Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[JamesG]

.
Christianity today is made up of a myriad of distinct denominations with distinct interpretations of the Bible. There are as many methods of Bible interpretation. So Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation? And if not, how can we determine which interpretation is correct?

JamesG

 

[veteran]

All it takes is a sincere heart by Faith asking The LORD for understanding in His Word, and then getting down to study. Without Faith in God It will not be rightly understood.

God's Word is not like any other literature known to man. Thinking it is, and that Bible study can be approached like study of any other subject will not allow His Truth to be imparted. God's Word is called The LIving Word by some, because though It has been written long ago, Its prophecies are still being fulfilled today. That especially separates It from all other known types of literature.

God's Word uses expressions, idioms, figures of speech, allegories, metaphors, etc., to cover a subject more deeply, and make His Truth easier to understand. It takes time to distinguish when those are being given. God's Word includes much history, with artifacts continually being discovered later that confirms It.

Many religious traditions come about not because of God's Word, but because of man always trying to understand God's Word. Not everyone is at the same level in their understanding God's Word. But each level should align with Holy Writ. There are many in the world which claim to understand God's Word, and some even claim God speaks to them literally. There are many claims. But only The Holy Spirit will reveal whether that claim is true, and it must always align with Holy Writ. God's Word is the Measure of all things; man is not the measure of all things.

 

[Tina]

.
Regardless of which church or denomination one is part of, every born-again believer in Christ has been given the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Truth Who will guide us into all truth. When we read and understand the Bible, we are interpreting it according to the degree with which we are tuned in to the Spirit of Truth. Of course it takes lots of humility, prayers and intensive Word studies for a correct interpretation to be arrived at with regards to conflicting passages.


John 14:17
the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

John 15:26
But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:13
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

 

[watchman F]

.
Christianity today is made up of a myriad of distinct denominations with distinct interpretations of the Bible. There are as many methods of Bible interpretation. So Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation? And if not, how can we determine which interpretation is correct?

JamesG

You know what I did. I read through the N.T. about 20 times (over 100 by now) and believed only what the scripture said. I believe exactly what it said how it said it. I realize much of what is taught in many denominations are false, and many things are true as well. My advice would to just take the Bible at face value and believe what it says regardless of who teaches what.

 

[archangel_300]

I agree with what everyone above me has stated.
In addition I think correct Biblical interpretation is exegetical and we try to draw the message God is trying to speak to us from His Word. I think that's very important because when it comes to cryptic passages of scripture I've seen people add their interpretation to it rather than comparing scripture with scripture to try to figure out what the passage really means. Our understanding of a particular passage must stand the test of being in harmony with all of sacred writ.

Another important thing that people fail at doing at times (me included) is reading the scripture in its correct context. Reading the scripture in its correct context can be very illuminating. Knowing who the message is being conveyed to as well as does it apply to a broader audience is very helpful.

It's very important to read the Bible for ourselves and to question everything we may be taught from teachers of the Word. It's important for us to be like the Bereans and to check the Word to ensure that a doctrine stands in light of the entire Bible. Many people can be mislead by false teaching or just a basic misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches and if the light in us be darkness how great is that darkness.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

.
Christianity today is made up of a myriad of distinct denominations with distinct interpretations of the Bible. There are as many methods of Bible interpretation. So Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation? And if not, how can we determine which interpretation is correct?

JamesG

Yes the can be understood apart from the myriads of theological interpretations.

If one really researches the sociopolitical environment, that eras genres', the traditions of the cultures they interacted with, that era's use of syncretism, then yes to me those books that were not really meant to be placed together as anthology giving way to the interpretation hop scotch that causes so many denominations, can be understood quite readily.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

.
Christianity today is made up of a myriad of distinct denominations with distinct interpretations of the Bible. There are as many methods of Bible interpretation. So Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation? And if not, how can we determine which interpretation is correct?

JamesG

the word of God interprets itself. We have to study the word of God dilligently and let it interpret itself being given the understanding through the SPirit of God. We cannot let it be by the traditions of men, we cannot make it say what it does nto say, and we must let it tell us what things mean and what they do not.

