bible interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enga
  • Start date Start date
  • 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.
Because in your post you were encouraging a member to put human authority above Scripture; and because doing so is the essense of heresy.
 
MarcR said:
Because in your post you were encouraging a member to put human authority above Scripture; and because doing so is the essense of heresy.
Click to expand...

Every teaching pastor and elder is doing just that, in every denomination you can name, and Luther abhorred it, indeed tens of thousands of non denominationals here do just that.

Time to recognise the problem you have with authority in Protestantism generally, leading to the " heartbreaking" thread.And all the OSAS arguments here, many more versions of Eucharist etc.

Discuss the problem, not me.
 
Bible interpretation is called "hermeneutics." It is both a science and an art.

Sadly, most people do not have a clue the basics of how to rightly divide the Word of God, and that is where errors creep in.

I was going to do a whole post on good hermeneutics, and correct exegesis, which is looking into the words, the passages and taking OUT of them what God is saying, rather than taking an opinion or dogma, and reading into the Bible.

I may get around to that post yet, if my health would just improve a tiny bit!


"Exegesis is the first part of the bible interpretation process.Essentially, it is the grammatical, historical and cultural study of a passage of the Bible to try to determine its meaning to the original audience.
It is trying to answer the question: "What was God trying to say to the original hearers of a particular text?"
Too often we start from the perspective of what this texts means to me. It is a subjective way to read the Scriptures and has the potential to severely misinterpret a passage of Scripture.
Thus, it is critically important to engage in exegesis to try to the original message of the author.
In order to understand the word of God for our modern context, we must first understand the word of God for its ancient context."

"Hermeneutics, properly speaking is the art and science of biblical interpretation and comes from the Greek term, hermeneuo, which means to interpret or to explain.
Hermeneutics essentially incorporates all of the tools and techniques that make up the process of biblical interpretation.
It not only includes exegesis (the study of the Bible to understand a passage in its ancient context), but also includes models for applying a biblical passage to a modern context.
As mentioned in our previous example, you cannot jump directly from the biblical passage to our modern context without doing an injustice to the Bible and without coming up with some strange doctrine or practice within the Christian church."

Bible Interpretation - Lesson 1.2 - Defining Exegesis and Hermeneutics

This is seriously the reason for much of the disagreements that go on in the church today. And no, the RCC does not have a superior right to interpret the Bible, based on false claims of apostolic succession.

And yes, some people don't really know Jesus at all, do not have the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and lives, and that can lead to very wrongly interpreting the Bible.

And of course, there are the many with a favourite doctrine that they pull Scriptures out of context to prove their point. That is where a good understanding of hermeneutics comes in. And why those bad doctrines keep coming back, because people do not properly interpret the Bible.
 
Because MOST here claim to be "Sola Scriptura" yet they are actually SOLO Scriptura and don't even attend a church and think God has given them miraculous wisdom and revelatio which leads to demonic heresies.
I've seen so many self proclaimed prophets here it's so funny!
 
Angela53510 said:
Bible interpretation is called "hermeneutics." It is both a science and an art.

Sadly, most people do not have a clue the basics of how to rightly divide the Word of God, and that is where errors creep in.

I was going to do a whole post on good hermeneutics, and correct exegesis, which is looking into the words, the passages and taking OUT of them what God is saying, rather than taking an opinion or dogma, and reading into the Bible.

I may get around to that post yet, if my health would just improve a tiny bit!


"Exegesis is the first part of the bible interpretation process.Essentially, it is the grammatical, historical and cultural study of a passage of the Bible to try to determine its meaning to the original audience.
It is trying to answer the question: "What was God trying to say to the original hearers of a particular text?"
Too often we start from the perspective of what this texts means to me. It is a subjective way to read the Scriptures and has the potential to severely misinterpret a passage of Scripture.
Thus, it is critically important to engage in exegesis to try to the original message of the author.
In order to understand the word of God for our modern context, we must first understand the word of God for its ancient context."

"Hermeneutics, properly speaking is the art and science of biblical interpretation and comes from the Greek term, hermeneuo, which means to interpret or to explain.
Hermeneutics essentially incorporates all of the tools and techniques that make up the process of biblical interpretation.
It not only includes exegesis (the study of the Bible to understand a passage in its ancient context), but also includes models for applying a biblical passage to a modern context.
As mentioned in our previous example, you cannot jump directly from the biblical passage to our modern context without doing an injustice to the Bible and without coming up with some strange doctrine or practice within the Christian church."

Bible Interpretation - Lesson 1.2 - Defining Exegesis and Hermeneutics

This is seriously the reason for much of the disagreements that go on in the church today. And no, the RCC does not have a superior right to interpret the Bible, based on false claims of apostolic succession.

