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

[ischus]

OK EVERYONE !!!!

The time has come. WE are living in a time where there are many different views and interpretations of the bible. Each book, chapter, and verse means something different to so many different people!

Is this ok with you? Do you think that God just gives a bunch of words that can mean whatever I want them to....or do they have ONE meaning and ONE purpose? I will vote for God intending to Communicate ONE idea in each text, and that he never meant for there to be a new meaning for each person that read it. But How Can WE Be Sure??????

The way that we approach the bible and come away with what it means is the most important process that we can ever engage in. The method you use to interpret will decide WHAT you believe, and WHY you believe it.

This is an important topic for us today, since there are so many different ideas and interpretations. How can we be sure that we understand a verse the way that GOD wants us to understand it????????????

How do we decide the meaning of a passage and then apply it to our life????????????

That's the subject here, so let's discuss the right ways and wrong ways to interpret the bible. You can use examples from scripture, but this IS NOT the place to debate a verse. This thread is only for discussing what a good method is and what a bad method is, and whether or not we can be sure if we have the "right" understanding of a passage.

Be sure to think things through before you post them... and if you have a question be sure to post that as well...

 

[artybloke]

Is this ok with you? Do you think that God just gives a bunch of words that can mean whatever I want them to....or do they have ONE meaning and ONE purpose? I will vote for God intending to Communicate ONE idea in each text, and that he never meant for there to be a new meaning for each person that read it. But How Can WE Be Sure??????

I don't think the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean; but I do think that there is no such thing as a perfect interpretation. I don't see how it can be any other way, when you're dealing with a translation from ancient languages like Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek. I've done some translation myself (from French to English) and know how difficult it is to translate nuance and there is always something lost.

Besides which, maybe it's something psychological to think that certainty is something to be strived for. I think we can never be entirely sure - and that's a good thing. It stops us from being arrogant, and from demanding that everyone just agrees with us because only we know everything. We're only human. We make mistakes. I'm sure that God - having taken humanity onto himself - understands.

 

[Knee V]

For me, the most important method is to allow scripture to interpret scripture. Many times people will look at a passage and, since there's nothing in the "immediate" context that would give reason for not interpreting it literally, then it must be interpreted literally. But when comparing it to other scriptures (especially to the OT, which is often overlooked), we find that a certain thing does not require a literal interpretation, and in fact cannot have one.

 

[christian-only]

Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it can never contradict itself. Any interpretation that causes one Scripture to contradict another is therefore wrong, and the only way to correctly interpret the Scriptures is to interpret each and every verse in harmony with every other verse. All the false interpretations floating around today are caused, quite simply, by people grabbing one verse and interpreting it to mean whatever they want with absolutely no concern for how that interpretation will affect other verses.

 

[Curt]

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Pet 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Sam 14:14
14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.
Job 37:24
24 Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.

The Holy Spirit interprets Them for each one of us to address the individual need on a step by step basis to maintain our personal relationship with God. And that's the only interpretation we need, all else is described in The Bible as foolishness.

 

[Biarien]

If your interpretation is out of synch with the rest of the Bible, you're probably doing something wrong. If your interpretation is different than other people's interpretations, but still in synch with your own interpretation, you're probably still wrong (I don't believe any one person understands the entirety of God's scripture), but you're doing as well as you can. The more you read and study, the more you know.

 

[msortwell]

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

 

[clinzey]

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+).

How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (by Gordon Fee and someone else) is another great book on reading and interpreting the various kinds of books in the Bible.

 

[filosofer]

Two other excellent books:

What Does This Mean? Biblical Interpretation in a Post Modern World by James Voelz

Biblical Hermeneutics by Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva

 

[tigersnare]

or do they have ONE meaning and ONE purpose?

I'll have to say yes to this.....here is my oversimplifired explaination.


In the beginning was the word..

To the beginning...God said(words), "Let there be light".....what happend? There was light....one meaning and one purpose.

Just my opinion and observation...

 

[artybloke]

I'll have to say yes to this.....here is my oversimplifired explaination.