 

[JamesG]

.
Supernatural knowledge can’t be gained by interpretation, whether by interpretation of the Bible or of nature. The practice of interpretation is only effectual for that which can be physically sensed and observed and experimented on, and then interpreted according to the findings of observation and experiment. Can’t do that with the Supernatural because it can’t be physically sensed.

Both the Bible and nature are physical and can be physically sensed. Thus they can be observed and interpreted. In relation to the historical and sociological elements of the Bible, they can be verified by experimental archeology. And the physical reality of nature can be verified by scientific experimentation. But there is a problem when they are being related to an assumed supernatural aspect of reality. What is observed and interpreted can’t be verified by experimentation. The interpreters can only go directly from observation to interpretation. Thus the interpretation would just be a personal preference and a personal opinion. There is no way to verify the interpretation to oneself or to anyone else because there is no way to verify experimentally whether one has observed properly or interpreted properly. In a practical sense, the lack of the ability to experiment allows every interpretation to be considered valid and as valid as any other because there isn’t any way to prove otherwise.

Nature has very complex forms of life. This and the existence of life itself has been interpreted as evidence by those who assume the existence of the supernatural for the existence of the supernatural. But those who do not assume the existence of the supernatural have a different interpretation. And since there is no way to experimentally verify any interpretation related to the supernatural, one interpretation is as good as the other. From the perspective of physical reality alone, only the interpretations that can be verified by scientific experimentation has validity.

The myriad of Christian denominations are based upon interpretive distinctions. The common practice of verifying an interpretation by Biblical proof texts means nothing because the texts are being understood in an interpretive manner. There is no way to experimentally verify the true meaning of the texts that are being interpretively understood.

The practice of interpretation allows the homosexual to be a believer in Jesus Christ and still practice homosexuality with a clear conscience. They merely interpret the many Biblical references in the Bible that most conservative Christians believe is against homosexuality to mean something else entirely. And what is interesting about that is that their interpretations make sense. And there are some mainstream Churches that realize that and for them homosexuality is no longer an issue. That is, except for the conservative ones who break away from that Church over what is merely a difference in interpretation to everyone else.

In the beginning God… If one believes in the validity of Biblical interpretation that could mean anything. All one has to do is to ask three simple questions. Which beginning, what do you mean by God, and which God are you referring to. Through the practice of interpretation, those three questions can produce a variety of answers to each question and to the three questions considered as a whole. And that simple statement is no longer so simple. “You’re not in Kansas anymore. You’re on Pandora.â€

The Bible must be considered apart from interpretation in order for it to be a document that has something to say on its own apart from our ability to form opinions about what it is saying through the practice of interpretation. The practice of interpretation can only lead to the creation of concepts of the supernatural that are merely the imaginations of the interpreter. Who wants to believe in a mythical God of their own creation? It would be like believing in the Holy Spaghetti Monster.

JamesG

 

[Rick W]

Some time ago while living in Salt Lake City the Baptists came to town for a convention.
Our church, non-denominational, organized with them and together we passed out fliers and in general preached God's gift of His Son Jesus Christ.
Now, I can't say I hold to all the Baptists believe or their interpretations but it really didn't seem to matter all that much. Together, even with differences in doctrinal views, the Word of God was preached concerning the Christian Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
We had a job to do, done with joy in our hearts, bibles in hand, joined in the spirit of the Lord and speaking as one the salvation as taught by the Word of God.

Can I get a "HALLELUJAH!" ?

 

[JamesG]

.
Rick W

As there are several interpretive versions of the Gospel in Christianity, I am curious as to which version you preached.

JamesG

 

[Rick W]

CF.net Statement of Faith

Calvary Chapel of Salt Lake City Statement of Faith

What about you? Since you started the thread I think it would be nice to know your "version" of belief.

 

[JamesG]

.
Rick W

I believe that the Gospel refers basically to Romans 5:12-21 and 1Corinthians 15:1-11.

You have equated a Standard of belief as being the Gospel. The Roman Catholic Church equates the Gospel with their Standard of Catholic belief and requires converts to be catechized for several weeks before they can be baptized, even when they are born into the faith, as it were. Not a bad idea from that perspective. I think that the Church of Christ does something similar.

