How does one interpret Bible?

[Overwrite]

Forgive me if I am covering some old ground here. I have scanned through this board but not found a topic which asks the questions I have.

I have tried to read the Bible on a number of ocassions but each time, I notice how difficult it can be to fully interpret much of the text (usually due to the style of language). It stikes me that it must be difficult for many people to "cut to the chase" and so the ambiguity clearly leaves it open to interpretation.

If it is left open to interpretation, does it not then leave it open to abuse with some parts being taken literally and others which are not so clear, being almost discarded?

How does one decide on which passages should be followed and how does one deal with the passages which are ignored?

Thank you for your time.

 

[wizanda]

Spotting the contradictions and differences....so far my own list of books that should not be included are Paul, John, Simon (peter) A.k.a Anti-Christ’s and Ecclesiastes (its not by Solomon, as it contains many inaccurate statements)....

 

[Willamena]

If it is left open to interpretation, does it not then leave it open to abuse with some parts being taken literally and others which are not so clear, being almost discarded?

How does one decide on which passages should be followed and how does one deal with the passages which are ignored?

Everything we read is interpreted, period. Interpretation is us bringing our understanding to the text. "Abuse" is people who latch onto one interpretation as "true."

The best way, I think, to decide on a proper meaning for the text was promoted by the Rastafarians, who say that there are two parts to the Bible: what is written in the text and what is written in your heart. In order to get the whole, one must read both parts.

What sounds right to you is right for you. It doesn't have to work for anyone else to be properly meaningful.

 

[summia]

Forgive me if I am covering some old ground here. I have scanned through this board but not found a topic which asks the questions I have.

I have tried to read the Bible on a number of ocassions but each time, I notice how difficult it can be to fully interpret much of the text (usually due to the style of language). It stikes me that it must be difficult for many people to "cut to the chase" and so the ambiguity clearly leaves it open to interpretation.

If it is left open to interpretation, does it not then leave it open to abuse with some parts being taken literally and others which are not so clear, being almost discarded?

How does one decide on which passages should be followed and how does one deal with the passages which are ignored?

Thank you for your time.

Yeah! me also need to ask so from Christains about this question!
Christains even my own freind Mary who has accepted Islam says, "Bible is written word of God! and I don't believe in written words"

That's what Mary said!

And I think it is serious matter to think, why not orignal texted Bible, Why version?
(My point is not for those who are illterate can't read or write except their own language!)

 

[PureX]

Everything we read is interpreted, period. Interpretation is us bringing our understanding to the text. "Abuse" is people who latch onto one interpretation as "true."

The best way, I think, to decide on a proper meaning for the text was promoted by the Rastafarians, who say that there are two parts to the Bible: what is written in the text and what is written in your heart. In order to get the whole, one must read both parts.

What sounds right to you is right for you. It doesn't have to work for anyone else to be properly meaningful.

I couldn't agree more.

We too often are told to treat the bible as if it were a "how to" book written by God. But that is patently untrue. It's untrue that it was written by God, and it'a also untrue that it was written to be a "how to" book.

Most of the biblical rtexts were written to inspire discussion and debate and especially an internal dialogue with the concept of God that we hold within us. The bible isn't about answers. It's about creating the habit of consultation with one's own 'God-consciousness'. There isn't really a right or a wrong way of interpretung the text, as long as the text is being used for that which it was intended.

 

[Overwrite]

The best way, I think, to decide on a proper meaning for the text was promoted by the Rastafarians, who say that there are two parts to the Bible: what is written in the text and what is written in your heart. In order to get the whole, one must read both parts.

That is certainly an intersting take on the topic but not one I feel I can subscribe to. Personally, I believe what's in my heart does not need supplementing with written text which, from my perspective, is anything but clear.

I couldn't agree more.

We too often are told to treat the bible as if it were a "how to" book written by God. But that is patently untrue. It's untrue that it was written by God, and it'a also untrue that it was written to be a "how to" book.

Most of the biblical rtexts were written to inspire discussion and debate and especially an internal dialogue with the concept of God that we hold within us. The bible isn't about answers. It's about creating the habit of consultation with one's own 'God-consciousness'. There isn't really a right or a wrong way of interpretung the text, as long as the text is being used for that which it was intended.

Is there not a danger though that different groups will interpret the same writings differently thereby causing conflict? It would be great if everyone shared your view PureX but we know that this is not the case.

