Thoughts On The Dangers of Bible Interpretation

[leecappella]

Taken from author Peter J. Gomes in his book 'The Good Book':

"The temptations of interpretation take three forms, all related and equally dangerous. These temptations are a form of idolatry...When we read the bible, and by doing so interpret it, we should be mindful of these three temptations:

1. The worship of the bible, making of it an object of veneration and ascribing to it the glory due to God.

2. The worship of the text, in which the letter is given an inappropriate superiority over the spirit.

3. The worship of the culture, in which the bible is forced to conform to the norms of the prevailing culture.

We may call these three temptations bibliolatry, literalism, and culturism: Each plays its subtle part in interpreting the bible."

Any thoughts on this?


Leecappella

 

[Knight]

I've seen you post similar thoughts on other threads. I'm not certain what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that too much emphasis is put on Biblical terminology? Are you suggesting that those of us who hold the Bible as the Word of God and see it as our final source of authority are mistaken?

It sounds like you don't trust the Bible. If not, what do you trust?

 

[leecappella]

Knight:

I like to cause people to think. I also like to share some things that I've read and or heard, which may cause people to think, whether I agree with what I've read or not. Sometimes it is due to my serious inquiry of other's opinion or simply just to know what others have to say and where others are coming from. I trust and have faith in God alone. I believe in Jesus and the example that He demonstrated on earth and seek to live that example. I do not equate God and the bible as equal. I know that may be offensive to some, but the offense is not intended. Some see the bible as God's word and thus equal to God because it is as if God were speaking, but I see it a bit differently. For me, the bible is a book of books that came to be as a result of decisions made by some as to what would be included in it and what would be excluded. It was written by those inspired by God who understood the intent and meaning they were trying to convey. Once humans started translating and revising it in order to find the meaning of the bible's content and make it easier to understand in our english language, I feel it became more difficult to get to the meanings and lessons found in the bible, but not impossible. After all, translators are humans and humans make mistakes, do they not? The Spirit assists and is above anything written in the letter. No doubt, those who had issues with the black race based on bible passages could not get past the letter, even if the Spirit was tugging at their heart strings to do so and not side with the then majority. The bible has produced many religions based upon it and many different doctrines as a result. Many claim their doctrines are true because those doctrines come from the bible, but if there were only one doctrine of truth, we all would be following the same doctrine. I tend to agree with Bishop Pearson who believes that God cannot be confined to one particular religion and that He cannot be limited to a particular culture or perception. Yes, I have a relationship with God. This is what He seeks from us. Because I may choose not to agree with the beliefs of others does not mean that God, looking down and seeing me seek Him continually and finding a heart that seeks after His own heart, is going to turn me away. A heart that seeks God and lives life listening for God's voice and not the voice of another humans, be it a voice on a forum or from a pulpit, is a heart that shows God who matters most to that heart: God or man? God, ofcourse Just like King David to whom the bible attributes did what was right in the sight of Yaweh, I too make mistakes and other human errors. There are some who think King David was holy and sinless because the bible says he did what was right in God's sight. Indeed, he was not sinless. He made mistakes and other human errors, but it was his heart that God looked at that told God really who King David was. I do not profess to be without error or sin. I am human, but not only human. My spirit seeks truth as all other God seeking spirits do. However, the fact there are so many God seeking spirits who genuinely seek Him and those seeking Him disagree on various things or have beliefs based on different doctrines, based on the bible, tells me there is not one truth or one perception of God. God cannot be boxed in a mold. I do believe that what is most important to God is that his creations seek Him and love others while seeking Him. God does not turn away those who truly seek Him. He knows the hearts, for it is the heart that He looks at. If a heart seeks God, though capable of error, the all knowing God is not one to turn him or her away.

In agape love,
leecappella

 

[Knight]

I see what you're driving at. Would you agree that the original Biblical manuscripts which were inspired by God were infallible?

The Bible is God's Word. This does not elevate the Bible to the same level as it's author. However, God has revealed Himself to us through the Scripture. Therefore, what we can know about Him and His character is given in the Word. This is not saying that this is the only place that we can know of God. He has also revealed Himself through General Revelation (nature) and in our conciences(sp?.) Romans 1-2 support this.

I don't think it's fair to judge the Bible based on what some people have used it for. (Slavery, Bigotry, etc...) Many religions do claim the Bible (Mormonism, JW) but if you look at the doctrines they teach it is clear that this is not what the Bible teaches. Some of them also have another book that they elevate to the same level as the Bible (ex: The Book of Mormon.) They use these extra-Biblical resources to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

My point is this. Believing that the Bible is God's written Word and source of authority is not the same thing as worshiping it.

