Interpretation Methods

[brakelite]

When God chooses to reveal His meaning to me.

I keep in the Word, I search the Word, I study, I read, I learn, memorize, meditate, sing, my life is about the Word. And yet, as it is a spiritual book, it truly is the Spirit Who must reveal the Word to me.

But He does, and He will, but I have to say, it's in His time. So so many times I've come to a passage I've known, read, studied, over and over, and on this day it pleases my God to open it's meaning for me.

Not sit on my hands. Not profess ignorance. But not be lifted up in my own conceits.

Much love!

I tend to take a slightly different view...for me, the word of God comes alive the moment I actually believe it, which in a sense would be akin obviously to understanding it, then that word, which began as a promise, becomes an experiential reality in my life. But as to the 'appointed time', I have no idea how 'that day...the end', as Scott explained, being a reference presumably to the day of our resurrection at the second coming, has any application. If we have to wait till then until we have understanding of scripture I would suggest it may be a smidgeon too late and the resurrection for many will be a 1000 years too late. If we have to wait till 'that day appointed', then is it all guesswork until then?

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree that this is a serious matter...as it should be. How we come to Gods word cannot be more important.
However, I believe there is considerable...misunderstanding...on this topic. I myself am Baptist, but I do not always hold to a "literal" interpretation. Mostly because I find that phrase: "literal" to be a litte deceptive. Especially when it comes to those who do claim to hold scripture "literally", they then insist that everyone who doesn't, is a liberal.
First, allow me to assure you I am not a liberal. Far from it, I am conservative in my views.
I think, perhaps, in this issue, its best to try and define things a little better. I heard someone recently explain it like this: people who hold to a 'literal' interpretation seem to be intent on insisting on a 'physical' interpretation. And we see this in Revelation...Dispensationalists insist that much of what is spoken about in that book will come about physically. However...when someone like myself claims NOT to take Revelation 'literally', we are not saying that God's word is not being 'serious' and 'true' in everything. It just may not 'physically' come to pass. For example: I don't believe there will actually be a giant woman in the heavens giving birth to a male child so a dragon can attempt to devour him.... I believe very strongly that God is giving us a true message about a spiritual truth. And it's not wrong to believe spiritual truths are just as weighty, or even more so, than physical ones....after all, our salvation was a spiritual act, a spiritual truth that we did not see, but goodness, it was real!
Now...yes, I suppose there are liberals out there who brush away scripture as fables and stories. But not all people who read apocylptic literature in the bible as something conveyed to us in signs and images are people who dismiss the weight and truth of God's word. We believe it to be 'serious' and 'true'...just not 'physical'. And of course, we clearly recognize the rest of the bible to be historic and factual...in otherwords...it was 'physical'. We only take apocylptic as it is, because it is as it is. There's no good taking history as poetry or poetry as prophecy. Likewise, there's no point taking a book full of images and trying to nail down the correlation between scorpion tails and what that means the helicopters have to look like. Embrace what God has given us in the form he has...that's how we be 'serious' about it.

Good point.

I agree "literal" is often a misused word. In hermeneutics I define is as seeking the meaning conveyed by the words grammatical construction and historical context. This includes recognizing literary genres and devces. For example, the Earth does not literally have four corners. Revelation is apocalyptic.

What we cannot do is redefine words so as to suit our theologies.

 

[Willie T]

Good point.

I agree "literal" is often a misused word. In hermeneutics I define is as seeking the meaning conveyed by the words grammatical construction and historical context. This includes recognizing literary genres and devces. For example, the Earth does not literally have four corners. Revelation is apocalyptic.

What we cannot do is redefine words so as to suit our theologies.

That's why I prefer a comment like "to the far reaches of the Earth", when talking about the KJV's "the four corners of the Earth" only tends to lead some people into foolishness like The Flat Earth Society. It is unnecessary, so why perpetuate misunderstandings? If you have to have a second translator to explain the previous translation of a book, there is something wrong.

 

[Davy]

The difference is not concentrating on "so" but receiving what the verse communicates (how God loved the world).

