-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I don't know about your particular example, but in general, I don't think so. The texts aren't all meant to be read in the same way - a genealogy is not the same thing as a psalm. A prophecy communicated in vague images, if read in the same way we'd read a description of Jesus' last days, would lead to strange theologies. If we were to read Jesus' crucifixion with the same skepticism with which we'd read one of his parables, we might end up thinking his crucifixion is just an object lesson.
The Bible contains a number of genres and this has always been recognized. Flattening it seems to serve no purpose.
The Bible contains a number of genres and this has always been recognized. Flattening it seems to serve no purpose.
Fortunately, a lot of it is simply labeled. This is a song of whoever, a lament of blank, a genealogy, a parable to the crowds. The epistles, if I remember correctly, usually tell us to whom they were written and for what purpose. Luke lays it out pretty clearly in his first couple of sentences. The rest of it, what doesn't receive a clear label, isn't too difficult. When someone says something is "like" something, we know we're dealing with a simile, etc., and the text doesn't ever seem to hide its purposes.
By this point, it seems like everything has been pretty solidly classified and there aren't too many who would have a case for disagreement. Do you have any passages that might be difficult to place into a genre?
By this point, it seems like everything has been pretty solidly classified and there aren't too many who would have a case for disagreement. Do you have any passages that might be difficult to place into a genre?
M
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
THe Bible is a spiritual book. All that is done in the natural of the Bible PARALLELLS what is going on in the spiritual realm.
Dreams and visions, and tongues are the only things in the Bible that interpretations are given THROUGH man. All else is done by Holy Spirit. Hold every thought captive to the word of God.
Maggie
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
THe Bible is a spiritual book. All that is done in the natural of the Bible PARALLELLS what is going on in the spiritual realm.
Dreams and visions, and tongues are the only things in the Bible that interpretations are given THROUGH man. All else is done by Holy Spirit. Hold every thought captive to the word of God.
Maggie
E
If we work from the assumption that the genres are pretty well classified, then the application of those genres would need to be classified as well, as an example; The Song of Solomon is a work of a man's love for a woman and a woman's love for a man. Many take the Song of Solomon and say it is meant to be seen as God's love for the Church. The questions would be:
Does the primary reading of the Song of Solomon set aside for a symbolic or allegorical or symbolic meaning?
Can the primary meaning and a secondary meaning be retained at the same time?
What type of textual evidence would be needed to infer a secondary allegorical or symbolic meaning?
Can later Biblical texts give illumination to earlier texts, and if so, how lightly or heavily should these be applied?
As a note, anybody is free to address any questions from anywhere in this thread, but please reference the question for the sake of clarity
Does the primary reading of the Song of Solomon set aside for a symbolic or allegorical or symbolic meaning?
Can the primary meaning and a secondary meaning be retained at the same time?
What type of textual evidence would be needed to infer a secondary allegorical or symbolic meaning?
Can later Biblical texts give illumination to earlier texts, and if so, how lightly or heavily should these be applied?
As a note, anybody is free to address any questions from anywhere in this thread, but please reference the question for the sake of clarity
E
Hi, Maggie,
In saying that the Bible is a spiritual book (and I don't doubt that), how does one extend that into a method of interpretation? Does the Holy Spirit provide the method as we learn, or does the Spirit communicate meaning to us, and we in turn test the spirit as bereans and/or with two or three witnesses?
If according Scripture things spiritual parallel those things in the natural, what method can be used to demonstrate it to be true?
I am not questioning whether what your saying is true, but only in what interpretational method was used to reach these conclusions. If someone else comes up with other conclusions, how do we determine which is correct?
In saying that the Bible is a spiritual book (and I don't doubt that), how does one extend that into a method of interpretation? Does the Holy Spirit provide the method as we learn, or does the Spirit communicate meaning to us, and we in turn test the spirit as bereans and/or with two or three witnesses?
If according Scripture things spiritual parallel those things in the natural, what method can be used to demonstrate it to be true?
I am not questioning whether what your saying is true, but only in what interpretational method was used to reach these conclusions. If someone else comes up with other conclusions, how do we determine which is correct?
E
What you've offered is a good approach. It appears based on a grammatical method (if I'm wrong in this assumption please let me know).
Any grammatical method is based on word placement and definitions. If we take the phrase "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness", it's meaning is pretty clear, as well as the application, but when we get to the word "righteousness". How this word is defined can create some theological turmoil, especially in light of the New Testament.