I come from a Baptist background, wherein the emphasis is more on an inner sense of depravity caused by a work of the Spirit through good old fire and brimstone preaching. Such preaching always concerns our condition in Adam and its consequences and how Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Baptism comes after an acknowledgement that we are sinners and have a desire to be baptized into Christ that expresses our faith in Christ as the source of our salvation. Catechism comes after Baptism. And of course there is Sunday School, the Worship Service, and Bible Study that are fundamentally the Catechism for ones whole life. I admit that there seems to be an emphasis on saving “with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.†It is an emphasis that still seems to be quite effective, not only initially, but in regards to staying power.

How much of what this Baptist Church believes is interpretation I don’t know. That is why I posted this thread. Is interpretation of the Bible legitimate? Is it necessary? How can we tell the difference between our interpretations and what the Bible is actually saying? Those are questions that I am concerned with. I question the common belief that the Bible must be interpreted in order to be understood. And it is interesting that the most of those who have posted on this thread so far are NOT in favor of interpretation.

Of course, the resident Catholics haven’t posted on this thread. And I know for a fact that the Roman Catholic Church not only acknowledges the necessity of interpretation, but also acknowledges that because it is necessary, there is also the need for an authoritative interpreter. And that this understanding is related to the corporate nature of the Church.

Only individual interpretation has been referred to on this thread because those who responded are Protestants. And while Protestants do seem to have practical authoritative interpreters in their leadership with their acceptable Commentaries and Theology textbooks; Protestants can’t acknowledge the necessity of an authoritative interpreter without nullifying their claim of Scripture alone.

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

.

Of course, the resident Catholics haven’t posted on this thread. And I know for a fact that the Roman Catholic Church not only acknowledges the necessity of interpretation, but also acknowledges that because it is necessary, there is also the need for an authoritative interpreter. And that this understanding is related to the corporate nature of the Church.

Only individual interpretation has been referred to on this thread because those who responded are Protestants. And while Protestants do seem to have practical authoritative interpreters in their leadership with their acceptable Commentaries and Theology textbooks; Protestants can’t acknowledge the necessity of an authoritative interpreter without nullifying their claim of Scripture alone.

James,

OK, you desire a Catholic to post... Very well.

Yes, we must clearly interpret the Scriptures. While it seems apparent that the Bible would "interpret itself" in theory, in reality, this is just not the case very often. One merely needs to glance at the Apologetic threads to see disagreement in even basic interpretations of seemingly very straight forward verses ("unless you eat my flesh..."!)

For "the Bible interprets itself" to be so, EVERYONE knowledgeable about the Scriptures would have to agree on the meaning of said verses and citations. Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists. Any reader knowledgeable about the Scriptures "should" come to the same conclusion, IF the Bible "interpreted itself".

We know, from experience, though, that it does not. Nor has it - even from the first days of Christianity, when Paul appropriated the Old Testament to explain the foretelling of the Christ - and many Jews did not see the "self-interpretation" found so clearly to those of Christian bent. For example, the meaning of "virgin found with child". Clearly, the context of the BIBLE ALONE does not allow a strictly Christian interpretation. It takes someone who was already trained to SEE the Old Testament as pointing to the New, the Christ crucified, to identify such verses as pointing to Jesus. BY THEMSELVES, these prophesies are purposely vague, and CONTEXTUALLY, usually refer to a "current" event, not to something that would happen in the distant future, a la first century AD.

This is Christian "eigesis", utterly dependent upon the belief in the Risen Lord FIRST - and THEN, going to the Scriptures to interpret them with a different paradigm.

As to authority vis-a-vis Scriptural interpretation, from the Catholic mindset, we start with the Church and that it is a divinely instituted organization, built by Christ upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph 2, et al.) Presuming Christ already knew that the Church would last beyond the lives of these apostles, it seems reasonable to presume that the Apostles and Christ intended to continue to pass on the authority of the Apostles to their successors who would interpret and teach with authority for the sake of building up the Body in the service of love. And we find such intent especially in the Pastorals. As such, it would be natural that the Church as a Body is the official intepreter of Scriptures.