The idea "so" is just an adverbial issue. Loved is the main verb in that verse.

 

[Episkopos]

That's why I prefer a comment like "to the far reaches of the Earth", when talking about the KJV's "the four corners of the Earth" only tends to lead some people into foolishness like The Flat Earth Society. It is unnecessary, so why perpetuate misunderstandings? If you have to have a second translator to explain the previous translation of a book, there is something wrong.

In this statement the emphasis should be on the number 4...as in the 4 angels and the 4 spirits (winds) mentioned along with the 4 "corners" as in Rev. 7:1. There are many such references to the 4 ends of the earth...the 4 winds (rouach or spirits)...etc. So to keep the mysteries available to they who seek understanding we have to keep in mind that the same themes are being repeated over and over in the bible...and this has a definite purpose, even if we can't appreciate them at that point.

So then perhaps the "four reaches of the earth" would be more accurate. Or better yet...the four ends of the earth (to comply with the Hebrew in the OT).

I prefer an accurate translation as opposed to something we are more familiar with. The truth is NOT something we start out being familiar with in any case. Let us have the undiluted mystery every time!

 

[marks]

I tend to take a slightly different view...for me, the word of God comes alive the moment I actually believe it, which in a sense would be akin obviously to understanding it, then that word, which began as a promise, becomes an experiential reality in my life. But as to the 'appointed time', I have no idea how 'that day...the end', as Scott explained, being a reference presumably to the day of our resurrection at the second coming, has any application. If we have to wait till then until we have understanding of scripture I would suggest it may be a smidgeon too late and the resurrection for many will be a 1000 years too late. If we have to wait till 'that day appointed', then is it all guesswork until then?

Agreed, if you don't believe it, how can it change your life?

I believe the Bible says a certain thing. I believe that God uses that certain thing in many ways to speak to me.

I believe that he who seeks finds. Knock, and the door is opened to you. Maybe that's what we have to believe first. God reveals, but does the one who seeks more find more?

I come to the Bible in the mind that every word is exactly true, and what I find to be life is nothing like what I thought life was, though when I was I child I knew.

Much love!

 

[marks]

.

I read where someone said people shouldn't have an opinion about it unless they compared them.

Interesting comment.

Everyone has opinions.

And the Holy Spirit teaches from the word directly to us, and through teachers given to us, who teach by the gift of teaching, from the Holy Spirit.

Yes?

 

[John Caldwell]

The idea "so" is just an adverbial issue. Loved is the main verb in that verse.

Yes. But the verse itself speaks to how God loved rather than a quantitative quality to that love (Paul addresses the latter in Ephesians as he marvels at the abundance of God's love towards us).

 

[marks]

So to keep the mysteries available to they who seek understanding we have to keep in mind that the same themes are being repeated over and over in the bible...and this has a definite purpose, even if we can't appreciate them at that point.

So then perhaps the "four reaches of the earth" would be more accurate. Or better yet...the four ends of the earth (to comply with the Hebrew in the OT).

I prefer an accurate translation as opposed to something we are more familiar with. The truth is NOT something we start out being familiar with in any case. Let us have the undiluted mystery every time!

I'm very much agreed with this. This is why I like literal translations. Every word is very significant.

I noticing yesterday where the NIV (not to bag on that one) reads, He "has given us new birth", the KJV reads He "has begotten us again". In the one, we are told we have a new birth, but in the other, we are told we are born from God, significantly more specific.

Much love!

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello,

The issue often become our understanding of the inerrancy of the Scriptures as many people attribute the inerrancy to the translations written by men where the "tradition" of the understanding of the inerrant source texts used, is incorporated into the translations the we use today as "our bibles" and hold dearly in our hearts. Sadly all of our translations are fallible and contain many error which have been compounded throughout the various translations.

Let us consider Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2: -

1 Samuel 2:6-10: -

6 "The Lord kills and makes alive;
He brings down to the grave and brings up.
7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
He brings low and lifts up.
8 He raises the poor from the dust
And lifts the beggar from the ash heap,
To set them among princes
And make them inherit the throne of glory.

