What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

I originally meant to post this in Christianity and Apologetics but mistakenly posted in in Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma so this is a duplicate of the post in Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma. Obviously, there is no need to respond to both.

That being said...

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?)

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

You must be asking about the Christians that don't think the Bible is 100% literal, because the ones that do would tell you there doesn't need to be interpretation...

Of those that say it can be interpreted, I don't know if you mean the ones that say the Bible is inspired by the word of a god, or the ones that say it was written by a god...

Of those, the correct interpretation is the one that each person holds, and if you don't listen to them, you will burn in hell....or die and be judged after the second coming...or go to purgatory and then go to heaven....or die and just never be resurrected after the second coming....

Because All Christians know that their religion is the right one, and everyone else is wrong.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[1213]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible?

I don’t know any good reason why Bible should be interpreted. It should be understood wholly as it is written. Or do you also make interpretations of other books also? Or do you read them as they are written?

[bluethread]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible?

I don’t know any good reason why Bible should be interpreted. It should be understood wholly as it is written. Or do you also make interpretations of other books also? Or do you read them as they are written?

I interpret other writings also, based on the standards used with all literature. Historical prospective changes, languages change and cultures change. That is not to say that the intended message changes, but how humans view things changes. Many view the founders of this nation as monsters based on the debate over the two-thirds compromise, because it only counts a slave as two-thirds of a person. However, in the proper historical and cultural context, if one opposes slavery, counting a slave as two-thirds of a person was better than counting that slave as a whole person. That is because the issue was about the number of representatives and not who gets to vote.

Now regarding the first chapter of Genesis, it is a counter to the Serpent mythology of the day and in prosaic language that would be more easily understood by a story telling society, not the scientific language of a technological society. The creation is not arranged in evolutionary order, but, among other things in like kind order. First, the static elements are presented. heavens and earth, light and dark. Later are listed the moving things, astronomical bodies, birds and fish, land animals and man. The plants are in the middle, not because they appeared after one and before the other, but because they are transitional. They are fixed to the earth, yet their reproduction involves motion. So, the theme is a progression from chaos to static elements and then active elements within that static framework. This is a counter argument to the repetition of circular time controlled by the ebb and flow of conflicting forces. The "days" are presented in a linear fashion, not because it is meant to create a perfect modern day timeline, but to reinforce the concept the passage of time, rather than the repetition of time. In added, seven is not just the number of "days" , but the repeating structure of the prose. In this way all o creation is connected to the number seven.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

If we are talking about interpretation, then the first principle of method is not:

1) On principle, choose the interpretation that makes the Bible look the most ridiculous.

or

2) Choose the interpretation that is most congenial to modern assumptions.


After that, literary and historical methods are pretty universal. Books should be read in their context. A person who knows nothing about Imperial Rome is going to make some bad assumptions about Virgil. A person who knows nothing about ancient semitic language and idioms will interpret the following, "Say nothing good or evil to him," as permitting neutral statements, but not mean or nice ones. And people who read a text on the origins of the universe that is some two millennia old in light of a modern dispute about the age of the cosmos are likely to go very far afield.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

The correct way is to read first what biblical scholars have written about them make up your own mind.

[liamconnor]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible?

I don’t know any good reason why Bible should be interpreted. It should be understood wholly as it is written. Or do you also make interpretations of other books also? Or do you read them as they are written?

Yes, all reading whatsoever involves interpretation: whether today's news paper or the recipe for tonight's dinner. The more removed the writing is from the reader's own context, the more interpretation is required so as not to impose his own categories onto that writing. Every English translation of the bible which you have ever read is the result of some degree of interpretation.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

If we are talking about interpretation, then the first principle of method is not:

1) On principle, choose the interpretation that makes the Bible look the most ridiculous.

or

2) Choose the interpretation that is most congenial to modern assumptions.

So you either have to deliberately try to make the Bible sound ridiculous, or you have to deliberately try to make the Bible sound as though it agrees with what we know today? You don't see a middle ground? Perhaps... oh I don't know... interpret the Bible honestly and objectively in an attempt to find out what the authors meant?

If I were to interpret Genesis 1 as literal, would this automatically mean that I deliberately attempted to interpret the Bible in a way to make the Bible seem ridiculous?

After that, literary and historical methods are pretty universal. Books should be read in their context. A person who knows nothing about Imperial Rome is going to make some bad assumptions about Virgil. A person who knows nothing about ancient semitic language and idioms will interpret the following, "Say nothing good or evil to him," as permitting neutral statements, but not mean or nice ones. And people who read a text on the origins of the universe that is some two millennia old in light of a modern dispute about the age of the cosmos are likely to go very far afield.