However, with that said, the Church rarely "RULES" on the specific breadth of what the Scriptures mean. In other words, the Church doesn't have an official "commentary" on chapter by chapter, verse by verse. It rules only when faulty interpretation threatens to undermine the "faith once given", in their opinion. Thus, the Church fought against the priest Arius when he proclaimed that Jesus was not really God in nature, not of the same substance as the FATHER Himself. THAT is when the Church will come out and state "this is what this verse means". Surprisingly, we do have quite a bit of leeway on specific verse interpretation, knowing that every verse has a literal and a spiritual sense, always pointing to Jesus Christ in some manner.

Of course, that is taught to us first, thus, the Scriptural paradigm of interpretation starts with the LITERAL Word of God, Jesus Christ. Not with the Bible, which RELATES the Word of God. Catholics are not taught the Gospel by proof-texting - the Gospel is proclaimed by witnesses.

Regards

 

[Drew]

If one really researches the sociopolitical environment, that eras genres', the traditions of the cultures they interacted with, that era's use of syncretism, then yes to me those books that were not really meant to be placed together as anthology giving way to the interpretation hop scotch that causes so many denominations, can be understood quite readily.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

But I sense that we agree on one point at least - one needs to do the hard work of understanding the context from which these various books of the Bible sprang in order to extract the proper meaning.

The "just read it and ask the Holy Spirit" to help you is perhaps well-intentioned, but it is not enough.

 

[MMarc]

Outside of interpretation, there is understanding by revelation. When Gabriel told Daniel to seal the books until the time of the end, we would only be able to discern it by revelation according to God's timetable.

I do not hold the view of the RCC that is, only priests have the authority to understand and establish doctrine above what was done by Jesus and the apostles. Just look at the Sanhedrin in Jesus day, the established church of Judaism and their leaders the Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of being ''unlearned'' and yet Jesus and the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit could run rings around them in terms of Heavenly knowledge...

The church leaders who are not righteous were blind to the depth of the Word of God. Today it is the same sadly. The elders of some major denominations are proud and therefore blind, like in the day of Jesus.

So interpretation can be very personal and or collective in scope. The leaders of denoms refuse to hear those who have not been taught by flesh and blood according to there doctrines. Sad that they believe that they alone hold all truth. Puffed up by knowledge, sad really.

Anyone with the guide of the Holy Spirit can interpret scriptures, this is why it is the living word of God.
It can mean different things to different people.

God reveals His wisdom to babes and conceals it to the wise. Go figure...

 

[Drew]

Anyone with the guide of the Holy Spirit can interpret scriptures, this is why it is the living word of God.
It can mean different things to different people.

God reveals His wisdom to babes and conceals it to the wise. Go figure...

I think I disagree with the implication here.

Not understanding the cultural / social / political context of the times have generated huge problems. A classic example: 21st century westerners read the word "soul" in the Bible and think this term denotes an immaterial consciousness-bearing entity that can survive outside the body. That is a Greek idea, entirely foreign to the Hebrew mind. Another example is the "render unto Ceasar" teaching. Jesus is not endorsing separation of church and state in that teaching - he is doing the opposite. But, you need to know certain relevant historical facts to see this.

Its interesting. No one would normally consider interpreting 2000 year old material from another culture without first understanding the relevant socio-political context. And yet we expect to open the Bible and understand it without having done the necessary hard work to understand the setting in which it was written.

 

[logical bob]

Another example is the "render unto Ceasar" teaching. Jesus is not endorsing separation of church and state in that teaching - he is doing the opposite. But, you need to know certain relevant historical facts to see this.

I think you're entirely right to stress the importance of historical context, but I disagree with you about "render unto Caeser." I'd be interested to here what those facts you refer to there are.

My understanding is that the early church had a problem with how they were received in the Roman Empire. To be seen as anti-Roman was very bad news indeed, and often a one-way ticket to the arena. The church were worshipping a crucifed man. Only three kinds of people got crucified: pirates, escaped slaves and political rebels. Jesus clearly hadn't been a pirate or an escaped slave, so the conclusion was obvious.

The gospels were written in the aftermath of the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Jewish radicalism had forced the Romans to commit a sizeable army to Judea at the same time as they had miltary issues on the Germanic border and had just been through a period of messy civil war - in AD 69 alone there were four emperors. Suffice it to say that Jewish radicalism was not popular.

