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?)

[Jagella]

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

What JW is arguing here is that if anything in the Bible is contrary to what we know, then the interpreter is wrong rather than the Bible. JW must blame the interpreter because she or he is taught by the Watchtower that the Bible is inerrant. The way Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible it is impossible for them to conclude that any of it is in error. From the outset JWs conclude that the Bible has no errors. They then twist the facts to make the facts appear to support the Bible.

This error is common in many other Christian groups.

In order to avoid this kind of gross error, I say take the Bible for what it obviously means. Generally it means what it says. If it says something wrong, then it means something wrong. For example, Genesis tells us that humans originated a few thousand years ago in modern-day Iraq. That's wrong. The earliest human ancestors evolved in Africa more than three million years ago.

[William]

Why would the bible need to be interpreted in the first place?

The only reason I can come up with is that it is a matter of language and the way we use language today is different from the t was used in the time period the bible content covers.

I see the bible as a propaganda tool designed by the elitists, so there is likely incorporated into its design, purposeful misdirection in order to create confusion -and argument etc hence the contradictions....these are likely deliberate.

Also, in order to get folk to believe in lies, there has to be an element of truth to bait them. Thus, the way to interpret the bible in that light is to look for the truth and discard the lies...something which requires understanding what the truth is in the first place.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by William]

That is one interpretation...

[JehovahsWitness]

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

What JW is arguing here is that if anything in the Bible is contrary to what we know, then the interpreter is wrong rather than the Bible.

Firstly, I am more than capable of speaking for myself. What I am saying here is exactly what I wrote; read the full comment here if you need any clarifying information feel free to request it. I do believe there is a thread dedicated to the point I was making, feel free to join it.

When I post I tend to present my own ideas rather than attempt to present arguments of other posters, I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

I say take the Bible for what it obviously means. Generally it means what it says.

I'm sure someone, somewhere in the world will be enlightened by this extremely helpful well thought out approach and appreciate it.

Thanks for sharing,

JW

[Clownboat]

When I post I tend to present my own ideas rather than attempt to present arguments of other posters, I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

Don't you mean that you present the Watchtower's ideas, and that you believe the Watchtower's ideas, thus they are like your own because they are the source of your ideas? (You do link to the Watchtower here a lot after all).

I ask because the JW's I know get their ideas from the Watchtower. Thus they are not their own ideas.

(Specific to the topic)
Is the correct way to interpret the Bible the Watchtower way or not?

[JehovahsWitness]

The only reason I can come up with is that it is a matter of language and the way we use language today is different from the t was used in the time period the bible content covers.

It's true language changes, but wouldn't that be a matter of translation rather than interpretation?

[bluethread]

Thus, the way to interpret the bible in that light is to look for the truth and discard the lies...something which requires understanding what the truth is in the first place.

Well, if one already understands the truth, what is the point. Isn't that approach just confirmation bias?

[William]

Thus, the way to interpret the bible in that light is to look for the truth and discard the lies...something which requires understanding what the truth is in the first place.

Well, if one already understands the truth, what is the point. Isn't that approach just confirmation bias?

Not really, unless a suspected truth is then confirmed to be true.

What I have learned do when approaching such things is to not place them under the heading 'true' or 'false' but rather 'undecided' which thus helps to eliminate the problem of bias and also helps to understand personal bias if used to truth-check ones belief systems which one has developed outside of and/or prior to this technique.

[William]

The only reason I can come up with is that it is a matter of language and the way we use language today is different from the t was used in the time period the bible content covers.

It's true language changes, but wouldn't that be a matter of translation rather than interpretation?

What is translation if not interpretation, given that we know that certain translations were misinterpretations? Language is a funny thing and can easily be used to as a device to purvey limitation, even unintentionally.

It is useful, I find, to keep that in mind when using it as a form of communication.