What then is the method to use to find a proper definition for this word?
Any grammatical method is based on word placement and definitions. If we take the phrase "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness", it's meaning is pretty clear, as well as the application, but when we get to the word "righteousness". How this word is defined can create some theological turmoil, especially in light of the New Testament.
What then is the method to use to find a proper definition for this word?
D
I believe that God speaks to each of us through the Scriptures. I also believe that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..." (2 Timothy 3:16) Righteousness is defined in the dictionary as "morally right or justifiable,...acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous.". Therefore, I believe that righteousness can be summed up in Jesus' description of the great commandments,“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:36-39, among other verses) Any more detailed definition is (dare I say it) a matter of interpretation.
Therefore, I believe that there is not one right way to interpret Scripture. It is God who determines the correct method for any individual, depending on what He is trying to communicate to that individual. I believe that if you open your heart and open your mind, and truly seek God's mind and heart through His Word, He will provide you with the correct interpretation.
Therefore, I believe that there is not one right way to interpret Scripture. It is God who determines the correct method for any individual, depending on what He is trying to communicate to that individual. I believe that if you open your heart and open your mind, and truly seek God's mind and heart through His Word, He will provide you with the correct interpretation.
The only requirements necessary are for interpreting the scriptures are;
(a) The holy bible
(b) The holy spirit
The stories of Abraham are quite significant, though simple and easy to understand
The prophecies of Isaiah need a little more attention and help with the holy spirit as it has to fit the whole plan of God.
E
As was said earlier, there are different genres, and all genre's should be interpreted, as an earlier post says, not according to our own private interpretations. but the way God intended them to be interpreted.
As was also shown, God spoke in parables. These are not literal stories, but a message is to be taken from the symbolic message Christ was trying to show.
However this does not mean we should interpret all of scripture this way.
Prophesy. All prophetic scripture is used to show God is God and he gave the message, in other words, God is the only one who can know what will happen 1000 years from now. No other God, or man can. So if God says "such and such" will happen in 7 years, and the thing does not happen in 7 literal years. God lied and is considered a fraud. This is what separates him from False God.
So prophesy should be taken literally not allegorically.
As for anything else. I rule of thumb I use is scripture can not contradict. So when I see Paul say "Abraham was was found by faith and not works (paraphrase) and James say the total opposite. I have two choices.
1. One of them was wrong (which would invalidate scripture)
2. I must interpret in a way in which both James and Paul, although appear to be saying something which is apposed to each other, But where they are in harmony with each other.
In other words, I make my belief fit context of scripture, and not make scripture fit my belief. If my belief in a passage causes a contradiction. I must be in error on my interpretation of one of the two contradicting passages.
Finally. Context. Scripture was not written in verse form. It was written as letters, or literal books. Thus we should not try to take a "verse" by itself to back our own personal belief, but should look at context of the whole passage in question.
We can make any sentence of any book in scripture say anything we want. It is context which shows if our belief is our own "private" interpretation. Or lines up with Gods word.
As was also shown, God spoke in parables. These are not literal stories, but a message is to be taken from the symbolic message Christ was trying to show.
However this does not mean we should interpret all of scripture this way.
Prophesy. All prophetic scripture is used to show God is God and he gave the message, in other words, God is the only one who can know what will happen 1000 years from now. No other God, or man can. So if God says "such and such" will happen in 7 years, and the thing does not happen in 7 literal years. God lied and is considered a fraud. This is what separates him from False God.
So prophesy should be taken literally not allegorically.
As for anything else. I rule of thumb I use is scripture can not contradict. So when I see Paul say "Abraham was was found by faith and not works (paraphrase) and James say the total opposite. I have two choices.
1. One of them was wrong (which would invalidate scripture)
2. I must interpret in a way in which both James and Paul, although appear to be saying something which is apposed to each other, But where they are in harmony with each other.
In other words, I make my belief fit context of scripture, and not make scripture fit my belief. If my belief in a passage causes a contradiction. I must be in error on my interpretation of one of the two contradicting passages.
Finally. Context. Scripture was not written in verse form. It was written as letters, or literal books. Thus we should not try to take a "verse" by itself to back our own personal belief, but should look at context of the whole passage in question.
We can make any sentence of any book in scripture say anything we want. It is context which shows if our belief is our own "private" interpretation. Or lines up with Gods word.