On top of that, the Romans felt that their civic gods would turn nasty if they weren't worshipped properly. Christians refused to take part in civic sacrifices and that made them really unpopular because they were seen as putting their whole communities at risk.

In response to this, the Gospels fall over themselves to be Roman-friendly and to blame Jesus' death on the Jewish authorities (although if he had been condemned by a Jewish court he would have been stoned, not crucifed). Throughout Mark especially, the priests are portrayed as plotting against him. Pilate is made to be quite sympathetic to Jesus but to have his hand forced by the Jewish crowd (who in John even say "let his blood be on us and our descendents"). The centurion at the foot of the cross calls Jesus either the son of God (Mark) or an innocent man (Luke).

Against this background, I think "render unto Caeser" is designed to make Christians look like good Roman subjects who won't cause any trouble.

 

[logical bob]

Our understanding of a particular passage must stand the test of being in harmony with all of sacred writ.

Sticking my unbelieving oar in here, I think you've identified the main way in which Christians and skeptics read the Bible differently. Because I don't have that assumption that the whole thing has to be in harmony I'm open to the idea that conflicting passages are precisely that.

 

[francisdesales]

I do not hold the view of the RCC that is, only priests have the authority to understand and establish doctrine above what was done by Jesus and the apostles. Just look at the Sanhedrin in Jesus day, the established church of Judaism and their leaders the Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of being ''unlearned'' and yet Jesus and the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit could run rings around them in terms of Heavenly knowledge...

The Catholic Church's priests do not have that authority, either. The "Magesterium" - the successors of the Apostles - are the only ones who have the power to BIND AND LOOSEN. In other words, to sort out explanations of what we would call "doctrines".

Naturally, these men, also, have "heavenly knowledge", since the Spirit has been promised to the Church, and specifically to those who are shepherds of the flock. It depends upon having faith that God is doing what He promised to do - to guide the Church to all truths and to keep it the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church leaders who are not righteous were blind to the depth of the Word of God. Today it is the same sadly. The elders of some major denominations are proud and therefore blind, like in the day of Jesus.

One doesn't necessarily need to be "righteous" to know something about the depth of the Word of God. No doubt, bad priests and Prot. pastors who abused some of their flock, nevertheless, knew something about the Word of God. Apparently, knowledge and action are not necessarily related in humans...

So interpretation can be very personal and or collective in scope. The leaders of denoms refuse to hear those who have not been taught by flesh and blood according to there doctrines. Sad that they believe that they alone hold all truth. Puffed up by knowledge, sad really.

I am not aware of any organization that believe they ALONE have ALL the truth, as you say. No doubt, most believe they hold more truth than others. Otherwise, the Apologetic threads would be bare...

Anyone with the guide of the Holy Spirit can interpret scriptures, this is why it is the living word of God.
It can mean different things to different people.

Guides can be blind. The sheep do not necessarily know the difference. The Scriptures clearly note that believers can be led astray by false teachers, thus, ruling out your idea of how the Spirit leads within the Church.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Anyone with the guide of the Holy Spirit can interpret scriptures, this is why it is the living word of God.
It can mean different things to different people.

God reveals His wisdom to babes and conceals it to the wise. Go figure...

I think I disagree with the implication here.

Not understanding the cultural / social / political context of the times have generated huge problems. A classic example: 21st century westerners read the word "soul" in the Bible and think this term denotes an immaterial consciousness-bearing entity that can survive outside the body. That is a Greek idea, entirely foreign to the Hebrew mind. Another example is the "render unto Ceasar" teaching. Jesus is not endorsing separation of church and state in that teaching - he is doing the opposite. But, you need to know certain relevant historical facts to see this.

Its interesting. No one would normally consider interpreting 2000 year old material from another culture without first understanding the relevant socio-political context. And yet we expect to open the Bible and understand it without having done the necessary hard work to understand the setting in which it was written.

One's human reasoning and understanding too often gets in the way of the Holy Spirit, and even the most simple among us can have greater spiritual insight than any scholar or historian.

It's the Holy Spirit that enlightens the Word of God to those who come humbly as little children.