Interpreting The Bible...

[GrowingSmaller]

The conversation probably had to do with the fact that in the West we use unleavened bread for the Sacrament, but in the East they use leavened.

I don't know what you mean by "How do I interpret that?" I'm not sure what it is you want interpreting--that you opened up a Bible to a place talking about bread with yeast and bread without yeast? That's all that "leaven" is--yeast.

-CryptoLutheran

What I mean is I opened in faith, and it seeed to be the exact page I would have looked for, but I was not versed in scripture at all. So it was "random" but right. Can that mean "god blessed" or something?

 

[bling]

I'm not sure that this is the most helpful or even most orthodox position. What do you mean that there's only one true interpretation of the Bible?

The Holy Spirit intended to convey one particular message in each passage. There is no two right ways to interpret any one passage. There can be duel prophecies but both together are the interpretation.

The best position, it seems to me, is to say that we've got the text of the Bible and we've got applications of that text. When we're asking for the "meaning" of a particular text, we're asking how that text is to be applied. Because a text can be applied in many different ways to many different circumstances, one text can have many different "meanings". The more we apply the text the more deeply we discover the meaning of the text.

In light of this it's hard to see how the Bible only has "one true interpretation".

I do not see an interpretation as being “relative”. You can be right or wrong in your interpretation but not both.

Now this is not to say that every application is valid. If one follows the rules of hermeneutics then the applications that they make are probably valid. If one breaks these rules then their applications are probably invalid.

But because meaning is application and every text has many applications, there is no "one true meaning" to any given text.

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

 

[bling]

And every Christian thinks that he or she is a True Christian, and there's no objective, all-knowing third party to help us out, so we're back to square one.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is that all-knowing third party.
You have to start with the right motive for knowing if you want the Holy Spirit to help you.

 

[Cearbhall]

The indwelling Holy Spirit is that all-knowing third party.
You have to start with the right motive for knowing if you want the Holy Spirit to help you.

Yes, I'm aware that Christians believe this. I obviously can only speak in terms of my own beliefs, which do not include the existence of a third party.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What I mean is I opened in faith, and it seeed to be the exact page I would have looked for, but I was not versed in scripture at all. So it was "random" but right. Can that mean "god blessed" or something?

Coincidence I'd say.

I don't really believe in the "Bible roulette" thing that some others are into.

It's not impossible for the hand of providence to work in such a way, so I won't discount it. But attributing any old coincidence to providence seems like a bad idea in general.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What I mean is I opened in faith, and it seeed to be the exact page I would have looked for, but I was not versed in scripture at all. So it was "random" but right. Can that mean "god blessed" or something?

yhvh the creator is in charge, and says that everyone that seeks him will find him - muslim, catholic,lutheran, baptist, buddhist, republican, democrat, rich , poor, red white or blue.... so,

and yhvh says that he himself causes everything to be for the good of those who love him , who are called according to his purpose, ..... so,

people from every tribe and nation have sought him, and been saved, immersed in yahushua, born again, just as yhvh said they would be, ... so

you can trust yhvh in every tiny detail of your life (note that you said "in faith" you sought the answer - that makes all the difference. many people are afraid to step out in faith, and remain instead hidden behind walls as if for their own preservation or protection, walls that men have put up to protect themselves and to get more power.... but that's getting off on a tangent... ) ...

so, yes, by faith, continue to seek the one and the only creator in divine yahushua hamoshiach, and you will continue to find him every day, and in every detail, as he orchestrates everything without question or doubt.

as for what happens to all the different schools or religions or beliefs that people start in (before they are saved),

they all fall away into nothingness and are no more thought of as anything

in view of the surpassing overwhelming personal experiential knowledge of messiah yahushua and his saving grace and deliverance from sin and from death to life now and life eternal with yhvh abba elohim.

as you open the bible to read it in faith, this all is seen very very clearly exactly as yhvh the only creator has promised and reveals it through yahushua. (hebrews 1)

 

[oi_antz]

What I mean is I opened in faith, and it seeed to be the exact page I would have looked for, but I was not versed in scripture at all. So it was "random" but right. Can that mean "god blessed" or something?

My thought is, that if you aren't intentionally looking for an exact verse that you are trying to remember, then you are doing bible roulette to some extent. This would cover situations such as the reading of the bible in a sequential manner, or having bible verses given to you in church. You aren't controlling what information you come across at what time, you are just receiving it as it comes.

