How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes and no --- only where my interpretation disagrees with God's Word, would it be errant.
If it agrees with God's Word, whether accidentally or on purpose, then God's Word gives my opinion its credibility.
For instance, if I claim God exists --- my interpretation would be inerrant.
If I claim evolution exists --- my interpretation would be errant.
How would I know if 'my' interpretation disagrees?How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??
How would I know if 'my' interpretation disagrees?
Again --- any interpretation I put forward --- if it can't be backed up in Writing, then it's subject to error.
Use the one Jesus used --- the grammatical-historical interpretation.What do you mean by "backed up in writing?" Are you refering to scriptual support? Scripture can be used to support just about any interpretation you want. Again, I ask... how do we determine which interpretation is the correct interpretation?
Can you explain exactly what that means?Use the one Jesus used --- the grammatical-historical interpretation.
why do they insist that the bible is still printed using old English? perhaps they think that 'thee and thou' somehow adds a little weight to the words?
Creationists are loathe to admit that what they claim as “God’s Word,” or “The Bible” is really nothing more than an opinion based on their interpretation of scripture. Why? Because a personal opinion based on fallible interpretation is not “inerrant.” Without Divine Inerrancy, the creationists have nothing to argue but their own opinion and speculation. In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.
And that is why creationism is not based on The Inerrant Word of God.
How do you determine if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with God's Word, if you evaluate God's Word by interpreting it??
Any interpretation whatever which is required before understanding can be fully achieved, is ironically enough evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and against its sufficiency.
If the Bible were inerrant and sufficient, no interpretation would be needed. Anyone adopting a Sola Scriptura position who then attempts to interpret 'properly' for the rest of us, only succeeds in demonstrating the inconsistency of their own position.
Interesting post, thank you. i will try to remember just what you said here.
The best evidence for the Bible not being inerrant is that it doesn't claim to be. And if it is not, then our interpretations certainly can't be.
The following article gives more information about the authority of Scripture; it was linked on another thread, and I found it most interesting. It is written by an evangelical, so there are some conclusions I would not necessarily agree with, but on the whole it gives a very balanced introduction to this issue.
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
The best evidence for the Bible not being inerrant is that it doesn't claim to be. And if it is not, then our interpretations certainly can't be.
The following article gives more information about the authority of Scripture; it was linked on another thread, and I found it most interesting. It is written by an evangelical, so there are some conclusions I would not necessarily agree with, but on the whole it gives a very balanced introduction to this issue.
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
Yes and no --- only where my interpretation disagrees with God's Word, would it be errant.
If it agrees with God's Word, whether accidentally or on purpose, then God's Word gives my opinion its credibility.
For instance, if I claim God exists --- my interpretation would be inerrant.
If I claim evolution exists --- my interpretation would be errant.
Preposterous. Why common descent and the big bang are wrong, etc, is not because of the word of God. The word of God simply clues us in that you are dead wrong. And if you were not, you could prove it. Of course you can't.
The whole idea of God speaking to man, and getting a record to us is that it is inspired. Holy men of God did speak as led by God, of course. No way round it.
It gives that lineage to within a small margin of interpretation. Do you doubt Adam lived 930 years or whatever? The changes in kids we can see, that came after they got off the ark. The bible also mentions changes to come in kinds, like lion eating straw...
The universe changes that were after effects of putting man's universe into a temporary state, are too numerous to list. Neither are they important, as they will all be changed again. What is important is that God sent His son to save us from ourselves, and death forever. Whether His living here on earth will mean the sun starts to revolve around the earth, we don't know. Just as whethher it used to in anotther state is unknown..
Or the tooth fairy! So??? It does mention in the latter days men will worship the creation more than the creator.
No more than interpreting Adam lived 930 years.
Not all ancients were goat herders. Really. The wise men, for example. Or Daniel. Many things were written for the latter times, not just in the US, but Israel, and etc.
Not at all. The years from Adam till Solomon are pretty well mapped out. Opinion comes into play only in a minor way, to the tune of max hundreds of years.
Yes, they do,, if we are talking the garden, the flood, or Babel, or etc. Also the timeframes, within a small margin of possible interpretation. That is why it is such a raging debate.
Creation, and creation week is sacrosanct, untouchable, immutable, absolute, written in stone, divine, confirmed in the mouth of New Testament witnesses, impervious to science, and certain.
Any interpretation whatever which is required before understanding can be fully achieved, is ironically enough evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and against its sufficiency.
If the Bible were inerrant and sufficient, no interpretation would be needed. Anyone adopting a Sola Scriptura position who then attempts to interpret 'properly' for the rest of us, only succeeds in demonstrating the inconsistency of their own position.
This is correct. Moreover, the Bible does not authorise interpreting the Scriptures as equal in authority to God himself.
Such behaviour is idolatrous, in setting up that which is in creation, and part of creation, and treating it as if it were the Creator.
Glad you noticed that. Indeed. They will in the new reign of Christ, though, the bible says.Yes I doubt Adam lived 930 years. No human being lives that long and the evidence from buried human skeletons shows they never did. Oh, and lions don't eat straw.
Science is base3d on state stuff, same state. They cannot provide evidence for..More state nonsense you cannot provide evidence for..
No, only those not written in the book of life./ Like Sturgeoun, and Dr Magee said, 'I am glad that the names in that book were added before the world began, if they were added after, I never would have made it,,'I thought everyone will worship The AntiChrist?
True. So...?An incorrect interpretation leads to incorrect conclusions.
Ah, so goat herders were the target audience. Not sheep herders, musicians, warriors, slaves, Hebrews, or etc etc? Ok.It was written for goat-herders to understand, not by them.
In the order given, however, the years can be added up. Not rocket science. Adam begat someone. Seth, for example. Can you show us before the flood where the dad that begat was actually the great grand dad? No? Aw...too bad."Begat" only indicates ancestry, not whether it was direct or not. My great-great grandfather begat me... it doesn't mean he was my father.
Hmm, ok, I will read that.
To me the best evidence that it isnt inerrant would simply be the
errors!
But then I dont look at anything from a theological pov.
since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth
This is not an accurate representaion of sola scriptura, which states that the bible is sufficient in that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and it is the only authority to govern christian life as (opposed to the church, sola scripture is one of the doctrines arising out of the reformation which was opposed to extra-biblical demands being forced upon people by the church)
Sola scriptura in no way negates a person's own mind or intellect in coming to understand what it contains. To set up one's interpretation of scripture as being opposed to the doctrine of sola scriptura a bit of a strawman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?