Scholars who specialize in the religions of that region have concluded that Judaism is the offspring of polytheism with YHWH moving from a general war god to the central figure of the new monotheistic Judaism. These scholars certainly know the context and history of the religion, yet they concluded what I would assume most Christians disagree with. Did they also deliberately attempt to make the Bible seem ridiculous?

[1213]

I interpret other writings also, based on the standards used with all literature. Historical prospective changes, languages change and cultures change. That is not to say that the intended message changes, but how humans view things changes. Many view the founders of this nation as monsters based on the debate over the two-thirds compromise, because it only counts a slave as two-thirds of a person. However, in the proper historical and cultural context, if one opposes slavery, counting a slave as two-thirds of a person was better than counting that slave as a whole person. That is because the issue was about the number of representatives and not who gets to vote.

I agree that meanings may change. But Bible explains well what it means, therefore I think there is no good reason to make own meanings to what it says.

Now regarding the first chapter of Genesis, it is a counter to the Serpent mythology of the day and in prosaic language that would be more easily understood by a story telling society, not the scientific language of a technological society. The creation is not arranged in evolutionary order, but, among other things in like kind order. First, the static elements are presented. heavens and earth, light and dark. Later are listed the moving things, astronomical bodies, birds and fish, land animals and man. The plants are in the middle, not because they appeared after one and before the other, but because they are transitional. They are fixed to the earth, yet their reproduction involves motion. So, the theme is a progression from chaos to static elements and then active elements within that static framework. This is a counter argument to the repetition of circular time controlled by the ebb and flow of conflicting forces. The "days" are presented in a linear fashion, not because it is meant to create a perfect modern day timeline, but to reinforce the concept the passage of time, rather than the repetition of time. In added, seven is not just the number of "days" , but the repeating structure of the prose. In this way all o creation is connected to the number seven.

The problem with that is, there is no Biblical support for that. One could make even more fanciful interpretation and claim “that is what it really means, not that what it is written�. It would be fun to make that same thing with modern texts. There would be no limits how surreal things could go, if it is that free to make interpretations.

[bluethread]

I interpret other writings also, based on the standards used with all literature. Historical prospective changes, languages change and cultures change. That is not to say that the intended message changes, but how humans view things changes. Many view the founders of this nation as monsters based on the debate over the two-thirds compromise, because it only counts a slave as two-thirds of a person. However, in the proper historical and cultural context, if one opposes slavery, counting a slave as two-thirds of a person was better than counting that slave as a whole person. That is because the issue was about the number of representatives and not who gets to vote.

I agree that meanings may change. But Bible explains well what it means, therefore I think there is no good reason to make own meanings to what it says.

The Scriptures explain what they mean well to the one's to whom they were initially given. The point is not to come up with one's own meaning, but to determine what the meaning was to the people of the culture of the time, in the original language.

Now regarding the first chapter of Genesis, it is a counter to the Serpent mythology of the day and in prosaic language that would be more easily understood by a story telling society, not the scientific language of a technological society. The creation is not arranged in evolutionary order, but, among other things in like kind order. First, the static elements are presented. heavens and earth, light and dark. Later are listed the moving things, astronomical bodies, birds and fish, land animals and man. The plants are in the middle, not because they appeared after one and before the other, but because they are transitional. They are fixed to the earth, yet their reproduction involves motion. So, the theme is a progression from chaos to static elements and then active elements within that static framework. This is a counter argument to the repetition of circular time controlled by the ebb and flow of conflicting forces. The "days" are presented in a linear fashion, not because it is meant to create a perfect modern day timeline, but to reinforce the concept the passage of time, rather than the repetition of time. In added, seven is not just the number of "days" , but the repeating structure of the prose. In this way all o creation is connected to the number seven.

The problem with that is, there is no Biblical support for that. One could make even more fanciful interpretation and claim “that is what it really means, not that what it is written�. It would be fun to make that same thing with modern texts. There would be no limits how surreal things could go, if it is that free to make interpretations.

I don't know what you mean by "biblical support". What I am pointing out is that when one looks at the text in Hebrew and compares it with other writings of the time, there are clear similarities. The detractors conclude that there is therefore no difference in meaning. The problem is that you are looking only at the translated wording and they are only looking only at the historical form. The proper way to look at a piece of literature is to look at the original language and use the historical form for context. To look at the words in the context of one's own language and culture is not proper, as is presuming meaning only from the culture and language of the time, without acknowledging the words.