 

[Oblio]

The worship of the bible, making of it an object of veneration and ascribing to it the glory due to God.

I just wanted to point out that veneration, which is honoring and giving respect to something (in the case of Scripture) or someone is not the same as worship. I do agree that some people worship Holy Scripture and fall into Bibliolatry.

 

[leecappella]

I see what you're driving at. Would you agree that the original Biblical manuscripts which were inspired by God were infallible?

Me: I would agree!

The Bible is God's Word. This does not elevate the Bible to the same level as it's author.

Me: So you say, but you are but one person. Others will disagree.

However, God has revealed Himself to us through the Scripture. Therefore, what we can know about Him and His character is given in the Word. This is not saying that this is the only place that we can know of God. He has also revealed Himself through General Revelation (nature) and in our conciences(sp?.) Romans 1-2 support this.

Me: Again, I agree. However, I don't think that the totality of God is in scripture. That is to say, all there is to know of God and how He thinks so that we are left with no questions is not found in scripture. That is an ongoing thing I would say.

I don't think it's fair to judge the Bible based on what some people have used it for. (Slavery, Bigotry, etc...)

Me: I agree. I do not judge the bible. A great deal can be learned to enhance one's personal relationship with God, but depending on how one reads the bible, it can be equated with God. The concept of "The bible says what it means and means what it says" is a good example that can lead to this. Or, "It's in the bible, that settles it!" is another one. I believe the bible to be a history of other human's search for God in their own time and culture and God relationship with them. The search still goes on.

Many religions do claim the Bible (Mormonism, JW) but if you look at the doctrines they teach it is clear that this is not what the Bible teaches. Some of them also have another book that they elevate to the same level as the Bible (ex: The Book of Mormon.) They use these extra-Biblical resources to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

Me: As stated earlier, from what I've read, the bible as we know it came to be as a result of decisions made by other humans as to what would be included or excluded from the now known bible. Are there other parts to the bible that could have been included but were not due to someone's decision making? Are there lives we could have heard about that we do not due to this decision? Or lives we could know more about that seem to have stopped in the pages of the bible due to this decision? Paul's letters were to churches. Did Paul write them in order that they could be part of the scriptures or was he simply writing them to churches, etc. like you or I would write a letter to Mom?

My point is this. Believing that the Bible is God's written Word and source of authority is not the same thing as worshiping it.

Me: I agree as well. But, again others would disagree. In some sense, if one read the letter and comes to a conclusion based on the letter while the Spirit tells them otherwise, I would suspect that to be a case where the letter or the bible is being worshipped over the God and God's Spirit.

Leecappella

 

[Knight]

You have a dizzying thought process.....

Can you sum up what you believe about the Bible? What other sources do we have with which we can learn about God? (Not counting the General Revelation I've already mentioned.)

The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. However, I personally believe that all the books that should be there are. Why do I believe this? God is a God of order not chaos. He is unified, coherent, and consistent. I believe that it is within His power to preserve His Word and His Gospel.

 

[leecappella]

You have a dizzying thought process.....

Me: Sorry if you're dizzy!

Can you sum up what you believe about the Bible?

Me: I thought I did that already

What other sources do we have with which we can learn about God? (Not counting the General Revelation I've already mentioned.)

Me: I'm assuming this is in reference to my statement about other parts of the bible the someone made the decision about to exclude. I will simply ask you to share with me what you know about how the bible came to be as we know it. How did it come to include the books that it does include? I am always willing to learn.

The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. However, I personally believe that all the books that should be there are. Why do I believe this? God is a God of order not chaos. He is unified, coherent, and consistent. I believe that it is within His power to preserve His Word and His Gospel.

Me: Please explain 'a fallible collection of infallible books'.

 

[Knight]

I haven't the time to go into detail on how the Bible came to be. I studied this several months ago and I cannot recall all the nuances that you would, no doubt, require.

I can explain the fallible collection of infallible books. The Bible we use today was assembled by man. On this we agree. The original manuscripts were inspired by God and infallible. On this we also agree. I trust God that His Word and message has been preserved but I also realize that men are fallible and there are some errors in the translation. Most of these are gramar, spelling, and/or syntax. This happens anytime you translate one language into another.

I don't want you to think that I believe this means we cannot trust the Bible. I don't believe that. The bottom line is God's message of salvation through Jesus Christ has been preserved.

Check out this link. I think this explains this better than I can.

www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm

 

[Oblio]

The Bible we use today was assembled by man.

The Bible was assembled by the Church in 367 AD by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not by man.

 

[Knight]

It was not my intention to question the Holy Spirit's involvement in the assembling of the New Testament. You'll recall that I did state that God has preserved His Word.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.