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

[hebrew33]

All in all, though, the Bible's purpose is not to give us an accurate portrayal of history but to tell us about God.

Are you allowing the bible to prove God? Shouldn’t we ask God to prove or disprove what is said about him ?
I read back through the last seven pages on this topic and found that prayer was only used by one person and it was quotes from the old testament.

The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer

To me, the bible should not be lifted up above, or to take the place of God. It should only be used to point to God.

If it is indeed inerrant and all contains absolute truths, if there are no additions or omissions from the spirit led authors and if it the language is totally understandable then and only then will it need no interpretation.

Love Ya!

 

[ischus]

If it is indeed inerrant and all contains absolute truths, if there are no additions or omissions from the spirit led authors and if it the language is totally understandable then and only then will it need no interpretation.

Here is the fundamental issue. The fact is that the english bible we have is not the same as the original autographs...but what we decide from here is crucial. Do we neglect the bible because of its obvious shortcomings, or do we study and get as close as we can to the intended message of the autographs? What was the 1st century church advised to do with the scriptures- neglect them or study them?

 

[tigersnare]

Are you allowing the bible to prove God?

Well this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd try answering.

Yes the Bible does prove God. Jesus was the proof.

Shouldn’t we ask God to prove or disprove what is said about him ?

Do you mean, you doubt the bible so you need him to prove his words? Isn't that was Jesus was...The word(which some doubt/doubted) become flesh(living, breathing, walking proof)?

What more could one ask for?

If it is indeed inerrant and all contains absolute truths, if there are no additions or omissions from the spirit led authors.

I see now....

*tiger goes back to the reformed camp, where we all agree what scripture is....and what scripture isn't.*

 

[clinzey]

sorry i am late at this but, if you call the bible a story book it is really just that, but its not. its a contract of the covenant of promises that we now have through christ jesus and by his sacrifice. yea, thats it.

But there are many narratives in the Bible that are not of a contractual nature (there just are, you can't deny it). That means that there is more to it than a list of contract rules and regulations for the Old and New Covenants. The narratives force us to encounter God in new and exciting ways. The narrative is the power behind the text, not the lists and rules.

 

[clinzey]

Um....what?


In that case....why do we have a bible again? Who decides what is binding or expected of us today? Why is there not a new revelation (ie bible) for every generation?

Socio-temporally relevant = the Bible, even though it has meaning for us today, was written for a time, culture, and situations far removed from our own. This means that there are some things in the Bible that aren't for us today and some that are.

 

[artybloke]

Um....what?


In that case....why do we have a bible again? Who decides what is binding or expected of us today? Why is there not a new revelation (ie bible) for every generation?

I didn't really address the first half of this quote - this idea that we need someone to tell us what "is binding or expected of us today." You see, this is the problem I have with legalistic religion: that essentially, it's about avoiding responsibility. We can condemn whole groups of people because "the Bible says it's a sin." We can ignore injustice and poverty, we can go to war for our country whether for the right or the wrong reason, we can justify our own heartlessness because we can find some verses in the Bible to justify our stance. We can look down our noses, throw stones at and bomb those Christians because they have candles and we don't and it says we can do it in the Bible. We can always find verses to support us in whatever we do, and then we stop thinking.

That approach turns the Bible into an ideology, not a way. The way of Christ is to love God and our neighbour; to do unto others as we would be done by, because there is that of God in everyone.

The sin of Adam wasn't just disobeidiance, it was "the serpent made me do it." Or, "it says it in the Bible." Or, "I was only obeying orders." (Eichmann) I'm all for reading the Bible to discern the truth about God, and for a guide to how we should live. As a set of rigid rules, it's as idealogical as Stalinism. The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

[inquisitor_11]

For so long now people have been claiming that "were just reading what it says". It's impossible to read anything without having some degree of interpretation.

I know its a well used example, but the whole concept of God as a father figure (i.e. as presented in the Bible) holds a huge amount of negative connotations for some. However for others it's positive. Even at that level your "interpretation" affects your image of, and relationship to God.

Off topic but, Artybloke- ubique?