If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret

[Gregory Thompson]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

Antisemitism among some believers leads them to discount the Semitic writing styles of the apostles. Instead they filter through a western mindset, thus not able to rightly interpret the passages.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Antisemitism among some believers leads them to discount the Semitic writing styles of the apostles. Instead they filter through a western mindset, thus not able to rightly interpret the passages.

And then there's the difference between Judaism today and back then, and since the Judaism of back then is not practiced anymore, it cannot be intimately known. Leaving me with more questions to inevitably live in.

 

[1stcenturylady]

And then there's the difference between Judaism today and back then, and since the Judaism of back then is not practiced anymore, it cannot be intimately known. Leaving me with more questions to inevitably live in.

It doesn't matter what modern Jews do; the OT has plenty shadows to explore.

What I'm talking about is the Semitic writing styles of Parallelism or "doubling" - saying the same thing in two different ways. The one explains the other.

Like Acts 4:33. Here we have "great grace" and "great power." Thus after we receive the Holy Spirit which was unmerited, He turns grace into power, God's power. Which is why we are dead to sin, not in the flesh, and can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. All we have to do is WALK in the Spirit and not quench the Spirit.

Another Semitic writing styles are contrasts. 1 John 1:5-10 contrasts light and darkness - or saved and unsaved. Many westerners love to quote 1 John 1:8 to justify their sin. Wrong! 1 John 4:1-3 shows us who it is that would say they don't sin, when they actually sin on purpose! Gnostics said their sins of the flesh are not sins at all, only sins of the spirit, because Jesus only came in spirit, not in the flesh. Thus verse 6 are them saying they have fellowship with God but walk in darkness. And again in 8 and 10. Verse 7 is a real Christian who walks in the light. And verse 9 is how those Gnostics can BECOME a Christian.

One noted Anti-Semitic was Martin Luther who is quoted to have said "make your sins STRONG." This is reminiscent of Paul saying "So shall we sin so grace can abound? God FORBID!" Gnosticism is alive and well, even today in churches formed from the Reformation. This false doctrine was only straightened out after the Bible was actually being studied in context. But again, hatred of the Jews will only blind someone to the truth.

 

[redleghunter]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

Usually when there is a conflict it is a matter of one position applying eisegesis to make the theological claim.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

I'm not Baptist but they have a very good rule of thumb. It is not making a position of doctrine based on one or two verses. Another rule of thumb is not taking an OT verse or passage out of historical context and applying it to the church. For example burning witches in post NT Europe.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not Baptist but they have a very good rule of thumb. It is not making a position of doctrine based on one or two verses. Another rule of thumb is not taking an OT verse or passage out of historical context and applying it to the church. For example burning witches in post NT Europe.

Any doctrine less than three I consider minor doctrine just due to it's lack of support. Assuming God breathed all of scripture, then it should have three passages to explain it's significance. (An ironic stand to take)

 

[redleghunter]

Any doctrine less than three I consider minor doctrine just due to it's lack of support. Assuming God breathed all of scripture, then it should have three passages to explain it's significance. (An ironic stand to take)

The one caveat being a direct command from YHWH in the OT and Jesus Christ in the NT. For those words and commands come directly from God.

 

[SkyWriting]

The one caveat being a direct command from YHWH in the OT and Jesus Christ in the NT. For those words and commands come directly from God.

I haven't checked which you speak of, but I imagine other writers have commented on them in scripture. And many people agree that all scripture is God-breathed...even though the phrase is only used once.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It doesn't matter what modern Jews do; the OT has plenty shadows to explore.

What I'm talking about is the Semitic writing styles of Parallelism or "doubling" - saying the same thing in two different ways. The one explains the other.

Like Acts 4:33. Here we have "great grace" and "great power." Thus after we receive the Holy Spirit which was unmerited, He turns grace into power, God's power. Which is why we are dead to sin, not in the flesh, and can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. All we have to do is WALK in the Spirit and not quench the Spirit.

Another Semitic writing styles are contrasts. 1 John 1:5-10 contrasts light and darkness - or saved and unsaved. Many westerners love to quote 1 John 1:8 to justify their sin. Wrong! 1 John 4:1-3 shows us who it is that would say they don't sin, when they actually sin on purpose! Gnostics said their sins of the flesh are not sins at all, only sins of the spirit, because Jesus only came in spirit, not in the flesh. Thus verse 6 are them saying they have fellowship with God but walk in darkness. And again in 8 and 10. Verse 7 is a real Christian who walks in the light. And verse 9 is how those Gnostics can BECOME a Christian.