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
And He has set the world upon them.
9 He will guard the feet of His saints,
But the wicked shall be silent in darkness.

"For by strength no man shall prevail.
10 The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces;
From heaven He will thunder against them.
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth.

"He will give strength to His king,
And exalt the horn of His anointed."
​

This is very much a prophetic prayer by Hannah and it mentions the time of judgement in verse 10, but does the translation above give a clear indication of when that will be or does it leave us confused as to what the intent of the original Hebrew text is conveying.

Should the Hebrew text be translated as, "The Lord will judge the ends of the earth." which give the sense of the judgement being given at number of places on the earth, or should the same Hebrew text be translated as, "The lord will judge the earth at its end." which gives the sense of the timing of the judgement of the earth at the end of the allocated time for all of mankind to chose whether they will or will not worship the Lord God.

In check a number of translations only two translations versions gave a different sense in their respective translations, and they were: -

1 Sam 2:10: - the Lord judges throughout the earth. New Living Translation
1 Sam 2:10: - The Lord will judge the whole world; Good News Translation
​

Now the question is, "Is the blue highlighted line above to be understood 'literally' as it is usually translated with the concept that the Lord's judgement will take place at a number of places scattered over the face of the earth, or with the sense of "the end of time with respect to the earth," when the judgement will take place.

Also of interest in the above passage is the verse, which does not make sense either and perhaps it should be understood to read thus in our translations: -

8 He raises the poor from the dust
And lifts the beggar from the ash heap,
To set them among princes
And make them/To inherit the throne of glory.

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
And He has set the world upon them.​

Perhaps in speaking of Interpretation Methods we should consider whether or not the translations that we like to refer to in our daily reading have already side tracked us from the truth that is already in the source text in the original language texts that have been used to compile the various translations.

When we read widely to come to an understanding of what the "truth" of a particular verse is, then perhaps we need to seek out God's understanding and abide in that.

Shalom

 

[Naomi25]

Good point.

I agree "literal" is often a misused word. In hermeneutics I define is as seeking the meaning conveyed by the words grammatical construction and historical context. This includes recognizing literary genres and devces. For example, the Earth does not literally have four corners. Revelation is apocalyptic.

What we cannot do is redefine words so as to suit our theologies.

Agreed!

 

[Willie T]

I agree that "redefining" words isn't cool. But, there is no redefining of the English word, "hate" in Luke 14:26 . I think misunderstanding the meaning of the passage is simply a matter of not really trying to understand what Jesus was talking about.

 

[Enoch111]

Perhaps in speaking of Interpretation Methods we should consider whether or no the translations that we like to refer to in our daily reading have already side tracked us from the truth that is already in the source text in the original language texts that have been used to compile the various translations.

Since Hebrew and Greek are not commonly understood, the translations should suffice (and they do). And there are many Bible study tools which help to clarify anything that is not clear. As far as many Christians are concerned, the King James Bible has served us well for over 400 years. And the Holy Spirit is still the Divine Teacher of the children of God. It is primarily the modern translations which have introduced conflict and doubt, where none existed.

 

[Jay Ross]

Since Hebrew and Greek are not commonly understood, the translations should suffice (and they do). And there are many Bible study tools which help to clarify anything that is not clear. As far as many Christians are concerned, the King James Bible has served us well for over 400 years. And the Holy Spirit is still the Divine Teacher of the children of God. It is primarily the modern translations which have introduced conflict and doubt, where none existed.

How can the translation suffice when there are many known translation errors and embedded wrong theological understandings found in the various translations. That is the issue that many users of the various translations are encumbered with and so often the Bible Study tools available to them only reinforces the errors contained in the translations.

If you consider the history/evolution of the translations you will see the "traditions" of the earliest translations have been maintained in the various revisions of the English translations.

Enoch111, did God promise Abraham "land" or the "earth" that He would show him? If you agree with how the translators have translated this verse that God promised Abraham Land in Gen 12:1 then you will find that the translators have propagated this same error and peppered it throughout the OT.