And yes, some people don't really know Jesus at all, do not have the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and lives, and that can lead to very wrongly interpreting the Bible.

And of course, there are the many with a favourite doctrine that they pull Scriptures out of context to prove their point. That is where a good understanding of hermeneutics comes in. And why those bad doctrines keep coming back, because people do not properly interpret the Bible.
Click to expand...

Are you saying only you know how to do this properly - everyone else is wrong?

Sorry to personalize it, but this is a real problem, and everyone seems to think they or their sect alone know how, including you - an attitude Luther despised and said so.

You dislike the doctrine of succession. I accept that. But the early church was sacramental, liturgical, had priesthood, appointed bishops in succession, believed in real presence, and despite claims of apostasy little has changed in doctrine to RCC as it is now, which is still sacramental, liturgical, believes in real presence. Little changes.

But post reformation doctrines elsewhere has been in continuous flux and fracture. Take the Presbyterians, now pandering to populist policy, with a lot of different flavours and doctrines opposed between congregations

How can that be if they as good guys know how to interpret the bible? Fact is they put teaching elders in charge of doctrine, the same authority you abhor in the pope.

So are only you right in your opinion? A one lady true church?
 
mikeuk said:
Are you saying only you know how to do this properly - everyone else is wrong?

Sorry to personalize it, but this is a real problem, and everyone seems to think they or their sect alone know how, including you - an attitude Luther despised and said so.

You dislike the doctrine of succession. I accept that. But the early church was sacramental, liturgical, had priesthood, appointed bishops in succession, believed in real presence, and despite claims of apostasy little has changed in doctrine to RCC as it is now, which is still sacramental, liturgical, believes in real presence. Little changes.

But post reformation doctrines elsewhere has been in continuous flux and fracture. Take the Presbyterians, now pandering to populist policy, with a lot of different flavours and doctrines opposed between congregations

How can that be if they as good guys know how to interpret the bible? Fact is they put teaching elders in charge of doctrine, the same authority you abhor in the pope.

So are only you right in your opinion? A one lady true church?
Click to expand...

I did not invent this method, and if you took the time to actually look at the method, you would understand why ALL scholars use it. I have studied it, of course, and it works! But not my invention.

But carry on with your RCC brainwashed nonsense. Why would you want to learn the truth about almost everything about the Catholic Church being wrong??

PS. Besides, I thought you were threatening to leave in your post the other day! Definitely leaving, as I read it.
 
Angela53510 said:
I did not invent this method, and if you took the time to actually look at the method, you would understand why ALL scholars use it. I have studied it, of course, and it works! But not my invention.

But carry on with your RCC brainwashed nonsense. Why would you want to learn the truth about almost everything about the Catholic Church being wrong??

PS. Besides, I thought you were threatening to leave in your post the other day! Definitely leaving, as I read it.
Click to expand...

Forget RCC, it is not the thread topic.

Why if the method all scholars use is the correct one, do none of those scholars agree? Leading to all the variations?

I came back because finally someone is asking the most fundamental question of all about the reformation - the total disagreement between reformationists. If they have the truth why do none agree?

And note Luther's exasperation and ultimately doubts about the monster he so created, acknowledging the fact that he was blind to the consequences of what he started, and considered that the only way back to unity was the councils he had previously criticised. See the quotes.
 
mikeuk said:
Spare me the anti RCC stuff, I know it is the forum comfort zone because it is pretty much all you agree on. But this thread is not about that.

Why so many interpretations, if the truth were so obvious and easy to discern. Check out the average OSAS thread and see several mutually exclusive, but equally promoted interpretations all of whom claim the same inspiration. And on every other issue people here are massively divided as are their denominations.

If the bible is the absolute standard, why does the bible contradict that, saying the pillar and foundation of truth is the church? We accept the nt as true, but where does it say it is the whole truth? The last verse of john says it is not!

So stop RCC bashing and explain why tens of thousands of denominations have happened all passionately in disagreement, but believing they have taken the " true " meaning?

This is not an RCC problem it is a post reformation problem highlighted by
Luther, a question of authority. Discuss the problem not RCC

The OP has identified the essential problem post reformation, do any of you have an answer -,Luther did and I quoted it.
Click to expand...

saying the pillar and foundation of truth is the church? This is NOT Scripture! This is heresy!

The pillar and foundation of Truth is The Word Of God!
 
MarcR said:
saying the pillar and foundation of truth is the church? This is NOT Scripture! This is heresy!

The pillar and foundation of Truth is The Word Of God!
Click to expand...

1 Timothy 3-15 - suggest you study before criticise.

By the way- we agree on "sola dei verbum" just not on sola scriptura.
 