The reason I ask is that I have recently debated some of the verses from Leviticus with a person who took offense to my views. It was pretty obvious to me that they too did not endorse 'slavery' or death by stoning for 'homosexuals' referenced in Leviticus but, against their better logic, argued with me because I doubted the Bible.

I imagine that this is a conflict experienced by many and so I am curious as to how one would rationalize this.

 

[Inky]

Is there not a danger though that different groups will interpret the same writings differently thereby causing conflict?

There is, but that's not necessarily a problem, is it? The Bible is too open to interpretation to unite a huge group of people under a single, unchanging set of beliefs if the only thing they agree upon is to follow that one text. But the great variety of Christian thought makes the religion as a whole valuable to a greater variety of people, which is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Vassal]

Other than the book of Revelation, there are very few things in the Bible that aren't straight forward. There are many people that only pay attention to the parts of the Bible that say what they want to hear, which results in many different "interpretations" of the Bible, but the majority of the Bible is pretty easy to understand. Please give an example of something that is confusing you.

 

[PureX]

Is there not a danger though that different groups will interpret the same writings differently thereby causing conflict?

Sure, but so what? Conflict is a part of life; part of learning and growing. Why shouldn't there be conflict?

It would be great if everyone shared your view PureX but we know that this is not the case.

But my view is that we don't all view the bible, or God, or righteousness, the same way. And that is the case.

The reason I ask is that I have recently debated some of the verses from Leviticus with a person who took offense to my views. It was pretty obvious to me that they too did not endorse 'slavery' or death by stoning for 'homosexuals' referenced in Leviticus but, against their better logic, argued with me because I doubted the Bible.

I imagine that this is a conflict experienced by many and so I am curious as to how one would rationalize this.

People who are afraid to accept that other people think for themselves, and think differently, will always cause conflict. This isn't the bible's fault, and if they were not causing conflict over the bible's meaning, they'd be causing it over something else. Such people are in effect at war with reality. The reality is that there is much we humans do not know, and so there is much that we honestly disagree about, regarding the "truth". Until they can accept these facts, they will be in conflict with them, and with all the manifestation of them - which is anyone who dares to speak their own mind.

 

[Overwrite]

There is something that I don't understand in the Bible Vassal: The book of Genesis.

This throws up the argument of Creationism or, the spin version; Intelligent Design. I have not researched this fully but I am aware of conflict in the school system in some of the states in America over the right to teach this belief, and not just with scientists but with other Christians (I hate labelling people. Labelling IMO promotes difference and that is a bad thing).

So what we have is essentialy two interpretations of the Bible:- one that believes that the world is around 6 thousand years old and was created by God in 6 days and one that choose to ignore this. I don't believe that this type of conflict is healthy Inky. What I see is the division of the people and a danger for predjudice - focusing again on the differences in people (a bad thing) giving rise to the potential for a scond Dark Age (if you take it to it's logical conclusion, although I accept that this is an extreme logical conclusion).

If there are peple in the world that are willing to interpret the Bible in such a literal way, is there not a danger that these people could commit murder by stoning or enslave their neighbours as is shown in Leviticus using the Bible as their defense? Will you or I stand by and permit it in the name of the Bible? It strikes me that the Bible is a dangerous book in the hands of these people.

I don't wish to scaremonger but I think it highlights the serious question of interpretation.

 

[michel]

Everything we read is interpreted, period. Interpretation is us bringing our understanding to the text. "Abuse" is people who latch onto one interpretation as "true."

The best way, I think, to decide on a proper meaning for the text was promoted by the Rastafarians, who say that there are two parts to the Bible: what is written in the text and what is written in your heart. In order to get the whole, one must read both parts.

What sounds right to you is right for you. It doesn't have to work for anyone else to be properly meaningful.

Quite. I couldn't have put it better myself.

That is why I consider myself Gnostic, because I pay very little attention to the Bible. It may sound very impertinant and arrogant of me to say so, but, to me, the Bible is an excellent tool to help understand God, if you are not as lucky as I (knowing things without being taught them).

When I have tried to check out my thoughts with the Bible, I mostly find that the Bible agrees with your "very humble servant, Michel"

 

[Overwrite]

When I have tried to check out my thoughts with the Bible, I mostly find that the Bible agrees with your "very humble servant, Michel"

I'm curious Michel and, if it's not too personal a question; can you give an example of when the Bible didn't agree with your thoughts?