The main issue that I see is "How do we correct these errors in our translations such that they will be accepted by all?" Because many people hold the translations as the inerrant word of God, the corrections will have difficulty in being universally accepted without discord occurring among the Translation readers.

Getting the scholars to even agree on the translations' errors will be n even greater task.

Shalom

 

[Enoch111]

Enoch111, did God promise Abraham "land" or the "earth" that He would show him?

It is quite obvious that God promised Abraham land and not the earth. The geographical boundaries are clearly spelled out -- from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the Euphrates. This is about ten times the size of modern Israel.

The earth is the LORD's and the fulness thereof, therefore the earth belongs to Christ, not Abraham.

DANIEL 7
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days [God the Father], and they brought Him [Christ] near before Him [the Father].14 And there was given Him [Christ] dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

 

[Giuliano]

.

Interesting comment.

Everyone has opinions.

And the Holy Spirit teaches from the word directly to us, and through teachers given to us, who teach by the gift of teaching, from the Holy Spirit.

Yes?

I think many people believe that; but why do people need a Bible if the Holy Spirit is teaching them? How can people reach such different conclusions from the Bible with all of them convinced the Holy Spirit is guiding them?

My opinion is that the Bible is more useful in telling us where we have wrong ideas than in telling us where we have right ones. When given a new idea, we should ask like the Bereans if it can be so." Then search the Scriptures to see if they say it can't be.

 

[Jay Ross]

It is quite obvious that God promised Abraham land and not the earth. The geographical boundaries are clearly spelled out -- from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the Euphrates. This is about ten times the size of modern Israel.

The earth is the LORD's and the fulness thereof, therefore the earth belongs to Christ, not Abraham.

DANIEL 7
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days [God the Father], and they brought Him [Christ] near before Him [the Father].14 And there was given Him [Christ] dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

So you have just proved my point about the errors in the various English translations.

God did not promise to give Abraham land In gen 12 & 13 as you have suggested and the passages when God promised to give the land where Abraham walked in the Hebrew text does not contain the words, "to you and your offspring," but rather God promised to Give the "entity of the described land to Abraham's descendants."

It seems that your understanding of God's promises to Abraham is somewhat lacking. Here is what is said in Gen 15:-

Gen 15:17-21: - 17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

"To your descendants I have given/will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates — 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."
NKJV​

Now the correction made in verse 18 above is to reflect the fact that the described land was not started to be given to Abraham's descendants until after the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to enter the Land of Canaan, some 730 years after God gave this solemn covenant to Abraham in Gen 15.

So in Gen 15, God does not promise Abraham any Land, He only promises to give the described land to Abraham's Descendants.

Shalom

 

[VictoryinJesus]

that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him:

Land or Earth? maybe something better and more excellent was promised... in the “fruitful” land of inheritance is the heart. All this discussion of dirt when the incorruptible Land (ground)sown is that New Heart planted of God which brings forth of the Spirit and multiplies with bearing fruit. Fruits of righteousness Philippians 1:10-11 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; [11] Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

Romans 8:20-21 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, [21] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

The fruitful field promised is the heart...where it all begins. Consider an inheritance of the hearts of the people Turning to God and serving Him.

 

[Enoch111]

Land or Earth? maybe something better and more excellent was promised... in the “fruitful” land of inheritance is the heart.

We can't simply spiritualize away plain Bible truth. The land is literally the land, the earth is literally the earth, and the heart is metaphorically the heart (meaning the soul or the innermost being, not the organ that pumps blood).

Unless we accept Scripture in its plain literal senses, we will all be AT SEA.

 

[Willie T]

It was quoted of John Calvin, in The Institutes, as saying this when addressing the many, many times the ECF's violated their own supposed beliefs, skipping right over foundational premises they, themselves, had set for the church:
(He called it, "bursting through boundaries.")

"It was a Father who pronounced it rashness, in an obscure question, to decide in either way without clear and evident authority from Scripture. They forgot this landmark when they enacted so many constitutions, so many canons, and so many dogmatical decisions, without sanction from the word of God."

And we all are still doing it today.