How do I read the bible?

[CoffeeGeek]

Ought I to read the bible "plainly"? Can anyone please explain to the "proof", if you will, as to why I should take the "obviously" literal as literal and the "obviously" metaphorical as such (such as taking literally the creation account, and metaphorically the verse that says if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out). It seems like the right thing to do but how could I tell someone that reading it all metaphorically is wrong? Is innerant in everything? How could I prove it? How can I tell which interpretaion is the one God intended?

 

[now faith]

Gods word has history poetry prophetic meaning , parables and many lessons for life. It is spiritual and is forever true in all time. The bible is the living word and lessons are revealed by the Holy Spirit by the measure of our faith. If you study the bible like a collage text book you will miss a huge blessing. Being a holy text it is not of this world if you have Christ you are not of this world any more. Ask and you shall receive, pray for God to guide you and seek deeper knowlage. You will find that the Old TESTAMENT points to Christ in so many ways it astounding,the New TESTAMENT teaches us the glory of Christ and how we walk in Christ hope this helps God bless

 

[Peripatetic]

First off... welcome! As to your question: it can be dangerous to try to take the Bible too literally. You'll find some symbolism, exaggeration, and wordplay... and there are questions about certain translations and the context in which the words were used. There is also plenty to be interpreted just as it reads.

Here's my advice: start by reading it plainly and letting the themes sink in rather than focusing too much on individual words and phrases. If you run into something that you don't understand, try looking it up in a study Bible or a commentary for some insight. But understand that even some theologians and experts disagree about the meaning of certain passages. Finally, pray for the Holy Spirit to help you to discern His word in your heart and in your mind.

There are some things that the Bible simply won't tell you for certain. Debates will continue to rage on about creation, end times, predestination, etc. People on both sides will insist that the Bible supports their view. Rather than fixating on these things, I prefer to focus more on the big picture... how does it all fit together, and what is practical for my life. What does it mean to love God and my neighbor, and how does the Old and New Testament all tie into Jesus' life, death, and resurrection?

It's OK to ponder the unknowable questions, but don't let them drag you into a chase that can lead to doubt and anxiety.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

Thank you for your replies, they both sound right to me, but just because it sounds right doen't make it true. Would the bible contradict itself if it were all metaphorical? How do I know its not just a spiritual book written for purly spiritual matters?

 

[hedrick]

Thank you for your replies, they both sound right to me, but just because it sounds right doen't make it true. Would the bible contradict itself if it were all metaphorical? How do I know its not just a spiritual book written for purly spiritual matters?

The division between spiritual and non-spiritual isn't in the Bible. The OT is about the Jewish nation, where God was in charge of everything. It has laws, and talks about all aspects of life, including some pretty earthy love poetry.

The NT was written at a time when Israel was under Roman rule, so it's directed at people who weren't fully in control. But still, Jesus says his purpose is to establish the Kingdom of God, that is God's rule. That covers all of life. While the Revelation is a pretty symbolic vision, still, it ends with the New Jerusalem descending on earth, not people going to "heaven."

I would say that the Bible wasn't written to teach us science, and in the OT before historical sources were available to the authors, it's not entirely accurate as history. But that doesn't mean it's only "spiritual." God created the world, and made us physical beings, living in a pretty messy history. Both the OT and Jesus care about how we treat other people, and what priorities we set in our lives. There's no division of life into spiritual and secular.

But I do agree there are questions the Bible doesn't answer. It doesn't tell us what careers we should follow or who to marry. It doesn't settle modern political questions. But the prophets were definitely involved in political questions in their time, so by looking at how they dealt with things, I think we can learn a lot that will help us. As I see it, the Bible tends to give us principles, but leave much of the work to us. I see the right division as being between principles and specific rules, rather than between spiritual and something else. Of course Moses was given rules, and the prophets got some pretty specific instructions, but Jesus was more about proper motivation and principles. He then left it to us to carry on his work.

