How shall we decide or it be decided or agreed who or what is right and correct as regards scripture interpretation/s - twinc
Scripture Interpretation ?
- Thread starter twinc
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have you really asked a question without knowing the answer? I don't think so, as that would be silly, wouldn't it?
1. There are no contradictions or errors in Scripture. We must be fully convinced of this.
2. Scripture explains Scripture, and should interpret Scripture.
3. All interpretation must be consistent with the character of God and Christ, as well as Gospel truth.
4. There are some things in Scripture *hard to be understood*, therefore that which is plain must clarify that which is not.
5. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals Bible truth and confirms whether or not we have interpreted Scripture properly. If a person is devoid of the indwelling Holy Spirit, he cannot possibly interpret properly.
6. Christians are to STUDY the Word (from Genesis to Revelation) before trying to interpret it, and this is hard work (according to Scripture).
7. Extra-biblical writings cannot be regarded as Scripture, and may not be used to interpret Scripture.
8. God has provided (through diligent and godly men) a variety of Bible study tools (e.g. concordances), which should be used to understand what is written.
Doesn't #8 instantly violate and contradict #7?
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,159
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
As someone much wiser than me wrote:-
"The authors of scripture were 'God's penmen', not God's pen.
They did not write down God's words verbatim. They wrote in their own words their understanding of the inspired thoughts and messages/visions/dreams etc that God gave.
It was the prophets that were inspired, not what they wrote.
There are contradictions in the Bible. But they are easily understood when we acknowledge the different perspectives and writing styles of the various authors ...none of the contradictions invalidate the truths found therein, nor reduce or minimize their sacredness."
there are really no contradictions in the bible for the contradictions come later by different [inspired] individuals imho - twinc
I understand that it is a matter of almost Salvation-like proportions for some people to feel they must fight and die on the hill of swearing there are no contradictory statements in the Bible. But we all know we only have to compare the gospels, one to another, to dispel that wishful hope.
Last edited:
If you have access to the originals, perhaps. But, none of us do, and none of us has ever read anything but the Bibles we have at our disposal.
Last edited:
Extra-biblical writings are contained in the Old Testament and New Testament Apocryphas and Pseudepigraphical books. They are touted as Scripture by many, but they are fake Gospels etc.
On the other hand, concordances, lexicons, etc. are perfectly legitimate in that they clarify the words in Scripture.
In Post #2 I posted: -
And then in Post #8 I posted: -
Mr. Wille, perhaps if you had taken the time to read the context of my #8 post above and had read the originals of the posts, then perhaps you could be taken seriously. All that you have done in my humble opinion is prove that twinc is right. It would seem that you went off half cocked, so to speak, without actually keeping to the context of what I had written. Isn't this the same as many on this forum do with scripture.
I believe you should take a closer look at this faulty concept. Since Jesus said that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4) what was He referring to?
We further read in Proverbs 30:5,6: Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The context of Christ's conflict with the Devil makes it perfectly clear that He was referring to the written words of God, as penned in the Old Testament Scriptures. So the actual words in Scripture are the words of God (while written by men).
Therefore Christ could stress that every jot or tittle (the smallest Hebrew markings in Scripture) were inviolate. And even His enemies recognized the authority of Scripture, while they misinterpreted the spirit and intent of the words.
Unfortunately, you seem to just be simply trying to sound righteous. You see, not a one of us owns any of those original manuscripts, so when calling a book "The Bible", (when talking to any rational, thinking nonbeliever), you would just be blowing hot smoke since they can take any Bible right from your hands and turn to pages that are contradictory. It sounds great to get all "hypothetical" when claiming things about something we cannot produce. But when it comes down to it in today's real world, the Bible in your own hands has contradictions in it.... and THOSE are the Bibles we actually have and have to use today when trying to show someone something.
Last edited:
Frankly, I try to be honest and right up front with unbelievers, and tell them that although all our Bibles do have contradictions translated into them, they are rather inconsequential differences that make little to no changes in one telling, compared to another.
Now, where it DOES make a difference is, for example, when we try to say that God turned His back on Jesus on the cross (not true, BTW) and then turn around and say that God is "Omnipresent", existing and effective everywhere, all the time, in every inch of the universe (a true statement, IMHO). In this case, WE, ourselves, have created a nonexistent apparent contradiction.
Now, where it DOES make a difference is, for example, when we try to say that God turned His back on Jesus on the cross (not true, BTW) and then turn around and say that God is "Omnipresent", existing and effective everywhere, all the time, in every inch of the universe (a true statement, IMHO). In this case, WE, ourselves, have created a nonexistent apparent contradiction.
Mr Willie, I was actually having a go at twinc about his post #1, if you had bothered to read the posts in sequence and then when I posted post #8 I was acknowledging that he had demonstrated that he knew the answer before he had posted #1, making what I had written in #2 "prophetically correct." Well. maybe. I was taking the mickey out of the topic, if you hadn't already noticed, but in doing so, I was also highlighting a number of issues that are present on this forum and one of them is that some people really do take themselves, tooooooooooo seriously. Know what I mean? Of course you do.
And I agree with you, the translations that we call "The Bible" are very fallible indeed. Sadly, there are some who believe differently.
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
Dei verbum
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
Dei verbum
There is a lot I cant understand.. But know its all correct..... and things were different.
as now so much easier...........
as now so much easier...........
Similar threads
