What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #1

Post by Justin108 »

JehovahsWitness wrote: 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?)

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #181

Post by paarsurrey1 »

ryeisone wrote: Hello DC&R. I looked for an "introduce yourself" thread, but either I'm blind or it doesn't exist. So, I picked the first thread that looked interesting. I've done plenty of commenting on youtube, blogs and other places. Frankly, the culpable ignorance and trolling are astounding. That's how I came here in search of fellow travelers who actually want to understand the fullness of truth more completely. I have posted several essays dealing with apologetics and the philosophical state of the West here: https://steemit.com/@ryeis1
Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 172 by paarsurrey1]
"What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?". Doesn't one think that the Christians are far from doing justice to it, please?
You are one hundred percent correct. For a person who places all authority in the the bible alone, there is no logical conclusion to any religious argument that goes beyond "because the bible says..." As I'm sure everyone here knows, this is circular reasoning since the argument(s) can only be accepted by someone who has already come to the same conclusions. This is why you will find pastors and evangelists who will entice a person to "accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior" using passionate tones in a pleading posture. This appeal to emotion is a smokescreen; a logical fallacy intended to compel the lost to gloss over the first fallacious argument long enough to "get saved"! After that it's hugs and pamphlets, bible studies, Sunday school, and sermons that will explain everything a Christian needs to know, as long as the verses being presented mesh with that church's peculiar confession of faith or unique interpretations of select bible passages!

To properly interpret the bible, it has to be viewed in it's proper context. I'm not going to spoon-feed anyone in an attempt to convert to my way of thinking. I'm offering an invitation to ask the hard questions and face the undesirable answers that may arise.

First, how did the bible come to be arranged in that particular order with that table of contents? By what authority were these writings deemed inspired while others were not?

How did Christianity spread from Pentecost until the *4th century before the canon of the bible was declared?

Once the bible was declared complete, there were still very few of them in circulation due to the enormous cost to produce one. How did the majority of Christians learn what it contained when one would have cost appr. 5 years wages and was kept chained up for this reason?

Once the printing press arrived on the scene, bibles could be reproduced cheap enough for many to posses one. How did this actually change anything since literacy wouldn't become common until well into the twentieth century?

Why don't Sunday schools teach Church history?

Why does your pastor seem to skip over certain chapters, books, and/or verses without ever preaching on them (John 6, Matt. 25:31-46, James 2:24 are common).

Bonus question: How many entire nations have converted and become unified in doctrine and practice under the banner of the (your denomination) church?

These are the questions that must be answered first. Until one gets to the bottom of these questions, anyone can make the bible say anything they want it to say. If anyone disagrees with your interpretations, just find more verses to take out of context that will show what the bible "clearly" says. Creationists still can't agree on what the first Chapter of Genesis means, yet people are supposed to take us seriously when we tell them the bible is the inerrant word of God? That's why Our Lord is mocked freely in this age, because we keep ignoring his dire warning that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

*I had accidentally typed 3rd century before editing.
To properly interpret the bible, it has to be viewed in it's proper context
One is absolutely right. I wonder as to why in so many posts the Christians could not put it forward. But, they have a problem. Bible (NT) is mostly a mythical construct, it has no reason base, so they don't find the context in there. They try to spoon feed the context to the text from their own making so they quote scripture para after para and verse after verse but in vain. Right, please?
Regards

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #182

Post by tam »

paarsurrey1 wrote:
RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 125 by Justin108]

Not getting sucked back in, but had to comment on this . . .
The one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that the Bible has absolute authority.
Uuuuum . . . why don’t you ask other Christian denominations if that’s true. LOL! Even, Tam in this very thread keeps telling you she is Christian and doesn’t believe Scripture has absolute authority. Man, I get tired of people knocking Christianity when they don’t even know what Christianity is.
Tam in this very thread keeps telling you she is Christian and doesn’t believe Scripture has absolute authority.
I agree with Tam. NT Bible is an unauthorized collection, neither from YHVH not written by Jesus, nor dictated by Jesus to anybody, nor written by writers who had an expressed authority from Jesus to write these on Jesus' behalf. Right, please?
Regards

The book of Revelation is inspired (given in spirit) scripture, from Christ, and John was told by Christ to write it down.


"The revelation of [Jesus] Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw - that is, the Word of God and the testimony of [Jesus] Christ." Revelation 1:1-2


Christ is the one who sent His angel to John,

"I, [Jesus], have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." Rev 22:16

And John (in the spirit on the Lord's Day) was told by that angel:

"Write down on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches..." Rev 1:11

John was then also told by Christ:

"Do not be afraid. I am the first and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever. And I hold the keys to death and Hades. Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later..."




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 791 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Re: Evidence for the proof of God's existence

Post #183

Post by JehovahsWitness »

ryeisone wrote: [Replying to post 177 by JehovahsWitness]

I know this is off topic, but you're the first Jehovah's Witness I've encountered for some time, and I can't send a pm yet.
Yes this is off topic, I have sent you a PM.

There are a few of us on this site. I think newbies can still use the following subforums if you would like to speak more.



For me or any other specific poster (Just put my name JEHOVAHS WITNESS in the title)
viewforum.php?f=26

For an answer from any one of Jehovah's Witnesses on this site (just title JW so it can be spotted)
viewforum.php?f=45
I'm often around in this or the C&A forum to present the JW point of view, so alternatively you can just keep an eye out and respond at will (If I miss your post, one of the other JWs will probably pick up the slack)

Best regards,

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #184

Post by Justin108 »

paarsurrey1 wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
ttruscott wrote: 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...
So the only way to interpret the Bible is to assume from the get-go that it's the word of God?

Back to the dilemma I pointed out in post 51. 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?