The way I would read the Bible is that it's 1000 years (roughly) of people being trained by God, ending of course in Jesus. Why ending then? I believe it's because Jesus appointed us to carry on his work. At a certain point he gives us the responsibility.

I believe God actually spoke through the prophets, and that Israel was intended to be a light to the Gentiles. But as I see it, the Bible was written by people in Israel, who weren't perfect in their understanding of God or of science of history. I definitely would't just treat it all as symbolic. I agree that you should read it straightforwardly. There are places where it's obviously not literal (e.g. poetry, and things like Jesus' parables), but that's the kind of distinction we make when we read books today. But largely I believe when the authors talked about history, and what God said to them, they meant it. Maybe they sometimes misunderstood. That's something on which Christians disagree. But we make use of information today even knowing that it's not perfect. We're used to that.

 

[Bouke285]

Thank you for your replies, they both sound right to me, but just because it sounds right doen't make it true. Would the bible contradict itself if it were all metaphorical? How do I know its not just a spiritual book written for purly spiritual matters?

The bible is a book about the fall and redemption of mankind. It is a history book. It is meant to be read first in the context in which it was written. It is after we understand the original intent of the authors (who were all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that we can apply it to our current state.

God chose to preserver truth through his creation. He knew from the beginning the boundaries that we would face 2,000 years after the final book was written. What scripture teaches is truth, but not exhaustive. The easiest answer to your question "How do I know it's not a spiritual book written for purely spiritual matters?" look through the prophecies of Christ. It is proven that manuscripts found of Isaiah for example, predate the existence of historical Christ. No Historian will deny the existence of a man called Christ. It's only when we come to the question of His resurrection that the disagreement begins.

Christ's life was prophesied all through the Old Testament, especially in the latter part of Isaiah. Christ's followers, who had lost all hope in him being the Messiah after his death, were suddenly renewed and spread His new message all across the world. There is so much in history to have probable ground for belief in Christ, and that he did what he claimed to do.

Combine the historicity of the bible with the order and universal beauty in creation. With the questions if not God than what? and you can come out reasonably, not mathematically, sure of the salvation given in Christ. Faith, however is always the sealing, most important factor in our relationship with Him, but it's the substance of our faith that sets Christianity apart from other false religions.

 

[now faith]

I had read the bible cover to cover, two times before it started to sink in. Still today a verse that I have studied many times , will hold a new revelation. As to parables from Christ he was trying to convey in the simplistic terms the kingdom of God. The first five books were written by Moses given to him directly from God, they teach us of creation and how God walked with his chosen people. These accounts continue throughout the Old Testament. They teach us by historical example, with that also is prophesy pointing to Christ. Many Hebrew people have come to Christ by reading their bible which is the Old Testament, do to the accuracy of the prophets for telling his coming. The bible is not just a book that we can say it is one thing or the other. Read it by faith in Christ, the bible teaches us that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The KJV reads on a fourth grade level so don' try to input more than it says this is the source of confusion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ought I to read the bible "plainly"? Can anyone please explain to the "proof", if you will, as to why I should take the "obviously" literal as literal and the "obviously" metaphorical as such (such as taking literally the creation account, and metaphorically the verse that says if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out). It seems like the right thing to do but how could I tell someone that reading it all metaphorically is wrong? Is innerant in everything? How could I prove it? How can I tell which interpretaion is the one God intended?

I like to recommend that you start with the Gospels, John is particularly important. Ephesians is a brief but very important doctrinal book, I wouldn't recommend diving into Romans and Hebrews right away. Genesis is fine but I think you would be better off focusing on the latter half and spending some time in the Psalms. I strongly suggest that you avoid the more controversial issues like evolution, the historicity of Scripture and end time scenarios. I think you will find that you are better served learning to pray and searching the Scriptures for the voice of the Spirit rather then validating your faith in the secular arena.