One noted Anti-Semitic was Martin Luther who is quoted to have said "make your sins STRONG." This is reminiscent of Paul saying "So shall we sin so grace can abound? God FORBID!" Gnosticism is alive and well, even today in churches formed from the Reformation. This false doctrine was only straightened out after the Bible was actually being studied in context. But again, hatred of the Jews will only blind someone to the truth.

Oh you mean letting the bible interpret itself according to its own patterns. this pattern (doubling) is displayed a lot in the proverbs and the prophets, the audience is key in identifying whether a pattern is being used or not.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Usually when there is a conflict it is a matter of one position applying eisegesis to make the theological claim.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

I'm not Baptist but they have a very good rule of thumb. It is not making a position of doctrine based on one or two verses. Another rule of thumb is not taking an OT verse or passage out of historical context and applying it to the church. For example burning witches in post NT Europe.

I used to be a baptist, when someone mentions a doctrine, I just use an electronic bible and pull up all the verses on that subject. What all the verses say on that subject is apparently what a "doctrine" is, unless it contradicts a person's or groups's statement of faith of course.
.
So in the last sentence there would lie the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, I'm just more into Jesus tho
.
For example, if a church is prone to ignore the "help the poor" texts because of a history with a group leaving them over a phenomena called the "social gospel" then all supposed exegesis would become eisegesis in that particular context.
.
If after examining all claims according to their exegesis and eisegesis, there are still many possible conclusions, then comes the living in questions. How that works is, when someone says X=biblical or Y=true but doesn't say why, the saying is off, so I will look for verses that support the view even if I disagree with it. Sometimes this is useful in identifying how the parables speak to our interpretations, in that I would like to have the heart of the Father in the parable of the prodigal son, but I tend to be more of a prodigal son who put in some extra work since returning home. I tend to encounter a lot of elder sons and their theological spin, and need to remember we are both sons of the same Father, while keeping an eye out for the "heart of the Father" type interpretations to file away in my subconscious for later application.

 

[redleghunter]

I used to be a baptist, when someone mentions a doctrine, I just use an electronic bible and pull up all the verses on that subject. What all the verses say on that subject is apparently what a "doctrine" is, unless it contradicts a person's or groups's statement of faith of course.
.
So in the last sentence there would lie the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, I'm just more into Jesus tho
.
For example, if a church is prone to ignore the "help the poor" texts because of a history with a group leaving them over a phenomena called the "social gospel" then all supposed exegesis would become eisegesis in that particular context.
.
If after examining all claims according to their exegesis and eisegesis, there are still many possible conclusions, then comes the living in questions. How that works is, when someone says X=biblical or Y=true but doesn't say why, the saying is off, so I will look for verses that support the view even if I disagree with it. Sometimes this is useful in identifying how the parables speak to our interpretations, in that I would like to have the heart of the Father in the parable of the prodigal son, but I tend to be more of a prodigal son who put in some extra work since returning home, I tend to encounter a lot of elder sons and their theological spin, and need to remember we are both sons of the same Father while keeping an eye out for the "heart of the Father" type interpretations to file away in my subconscious for later application.

Yes the exegesis vs. eisegesis test is very important.

And our actions do reveal what or Who we believe in. Like most, unfortunately, I've learned the hard way. Our Father in Heaven will lovingly chastise us. One of the proofs of His love for us.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Any doctrine less than three I consider minor doctrine just due to it's lack of support. Assuming God breathed all of scripture, then it should have three passages to explain it's significance. (An ironic stand to take)

De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
.
I'm aware of the three witnesses theology, I tend to take this in a test all things from 1st Thessalonians 5, including scripture. One way to test whether a doctrine is important is to see if it is repeated at least three times. This is helpful when theologies arise from the only mentioned once verses from the old testament, and the conclusion is Jesus will return next month and you're all going to hell or something absurd like that.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes the exegesis vs. eisegesis test is very important.

And our actions do reveal what or Who we believe in. Like most, unfortunately, I've learned the hard way. Our Father in Heaven will lovingly chastise us. One of the proofs of His love for us.

I'm reminded of a verse on that, this is how we know that we are sons and not bastards, because he does chasten us.