In the beginning was the word..

To the beginning...God said(words), "Let there be light".....what happend? There was light....one meaning and one purpose.

Just my opinion and observation...

And is this light, for instance, the light of realisation ("I've just seen the light")

Or the light of the stars

Or the Light of Truth

Or the light of Life

Is it symbolic/poetic/philosophical light or is it literal light?

Or is it a combination of any one of them?

Just that single verse (without context) could be interpreted in several different ways, without changing a single word.

The whole of that chapter of Genesis could be interpreted as:

A poem

A worship chant

A literal scientific account

An argument against paganism

A meditation

without changing a single word of it, or saying whether it is true or false.

 

[tigersnare]

And is this light, for instance, the light of realisation ("I've just seen the light")

Or the light of the stars

Or the Light of Truth

Or the light of Life

Is it symbolic/poetic/philosophical light or is it literal light?

Or is it a combination of any one of them?

Just that single verse (without context) could be interpreted in several different ways, without changing a single word.

The whole of that chapter of Genesis could be interpreted as:

A poem

A worship chant

A literal scientific account

An argument against paganism

A meditation

without changing a single word of it, or saying whether it is true or false.

Sure without context the bible is whatever you want it to be.....

Things are written in a context, why not read them in that context?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Always be careful when saying something like, "This verse seems to mean this, but it really means. . . ." Often (not always), this is an excuse to disbelieve what the Bible really says. I am not talking of interpreting verses symbolically, but of when people try to make a saying less harsh or forceful, so that it better fits their theology.

For example:

Most people think that Satan was a holy angel in the beginning. However, Jesus says that he was a murderer "from the beginning." (John 8:44) John adds that the devil sins "from the beginning." People will try to deftly twist this around to fit their "Lucifer" theology, but the reality is, the most natural assumption of which beginning is being referred to is. . . Satan's beginning. Satan was evil in the beginning of his existence, and has been evil ever since. That's what these verses say. Some say that they mean that Satan was a sinner from the beginning of the world, but that is not what those verses say, is it?

That is one of the main dangers in Bible interpretation: trying to make a verse say something other than it does, just because it doesn't fit in with what you already think. Do not mold the Bible to fit your theology, but mold your theology to fit the Bible.

 

[Reader Nilus]

THE COMMONITORY OF VINCENT OF LERINS is a good starting point on how to read the Bible.
Jeff the Finn

 

[artybloke]

Sure without context the bible is whatever you want it to be.....

Things are written in a context, why not read them in that context?

Oh, absolutely. But first you have to figure out what the context is...

And that is not as easy as you'd like to believe, especially as it concerns the context of the writer as well as the text. (eg The Penteteuch was written anywhere between the time of Moses to the exile in Babylon, depending which critical theory you subscribe to.)

And Tschibod:

Always be careful when saying something like, "This verse seems to mean this, but it really means. . . ." Often (not always), this is an excuse to disbelieve what the Bible really says.

This is a good warning. Unfortunately, you have to remember that the whole of scripture is a translation, and all translation is an interpretation. If someone disagrees with a translation, they may have a good reason from what they know of the historical context of certain words. It's too easy to dismiss it as them trying to disbelieve "what the Bible really says." It's the "if you disagree with us (our theology) you must be influenced by the Devil" syndrome. Both Catholics and Protestants were guilty of that in the Reformation. Many Christians still are.

In other words, it's okey to have an opinion about what the Bible says; but be careful if someone says they have the one single definitive true for all time interpretation. They're usually demagogues.

 

[tigersnare]

Ok I think you and I agree we are just touching on other points....all I am saying is...


I believe a verse has one meaning and/or purpose. But sin gets in the way of always knowing that meaning...

One of the first sins was misrepresenting the word of God, instead of eat freely or (eat eat in the hebrew), Eve just sayed "eat", instead of surely die or (die die), she sayed, lest we die. Sin can easily get in the way of the truth of God's word.