Most importantly, give yourself some time to digest what you read. God has convinced Prophets, Apostles and wayward sinners of the truth of the Gospel down through the ages. If you have a heart for God there is nothing that can separate you from the love of God in Christ. This is what the Apostle Paul would have you learn:

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge —that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:14-19)​

Don't worry about the evidences that may or may not exist in the world. It is the Holy Spirit that leads fills our hearts and minds with the things Christ. Be patient in this process and if you would learn the things of God in Christ, seek first His kingdom and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you.

Thank you for your replies, they both sound right to me, but just because it sounds right doen't make it true. Would the bible contradict itself if it were all metaphorical? How do I know its not just a spiritual book written for purly spiritual matters?

In a word, 'context', if it's a metaphor, parable or figure of speech there is generally a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. Some of the literature is highly figurative, like the writings of many of the prophets. Some of the books are clearly historical in their character like the books of Moses (first five books OT) and the Gospels and Acts (first five books NT). Don't expect to understand them without reading them in their proper context, it doesn't work that way. The message of the Scriptures is, first of all, that there is this terrible, horrible angry sinner on a mindless rampage as a sworn enemy of God. That sinner is you. As alarming and offensive as that might seem on the surface there is good news, you lost that fight at the cross and now God has offered you righteousness in the person and work of Christ. As a down payment, Paul's words not mine, Jesus sends you the Holy Spirit to wash, renew and sanctify you through the work of Christ to the glory of the Father.

You are literally a sinner, that much is certain. Christ died for your sins, you can be very sure of that. What is more, Christ was raised for your justification and put to death sin that you might have life eternal. I assure you, that is the literal, inerrant and perfect Word of God. Other then that I strongly suggest you spend some time in the Gospels and if you are interested in discussing evidences for the Christian faith just drop me a PM, I'd be glad to steer you in the right direction.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[CoffeeGeek]

hedrick said,
"I believe God actually spoke through the prophets" and
"largely I believe when the authors talked about history, and what God said to them, they meant it. Maybe they sometimes misunderstood."
If God spoke through the prophets and they didn't relay a reliable truthfull historical account, would that not mean that God lied or at least was somewhat deceptive?

Bouke285 said,
“The bible is a book about the fall and redemption of mankind. It is a history book. It is meant to be read first in the context in which it was written. It is after we understand the original intent of the authors (who were all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)” and “With the questions if not God than what? and you can come out reasonably, not mathematically”

What is the difference between reasonable and mathmatical?

now faith said,
"the bible teaches us that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"

Then I can't have faith before I believe the bible or I wouldn't have faith, there must be something other then faith that I stand on to believe the bible is true. Otherwise it would be a circular argument that I came to have faith by reading the bible and I read the bible because I had faith.

mark kennedy said,
“Don't worry about the evidences that may or may not exist in the world. It is the Holy Spirit that leads fills our hearts” and “I assure you, that is the literal, inerrant and perfect Word of God”

How can I be sure without evidence that it is the Holy Spirit that leads me it could be my own mind or the "real god" just fooling me, I could never know without a reasonable piece of evidence.

Alright I guess I believe there is a God and everything seems to point to the bible as truth but I really want to know how I can be sure the God of the bible is telling the truth. The nagging question remains: what if you’re wrong?
What if I am wrong? What if the absolute truth is that there is an angry divine being out there that’s just going to punish me eternally when I die? I mean being God he would have the right to do it, he wrote the rules and all.

 

[Bouke285]

hedrick said,
"I believe God actually spoke through the prophets" and
"largely I believe when the authors talked about history, and what God said to them, they meant it. Maybe they sometimes misunderstood."
If God spoke through the prophets and they didn't relay a reliable truthfull historical account, would that not mean that God lied or at least was somewhat deceptive?

