Biblical interpretation

[theleftone]

I notice a lot of the debates around here hinge on various interpretations of biblical passages. With this in mind, what are the basic principles which one should use in interpreting the Holy Writ? Why?

[1John2_26]

Context.

History.

Reality.

Et al.

[micatala]

Reality.


The reality is the Bible is a collection of books written by many authors over many centuries. WHile their are unifying themes, to consider the Bible as a single work, speaking with a single voice, belies this reality. One should consider the particular author and the particular context in which he was writing.

The reality is that the Bible reflects the world views of its authors. As all of the books of the BIble were essentially completed by 150 A.D., it is unreasonable to expect they address aspects of the world and human experience that were not known by this time. I think it is a mistake to assume that the Bible speaks, for example, with full knowledge of science, etc.

Context.

The context of the Bible is that it addresses spiritual matters first and foremost. Other aspects are secondary. The history of the Israelites, for example, is important, but it is secondary to the larger theme of the Israelites as a 'chosen people', selected to receive revelation from God, and selected for a special relationship with God. The New Testament is the extension of this relationship and revelation to all peoples of the world.

Given the history and context of the writing of the Bible, I think it is an error to add the additional assumption that the Bible is 'infallible' or 'inerrant'. I don't see that the Bible makes this claim for itself in anything like the way that these words are commonly understood today in CHristian circles. The Bible may be a revelation of the perfect God, but it comes to us through the hands of imperfect men.

[MagusYanam]

To this I would also add a recognition for deeper meanings in the text, and a place for metaphor and myth - myth meaning here a story providing an explanation for a certain aspect of human existence or the human condition.

The Adam and Eve creation story is one such example - the relationship of 'Adham (man) to Hawwah (life), and the condition in which humanity found itself because it lived and made free choices are more important aspects of the narrative than whether it happened as historical fact. The same goes with the story of the flood, or Jesus' role as the Lamb, or the Bread, given for the sustenance of humankind.

Micatala's points on context I agree with in entirety. But to them I would also add the covenant-relationships God had with the authors of the Holy Scriptures, which must be considered in the understanding of the texts. God made a covenant with Abraham through which the actions of Moses, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon and the priests who compiled the Hebrew texts must be rightly understood. And then God made a covenant with all humanity through Christ Jesus, both to share in the grace that was shown through Jesus' life, death and resurrection and to give of that grace to other people.

I also agree with micatala about the entire 'infallibility - inerrancy' business, for the same reasons he gave. God may have inspired men to write them, but men still wrote the Holy Scriptures. More, I would argue that a retroactive, post-Enlightenment literalism when employed in Scriptural hermeneutics is in most cases irrelevant and in many cases counterproductive. To some extent, it doesn't matter whether the Biblical creation story really happened, in the historical-factual sense, or whether Jonah was really swallowed by the whale. The historical-factual interpretation is no more than so much trivia at best, a blinder to the true religious and spiritual significance of the narratives at worst.

[1John2_26]

History makes the reality of the context valid.

Hermeneutics and exegesis have limits like any natural law.

Metaphors are not used to skirt around reality. They are used to prove it. Not metaphor in reality, but reality in the metaphor.

If a "Bible'believer" says that "God says" this ot that, it is because of a deducing what a person said about an experience they had with an entity that called itself "God" that they claim they are talking about.

Example:

A guy walks into an Israelite town and says he is a Prophet.

There must be (or actually is) a proveable set of guidelines that this "Prophet" must pass to "be" a spokesman for the God he represents. And. as a matter of fact when dealing with the Biblical God.

Reality, history, context.

It is not a myth or metaphor that causes people to take this Prophet seriously. Because, usually, as in the Biblical cases, the prophet has not arrived to praise the inhabitants of the place he is visiting. No one wants to believe in insults directed at them, but, if if it lines up with reality, then they must listen and act accordingly.

It is a Biblical tnterpretation (so to speak) that is presented by any Prophet that wants to influence a set group of people he is addressing.

One must weigh the new sermon 2.1, delivered by this newly arrived "Prophet of God," by an earlier sermon 1.1, verified as to have been believed beyond doubt, to have been a real experiencing God, that validated the recording of the event as reality.

Take two "stories" in the Bible:

Korah's rebellion . . . and Elijah and Elisha.

Korah took the position that God's word was a "matter of interpretation." He was shown to be wrong and was killed in a resulting "act of God." He had to prove his position of altering the word of God. He failed.

Elijah was about to be taken up to heaven "wothout dying," REPEAT: "without dying;" and a whole group of guys called prophets, had the same knowledge about the upcoming event. Not just Elisha. Elisha went to tell these "other" prophets about it, and they told him they already knew. Handling the word of God shows that consistency is important.

So many important things that are reported in the Bible, are not written as myth or allegory. They are meant to establish that the event really happened. It would make no sense to input ambiguity into the words and actions of a people of God, by a God that is not immutable. If something is to be altered by a previous edict of God, it had better stand up to what has been said before.