 

[SkyWriting]

De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
.
I'm aware of the three witnesses theology, I tend to take this in a test all things from 1st Thessalonians 5, including scripture. One way to test whether a doctrine is important is to see if it is repeated at least three times. This is helpful when theologies arise from the only mentioned once verses from the old testament, and the conclusion is Jesus will return next month and you're all going to hell or something absurd like that.

I guess it is something I've picked up on, though I didn't remember reading it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And our actions do reveal what or Who we believe in. Like most, unfortunately, I've learned the hard way. Our Father in Heaven will lovingly chastise us.

Why "unfortunately" !?

As you posted it is already acknowledged that the way "MOST" learn/ the hard way/, as Jesus Himself did - "through suffering".

So I'd think it is most BLESSED! Right?

So few learn the truth, ANY WAY YHWH Designs and Plans and Accomplishes IS PERFECT as HE DOES THIS. Right?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Here are some rules of interpretation that are Biblically sound... with these, there is no need of tradition or magisterium to inform us, we can know these things for ourselves.

1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible. Proof, Matt. 5:18.

2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and study. Proof, 2 Tim. 3:15-17

3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering. Proof, Deut. 29:29; Matt. 10:26, 27; 1 Cor. 2:10; Phil. 3:15; Isa. 45:11; Matt. 21:22; John 14:13, 14; 15; James 1:5, 6; 1 John 5:13-15.

4. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and, if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Proof, Isa. 28:7-29; 35:8; Prov. 19:27; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; Rom. 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Pet. 1:19, 20.

5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom, is my rule, and not the Bible. Proof, Ps. 19:7-11; 119:97-105: Matt. 23:8-10; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; Eze. 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Matt. 2:7,8.

6. God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables; and in this way the same things are oftentimes revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures and parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one. Proof, Ps. 89:19; Hos. 12:10; Hab. 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 10:6; Heb. 9:9, 24; Ps. 78:2; Matt. 13:13, 34; Gen. 41:1-32; Dan. 2d, 7th & 8th; Acts 10:9-16.

7. Visions are always mentioned as such. 2 Cor. 12:1.

8. Figures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy to represent future things, times and events–such as mountains, meaning governments; Dan. 2:35, 44; beasts, meaning kingdoms; Dan. 7:8, 17; waters, meaning people; Rev. 17:1, 15; day, meaning year; Eze. 4:6.

9. Parables are used as comparisons to illustrate subjects, and must be explained in the same way as figures, by the subject and Bible. Mark 4:13.

10. Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time, namely, first, indefinite; Eccl. 7:14; second, definite, a day for a year; Eze. 4:6; and third, a day for a thousand years. 2 Pet. 3:8. The right construction will harmonize with the Bible, and make good sense; other constructions will not.

11. If a word makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, it is to be understood literally; if not, figuratively. Rev. 12:1, 2; 17:3-7.

12. To learn the meaning of a figure, trace the word through your Bible, and when you find it explained, substitute the explanation for the word used; and, if it make good sense, you need not look further; if not, look again.

13. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy: If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event; but if one word lacks a fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development; for God takes care that history and prophecy shall agree, so that the true believing children of God may never be ashamed. Ps. 22:5; Isa. 45:17-19; 1 Pet. 2:6; Rev. 17:17; Acts 3:18.

14. The most important rule of all is, that you must have faith. It must be a faith that requires a sacrifice, and, if tried, would give up the dearest object on earth, the world and all its desires–character, living, occupation, friends, home, comforts and worldly honors. If any of these should hinder our believing any part of God’s word, it would show our faith to be vain. Nor can we ever believe so long as one of these motives lies lurking in our hearts. We must believe that God will never forfeit his word; and we can have confidence that He who takes notice of the sparrow’s fall, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of his own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in his word, from erring far from the truth.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Here are some rules of interpretation that are Biblically sound... with these, there is no need of tradition or magisterium to inform us, we can know these things for ourselves.

1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible. Proof, Matt. 5:18.

2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and study. Proof, 2 Tim. 3:15-17

3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering. Proof, Deut. 29:29; Matt. 10:26, 27; 1 Cor. 2:10; Phil. 3:15; Isa. 45:11; Matt. 21:22; John 14:13, 14; 15; James 1:5, 6; 1 John 5:13-15.

4. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and, if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Proof, Isa. 28:7-29; 35:8; Prov. 19:27; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; Rom. 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Pet. 1:19, 20.