Just following this line of reasoning; is it not possible that during rewrites of the bible, scholars wrote down their interpretations thereby changing the book?

Could it be argued that the Bible in it's original format was written for a different time and that now that time has passed, can and should it be applied to life as we know it today?

I don't wish to offend, only to ask questions. I don't wish to challenge people's beliefs, I only ask to better my understanding.

 

[michel]

I'm curious Michel and, if it's not too personal a question; can you give an example of when the Bible didn't agree with your thoughts?

Just following this line of reasoning; is it not possible that during rewrites of the bible, scholars wrote down their interpretations thereby changing the book?

Could it be argued that the Bible in it's original format was written for a different time and that now that time has passed, can and should it be applied to life as we know it today?

I don't wish to offend, only to ask questions. I don't wish to challenge people's beliefs, I only ask to better my understanding.

Nothing is too personal here (for me), and no, you don't offend me in the least.

can you give an example of when the Bible didn't agree with your thoughts?

Knowing so little of the Bible as I do (I am really quite ignorant, and now have the concentration of a fire-fly, therefore find the Bible a very daunting book - made worse by the "so and so begat so and so" etc.ad infinitum), I really cannot think of an occasion when I have been surprised by anything.

This is not vanity, nor boasting, but I feel an inate spirituality in myself that seems to know all the answers to questions that I haven't even thought of as yet.

To be fair, this could be partially because of my psychological condition - I am far harder on myself than I am on other people; sins that I have committed (and I am a naughty recidivist) always seem to me far greater than if someone else was to commit the same sin; I honestly believe - somewhere in my neural network - that "I cannot be forgiven anything, because I Know better than Mr. Average".

And, I repeat, that is not boastful; I say it with humility. For some reason, I feel as if I have been "programmed" with all the knowledge concerning sins..........

 

[Overwrite]

I agree that the Bible does tend to use old language ad nauseum. There is a number of plain language rewrites or reading assists available but then this only underscores the whole topic of 'interpretation'.

I am, I suppose, interested in the thoughts and views of people who subscribe to the Bible writings (but interpret them differently) on each other. What do the OT subscribers think of the people who don't? How do you rationalize your thinking? If I were looking for a guide on 'understanding the Bible', who do I ask and who is right?

I appreciate the notion of a multiple belief system within the confines of one doctrine can be viewed as a healthy one but I also think it's true to say that there is another side to the coin. If history has told us nothing else, conflict and war is the product of alternative viewpoints. Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating or inciting a Christian civil war!

Maybe I'm just a little pessimistic of the Bible

 

[PureX]

There is something that I don't understand in the Bible Vassal: The book of Genesis.

This throws up the argument of Creationism or, the spin version; Intelligent Design. I have not researched this fully but I am aware of conflict in the school system in some of the states in America over the right to teach this belief, and not just with scientists but with other Christians (I hate labeling people. Labeling IMO promotes difference and that is a bad thing).

So what we have is essentially two interpretations of the Bible:- one that believes that the world is around 6 thousand years old and was created by God in 6 days and one that choose to ignore this. I don't believe that this type of conflict is healthy Inky. What I see is the division of the people and a danger for prejudice - focusing again on the differences in people (a bad thing) giving rise to the potential for a second Dark Age (if you take it to it's logical conclusion, although I accept that this is an extreme logical conclusion).

If there are people in the world that are willing to interpret the Bible in such a literal way, is there not a danger that these people could commit murder by stoning or enslave their neighbors as is shown in Leviticus using the Bible as their defense? Will you or I stand by and permit it in the name of the Bible? It strikes me that the Bible is a dangerous book in the hands of these people.

I don't wish to scaremonger but I think it highlights the serious question of interpretation.

The answer is "yes". When people choose such rigid and willful ignorance of reality, they do become dangerous to themselves and to everyone around them. Willful ignorance is a form of insanity, and is socially toxic.

But keep in mind that the vast majority of Christians understand that the bible stories are STORIES: that they are metaphorical in nature and speak to the origins of man's attitude and spirit, not to the historical origins of man's physical existence.

 

[Willamena]

There is something that I don't understand in the Bible Vassal: The book of Genesis.