"God said," He would wipe out all of the Israelites (and Judeans), for turning away from "Him." Yet, God gave them another chance many times. It always came with a motive to return the Israelites to pure worship the way it was established previously, it does not appear "from" the Biblical record, that a new format for interpreting the Bible has been invented.

Our God started creation by: "Let there be light. And there was light."

Or not??? "If" it insults a human to have to believe that? The Biblical record is not presented as someone's opinion.

A wishy-washy God is not much of a God.

The Israelites after experiencing God at Sinaii, did not drive through the desert, all dying off one by one that included their very leader himself(that certainly could have been avoided by following Korah's theological sermon), by believing in a metaphor God, that delivered allegorical laws.

Biblical interpretation must weigh the message by the context of historic reality. Otherwise there is no such thing as truth. Just six-billion interpretations of it. And choas does not create order.

Within reality exists a truth that cannot be broken down. Science has many branches searching for many things, but all depend on reality.

Some "thing" told all of those other Prophets AND Elisha about the upcoming event with Elijah.

Some "thing" killed Korah and his followers in one act, when they rebelled, and the rest of the Israelites died folowing that God. It doesn't make any sense that the story comes down to us about a bunch of people that died following just another interpretation.

If we allow for cafeteria theolgy to pick and choose teachings that have crossed over from stories that really happened, to interpretation, to heresy, to lies, motivated for whatever drives the messenager bringing these new ideas (to state what is and what isn't for consumption) for today's Bible-believers.

Do we allow for those that say we can eat napkins as food: "because napkins are also found in places where you eat," as sensible advisors?

Or, do we use historic reality in context?

Napkins have no nutrional value, not because "I" say so, but by established history.

Interpretation is just as important for the physical body as the spiritual body. A human (mankind) cannot have a spiritual body without first really having a "real" body.

There is a limit to Biblical interpretation.

[MagusYanam]

'Reality' has a broader meaning than simply 'factuality'. Do we take our condition as human beings as 'real', even if we don't take the Adam and Eve story to be 'factual'? Of course we do; the factuality of the Adam and Eve story is an unnecessary addendum, and according to the traditional Christian schools of thought, an irrelevant one. It is damningly clear that Biblical literalism only took hold in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and then only in the backwater areas of the United States; it has little to do with solid, realistic Biblical interpretation.

It is a mistake to characterise all the Bible as myth, but that was not what I was doing; like micatala said, the Bible is many things. There are mythical stories, legal treatises, histories, prophecies, works of poetry, songs, letters, Gospels. All of them should be treated with the same kind of care. The Bible is not a textbook, and cannot be approached as such. And never should the deeper meanings be overlooked in favour of the triviality of whether the events they described 'really happened'.

For example, there most likely was a Levite named Korach during the exodus of the Hebrews who rebelled against Moses and Aaron in favour of the rights of the priestly class, and he met a sticky end. The Hebrews would have interpreted this themselves as a sign of God's will. Does it matter that he was consumed by fire, or his followers swallowed by the earth? No; reading carefully, this is all figurative language. 'Swallowed by the earth' has a double meaning that their cause was forgotten, except in the memory of the Hebrews who wrote it down. Again, all must be considered in the context and thus the terms of the covenant relationship the Hebrews had with God.

But did some 'thing' tell the Prophets of Elijah's translation? I believe so. I believe something so great and so gracious words cannot describe it told the Prophets of Elijah's translation. I believe the greatness and grace of this being can only be described through metaphors. Is God a metaphor? No. But perhaps we can, through metaphors, begin to understand God in some small, human measure.

And this is not a new idea. A non-literal, historical-metaphorical interpretation of Holy Scripture is as old as Holy Scripture itself, in the Rabbinic tradition and in the traditions of the early church.

[1John2_26]

Metaphor is indeed a powerful communications device. Parables drive home the right and wrong of many issues.

I do believe that liberals rely on attempting to mataphor away morality they do not like.

Whatever you don't like, that calls into question your Biblical honesty and morality, welllllllll that's an opinion that can change with cultures coming and going.

Many aspects of the Biblical record are not meant to be altered by some new political groups popping up throughout civilizations journey to the end of time.

Many are satanic.

Satan is no metaphor. The New Testament authors amplified the evil that is against the moral purity that the Biblical record is driving mankind towards.

Universalism (all roads lead to Yhwh), does not exist (for example) in the Bible. Not in any book of the OT and in no book in the NT.

There is no metaphor in hell. There is no metaphor in salvation. It is a queer predicament Jesus finds Himself in, if we just discard His promises and hope, warnings and threats, if whatever we don't like we can file in the "interpretation" excuse, to change the message of the Bible, for political correctness 2006.

_______________________________

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

[Wyvern]

I do believe that liberals rely on attempting to mataphor away morality they do not like.

