How do you interpret Scripture?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

At the heart of many disagreements among Christians seem to be varying interpretations of the same words in Scripture. If you were to give someone with no apparent biases a basic set of rules for interpreting Scripture, what would they be? What "rules" would you give them to determine the truth if they run across a difficult passage? At what point should this person extrapolate or imply doctrine from Scripture, rather than look for explicit references?

For the Sola Scriptura types, please point out where these "rules" are found in Scripture. This is not a challenge, but a request for information.

Let's assume you'll never see this person again and that this person will study Scripture by themselves.

I ask this be more of a sharing rather than a debate thread (if possible). My intent is not to debate Sola Scriptura or any other doctrine, merely to learn more about everyone's position.

I'd like to know where everyone is coming from. But, if it turns into a debate, so be it. Thanks in adavance for all your replies.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004

Answers

bump please

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

1. Scriptures

2. History

3. Tradition

4. Doctrine

5. Life Experiences

6. Logical and Illogical events that happen in our minds, some call it "faith".

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


Please visit this website for Biblical Hermeneutics:

Hermeneutics, Handling Aright the Word

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.


plus dreams, apparitions,....Andy.

besides archeology.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


I think this question becomes harder and harder as American English changes. I believe a good portion of disagreement would be eliminated if there was only one meaning to each word, and one to each phrase.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


We have to invet a new language.

What about Esperanto?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


Or how about just calling someone a liar...

That would work real well...

Wouldn't it???

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.


The King James is not God Yahweh's original language, Kevin.

He has made use of Old Aramaic (Abraham),Old Hebrew(Moses),Syrian Aramaic(Jesus),Old Attic Greek(Septuagint), Koine Greek(Paul),....the rest are just translations, Kevin.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


Elpidio,

I was just kidding... and referring to another thread where I was accused of lying... This tactic would work real well if you are trying to prove that your opinion of scripture is the correct one wouldn't it??? Not... Using this tactic only causes one to have as it was stated on another thread "ill will" and instead of helping someone see the error of their way, they instead become a stumbling block...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.


Btw, I know "The King James is not God Yahweh's original language" and I also know that our Bibles are only translations... I prefer to use the NKJV...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.


I would want to know what a person wants to interpret. I don't believe we need external sources to receive the fullness of salvation, nor to mature in the faith. The scriptures alone are sufficient. But there are numerous events, customs, sayings, and revelations that are only partially revealed in the word of God. Knowledge of the compliation of the books, the times in which they were written, the fate of those who wrote them, the events of Jerusalem that aren't recorded (destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD) and many other areas is essential for understanding the rest. Very doctrines are based upon what happened when in history.

I'm assuming that the notes in study Bible's do not count as being in the Bible. :-)

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


Anyone else have anything to add?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 23, 2004.

Hi Andy--

I would tell this person that Scripture interprets Scripture and that it would be quite the study and difficult to take on all alone.

Acts 8:30-35

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

There we see that the Scriptures are fully able to reveal the truth unto salvation but that we need to study together.

We are told to study together and I believe that this is to keep us honest.

Acts 5:42 tells us that the early church did this from house.

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 23, 2004.


No, Faith, scripture does not always interpret scripture. You still can't explain the gospel's differing narratives on "who is Joseph's father," unless you GO OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE to explain it. Study notes in your margins don't count as scripture. And there are many other instances where you have to find the answer to a discrepancy through historical sources.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 23, 2004.

I was just kidding... and referring to another thread where I was accused of lying... This tactic would work real well if you are trying to prove that your opinion of scripture is the correct one wouldn't it??? Not... Using this tactic only causes one to have as it was stated on another thread "ill will" and instead of helping someone see the error of their way, they instead become a stumbling block...

Kevin, the thread on which you refer to has oen thing you fail to note. You repeatedly used the same verse, dspite beign shown the fact tha you where wrong. And no, this is not mere opinion, and not subjective interpretation, you broke a basic rule you ought have learned in high School english. You used a queasion to support a statement of fact, sayign that the verse "Plainly said" animal souls decened to the earht, and Huamn SOuls arose, which is not so. The fact that you used it to prove your poin the irtstime was not, of coruse, the thing I called you on, rather, the repeated use of it as "Clear proof" was what I called the lie. I did, however, sy you where lyignto yourself, rather than eign Dishonest diliberatrly, and I think you failed to understand the intent.

It was less to call yo a liar, and more to show how you had blidned yourself to the plain reading o the text. And I do not mean My way or the high way here, but again, if you read the passages in quetasion you atmeoted to use, usinng basic rules of english composiiton and communicaiton, rathe than theological bias in an attemo to prove your case, you wll eb forced tthe same conclusion abouthe verse, either in isolation or in context, as I and al others have.

The fact htat you failed to do so only reuslted in you insisting this meant what you said it meant based upon a preconcienved notion, a bias.

Again, i meant no Ill will, all I meant was that you shoudl stop blindign yourself with your theology and look at the text for what it says, and relaise hat you cannot use this as proof.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 23, 2004.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