Only, what ViaCrucis is describing is the practice of gambling, and that is to make a decision to necessarily believe whatever idea you are going to get, before you have opened the bible and read it. That is something I will agree, to be a bad idea in general. But, if you are just calling on Him to speak to you, and then opening the bible randomly in faith, I don't think it can be said that is a bad idea in general. God can speak to us when we are willing to listen to Him, and this is an effective way to open one's heart to Him. I would even suggest that unless one turns their heart to Him this way, and reads the bible with the faith you are describing, then they probably aren't going to hear what He is telling them. They have decided to necessarily not believe the idea they get, even before they have opened the bible and read it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems like the liberal and reformed Jews have a more rationalistic view of scripture, which is maybe inspired, but like science, progressive and always open to change.

On the other hand the "reformed" Christians, or some at least, view the bible as inerrant and infallible etc.

I know that there are some churches like the unitarians which are willing to "move on" from scripture, or are open to new sources of insight.

But mainstream protestantism - is that as a rule inerrantistic?

 

[oi_antz]

It seems like the liberal and reformed Jews have a more rationalistic view of scripture, which is maybe inspired, but like science, progressive and always open to change.

On the other hand the "reformed" Christians, or some at least, view the bible as inerrant and infallible etc.

I know that there are some churches like the unitarians which are willing to "move on" from scripture, or are open to new sources of insight.

But mainstream protestantism - is that as a rule inerrantistic?

I don't appreciate rules. Their purpose is to simplify matters where necessary discretion is too expensive. This is not an answer to your question, but an answer I care to contribute.

The essence of your question is about whether a given statement in the bible is truthful, that is to say whether the meaning of the author's statement is true rather than false. So we need to look at what the author's purpose is for saying it, and while I agree that there should be only one interpretation, I know that when I choose words I am sometimes aware of multiple potential meanings. I don't think there is a uniform approach to this in biblical scripts. Jesus spoke intentionally this way because those who are permitted to see the truth can see the truth, but those who do not wish to come to the light can make that choice. Everything about faith has that freedom.

So, I don't expect every statement in the bible to be clear cut, and this is consistent with my experience. But there are some statements which are clear cut, and when people distort them I cannot appreciate it. There are statements too that are downright confusing, insofar as someone who interprets them adamantly appears in my view to be speculating.

 

[aiki]

It seems like the liberal and reformed Jews have a more rationalistic view of scripture, which is maybe inspired, but like science, progressive and always open to change.

Why is the perspective of the Jews and liberal Christians you describe here "more rationalistic"?

On the other hand the "reformed" Christians, or some at least, view the bible as inerrant and infallible etc.

The implication here is that Reformed believers have an irrational view of the Bible. Can you show that this is so?

I know that there are some churches like the unitarians which are willing to "move on" from scripture, or are open to new sources of insight.

Yes, and how do they do so and remain followers of Christ, exactly?

But mainstream protestantism - is that as a rule inerrantistic?

What is "mainstream protestantism"? I'm not really sure any more...

Selah.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hey thanks for the taxing questions, and Oiantz I am appreciating your views too!

Why is the perspective of the Jews and liberal Christians you describe here "more rationalistic"?

I mean more philosophic and logical, or more pragmatic in that they are open to evolution of belief over time.

The implication here is that Reformed believers have an irrational view of the Bible. Can you show that this is so?

Well "irrationalism" is a philosophy, and fideism (putting faith uppermost) is a type of this. It seems like when you put the bible first as if it were an axiom, one who does so is being fideistic.

Yes, and how do they do so and remain followers of Christ, exactly?

Loving their neighbour?

What is "mainstream protestantism"? I'm not really sure any more...

Selah.

Thanks again. What I mean is the more orthodox as opposed to theologically liberal churches.

 

[aiki]

Why is the perspective of the Jews and liberal Christians you describe here "more rationalistic"?
​

I mean more philosophic and logical, or more pragmatic in that they are open to evolution of belief over time.

Maybe your experience with conservative Christians needs to be more broad, but liberal Christians are by no means more philosophical or logical than their conservative counterparts. And what you refer to as being "more open to evolution of belief" is what conservative Christians describe as doctrinal compromise and heresy.

The implication here is that Reformed believers have an irrational view of the Bible. Can you show that this is so?
​

Well "irrationalism" is a philosophy, and fideism (putting faith uppermost) is a type of this. It seems like when you put the bible first as if it were an axiom, one who does so is being fideistic.

Oh? What is irrational about a Christian putting the Bible first? It is from the Bible that the entire Christian faith is derived. In light of this, it would seem to me to be quite irrational for a Christian not to give the Bible first place.

Yes, and how do they do so and remain followers of Christ, exactly?
​

Loving their neighbour?

This is not what makes a person a follower of Christ!

Selah.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks may get back soon...