This throws up the argument of Creationism or, the spin version; Intelligent Design. I have not researched this fully but I am aware of conflict in the school system in some of the states in America over the right to teach this belief, and not just with scientists but with other Christians (I hate labelling people. Labelling IMO promotes difference and that is a bad thing).

So what we have is essentialy two interpretations of the Bible:- one that believes that the world is around 6 thousand years old and was created by God in 6 days and one that choose to ignore this. I don't believe that this type of conflict is healthy Inky. What I see is the division of the people and a danger for predjudice - focusing again on the differences in people (a bad thing) giving rise to the potential for a scond Dark Age (if you take it to it's logical conclusion, although I accept that this is an extreme logical conclusion).

If there are peple in the world that are willing to interpret the Bible in such a literal way, is there not a danger that these people could commit murder by stoning or enslave their neighbours as is shown in Leviticus using the Bible as their defense? Will you or I stand by and permit it in the name of the Bible? It strikes me that the Bible is a dangerous book in the hands of these people.

I don't wish to scaremonger but I think it highlights the serious question of interpretation.

Considering the relatively small populations involved, it is extremely unlikely that this particular conflict will rip our society apart.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Understanding is certainly a problem.
If you are brought up in a church you eventually gain an innate understanding of what Bible passages mean...( at least to your own church)

If you are new to Christianity or read the Bible as a non Christian, Your only options are to spend time studying the bible with your Church.. Or to make up your own interpretations of what the words and passages mean.

Even the Bible Only Christians come to believe what their own church interprets and teaches the words to mean. This, some how to my mind, negates the Idea that the "Bible alone" is in itself enough.
If you were, as a new member, to give your own reading of a passage , the Church would soon put you right as to their accepted and "true" understanding.
In anyone's terms this is the passing on of a tradition, much in the same way as the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans have always done.

 

[wizanda]

Considering it says “you will be scourged in the synagogues” do not learn from the churches…..

My Auntie-Christine Advised me this again and again, when questioning the authenticity of the Pharisee morals….”you need to be taught by clergy”

So I went and prayed and got one of them Bible flicking open moments, to the correct page….
Jeremiah 23 is against most things the Church is teaching as GOOD NEWS…..i.e. John, Paul and Simon are all false and this is the Anti-Christ….. As they all teach grace, comes from murder (Balaam!)….
This is a point made clear by Yeshua in the vine-dressers son parable, in which he told everyone, that many will fall on that point!….
Yet how can you see that point when the Church is against it?
They use our neighbour’s words to confirm, yet on countless occasions prove workers of iniquity more then validating truth…
The list of fake prophet points against them is fulfilled 99% by these.....

So when you go to church and they use these teachings and not Christ's, yet proclaim it as Christ’s….

This to me, is like they are prison wardens, being paid if you stay longer….

So come out of it and learn from God……God taught Christ and many others…so why learn second hand, what can only be learn first hand? A personal relationship with God, as Christ said “have faith in God”!….

Those who haven’t listened to his words have built their house on sand (small piece of the rock) and since the whole churches are built upon it… be warned that is the mother of all harlots. :angel2:

 

[gnostic]

How does one interpret Bible?

With a great deal of caution.

Jews, Christians and Muslims have picked the biblical passages to death, and each have their own set of interpretations. They don't always agree among themselves.

You should also interpret the books from OT (or the Hebrew Tanakh) and NT separately. I would not rely too much on Christian interpretations on the Old Testament/Tanakh, specially Christian interpretations on what are perceived as "PROPHECY".

I think you should also treat Muslim interpretations with also caution, particularly in what they see as "prophecies" in the bible to be their prophet - Muhammad. Both Christians and Muslims use the OT Bible as stomping ground for their propaganda and agenda. Their messages are meant to help with conversions to their respective religions, from those who unwittingly (non-Christians or non-Muslims) had strayed into path.

Their interpretations often do nothing more than promote Jesus or Muhammad as their respective gods.

 

[UnityNow101]

There are many different ways that one can interpret the Bible, but most fall into two categories, literal and spiritual. I really enjoy the interpretations by some of the Christian Mystics such as St. John of the cross, Origen and Thomas Merton. I believe that the Christian Mystics have the biblical interpretation thing down. They interpret literally when absolutely necessary, but expose upon some passages with such eloquence and beauty that it sometimes boggles the mind.