Maybe this same logic applies to Islam? That must be why you're not a Muslim. You forgot to read the Quran with the a priori assumption that it's the word of God.
Maybe this same logic applies to Quran?
That is not the case with Islam. Please don't generalize it to Quran.
Regards
Why does it not apply to the Quran?

ryeisone
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:04 am

Post #185

Post by ryeisone »

[Replying to post 180 by paarsurrey1]
Bible (NT) is mostly a mythical construct, it has no reason base, so they don't find the context in there. They try to spoon feed the context to the text from their own making so they quote scripture para after para and verse after verse but in vain. Right, please?


Again, this is correct. And it's completely unavoidable. Many poor misguided souls with a little bit of reading comprehension think that they understand the bible perfectly just by reading the "clear" words written within. What they don't understand is that they are only receiving partial information translated from ancient language that's being processed with a contemporary mindset! They don't realize this is impossible because the ancient scribes didn't write down anything frivolous.

You will often hear people argue that at some point very early on, the ancient Church lost its way and started introducing doctrines that are non-biblical. They are in error. Example, the Church of Christ's traditional services allow only for music that is acapella since the NT doesn't mention the use of instruments explicitly. This teaching is based on the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. Since the OT explicitly condones (even greatly encourages) instrumental music, while the NT doesn't mention it at all, it would stand to reason that this musical tradition would roll over from the old to the new. This can't be found in scripture because it was something commonly known by the intended audience in that time. It would have been a waste of time to write about it! Can you imagine how tedious writing was before even pencils or pens existed? This is a hard pill to swallow and many will refuse to accept it even though documented history backs it up 100%.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #186

Post by Monta »

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 218#885218]


ttruscott wrote:

"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..."

I find this quite impossible.
Where's our mental ability to get it?
It would be like a Physicist telling 8yo all about physics; waste of time I'd say*)

Our NT is the closest to opening up 'the mind of God'.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #187

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Justin108 wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
ttruscott wrote: 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...
So the only way to interpret the Bible is to assume from the get-go that it's the word of God?

Back to the dilemma I pointed out in post 51. 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?

Maybe this same logic applies to Islam? That must be why you're not a Muslim. You forgot to read the Quran with the a priori assumption that it's the word of God.
Maybe this same logic applies to Quran?
That is not the case with Islam. Please don't generalize it to Quran.
Regards
Why does it not apply to the Quran?
Did one try it with Quran?
Has one read Quran from cover to cover, intently, please?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #188

Post by paarsurrey1 »

ryeisone wrote: [Replying to post 180 by paarsurrey1]
Bible (NT) is mostly a mythical construct, it has no reason base, so they don't find the context in there. They try to spoon feed the context to the text from their own making so they quote scripture para after para and verse after verse but in vain. Right, please?


Again, this is correct. And it's completely unavoidable. Many poor misguided souls with a little bit of reading comprehension think that they understand the bible perfectly just by reading the "clear" words written within. What they don't understand is that they are only receiving partial information translated from ancient language that's being processed with a contemporary mindset! They don't realize this is impossible because the ancient scribes didn't write down anything frivolous.

You will often hear people argue that at some point very early on, the ancient Church lost its way and started introducing doctrines that are non-biblical. They are in error. Example, the Church of Christ's traditional services allow only for music that is acapella since the NT doesn't mention the use of instruments explicitly. This teaching is based on the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. Since the OT explicitly condones (even greatly encourages) instrumental music, while the NT doesn't mention it at all, it would stand to reason that this musical tradition would roll over from the old to the new. This can't be found in scripture because it was something commonly known by the intended audience in that time. It would have been a waste of time to write about it! Can you imagine how tedious writing was before even pencils or pens existed? This is a hard pill to swallow and many will refuse to accept it even though documented history backs it up 100%.
Again, this is correct
Thanks for appreciating my post.
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #189

Post by paarsurrey1 »

ryeisone wrote: [Replying to post 180 by paarsurrey1]
Bible (NT) is mostly a mythical construct, it has no reason base, so they don't find the context in there. They try to spoon feed the context to the text from their own making so they quote scripture para after para and verse after verse but in vain. Right, please?


Again, this is correct. And it's completely unavoidable. Many poor misguided souls with a little bit of reading comprehension think that they understand the bible perfectly just by reading the "clear" words written within. What they don't understand is that they are only receiving partial information translated from ancient language that's being processed with a contemporary mindset! They don't realize this is impossible because the ancient scribes didn't write down anything frivolous.

You will often hear people argue that at some point very early on, the ancient Church lost its way and started introducing doctrines that are non-biblical. They are in error. Example, the Church of Christ's traditional services allow only for music that is acapella since the NT doesn't mention the use of instruments explicitly. This teaching is based on the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. Since the OT explicitly condones (even greatly encourages) instrumental music, while the NT doesn't mention it at all, it would stand to reason that this musical tradition would roll over from the old to the new. This can't be found in scripture because it was something commonly known by the intended audience in that time. It would have been a waste of time to write about it! Can you imagine how tedious writing was before even pencils or pens existed? This is a hard pill to swallow and many will refuse to accept it even though documented history backs it up 100%.
And it's completely unavoidable
Does one accept as mentioned by me that?:
"Bible (NT) is mostly a mythical construct, it has no reason base,"
This is not unavoidable. If they follow Jesus' reasonable and truthful teachings as mentioned by Quran, no such problem will arise. Right, please?
Regards

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 791 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Post #190

Post by JehovahsWitness »

paarsurrey1 wrote: If they follow Jesus' reasonable and truthful teachings as mentioned by Quran, no such problem will arise. Right, please?
Regards

Did Jesus write the Quran please? Do we have first person narrative/s from Jesus in the Quran, right please?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply