not, shall we say, in your favour. I'm brave, but not that brave.

The Holy Spirit does work through us all, but through His Church, the Holy Spirit provides us with infallible truth. I simply don't have the time to put in years of study to understand what God is telling me through the Bible. But for two thousand years, countless studies have been made by men who made it their life. I'll listen to what they have to say, because they've had more time to consider it than I have."

That is the measure of your faith! oh ye of little faith, you look to men for answers yet are they only men, years are nothing, faith is everything. it grieves my heart to hear that this self proclaimed son of the living God does not look to his Father for his Father's word, but to men, who lie, steal, kill. God is not a man that he should lie! Satan has no power to turn the tv on! he lies to the weak in faith to make them turn themselves around. according to your faith, let it be.

 

[Borealis]

That is the measure of your faith! oh ye of little faith, you look to men for answers yet are they only men, years are nothing, faith is everything. it grieves my heart to hear that this self proclaimed son of the living God does not look to his Father for his Father's word, but to men, who lie, steal, kill. God is not a man that he should lie! Satan has no power to turn the tv on! he lies to the weak in faith to make them turn themselves around. according to your faith, let it be.

Excuse me? Where did I say I was looking to only men for answers? I'm looking to men who for the past two thousand years have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, men who have had far more opportunity than I to study the Scriptures, men who made it their life's work to understand God's Word, and through His guidance, bring the rest of us to a deeper understanding of His truth. Now, are you going to tell me that I shouldn't look for guidance to those who were given that awesome gift? Thanks, but I'll stick to Christ's Church. Satan has power over me, it's true; I'm a sinful man. But through Christ, and the promise of His Church, I'll overcome Satan and find my salvation.

You don't know me, nor do you know the measure of my faith; don't presume to tell me what I do or don't believe. Histronics don't impress me.

Oh, and are you implying that men like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were liars, thieves, and killers? Yeah, sure, whatever, thanks for your input.

 

[clinzey]

Such as?

That the Jews were a cursed people for committing deicide....

 

[TSIBHOD]

Now, are you going to tell me that I shouldn't look for guidance to those who were given that awesome gift?

I think that it's great to look to those who are (or were) more mature for spiritual guidance, but I don't think that we can trust them as implicitly as we can the Bible. The Bible is right per se; in my opinion, no one's interpretation of the Bible is correct without question. There are people who have been led by the Spirit, and I would accept their words with great trustingness, but I wouldn't trust them so much that I could never challenge what they say if I disagree. This differs from the Bible, where I must not challenge it, even if I do disagree.

Now, I know that in your opinion, Borealis, there are certain people, or at least certain interpretations (CCC for example) that are always correct. But just because one person, or a lot of people, tells you that that is true doesn't mean you would believe it. You would still have to evaluate either Catholicism itself, or the people who told you to believe in Catholicism. You would have to decide for yourself whether or not you were going to trust what Catholicism teaches. Just believing that Popes have been inspired is not enough; you would need to have some revelation from the Holy Spirit that this was the case, or else you would be basing your trust on nothing. Do you see what I mean? In this way, you can't get away from the fact that you have to have some personal revelation from the Holy Spirit -- you can't just trust others to have that, since you have to have it to even know that you really should be trusting them.

You may think this already, but I thought the point needed to be cleared up.

 

[tigersnare]

Now, I know that in your opinion, Borealis, there are certain people, or at least certain interpretations (CCC for example) that are always correct. But just because one person, or a lot of people, tells you that that is true doesn't mean you would believe it. You would still have to evaluate either Catholicism itself, or the people who told you to believe in Catholicism. You would have to decide for yourself whether or not you were going to trust what Catholicism teaches. Just believing that Popes have been inspired is not enough; you would need to have some revelation from the Holy Spirit that this was the case, or else you would be basing your trust on nothing. Do you see what I mean? In this way, you can't get away from the fact that you have to have some personal revelation from the Holy Spirit -- you can't just trust others to have that, since you have to have it to even know that you really should be trusting them.

I'm not Catholic but I think your logic against him is flawed here. They believe without a doubt that those versus about Peter being given the keys is the start of their Church, so all that stuff about "other people telling you this or that" goes out the window, you said in the previous paragraph to the one I quoted that you can not disagree with the bible. Well why should he?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Correct, they base their beliefs on verses about Peter. But others can reason validly and come to different conclusions about the same verses. So how do they know that they are right? They must have some leading of the Holy Spirit to bring them to the conclusion that Peter was indeed the first Pope, as Catholics believe.

If you believe that others have the Holy Spirit simply because they themselves say so, -- and you do not discern that this is the case by the Holy Spirit interacting with your own spirit -- then you are acting irresponsibly. If you are just trusting that they are right, without having some assurance of this in your own spirit, then you actually are trusting in man rather than God's Spirit. God's Spirit doesn't have to reveal every truth to you first, but His Spirit should reveal when something told to you is truth. You may not have come up with something, but God's Spirit is required for you to judge whether something is really true. We should not believe anything only because someone else tells us that it is true, no matter who that person is. I'm not saying we can't have faith, but that our faith must not be because we hear something from a certain person, and "he's always right." Our faith, when we hear a truth from any other individual, must be based upon the Spirit within showing us that we are hearing the truth.

 

[uncle david]

"Satan has power over me, it's true; I'm a sinful man. But through Christ, and the promise of His Church, I'll overcome Satan and find my salvation."
you just renounced the whole point and purpose of what jesus came for. satan has no power over you, even God almighty has no power over you. only you do. He gave you this power. have you ever purposed to pick up your bible and read "we are made the righteousness of God through christ jesus." ? hmm? its there . c'mon now, who the son makes free is free indeed! he came to destroy the work of the devil and what a job he did. Praise him for that! satan is just a has been. all he has to fight the church with are lies and deceit, and he is doing pretty good with that against the weak in faith. if satan does have control over you, and you are STILL a sinner then surely according to the bible the holy ghost dwells not in you and you arent even in the the body of christ. whoever the son sets free is free indeed!

You don't know me, nor do you know the measure of my faith; don't presume to tell me what I do or don't believe. Histronics don't impress me. i know more about you than apparently you do about yourself. "we are made more than conquerors through jesus christ"!

 

[ischus]

Uncle David: I know you are 15, but in my book you are already a "sophomore."