How should one interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

When interpreting the Bible, should one's primary goal be to
a) Figure out what the author probably meant?
b) Try to get the Bible to conform to reality?
c) Interpret the Bible to be free of any immortality and/or inconsistencies?

If one were to take a look at an earlier debate between myself and JehovahsWitness...

viewtopic.php?p=836617#836617
...it seems to me that JehovahsWitness is interpreting the Bible using method b) mentioned above.

Another member, ttruscott, essentially created his own denomination. His justification can be seen here...

viewtopic.php?p=850683#850683
...it seems Ted would rather selectively interpret the Bible to "fix" the supposed blasphemy of concluding that God is at fault for our inherited sin than consider what he authors actually intended to say. Ted seems to be using method c). As with JehovahsWitness, Ted seems to place the authors' intention as a secondary concern with "fixing" the blasphemy as the primary focus of his interpretation.

Another example of method c) can be found here...

viewtopic.php?p=851127#851127

onewithhim not only disregards the author's intentions but directly disregards what the author directly said.

So the gist of it seems to be that JehovahsWitness will always interpret the Bible to conform to reality while ttruscott will always interpret the Bible in a way to avoid any potential moral inconsistencies. Neither of these are interested in method a) as stated above. Rather, they all seem to focus primarily on fixing potential flaws in the Bible.

Is using any method other than method a) a dishonest way of interpreting the Bible?

[ttruscott]

...misinterpreted

How can you be so sure that orthodoxy misinterpreted the Bible?

All atheists seem to understand the illogical nature of the story of the Garden...

1. They were supposedly just created perfect.
2. They were created unclothed yet perfect. If they were perfect in their being unclothed why mention their shame at all??? It is meaningless to mention along the lines of "and they were not smelly," a complete non-sequitur.
3. When they had their eyes opened to their sin they saw they were unclothed and were ashamed of their sin.
4. IF being unclothed was not a sin before they ate, it was not a sin after they ate so the sin they saw in their nakedness could not have been their being unclothed.

Not only has this wild interpretation by the ancient Rabbis put the seal to our being created on earth but it caused the puritanical hatred of bodies and sexuality that tormented society ever since. Bodies are not evil and sex is not evil yet orthodoxy by teaching their sin was their nakedness made the religious the sole arbiters of proper sexuality, as well as judging sexuality as sinful.

If their sin was a metaphor for their being already sinful by their free will decision pre-earth then a lot of other verses of mystery (shall we read blasphemy) become sorted out. Not that this verse is so important but its implications for how we became sinners and how HIS omniscience is not a blasphemy is huge.

and interpreted to suit orthodoxy rather than orthodoxy being driven by them due to the base fallacy that we are created on earth, not as spirits in a spirit realm.

Can you give me an example of a verse that is so clearly misinterpreted by orthodoxy that it cannot possibly be correct?

You know that Christians are not given proof but must decide what they believe by faith alone. This allowing everyone to choose their own beliefs also allows them to live as they want while at the same time forcing those under the promise to seek GOD for answers to such things, not their own understanding of meaning.

[bluethread]

In the end, it is best to interpret and understand the Bible as a collection of man made stories/myths that are often metaphorical, allegorical, and are borderline supernatural when no reasonable explanation presents itself. Because of the difference in levels of knowledge, science, medicine, technology, geography and culture between then and now, you can't look at the Bible through a modern lens.

There is a difference between interpreting and believing. One does not have to believe what is written to interpret it properly, just as one does not have to be condescending to interpret it properly. A proper interpretation of the actions of a human and a cockroach would not differ in basic methodology, even though the human is rational and the cockroach is not. One interprets those actions based on the proper contexts. One does not set aside modern views of science, medicine, technology, geography because they are superior, but because they do not apply. No one expects a biography to be scientifically accurate, or physics doctoral dissertation to be in "plain English". One recognizes the history, language and culture of the intended audience into account, without presuming it to be superior or inferior to any other. After that, one can analyze the merits of what it said, but not before.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Reinterpretation of what the Bible actually says is necessary for the Bible to remain viable, and therefore the Christian religion to remain viable. At least in the minds of the faithful. Without the ability to reinterpret what the words of the Bible actually say and to reshape what the words say to conform to what the faithful have decided that the words must really have meant to say all along, the Bible is exposed as little more than the unfounded claims and ancient beliefs of the ancient people who wrote it. For example:

Matt.24
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The events depicted in the Gospels occurred 2,000 years ago. Clearly that generation HAS passed, and many more besides. So Christians have been forced of necessity to redefine the word "generation," a word specifically intended to refer to the period of time between birth and the time it takes for the offspring to reach maturity and produce their own offspring, to be entirely open ended. Under the redefined word, "generation" now means the time it takes for the claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels to actually occur. This use of the word "generation" is redefined to mean thousands of years. Without the ability to reinterpret what the words say to conform to what the faithful have decided that those words actually mean, the Bible would have been exposed centuries ago as the nonsense it has always been.

