How do TE's read the Bible?

[crawfish]

Often, we are criticized by creationists for holding a loose, malleable view of scripture. I think this is a valid - perhaps the most valid - criticism that they have us us. While it might seem to be the case, it's actually that we apply different rules to the interpretation of scripture than they do. I think it would help if we reveal the criteria we use to read scripture here; how we determine if a verse is factually true, metaphorical or otherwise. I have a few criteria I'll list here (many were derived from the book "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Gordon Fee, a very good read about Biblical Hermeneutics/Exegesis), and I'd be very interested in hearing similar methods from the rest of you.

1) Verses should be interpreted in the context of the verses around them; they as a whole should be interpreted in context of the chapter; the chapters should be interpreted in context of the book. I've seen too many times where a lone verse is used to justify a belief, but when viewed in the context it lies it cannot possibly support that view.

2) Different types of books should be evaluated differently. For instance, the gospels are written for one purpose; the epistles another. Revelation cannot be read the same way as Luke. This sounds like common sense, but I've seen passages from Psalms given credence as commands as strictly as a passage in Deuteronomy when they were obviously written as metaphorical poetry.

3) The correct meaning of any text would be the way the original author intended it to mean. In other words, an author is not writing something for some future purpose he knows nothing about. The text is written entirely using the knowledge, viewpoint and understanding of the author.

4) To expand on point 3, "inspiration" is a process in which God guides the author and inspires a message, but God does not put the words directly into the author's head. The consequences of this are, of course, that what is being inspired is the idea and theological point, and not necessarily the literal correctness of historical or scientific events.

5) To expand further, I believe that most text (esp. the historical books) were quite "literal" to the author; they weren't desigining some grand metaphor, but telling a story for a purpose that was quite clear to them and to their contemporaries. Through changes in culture and context, those meanings are not always as clear to us, but the best way to understand what was intended is to work to understand the culture and context of the scripture better.

6) A text is more likely to be historically accurate the closer it was written to the time period it happened. Genesis was written at least a thousand years after the latest events it describes; I would hold it to be a collection of oral traditions passed down and subtly altered over the generations, but still making the same theological point that God had originally intended. The gospels, on the other hand, were written 20-30 years after Jesus' death, by contemporaries who knew him in his earthly life. I see them as having great historical significance - to deny that Jesus ever existed is to go against all logic.

I realize that this post might fit better in the "Hermeneutics" forum. However, I think it belongs here because I believe the very basis of our differences is not evolution or science, but our methods of interpreting scripture. Their more literal reading does not allow for an interpretation that includes evolutionary theory; thus, they reject it.

So, what do you think?

 

[gluadys]

Often, we are criticized by creationists for holding a loose, malleable view of scripture. I think this is a valid - perhaps the most valid - criticism that they have us us. While it might seem to be the case, it's actually that we apply different rules to the interpretation of scripture than they do. I think it would help if we reveal the criteria we use to read scripture here; how we determine if a verse is factually true, metaphorical or otherwise.

I think it is a valid point. For one thing it shows that we do not renounce all literal interpretations on principle.

Just as literalists do not renounce all metaphor on principle.

One difference, however, is that literalists opt for literalism as a default. Unless they can see why a passage must be reinterpreted, they assume the literal interpretation must be valid. Whereas we do not opt for metaphor as a default. Rather each text must be studied on its own.

3) The correct meaning of any text would be the way the original author intended it to mean. In other words, an author is not writing something for some future purpose he knows nothing about. The text is written entirely using the knowledge, viewpoint and understanding of the author.

An important consequence of this principle is that a text the author intended as literal may have to be intepreted as non-literal given current understanding of nature. The geo-centric passages are a case in point.

Literalists try to avoid this consequence by saying the author never intended them to be understood literally, but there is no warrant for this assertion except that it saves the text from "error".

Alternatively we get interpretations that make the author seem extraordinarily prescient about the directions taken by modern science e.g. applying the texts that speak of God "stretching out the heavens" to the expansion of the universe in Big Bang theory.

That is clearly not what the author intended nor what his audience heard.

5) To expand further, I believe that most text (esp. the historical books) were quite "literal" to the author; they weren't desigining some grand metaphor, but telling a story for a purpose that was quite clear to them and to their contemporaries. Through changes in culture and context, those meanings are not always as clear to us, but the best way to understand what was intended is to work to understand the culture and context of the scripture better.

And to expand further, given the importance of the historical culture and context, it is necessary to ascertain as closely as possible the actual (rather than traditional) time and place in which they were written.

Soemtimes, this means distinguishing "story" from "text". For example, the story of Ruth is clearly placed in the time of the Judges, a few generations before kingship was established in Israel. But the text dates from post-Exilic times and scholars consider that it, like the book of Jonah, was written to protest the anti-Gentile laws instituted by Nehemiah.

