What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

Let's use Genesis 1 as an example. What is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and what method did you employ to conclude your interpretation?

Specifically...

1. Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphorical? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

2. If it is metaphorical, what is it a metaphor for? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

3. What is your explanation for the Genesis 1 claim that God created plants before he created the sun? (and again, what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

[Justin108]

For example,
- Jack reads the Bible for the first time
- He reads Genesis 1 and notice that, according to Genesis 1, plant life existed before the creation of the sun
- According to Jack's knowledge of science, this would be impossible

What reason would Jack have to not dismiss the Genesis account as factually inaccurate?

Sure, and all this shows is that without the instruction from the Holy Spirit as to what HE meant when He had the Bible written, the Bible itself cannot bring the secular mind to an understanding of the truth.

In order for Jack to believe in the Holy Spirit, he must first believe the Bible. In order to believe the Bible, he must first believe in the Holy Spirit. How is Jack ever expected to believe if the Holy Spirit only comes after belief yet is also necessary for belief?

[Benoni]

For example,
- Jack reads the Bible for the first time
- He reads Genesis 1 and notice that, according to Genesis 1, plant life existed before the creation of the sun
- According to Jack's knowledge of science, this would be impossible

What reason would Jack have to not dismiss the Genesis account as factually inaccurate?

Sure, and all this shows is that without the instruction from the Holy Spirit as to what HE meant when He had the Bible written, the Bible itself cannot bring the secular mind to an understanding of the truth.

In order for Jack to believe in the Holy Spirit, he must first believe the Bible. In order to believe the Bible, he must first believe in the Holy Spirit. How is Jack ever expected to believe if the Holy Spirit only comes after belief yet is also necessary for belief?

This is so true.. That is why man having a freewill to save himself is totally false.

[Benoni]

No one can choice Christ; He chooses/drags them; oh I am know there were men who choose to follow Jesus, just like I am sure you choose to follow what ever religion you follow. But that that is not what I am speaking about. When it comes to God’s will with salvation or any other situation involving God’s will; God draws you. In fact He draws them (Gk) drag. I like the word force.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Benoni]

There is two churches in the Bible the true church with in us. And Baby-lon the outward physical church... Little "c"

This is new age heresy and is not supported in the Bible. The Church is not something within us. This the typical heresy of believing in a generic spiritualism where simple profession of faith suffices.

*************************

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.


The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders.


Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.


Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern—not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers.


Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments —baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick—are not just symbols. They are signs that actually convey God’s grace and love.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-o ... r-of-truth

The existence of an actual, visible, earthly institution dubbed as Christ’s Church is evident throughout the NT.

**************************

While writing off the church passes as sophisticated thinking, it’s actually the opposite.

The church was not a human invention. Half-reading the New Testament with one eye closed will still lead you to the inescapable conclusion that the church was God’s idea.

In fact, most of the New Testament is not about the teachings of Jesus. It’s about the work of the church that Jesus initiated and ordained.

That God would use ordinary, broken human beings as vessels of his grace, and delight in it is awe-inspiring.

Most of the New Testament is not a story of an idealized church where everything worked perfectly all the time (just read 1 Corinthians).

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).


https://careynieuwhof.com/a-response-to ... th-church/

How could a church (small c) within us give us one set of doctrines and unity of belief. Illogical and impossible.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 49 by polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Nonsense! The Church misinterpreted scripture, pure and simple as its word plainly show.

Like I said, during this time in history, the Church wrongly believed something about the world that everyone else at that time wrongly believed as well and that affected many theologians within the Church’s understanding of Scripture. However, once the Church and the scientific community better understood the sun and the planets, theologians also were able to better understand Scripture and perhaps their viewing certain passages as literal that were never intended to be understood as literal.

The Church couldn't admit that Scripture contained errors.

Scripture did not contain errors. The error was in human understanding of the Scripture.

Even today some fundamentalists and literalists write long tracts trying to convince readers that the obvious Church error rally wasn't an error.

You are free to believe what you want. However, again, at the time, the Church was more interested in protecting her flock from being told by someone who had no authority to do so that he had discovered something that contradicted Scripture. He did not. One must look at this event in history in light of the time period and culture in which it took place.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 50 by Justin108]

I'll need verse numbers, not just "Jesus said"

Seriously? Those are all very common, well known Biblical passages. And a quick Google search could help you out if you are unfamiliar with such.


Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-o ... r-of-truth

Does the Church not also teach that using contraceptives is immoral?