[Justin108]

I know from experience that starting with the point of view that it is man written and not GODly

Orthodox Christians believe it is Godly as well and yet they interpret it the same way I do (for the most part)

gets you to a vastly different place than by starting from the pov that it is
GOD's word on earth and says what HE wants it to say.

And how exactly would you know what God wants it to say?

[Justin108]

And as for my use of scripture being rather selective, I'd call it a highly selective and pointed use of verses that have been traditionally ignored

It's been traditionally ignored for a reason. I might not agree with orthodox Christianity in terms of the existence of God, but their interpretations are far more likely than yours in terms of what the author most likely meant. They don't twist verses beyond recognition. When they read, for example, that Adam and Eve were naked... then that's how they interpret the verse: Adam and Eve were without clothes. As I recall (correct me if I am wrong) one of your interpretations mention something along the lines of "naked" means "subtle" and "subtle" means "evil" and so the verse actually supposedly say that Adam and Eve were already evil... this is a huge stretch. The orthodox interpretation of "they were naked" makes so much more sense.

Of course a secular materialist would accept the orthodox view rather than one that suits the text better...

I accept the orthodox view precisely because it fits the text better. Please explain how your interpretation of Adam and Eve's nakedness "suits the text better"?

It is not a twist nor my words that Moses wrote that Adam and Eve were naked and the serpent was subtle

So far I agree. Adam and Eve were naked (without clothes) and the serpent was indeed subtle

(beguiling, seducing)

This is not what "subtle" means. While both of these entail a certain subtlety, it is not the only meaning of subtle. One can be subtle without being beguiling or seducing. However, in the context of what the serpent does in this chapter, I would again agree with your interpretation so far that the serpent was in fact beguiling and seducing.

so that both words are written as arm. Adam and Eve were arm and the serpent was arm

My sources disagree

naked
arowm (aw-rome')
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-25.htm

more subtil
aruwm (aw-room')
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/3-1.htm

They have different vowel spellings to reflect the Hebrew interpretation of this word for Adam and Eve to mean naked because as newly created they could not yet be subtle but those vowel spellings were not in the original of Gen 2:25-3:1 only added in c600AD so the original could be read both ways: arm as unclothed or as seductive.

Can you perhaps support this claim? That Genesis was changed c600AD?

There are other supports in bible interpretation to back this up but you didn't mention them so I won't go into the full detail.

By all means, go into full detail

[Justin108]

All atheists seem to understand the illogical nature of the story of the Garden...

1. They were supposedly just created perfect.

I do not agree with this. While I believe they were sinless, the fact that they would later sin means they are imperfect. But I do believe they were sinless (have not yet sinned) at this point due to the fact that they were only recently created. In Genesis 2, the only commandment God ever gave Adam was to not eat of the fruit. So far, this is the only way Adam could sin. What else could Adam possibly do to sin at this point? Steal? What and from who? Commit adultery? Eve was basically born already married to Adam. Logic tells us that in this setting, Adam never had the opportunity to sin.

2. They were created unclothed yet perfect. If they were perfect in their being unclothed why mention their shame at all???

This probably simply reflects the cultural norms of the author. Most people feel shame being naked. It would then make sense for Moses to point out that "they were naked, but they were unashamed of being naked". He likely pointed this out as most people would be ashamed of being naked. I expect Jews of 6000 years ago were even more modest than we are today, so an inherent shame is present in being naked.

But suppose for argument sake that there is a flaw in logic here... does that mean
1) the author possibly made a logical flaw in his text
2) logical flaws are impossible and so the text MUST be interpreted to be void of ANY logical flaws

The fact that you think along method 2) (or method c as I referred to it in my OP) is the whole point of my OP. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the authors made logical flaws and so you ignore the authors' intentions and interpret the text with a deliberate attempt at "fixing" the logical errors. All you're doing in this post is proving my point.