Bouke285 said,
“The bible is a book about the fall and redemption of mankind. It is a history book. It is meant to be read first in the context in which it was written. It is after we understand the original intent of the authors (who were all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)” and “With the questions if not God than what? and you can come out reasonably, not mathematically”

What is the difference between reasonable and mathmatical?

now faith said,
"the bible teaches us that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"

Then I can't have faith before I believe the bible or I wouldn't have faith, there must be something other then faith that I stand on to believe the bible is true. Otherwise it would be a circular argument that I came to have faith by reading the bible and I read the bible because I had faith.

mark kennedy said,
“Don't worry about the evidences that may or may not exist in the world. It is the Holy Spirit that leads fills our hearts” and “I assure you, that is the literal, inerrant and perfect Word of God”

How can I be sure without evidence that it is the Holy Spirit that leads me it could be my own mind or the "real god" just fooling me, I could never know without a reasonable piece of evidence.

Alright I guess I believe there is a God and everything seems to point to the bible as truth but I really want to know how I can be sure the God of the bible is telling the truth. The nagging question remains: what if you’re wrong?
What if I am wrong? What if the absolute truth is that there is an angry divine being out there that’s just going to punish me eternally when I die? I mean being God he would have the right to do it, he wrote the rules and all.

The difference between reasonable and mathematical is this: 1+1 = 2. No matter how you look at it, the answer is 2. You can't misinterpret the problem, and it has a known solution. There is a 100% chance that 1+1 = 2. Reasonable evidence is different for everybody. We all make our decisions based on some chance the results will be for or against us. We don't consciously weigh each decision on this number, it just happens. We don't make decisions based on 1+1 = 2, but on the reasonable chance the outcome is what we expect it will be.

If the God of the bible exists, by his character he isn't able to lie.

Titus 1:2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

There is absolutely no way we can make God = 2 you'll not feel 100% sure of his existence, even if its the slightest bit of doubt. That doubt shrinks as you mature in your relationship and understanding of him. God has already laid out his plan for us, he can't change his mind. The only thing we have is scripture, and it is only on that scripture that we can base our understanding of who God is.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

Wait, I think I see something here.
You're saying I can be absolutely sure I can never truely know an absolute?

 

[Bouke285]

Wait, I think I see something here.
You're saying I can be absolutely sure I can never truely know an absolute?

No, you can know an absolute. Something absolute by definition. I'm absolutely sure you can know: A triangle has 3 sides, absolutely true.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

How do you know absolutely that a triangle has three sides? Maybe your definition of three or triangle is wrong.

 

[now faith]

hedrick said,
"I believe God actually spoke through the prophets" and
"largely I believe when the authors talked about history, and what God said to them, they meant it. Maybe they sometimes misunderstood."
If God spoke through the prophets and they didn't relay a reliable truthfull historical account, would that not mean that God lied or at least was somewhat deceptive?

Bouke285 said,
“The bible is a book about the fall and redemption of mankind. It is a history book. It is meant to be read first in the context in which it was written. It is after we understand the original intent of the authors (who were all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)” and “With the questions if not God than what? and you can come out reasonably, not mathematically”

What is the difference between reasonable and mathmatical?

now faith said,
"the bible teaches us that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"

Then I can't have faith before I believe the bible or I wouldn't have faith, there must be something other then faith that I stand on to believe the bible is true. Otherwise it would be a circular argument that I came to have faith by reading the bible and I read the bible because I had faith.

mark kennedy said,
“Don't worry about the evidences that may or may not exist in the world. It is the Holy Spirit that leads fills our hearts” and “I assure you, that is the literal, inerrant and perfect Word of God”

How can I be sure without evidence that it is the Holy Spirit that leads me it could be my own mind or the "real god" just fooling me, I could never know without a reasonable piece of evidence.