5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom, is my rule, and not the Bible. Proof, Ps. 19:7-11; 119:97-105: Matt. 23:8-10; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; Eze. 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Matt. 2:7,8.

6. God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables; and in this way the same things are oftentimes revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures and parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one. Proof, Ps. 89:19; Hos. 12:10; Hab. 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 10:6; Heb. 9:9, 24; Ps. 78:2; Matt. 13:13, 34; Gen. 41:1-32; Dan. 2d, 7th & 8th; Acts 10:9-16.

7. Visions are always mentioned as such. 2 Cor. 12:1.

8. Figures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy to represent future things, times and events–such as mountains, meaning governments; Dan. 2:35, 44; beasts, meaning kingdoms; Dan. 7:8, 17; waters, meaning people; Rev. 17:1, 15; day, meaning year; Eze. 4:6.

9. Parables are used as comparisons to illustrate subjects, and must be explained in the same way as figures, by the subject and Bible. Mark 4:13.

10. Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time, namely, first, indefinite; Eccl. 7:14; second, definite, a day for a year; Eze. 4:6; and third, a day for a thousand years. 2 Pet. 3:8. The right construction will harmonize with the Bible, and make good sense; other constructions will not.

11. If a word makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, it is to be understood literally; if not, figuratively. Rev. 12:1, 2; 17:3-7.

12. To learn the meaning of a figure, trace the word through your Bible, and when you find it explained, substitute the explanation for the word used; and, if it make good sense, you need not look further; if not, look again.

13. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy: If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event; but if one word lacks a fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development; for God takes care that history and prophecy shall agree, so that the true believing children of God may never be ashamed. Ps. 22:5; Isa. 45:17-19; 1 Pet. 2:6; Rev. 17:17; Acts 3:18.

14. The most important rule of all is, that you must have faith. It must be a faith that requires a sacrifice, and, if tried, would give up the dearest object on earth, the world and all its desires–character, living, occupation, friends, home, comforts and worldly honors. If any of these should hinder our believing any part of God’s word, it would show our faith to be vain. Nor can we ever believe so long as one of these motives lies lurking in our hearts. We must believe that God will never forfeit his word; and we can have confidence that He who takes notice of the sparrow’s fall, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of his own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in his word, from erring far from the truth.

I appreciate you sharing.

the part that stands out the most at the moment is point 5.

"5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom, is my rule, and not the Bible. Proof, Ps. 19:7-11; 119:97-105: Matt. 23:8-10; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; Eze. 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Matt. 2:7,8."
.
I tend to take this concept to the point of seeing a geometry in the scriptures, in that there are weightier matters and a greatest commandment, that there are laws but also a summation of laws, if one order is required for another order to speak, then it is greater in terms of service. For example, the order of creation surpasses the mosaic law in the sense that without anything created, the law would have nothing to speak of.
.
So there is not a planar surface of the knowledge of the lord only covering the sea, but living and breathing, perhaps even like a person.
.
Every interpretation has its value, but understanding what the best value and the values in between based on their relationship to God's nature, and in service, is important so the edification potential is maximized, and as much as possible we speak to people where they are at.
.
The other part that stood out from your post was the basis of the parables and creation as a reference point.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Oh you mean letting the bible interpret itself according to its own patterns. this pattern (doubling) is displayed a lot in the proverbs and the prophets, the audience is key in identifying whether a pattern is being used or not.

Yes. 1 John 3 has some contrasts, although you can't go by the verse numbers. Check it out.

 

[Tayla]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse

It is not possible to resolve the conflict without introducing assumptions about interpretation methodology and other factors. But there is no way to derive these from the inerrant word of God except in cases where the topic is mentioned.

I am unwilling to say anyone's doctrine or teaching is wrong as long as they support it from the Bible. For any topic in question, the various opposing views by well respected theologians and teachers using the infallible word of God are well documented on the internet for anyone interested.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It is not possible to resolve the conflict without introducing assumptions about interpretation methodology and other factors. But there is no way to derive these from the inerrant word of God except in cases where the topic is mentioned.

I am unwilling to say anyone's doctrine or teaching is wrong as long as they support it from the Bible. For any topic in question, the various opposing views by well respected theologians and teachers using the infallible word of God are well documented on the internet for anyone interested.

If something is not possible, it is automatically possible, because it was mentioned as a possibility by saying "impossible"