Not only has this wild interpretation by the ancient Rabbis

Call the Rabbinic interpretation wild all you like, but at least the Rabbis looked exclusively at the text provided instead of assuming (despite no such mention) that Adam and Eve did something (no one knows what) at some point before existing on earth. You would think Moses would mention this if it did in fact happen

If their sin was a metaphor for their being already sinful by their free will decision pre-earth then a lot of other verses of mystery (shall we read blasphemy) become sorted out.

And here you are, using method c) again (Interpret the Bible to be free of any immortality and/or inconsistencies). You are not interpreting the Bible to figure out what the author meant, you are interpreting the Bible to forcefully fix any potential flaws.

What indication in Genesis 2 is there to suggest that Moses had a pre-earth in mind?

You know that Christians are not given proof but must decide what they believe by faith alone. This allowing everyone to choose their own beliefs also allows them to live as they want

Are you suggesting that we all choose what we believe based on what we want to be true?

[ttruscott]

I know from experience that starting with the point of view that it is man written and not GODly

Orthodox Christians believe it is Godly as well and yet they interpret it the same way I do (for the most part)

How other Christians interpret the bible and what I wrote are not contradictory...

gets you to a vastly different place than by starting from the pov that it is
GOD's word on earth and says what HE wants it to say.

And how exactly would you know what God wants it to say?

I would seek HIM and wait for HIM to tell me.

[ttruscott]

so that both words are written as arm. Adam and Eve were arm and the serpent was arm

My sources disagree

naked
arowm (aw-rome')
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-25.htm

more subtil
aruwm (aw-room')
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/3-1.htm

They are the same word with different vowels, that is, since the vowels are not in the original, they are written the same but pronounced differently.

Can you perhaps support this claim? That Genesis was changed c600AD?

I did not claim Genesis was changed and you know it. The way the words are written has changed.

The Hebrew written language originally contained no vowels or vowel-marks. This, of course, means nothing less than that the Old Testament books were written simply in consonant outline, and in this form were preserved for many centuries. A Hebrew Bible or manuscript now has this consonant outline filled out with dots and other marks above and below, to indicate the vowels that should be understood. But these vowel marks are no part of the original Hebrew Bible. Then men read the various books as best they could from the consonants alone, supplying the vowels according to the seeming requirement of the sense, or the oral instructions which they had received from tradition. From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... hebrew.htm

[Justin108]

gets you to a vastly different place than by starting from the pov that it is
GOD's word on earth and says what HE wants it to say.

And how exactly would you know what God wants it to say?

I would seek HIM and wait for HIM to tell me.

Are you implying that orthodox Christians never use this method? Many orthodox Christians would say that their understanding of the Bible is due to their being driven by the Holy Spirit. Are they lying? Mistaken? Or did the Holy Spirit deliberately lead them astray?

They have different vowel spellings to reflect the Hebrew interpretation of this word for Adam and Eve to mean naked because as newly created they could not yet be subtle but those vowel spellings were not in the original of Gen 2:25-3:1 only added in c600AD so the original could be read both ways: arm as unclothed or as seductive.

1. Why do you reject the possibility that orthodoxy is correct in interpreting the word "'arm" differently in both instances? Why do you reject the possibility that "'arm" in the case of Adam and Eve meant "naked"? Context would surely support "'am" being translated as "naked"
2. Supposing for argument sake that "'arm" did in fact mean "subtle" in Adam and Eve's case. "Subtle" does not mean "sinful". "Subtle" is in itself morally neutral. One can be subtle while still being moral.

subtle
st()l/Submit
adjective
adjective: subtle; comparative adjective: subtler; superlative adjective: subtlest
1.
(especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyse or describe.
"his language expresses rich and subtle meanings"
synonyms: fine, fine-drawn, ultra-fine, nice, overnice, minute, precise, narrow, tenuous; More
antonyms: crude
(of a mixture or effect) delicately complex and understated.
"subtle lighting"
synonyms: understated, low-key, muted, toned down, subdued; More
antonyms: lurid, obvious
capable of making fine distinctions.
"a subtle mind"
synonyms: astute, keen, quick, fine, acute, sharp, razor-like, razor-sharp, rapier-like, canny, shrewd, aware, perceptive, discerning, sensitive, discriminating, penetrating, sagacious, wise, clever, intelligent, skilful, artful; More
antonyms: slow-witted
arranged in an ingenious and elaborate way.
"the German plan was simple yet subtle"
2.
making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.
"he tried a more subtle approach"
3.
archaic
crafty; cunning.
"the subtle fiend dissembled"
synonyms: ingenious, clever, skilful, adroit, cunning, crafty, wily, artful, devious
"the plan was simple yet subtle"
antonyms: crude, artless


Assuming the archaic definition, while many of them are inherently evil (devious, wily), others are morally neutral (ingenious, clever, skillful, adroit, cunning, crafty, artful).

