How does one interpret Bible?

[may]

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.

MATTHEW 24;45-47 do not interpretations belong to God , and it is always at the right time , if you allow the channel Jesus is feeding to direct you ,it will be enlightenment indeed .seek and you will find

 

[Random]

Well, if you buy the Catholic Pastoral edition of the Christian Community Bible (available @ any Veritas store near you!) then you have a preface around 30 pages long which duly interprets everything for you! Plus each chapter and verse is accompanied by official commentary outlining what's what doctrinally and making the Old testament fully relative to the New!

Go get your copy right now! :flirt:

 

[athanasius]

How does one interpret Bible?

With the mind of the Church that gave it to you and not apart from it!

 

[Vassal]

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).

Yes, creation is one subject that has different interpretations, however, if you pay attention to detail in Genesis you can see the Bible does not support the idea that Earth was created in 6 24-hour periods. Many people just look at the word day and try to argue that this automatically means 6 24-hour periods, but if you look at the other meanings of the word it can also refer to a general period of time. The Bible clearly describes God letting the universe develop on it’s own, such as seen here:

Genesis 1:11-12 (NASB) 11Then God said, "Let the Earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12The Earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Notice how it says “God said, ‘Let the Earth sprout vegetation…’” and “The Earth brought forth vegetation”. And it also describes the vegetation yield seeds and reproducing, which obviously takes more than 24 hours, yet for some reason many “Young Earth Creationists” like to use the argument “He could have made the plants grow at an accelerated rate if he wanted to”, and yes, he could have, but that isn’t what the text says. Neither the Biblical text nor science support the idea the the Earth was created in 144 hours (six days).

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.

Anyone who reads and understands the Bible knows that the Old Testament is no longer in effect. It was given to the nation of Israel while they were in the Promised Land. The entire Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the Messiah, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of these things.

Under the Old Testament the Israelites had to sacrifice animals for each sin, and under the New Testament Jesus’ blood forgives sins. Under the Old Testament the Israelites had a high priest that would intercede between them and God, and under the New Testament Jesus intercedes for us. When the Israelites came out of Egypt they made a Golden Calf and worshiped it, so God sent poisonous snakes upon them. Then God told Moses to make a bronze pole with a bronze snake on it, which formed the shape of a cross, and any Israelite who looked at it after being bitten by the snake was healed. In John 3:14 Jesus references this event saying that he must be lifted up just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, showing that he is now what we look to when we sin. There are many more examples of such things, but I'm sure you get the idea.

The harsher punishments in the Old Testament were to show how much God cannot tolerate sin. Since no one can live up the standards of God, he made a new covenant under which we can be forgiven through faith, but only if we are truly sorry for what we have done. The New Testament constantly talks about how people are now justified through faith, and not by being a perfect follower of the law.

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.

The stories are not metaphorical, they are historical. Though God did guide the events to symbolize the old and new relationship between God and man, the events did happen. Even if you don’t believe the Bible is true, there is no way you can read the Bible and see that it claims to be a book that shows historical interaction between God and man. I don't see how you can be a Christian and also believe that nothing in the Bible actually happened, that's just self-contradictory.

 

[Willamena]

How does one interpret the Bible?

Has anyone said it yet?... "Vewy cawefully."

 

[may]

Has anyone said it yet?... "Vewy cawefully."

HOLY SPIRIT(Gods active force works wonders, so those who have the active force of God with them have understanding indeed matthew 24;45-47and they are spoken of in matthew 24;45-47 and the revealing goes on .

 

[gnostic]

Well, if you buy the Catholic Pastoral edition of the Christian Community Bible (available @ any Veritas store near you!) then you have a preface around 30 pages long which duly interprets everything for you! Plus each chapter and verse is accompanied by official commentary outlining what's what doctrinally and making the Old testament fully relative to the New!

Go get your copy right now!

Do you also get free steak knives with it as well?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, creation is one subject that has different interpretations, however, if you pay attention to detail in Genesis you can see the Bible does not support the idea that Earth was created in 6 24-hour periods. Many people just look at the word day and try to argue that this automatically means 6 24-hour periods, but if you look at the other meanings of the word it can also refer to a general period of time. The Bible clearly describes God letting the universe develop on it’s own, such as seen here:

It may not speak of 24 hours or any hour whatsoever, it does speak of evening and morning, day and night. It also speak of 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd, etc. So -

And there was evening, and there was morning, a first day.