Alright I guess I believe there is a God and everything seems to point to the bible as truth but I really want to know how I can be sure the God of the bible is telling the truth. The nagging question remains: what if you’re wrong?
What if I am wrong? What if the absolute truth is that there is an angry divine being out there that’s just going to punish me eternally when I die? I mean being God he would have the right to do it, he wrote the rules and all.

there are no absolute truths is a lie by Satan , you must accept Christ to have salvation. I would suggest you seek out a Christian to help mentor your walk and to pray with. As far as faith by hearing you can receive knowlage by a teacher or by a good preacher. You can simply turn on your tv , I would suggest John Hagee at corner stone he teaches sound bible.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

there are no absolute truths is a lie by Satan , you must accept Christ to have salvation.

Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY sure of the "fact" that there are NO absolutes. You use an absolute to tell me there are none?

I think what I really want to know is how do I know God is the absolute standard and not some other god.

 

[Bouke285]

Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY sure of the "fact" that there are NO absolutes. You use an absolute to tell me there are none?

I think what I really want to know is how do I know God is the absolute standard and not some other god.

You misunderstood the quote. It probably should have been written. The idea of there being no absolute truth is a lie of Satan. I'm assuming is what the poster meant, correct me if I'm wrong.

Our post modern world has a wrong view on faith. I hear all the time: "well... I have faith." You find yourself in some sort of trouble when you ask them, "faith in what?" The post modern faithful can't answer that question. Even the Christians say I have faith in Jesus; So did the demons, and they trembled.

What is it that makes our God the absolute standard? It is this: Christ rose from the grave. If this isn't true, Christianity is false.

On faith I hear it, and I know it, I can't explain beyond the fact my heart was open to the gospel. Looking past the 2000 year expanse between us and the events of the gospels, you will see that everyone proclaiming the authority of God gave signs. The prophets did it, the apostles did it, Christ did it. He never called for blind faith, but in what he has revealed around us, if we aren't blinded, we can see clear absolute truth of Him alone. I have attempted to give you supporting arguments as to why I find comfort in my faith, but ultimately, it's a gift of God.

What must one do to be saved?

Believe you are a sinner, and you need a savior.
Believe Christ is that savior, having payed the price for your sin.

Faith = Belief in an absolute truth without absolute proof.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

Pardon the seeming lack of understanding on my part put I still fail to see the connection between absolute truth and that absolute truth being the Judeo-Christian God. And if faith is the belief in an absolute truth without absolute proof then what of the others in the world who have faith in thier own absolute truth without absolute proof, what makes your faith better than thiers?

 

[Bouke285]

Pardon the seeming lack of understanding on my part put I still fail to see the connection between absolute truth and that absolute truth being the Judeo-Christian God. And if faith is the belief in an absolute truth without absolute proof then what of the others in the world who have faith in thier own absolute truth without absolute proof, what makes your faith better than thiers?

The fact that Christ rose from the grave.

 

[CoffeeGeek]

The fact that Christ rose from the grave.

You say fact, fact by definition requires an absolute of some sort or else it is not fact it is merely a faith or belief.

Fact: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

How do you know Christ truely (factually) rose from the grave without assuming an absolute?
My question is, what makes your claim to fact any more valid than anothers? Obviously they all can't be right or they would all be wrong, but that in itself is a self defeating argument because if we were all wrong how could I know I was right in saying we are all wrong, then we would all be right, then we would quickly see we contridict each other and can't all be right. So I'm left standing here wondering which one is the truth?

 

[Bouke285]

You say fact, fact by definition requires an absolute of some sort or else it is not fact it is merely a faith or belief.

Fact: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

How do you know Christ truely (factually) rose from the grave without assuming an absolute?
My question is, what makes your claim to fact any more valid than anothers? Obviously they all can't be right or they would all be wrong, but that in itself is a self defeating argument because if we were all wrong how could I know I was right in saying we are all wrong, then we would all be right, then we would quickly see we contridict each other and can't all be right. So I'm left standing here wondering which one is the truth?

By definition an absolute truth is either true or false independent of our view of that truth. I believe Christ's resurrection is an absolute truth, independent of if absolute truth can exist.