*All my opinion and I will not try to convince anyone to agree with me. *

 

[artybloke]

Ok I think you and I agree we are just touching on other points....all I am saying is...


I believe a verse has one meaning and/or purpose. But sin gets in the way of always knowing that meaning...

QUOTE]

Actually, I'm not sure we do entirely, cause I don't think that scripture has one meaning and one meaning only. I don't believe that's true of any text, except possibly sets of instructions on how to use a washing-machine etc...

...and the Bible isn't a set of instructions. It's a lot of different kinds of text, including stories, fables, poetry, letters, prophesy: all of which use a variety of rhetorical and literary devices which serve both to clarify and to obscure the meaning. Poetry, especially, sees ambiguity as a virtue rather than a fault; and the OT especially is full of it (I'm speaking as a poet, by the way.) Even the letters of St Paul are not simple: they were written to specific communities to answer and deal with specific problems those communities had. They were not addressed directly to us.

Texts always have at least two meanings: the meaning to the writer, and the meaning to the reader. These almost never coincide, because the reader always brings his or her experience to the act of reading. This is not necessarily sin, this is just their life history. Jesus, for instance, reads the OT very differently from how they were originally intended, as do the Gospel writers when they look for proof that Jesus is the promised Messiah. It's not that the original meaning was wrong, and the new one is true; it's that both meanings are present in the text, but that it depends on how you read it which meaning is true for you. The old meaning was right at the time and the new meaning is true now.

This probably sounds like it's slipping down the road to relativism; but I think there is a limit to the amount of re-reading you can do. That's going to depend on the starting point for your faith. For me, for instance, it is always the love of God. Rather than say there is one meaning and one meaning only, however, I do think that texts, including Biblical texts, have a range of true meanings rather than a single set of unchangeable truths that we only have to discover.

 

[tigersnare]

This probably sounds like it's slipping down the road to relativism;

Yeah it does...

Rather than say there is one meaning and one meaning only, however, I do think that texts, including Biblical texts, have a range of true meanings rather than a single set of unchangeable truths that we only have to discover.

Do you include other books such as The Book of Mormon, or the Quran in "texts"? Not attacking you, simply wondering....I just hear alot of "there are many paths that lead to God", there is no "absolute truth", what's "truth for you is not truth for me", type stuff around campus, I'm wondering if that is the direction you are coming from.

 

[Mustaphile]

I think we should interpret the message as Jesus did. It is the spirit of the law that is important, not the letter of the law. So when looking for the meaning of different parts of the Bible you look for what is the principle behind what is being said, rather than just taking it at face value. Intent seems to be the primary factor in all things to do with God. It's the intentions of the heart that matter most, and the law is now written in our hearts. So focus your heart on God and seek to find his intentions. God has one plan, but we all interpret it differently. If our intentions are all good (that is focused on doing God's will), then for the most part we will move in God's will. If our intentions are good, then for those things in which we depart from God's will, through misguided intention, then we will not be held accountable, since we simply did our best with the understanding of God that we had.

 

[artybloke]

Do you include other books such as The Book of Mormon, or the Quran in "texts"? Not attacking you, simply wondering....I just hear alot of "there are many paths that lead to God", there is no "absolute truth", what's "truth for you is not truth for me", type stuff around campus, I'm wondering if that is the direction you are coming from.

As far as the question of texts having multiple possible meanings and interpretations, yeah, actually. I'm sure they too operate within a range of possible meanings, rather than having a single meaning. I include Shakespeare, TS Eliot and the novels of Graham Greene as having a range of possible readings as well. All texts written with imagination have to be interpreted with imagination, or you kind of miss the point of them.

As far as them being divinely inspired, that's a different question altogether and not one covered by the original question.

I do think there is an absolute truth somewhere out there. As to how close human beings can get to it, that's another matter. I'm always suspicious of people who say, "The Bible says;" very often what they're really saying is "I say (and I've found some isolated Bible verses that agree with me." I think I agree with Mustaphile on this one: the intention to live in the light of God's love is all-important. Even if I disagree with the conclusions.