This is follow with similar passages for the 2nd day (1:8), 3rd (1:13), 4th (1:19), 5th (1:23) and 6th (1:31).

So how do account for a day, if it is not a single evening and a single daytime? Do you take a single day and night as 1000 years or a million years? If this is the case, then the Bible has misled people.

Anyone who reads and understands the Bible knows that the Old Testament is no longer in effect. It was given to the nation of Israel while they were in the Promised Land. The entire Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the Messiah, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of these things.

Again, this just a Christian interpretation. Only a Christian would say something like this, completely ignoring any Jewish interpretation. It is just more of the childish "my religion is better than yours" propaganda.

 

[The Great Architect]

I don't know... I'm fairly new to the Bible, even though I am 20, and I can only do what feels right for me -- emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know... I'm fairly new to the Bible, even though I am 20, and I can only do what feels right for me -- emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

Which is how it should be.

 

[may]

I don't know... I'm fairly new to the Bible, even though I am 20, and I can only do what feels right for me -- emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

JOHN 17;3
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. .................................. Listening to Jesus is the way to go , so take in knowledge about the true God and his son Jesus christ .

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18

​

(Luke 9:35) And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."

 

[anders]

Lots of things that I'd like to address, but it's difficult in a fast moving thread.

but the majority of the Bible is pretty easy to understand. Please give an example of something that is confusing you.

Let's start from the very beginning. There are books on Genesis, and even on Genesis 1. Seems like it's not too "easy to understand". How do you interpret the very first word? (I refer of course to the Hebrew text.) Many translations write "In the beginning", but it is perfectly clear that that word literally means "In one beginning". Some professors of Bible Hebrew argue that the first line could be "When (Elohim) in the beginning ..." or "When (Elohim) started creating ..."

My possibly irreverent version goes like, "In one of the beginnings, the gods created the heavens and the Earth." You can't refute that one from a purely language point of view.

I won't go into much detail on the fundamentally impossible project to translate the Hebrew aspect based verb system into European tenses. Does "give" (innocently looking, no?) really mean "I gave", or "I am giving", or "I'm going to give (in some not specified future)"? In most any verse, religious biases and presuppositions will decide, because linguistics can't. Context, and cultural and historical familiarity are useful, though.

Anyone who reads and understands the Bible knows that the Old Testament is no longer in effect. It was given to the nation of Israel while they were in the Promised Land. The entire Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the Messiah, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of these things.

In the first place, why should I, a European, use even five seconds on something "given to the nation of Israel"? And why do you think that "The entire Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the Messiah, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of these things" when it's painfully obvious that Jesus, supposedly having no human father, doesn't fulfill the OT requirements for the Jewish Messiah?

 

[Overwrite]

I have read with interest the answers to this thread. The different views and indeed interpretations by the members reveal to me that this one book is indeed a confusing piece of literature.

Would you like to know my interpreation of the Bible?

I believe it (the OT) was written a long time ago as an instrument to moralise an uneducated society. I believe the NT was written about a figure named Jesus Christ, after the fact, to inspire the masses and was later ratified by Constantine I at the Council of Nicea to bring meaning to the book in an effort to unify the many faiths. I believe that the book over the many hundreds of years that have followed has been translated and rewritten to form a backbone to the faith in God.

I believe that the Bible was written for an uneducated time for the reasons above but has been adopted by self appointed religious leaders to be weilded as the word of God to insipre fear in people of divine retribution, thereby controlling them. The Bible is so ambiguous in it's content that many factions of belief have been created.

The belief in religion, be it Christian, Catholic, Muslim etc, has become a weapon against mankind highlighting the differences in man, pitting faith against faith resulting in wars, persecution, terrorism and intolerance. It preys on the weakminded and in extreme cases, forces people to do things against their better reasoning and judgment.

How do I interpret the Bible? It is a nonsense.

Does my interpretation mean that I am a non believer? Actually, I do believe in God. I believe we have a soul and I believe that that soul lives on after the body has died. I didn't need a book to give me these beliefs, just the intelligence I was born with and the application of logic. I don't believe I am right or that I believe I am any better than any other person but by the same token, I don't feel the urge to brainwash others with my ideals to bolster my thinking or support my insecurities in this notion.

Sorry if what I have said has offended anyone and please believe me when I say that it was not my intention to insult anyone but my opinion is a valid as the next person's.