So even if we assume that "'arm" does not mean "naked" and that it means "subtle", it still does not follow that Adam and Eve were sinful. All it would conclude is that they are clever.

Furthermore, if Genesis meant to use the word "subtle" to mean "sinful", why didn't Genesis simply say they were sinful? Assuming we exclusively use the negative kinds of subtlety (devious, wily) then it places a large restriction on "sinful". This would mean that Adam and Eve weren't sinful in the general sense, they were just sinful in a "clever" sense. It would make far more sense for Genesis to simply say "Adam and Eve were sinful" rather than a confusing route of assuming
- 'arm means "subtle" instead of "naked" (despite the fact that "naked" would fit perfectly within context)
- "subtle" while being morally neutral, we are expected to assume Adam and Eve were the "bad kind" of subtle

Why did Genesis not simply say "Adam and Eve were sinful"?

[ttruscott]

1. Why do you reject the possibility that orthodoxy is correct in interpreting the word "'arm" differently in both instances? Why do you reject the possibility that "'arm" in the case of Adam and Eve meant "naked"? Context would surely support "'am" being translated as "naked"

I do not reject the orthodox interpretation of arm as wrong. I point out that there is another possibility that I doubt any one else here has ever noticed. And when asked, 'so what?', I answer with the rest of the hints that life in the garden may not have been so morally good which builds the case for us not inheriting Adam's sin.

2. Supposing for argument sake that "'arm" did in fact mean "subtle" in Adam and Eve's case. "Subtle" does not mean "sinful". "Subtle" is in itself morally neutral. One can be subtle while still being moral.

Well, while the word in Hebrew can mean subtle, shrewd, crafty and sly, it is also
sensible and prudent indicating a good side to the shrewdness, it would seem that what is being conveyed is a immoral beguiling, seducing, side from Genesis 3:13 "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

deceived: Strong's H5377 - nasha' The KJV translates Strong's H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly beguiled me (1x),

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
to beguile, deceive
(Niphal) to be beguiled
(Hiphil) to beguile, deceive
(Qal) utterly (infinitive)

Strongs Definitions: nsh; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:"beguile, deceive

And GOD seems to have accepted her version he did her wrong. In Bible interpretation it is always better if the words are accepted as the writers would have used them, not as modern people now use them.

Assuming the archaic definition, while many of them are inherently evil (devious, wily), others are morally neutral (ingenious, clever, skillful, adroit, cunning, crafty, artful).

So even if we assume that "'arm" does not mean "naked" and that it means "subtle", it still does not follow that Adam and Eve were sinful. All it would conclude is that they are clever.

Indeed. But the story must be considered, eh?

1. Adam tried to find a mate among the animals. Why do that? To fix a "not good" of his being alone. Do you think it was GOD's idea to look among the animals for his mate when he had Eve waiting in the wings? No, probably not. So could Adam have been faithfully following HIS GOD when he did this? No, probably not. Therefore he was either ignoring GOD about this matter or in active rebellion to Eve as his mate but whatever the reason we can see that by looking for his mate among the animals he was probbly not being righteous and faithful which is the state of being sinful.

2. Eve's relationship with the serpent. The serpent was GOD's enemy so to be in a state of friendship with him indicates sinfulness. Holy does not mingle with the evil it must live among. Righteousness does not mingle with sin but repudiates it. If that is not enough, she is seen to accept him as a mentor or pastor since she follows him in his deceit to get her to break the command. We know he beguiled her so she was blind to his evil before she ate, unable to tell if he was righteous or sinful. And the only way to become blind to evil is to choose to be sinful yourself because it is sin that blinds us to what is right as found in Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. It is sin that makes us think that what right is wrong and what is wrong is right...the holy angels do not have this problem.

So things don't look so good for our dynamic duo, eh? Looking for a mate among the animal and accepting GOD's worst enemy as a pastor is not the end of the world but it does hint at something not right with them, and getting booted from the garden would seem to be quite predictable if these signs of sin had been recognized.

Why did Genesis not simply say "Adam and Eve were sinful"?

I still think the best answer is that such methods are to force us to seek HIM to find out HIS interpretation rather than to trust in our own ability to arrive at the truth ourselves...the book was obviously not written to teach secrets.