Of course. It is Scriptural, logical, and beautiful. It is also something every Christian denomination, including JW’s, believed and taught until the 1930’s. Only the Catholic Church has remained constant and not caved to the fashions of the day.

Fr. James Farfaglia's 'Openness to life' will provide us with a historical account of contraception:

"Before 1930, every Christian denomination (Anglican or Church of England, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptists, Dutch Reformed Church, Protestant Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian, Mormon (Latter Day Saints, The Salvation Army, Christian Scientist, Church of the Nazarene or Pentecostal Gospel, Holiness Church or Jehovah's Witnesses, and Roman Catholic Church) agreed in their opposition to contraception and considered it intrinsically evil.

In 1930, the Anglican Church, motivated by increasing social pressures, stated that contraception could be allowed in some circumstances. Shortly thereafter the Anglicans gave in, allowing contraception. Since then, all other Protestant denominations followed the example of the Church of England.�

With the mass production of contraception materials by big business (manufacturers), they corrupted church leaders, so the Catholic Church is alone fighting this "intrinsically evil." The BIG BUSINESS involved billions of dollars and pounds.

Fr James added “The first cries for change within the Catholic Church came about in the late 1950's and the early 1960's with the availability of the birth control pill. In July of 1968, Pope Paul VI published an encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) which reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil.�

This fundamental principle contained in Humanae Vitae is true because the nature of sexual intercourse, which is both life-giving (pro-creative) and love-giving (unitive), reflects the plan of God for marriage. A man and a woman must not intervene to separate their fertility from their bodily union. To do so is to disrupt the plan of God for marriage, sexuality, and married love. Therefore, the Church’s teaching is not only affirmed by Divine law, but by natural law as well.

Sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of sex must not be abused by frustrating its natural end — procreation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 5908/posts

[ttruscott]

From my Christian pov the only correct way to interpret the Bible is to find out from GOD what HE meant when HE had it written that way...

This to me is the meaning of Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding...

The bible suggests to seek GOD, not what you think a verse must mean or what someone else might think it means because such wisdom is doomed to fail, 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; being clouded and under the power of sin. Each person is on their own with their GOD and must follow their own faith, their own unproven hope about who HE is and what HE wants.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 57 by ttruscott]

From my Christian pov the only correct way to interpret the Bible is to find out from GOD what HE meant when HE had it written that way...

Thing is Ted, that of course there will be plenty of Christians who say they do just that, and that your own PCE beliefs are incorrect. In fact...have ANY Christians on this site agreed with your PCE? I can't recall that ever happening...

Appealing to God (if he is there) clearly only gives the result of there being many different claims as to what the Bible "really means". There is no consensus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by RightReason]

Sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of sex must not be abused by frustrating its natural end — procreation.

Yeah, like this will do wonders for a happy marriage. Sex only when intending to procreate? What happens if you're celebrating thirty years of marriage, herself has gone through menopause and you two are alone in the hotel room?
Since humans are sexual creatures, and able to perform intercourse basically whenever (we don't have a set time when we go into heat, for example), frustrating these desires of ours is the real thing that is unnatural.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church.

Depends on what you mean by 'oldest government'. Japan has had emperors for the past 2,500 years, giving them a five hundred year headstart on the RCC.
Or we could go in terms of territory. The region around the lower Nile has been part of Egypt as a nation for about 4,000 years. Wow. Two thousand five hundred more than the RCC.

If we go by the oldest civilisation, Iraq is the oldest, having been such for about 5,000 years (its name derives from the city state of Uruk).

Of course, if you want to strictly talk about government, then your claim of 2,000 years for the RCC is incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church once had temporal control of lands known as the Papal States, starting from the 8th century but lost ALL of them by the year 1870 (including the Vatican). It wasn't until 1929 when Fascist leader Mussolini gave the RCC the Vatican with the Lateran Treaty.

Of course, since we're talking religion here, India's Vedic religion and Sanskrit language have been around for 3,500 years in a near unbroken stretch.


Protip - when you're trying to grandstand about your religion, about how old it is and how this makes it great and divine and all that...make sure nothing else is older than it first.

[McCulloch]

From my Christian pov the only correct way to interpret the Bible is to find out from GOD what HE meant when HE had it written that way...

Let me get this straight. God communicates to humanity through the written words of the Bible. But in order to understand the Bible, humans need to find out directly from God what God means. Two questions:

1. Do you really think that God is such a poor communicator? Would he benefit from a course in writing skills?
2. How is it that God provides these clarifications? Do you have your own burning bush in the back yard? Do you interpret signs? Does he whisper in a quiet voice in your head? When God tells you something, how do you know it is from God?