What makes this really interesting is that the OT canon includes both the books of Nehemiah and Ezra which support separation from the Gentiles, and the books of Ruth and Jonah which express a dissenting view.

And that means that the OT does not present a single view of God's will, but competing perspectives. And these competing perspectives were not merely academic, but lived out in the political sphere.

There are definitely guidelines in interpreting outside of the literalist tradition. It is a misrepesentation to say it is a matter of choosing any interpretation one wishes, of making scripture align with whatever one wishes to believe. If one is to be true to the purpose of the writer, that is not permissible.

 

[plainswolf]

How do TE's read the Bible?

Hi everyone,

Well, I can't quite pigeon-hole myself as a TE nor as YEC. I come from more of a TE background, for lack of a better description, but lately I've been taking quite a look at YEC. I think the reason for this is that I keep wondering if TE might be missing something somewhere, and not necessarily something scientific, but just something. Conversly I also wonder if YEC's aren't considering enough of what science has to say.

As far as Scripture is concerned, I'm Catholic which allows for for either YEC or TE, so long as belief is held that God directly created the human soul. But under no circumstances is a Catholic allowed to believe in AE which, when you think about it, would be an oxymoron for any Christian. But as the OP indicates, there are different interpretations of the classes of writings in the Bible, and this is where the misunderstandings and disagreements origionate.





+

 

[crawfish]

Soemtimes, this means distinguishing "story" from "text". For example, the story of Ruth is clearly placed in the time of the Judges, a few generations before kingship was established in Israel. But the text dates from post-Exilic times and scholars consider that it, like the book of Jonah, was written to protest the anti-Gentile laws instituted by Nehemiah.

What makes this really interesting is that the OT canon includes both the books of Nehemiah and Ezra which support separation from the Gentiles, and the books of Ruth and Jonah which express a dissenting view.

And that means that the OT does not present a single view of God's will, but competing perspectives. And these competing perspectives were not merely academic, but lived out in the political sphere.

There are definitely guidelines in interpreting outside of the literalist tradition. It is a misrepesentation to say it is a matter of choosing any interpretation one wishes, of making scripture align with whatever one wishes to believe. If one is to be true to the purpose of the writer, that is not permissible.

Excellent points.

It should be pointed out that, at times, scripture gives us two seemingly contrasting views. I believe this is done to express a more complete view of God's wishes than is possible in a single POV exposition. For instance, look at the instructions for appointing overseers/elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5-9. Both seem contradictory; the passage in 1 Timothy is far more strict, in fact. When one studies the cultures they were being written to, however, they will notice Paul is writing concerning longstanding Jews in Timothy, already versed in the moral requirements that Christianity demanded; in Titus, he was writing to a people who traditionally had very little moral character, and the strict definitions would have ruled out the entire local church.

We TE's seem to be somewhat unresponsive to creationists who post verses to make their point. I think this is because we typically have a more macro view; a verse means very little in and of itself, only in the larger scheme can we determine its real meaning. Many creationists have a distinctly micro view of scripture.

 

[crawfish]

Hi everyone,

Well, I can't quite pigeon-hole myself as a TE nor as YEC. I come from more of a TE background, for lack of a better description, but lately I've been taking quite a look at YEC. I think the reason for this is that I keep wondering if TE might be missing something somewhere, and not necessarily something scientific, but just something. Conversly I also wonder if YEC's aren't considering enough of what science has to say.

As far as Scripture is concerned, I'm Catholic which allows for for either YEC or TE, so long as belief is held that God directly created the human soul. But under no circumstances is a Catholic allowed to believe in AE which, when you think about it, would be an oxymoron for any Christian. But as the OP indicates, there are different interpretations of the classes of writings in the Bible, and this is where the misunderstandings and disagreements origionate.

+

I think that most TE's don't like to pigeonhole themselves into a specific belief. Evolution is not really the basis for what we believe, for the most part; we feel that science is revealing of God in an equal nature to the Bible, and when conflicts arise we might have to re-evaluate our understanding of the science OR re-evaluate our understanding of scripture. This might be your discomfort with it; it makes the bible seem far more...well, unfirm, if it can change meaning with the passing time. I don't feel this way at all - it's a testament to God's existence that the bible remains as vibrant and relevant today as ever, even when the forces of discovery have revealed that much of what we thought the bible said was actually not so.

I'd be all on board with YEC if they had real, compelling evidence that it was so. As it is, I seem them grasping to evidence that seems to support their claims and rejecting or ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Even if all evidence could be proven to them that YEC was a false claim, they'd say that God created everything as if it LOOKED like the evidence we see, but really created in the timeframe the Bible states (at least, it seems to, to them). To me this is intellectually dishonest.