Metaphore does not do away with the message no matter how hard you try. What does dilute the message is the undying assertion that EVERYTHING in the bible is the literal truth regardless of how totally impossible the story may be. The biggest case of this is the flood, many apologists assert that since many if not most cultures have a flood myth that it must have been a worldwide event instead of going with the much simpler explanation that flooding is a relatively common occurrence so every culture would have a story about it.

Many aspects of the Biblical record are not meant to be altered by some new political groups popping up throughout civilizations journey to the end of time.

None of the bible has been altered to any great extent since the advent of the KJV bible. Thats nearly four hundred years of no changes, the only thing that still exists that can beat that is the french language. Anything which does not change in the face of reality risks becoming obsolete. The interpretations of the bible has changed drastically over the last few hundred years, please understand, the text of the bible has not changed but how it is understood has.

Satan is no metaphor. The New Testament authors amplified the evil that is against the moral purity that the Biblical record is driving mankind towards.

Satan is in fact a metaphor for the "evil" that exists within mankind. After all if an outside agency is responsible for all evil which Satan would do then mankind is off the hook spiritually.

[Cathar1950]

Many aspects of the Biblical record are not meant to be altered by some new political groups popping up throughout civilizations journey to the end of time.

Many are satanic.

Satan is an adversary or obstacle. The concept has changed even with in the bible. It was usually reserved for believers that others felt were wrong. It is largely something the Jews and Christians inherited from the Persians.
Even the Dead Sea Scrolls had many variants in the Hebrew scripture.
The 4 Gospels show a progression from a Jewish Messiah to a God incarnate.
Kings and Chronicles show two versions and differences in the same story.
One was Priestly or Prophet the other had a Kingly slant.
Many Passages in the New Testament were edited and added commentary.
Redaction is the norm for the bibles history, Old and New.
As Wyvern points out there were constant reinterpretations going on.
Until the 19th Century the rapture was hardly worth a comment, now it is an industry.

Universalism (all roads lead to Yhwh), does not exist (for example) in the Bible. Not in any book of the OT and in no book in the NT.

It seems you miss the many covenants in the bible an if I recall the Christian faith is call the New covenant and has a universal appeal largely from Pauline thought, Although, before Jesus died the “Way” was already there.

There is no metaphor in hell. There is no metaphor in salvation. It is a queer predicament Jesus finds Himself in, if we just discard His promises and hope, warnings and threats, if whatever we don't like we can file in the "interpretation" excuse, to change the message of the Bible, for political correctness 2006.

It seems American Evangelical Bible-Believers are the ones that find themselves in a queer predicament.

I do believe that liberals rely on attempting to mataphor away morality they do not like.

Metaphors usually are the literalist cop-out when cornered by a questionable bible passage.

[MagusYanam]

Universalism (all roads lead to Yhwh), does not exist (for example) in the Bible. Not in any book of the OT and in no book in the NT.

Radical grace exists in both the Old Testament and the New; you can't change what it is by sticking it with a different label. God is slow to anger and quick to forgiveness - just look at any of umpteens of Psalms. And Jesus showed through his death and resurrection that no power, not sin and not death, can conquer the self-sacrificing love and the grace of God.

Universalism is nothing more than the bare minimum acknowledgement of that grace. There is no prerequisite to salvation - it is shown broadly and without prejudice; that's what grace is. It's the beauty of the Gospel. Jesus taught us what we are to do with that grace. As the personification of grace, Jesus truly was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one can come to the Father through their own desserts, but only through the radical divine grace which was shown by Jesus.

In the light of divine grace, it becomes a moot question, that of who's saved and who's not - what does matter in the eyes of God is the love of justice, kindness, mercy and humility that Jesus was meant to inspire through his moral example.

I do believe that liberals rely on attempting to mataphor away morality they do not like.

Whatever you don't like, that calls into question your Biblical honesty and morality, welllllllll that's an opinion that can change with cultures coming and going.

Better put away them mixed-fibre clothes, then.

Many aspects of the Biblical record are not meant to be altered by some new political groups popping up throughout civilizations journey to the end of time.

I defy you to find a single change between the Bibles used in liberal churches and the Bibles used in conservative ones. And no, the Apocrypha don't count, and neither do different translations.

It is a queer predicament Jesus finds Himself in, if we just discard His promises and hope, warnings and threats, if whatever we don't like we can file in the "interpretation" excuse, to change the message of the Bible, for political correctness 2006.

I'm not finding a single passage in the Bible about stem-cell research. How can the conservatives cite 'Biblical' reasons against that? Liberal theologians have been calling for some time now for a return to the actual text and away from the political parroting and manipulation of the text that conservatives are trying to pull. But you have a good point; I think Jesus would not find His church much at all to His liking if He came back and found the people in it ranting about abortion and gay marriage when they should be addressing the widening wealth gap and advocating peaceful solutions to the Israel-Hizbullah and Iraq conflicts.