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
 
1 Ti 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
KJV


the pillar and ground of the truth describes God, NOT the church. Admittedly more obvious in the Greek than in the English.
 
DesiredHaven said:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Click to expand...

The point is, that is made as clear statement about the church. " pillar and foundation of truth"
Nowhere does the bible imake similar claims for scripture, although elsewhere it says " all scripture is valuable " to paraphrase, nowhere does it say it is the foundation of truth, or indeed the whole truth.

And that is inevitably true. The NT as we know it did not exist for a couple of centuries, so early Christians were not bible Christians they were taught as Paul said by traditions in word of mouth and letter

Only when bibles became cheap did bible Christianity as we know it become possible, till then it was only used in liturgy or scholarly endeavours. The history of the New Testament and how it was created matters.
 
MarcR said:
1 Ti 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
KJV


the pillar and ground of the truth describes God, NOT the church. Admittedly more obvious in the Greek than in the English.
Click to expand...


Not obvious. Indeed a convenient but false misrepresentation, on your part.
Even Calvin does not agree with you , let alone an army of Protestant and catholic scholars.
Calvin just disputes whether the church so referred is the catholic one! As I said study it before comment!
 
mikeuk said:
Not obvious. Indeed a convenient but false misrepresentation, on your part.
Even Calvin does not agree with you , let alone an army of Protestant and catholic scholars.
Calvin just disputes whether the church so referred is the catholic one! As I said study it before comment!
Click to expand...

Like the above cited (experts) mean a thing.....so you base your belief on Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars and Calvin......OOOOOOOHHHHHHH such excellent sources of truth....I about puked!
 
mikeuk said:
The point is, that is made as clear statement about the church. " pillar and foundation of truth"
Nowhere does the bible imake similar claims for scripture, although elsewhere it says " all scripture is valuable " to paraphrase, nowhere does it say it is the foundation of truth, or indeed the whole truth.

And that is inevitably true. The NT as we know it did not exist for a couple of centuries, so early Christians were not bible Christians they were taught as Paul said by traditions in word of mouth and letter

Only when bibles became cheap did bible Christianity as we know it become possible, till then it was only used in liturgy or scholarly endeavours. The history of the New Testament and how it was created matters.
Click to expand...

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
This Church then would hold out the word of life being sanctified by truth and use the word of truth.

If they actually are the ground of it (the truth)

There is ministries for the perfecting of the saints. It makes sense, that if all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. That they would utilize the same.


 
dcontroversal said:
Like the above cited (experts) mean a thing.....so you base your belief on Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars and Calvin......OOOOOOOHHHHHHH such excellent sources of truth....I about puked!
Click to expand...


The point I make is who do you trust? Angela says " scholars" using hermeneutics, are therefore trustworthy, yet they all disagree with each other, and on the meaning of 1 tim 3-15 do we trust Marc R when they are more or less united in disagreeing with him.

You have a passionate view of OSAS, shared by some, but equally vocally disagreed y others all claims scripture and discerning the spirit, so which of you should I believe?

The fact is when Luther broke from the magisterium, he removed the only authority that had bound the church till then, and in so doing it became open season for all to disagree, and 10000 disagreements later all we have is a hopelessly fractured church in which every pastor is made authority

It is a serious problem.
You all hate RCC but at least it has an answer to authority and therefore stable and unified doctrine.
So this is not a question for RCC

It is a question of authority for Protestants post reformation. There is none.
 
Last edited:
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And the I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

There is my answer to the OP.
 
elf3 said:
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And the I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

There is my answer to the OP.
Click to expand...

Problem is elf, that just confirms that some have it so badly wrong they cannot enter heaven.

It does not help the OP to work out who has it right of so many variations or why there are so many.
 
mikeuk said:
Problem is elf, that just confirms that some have it so badly wrong they cannot enter heaven.

It does not help the OP to work out who has it right of so many variations or why there are so many.
Click to expand...

And that there is the problem. Trying to find out "who has it right". I say I am right you say you are right. Well what about the Holy Spirit? Shouldn't we rely on the Holy Spirit instead of what others say? If we rely wholly upon the Holy Spirit for correct interpretation and understanding of Scripture then you will get it right.

I could tell you my doctrine all day but the Holy Spirit is the only person who can tell you what is correct. Yep I believe I am correct but it's not me you should believe is it :)
 
The basis for Christianity is the Gospel of Christ for without the Gospel there is no Christianity.

Some right now might be wondering what I believe so base everything I believe off the Gospel of Christ then you will know what I believe. 1 Cor 15:3 "that Christ died for out sins according to Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures".

But again don't believe what I say but pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back