 

[rojse]

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.

However you want. There is a religion based around most interpretations.

 

[Vassal]

Lots of things that I'd like to address, but it's difficult in a fast moving thread.
Let's start from the very beginning. There are books on Genesis, and even on Genesis 1. Seems like it's not too "easy to understand". How do you interpret the very first word? (I refer of course to the Hebrew text.) Many translations write "In the beginning", but it is perfectly clear that that word literally means "In one beginning". Some professors of Bible Hebrew argue that the first line could be "When (Elohim) in the beginning ..." or "When (Elohim) started creating ..."

My possibly irreverent version goes like, "In one of the beginnings, the gods created the heavens and the Earth." You can't refute that one from a purely language point of view.

Yes, that could be a possible translation from a purely linguistics standpoint, but it would not be from a logical standpoint. If the verse meant gods, as in more than one, then why are there verses that specifically state there is only one god, or why aren't these other gods ever mentioned specifically? Looking at the rest of the Bible we can plainly see there is only one God mentioned.

I won't go into much detail on the fundamentally impossible project to translate the Hebrew aspect based verb system into European tenses. Does "give" (innocently looking, no?) really mean "I gave", or "I am giving", or "I'm going to give (in some not specified future)"? In most any verse, religious biases and presuppositions will decide, because linguistics can't. Context, and cultural and historical familiarity are useful, though.

Yes, it is impossible to know with 100% certainty the intent of the original Hebrew or Greek text, because of words that have multiple definitions that would vastly alter the meaning, but we can be more than reasonably certain. Like the example above, we know that other verses in other books say there is only a single God and no other, so the possibility that multiple Gods created the Heavens and Earth can be thrown out. Some people try to say that baptism is necessary for salvation based on Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38, but when you look at over 50 different passages that mention people being saved or having their sins forgiven without a mention of baptism, and those two verse being the only ones that mention baptism and salvation, then we can logically see that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. The common factor in all verses about salvation is faith in God, certainly not baptism.

In the first place, why should I, a European, use even five seconds on something "given to the nation of Israel"? And why do you think that "The entire Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the Messiah, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of these things" when it's painfully obvious that Jesus, supposedly having no human father, doesn't fulfill the OT requirements for the Jewish Messiah?

Jesus does fulfill all the requirements for the Jewish Messiah. And I'm guessing your referring the the fact that Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah because they say he didn't fulfill the prophecies about establishing a kingdom. Those prophecies speak of a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom. Jesus didn't come to Earth to conquer the Romans, he came to be a sacrifice for our sins.

 

[anders]

Jesus does fulfill all the requirements for the Jewish Messiah. And I'm guessing your referring the the fact that Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah because they say he didn't fulfill the prophecies about establishing a kingdom. Those prophecies speak of a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom. Jesus didn't come to Earth to conquer the Romans, he came to be a sacrifice for our sins.

No, my main point is that Jewish ancestry is a matter of the father only. Jesus had no earthly natural father, so he isn't related to David, which the Jewish Messiah must be.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

I really want to call this a bunch of uneducated claptrap...but I'll refrain. This statement is wrong.

The generally accepted way to approach the Bible is found in Isaiah 28:10, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." Most wrong interpretations come from people's lack of a good overview of Biblical precepts and from a lack of knowledge. Other problems arise when people just want the Bible to say whatever the individual wants it to say.

Also contrary to the opinion of some reponders the Bible has this to say in II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, forreproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." The best way to approach this is to first find a competent Bible teacher. Next get a concordance. Use these resources to search all of scripture to find meaning.

Finally follow the example of Acts 17:11, " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched thescriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

One final point. The Bible is a spiritual book. Without the guidence of the Holy Spirit is is impossible to understand it's meaning and how it applies to your life. It has one message to the unrepentant sinner as well as the backsliden Christian, or a seeker of truth, or someone seeking wisdom. The Bible is like an ogre...it has layers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the most important issue in Reading the Bible with a view to understandig is THE HEBREW IDIOMS

And your source on "THE HEBREW IDIOMS" [sic!] would be what?

 

[Smoke]

I was reading Karen Armstrong again lately, and she makes the point that one of the drawbacks to written sacred texts is that people imagine they can understand the words of the text without understanding the spiritual experience that the words are trying to express. Except that I'd substitute psychological for spiritual, I think she's got something there.