On Interpretation of Scripture

[HumbleThinker]

Second, I have for a long time found no need for 100% certainty, even in faith, and have found it fraught with problems. What I have, though, is 100% confidence that God exists, that we have a relationship, and that Christ is my Lord and Savior. Confidence is what is important because that, not certainty, is what leads to perseverance and a deeper relationship with God. I found that it leads me away from the still waters, while God was leading me towards them. So yes, this entire relationship of mine can be a huge case of self-delusion and taking an ancient religious text a little too seriously, but that's a risk I'm willing to take and I am 100% confident that I am not mistaken on this point.

Even Satan knows God is real. That is a very dangerous place to be in, not knowing if you are saved, just taking a chance. You need to make scripture personal to your walk in Him and not depend so much on your own understanding ... Proverbs 3:5-6

Everything has an element of chance in it. In terms of absolute objective certainty, no I don't know that I'm saved. But a relationship with God, like religion in general, isn't objective but subjective. It is a personal matter. And my personal, subjective experience grants my 100% confidence that I am saved. The only problem with invoking Proverbs 3:5 here is that in practical terms, it really only works in a vacuum, if I am the only person on the planet. But I'm not, and to communicate and receive guidance from others, including priests, requires that I be influenced by their understanding. So from my experience, the Proverb is absolutely true, but is more often than not misused so that someone subtly makes you depend on THEIR understanding instead of your own and most definitely instead of God's. You see what I mean?

Sorry, but I could not follow what you are trying to say. Proverbs 3:5-6 stated:

 

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.

 

This scripture never tells us to lean on any other persons understanding, as you point to, but on Him and Him alone.

Indeed. The point I was trying to make in that jumble of words was that God, from my experience, does not necessarily have direct revelation in mind when He tells us to trust in Him and not our own understandings. And anything understanding that is not direct revelation will rely on either yourself or someone else. This verse becomes dangerous in how easy it is for others to misuse by claiming that you should not trust in your own understanding but God's when what they really mean is that you should trust in their understanding instead of your own or God's. I don't see trusting in God and not in our own understanding as necessarily mutually exclusive from any means of gathering knowledge or information, all of which come from God anyway, through some way other than direct revelation. Hopefully this jumble of words makes slightly more sense

[Guest ninhao]

 

 

Hello HumbleThinker,

 

For my interest what do you say the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4 is ?

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

Now these kinds of verses are what I think of when I think of someone trying to make a case for the Bible being the Word of God. It's verses like this where I can understand how many can feel confident in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and can concede the possibility that I am making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. It is quite conceivable that it is speaking of Scripture since Paul is speaking of Old Testament Scripture here. Though Paul could also be specifically talking about the words God spoke since Paul is putting emphasis on God swearing and one hearing his voice earlier in the chapter. Personally, I would connect this with verses like Ephesians 6:17: "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Here it seems to be talking about some specific words, potentially from Scripture, that the Spirit prompts in us to defeat what is opposing us and not necessarily the Bible itself, though again I could be splitting hairs here. Or it could be talking about the Spirit itself, though I am not familiar with the Greek here or if the Spirit is referred to as the word of God in other portions of the Bible.

 

 

Ok and similarly what do you suggest 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to ?

 

2Ti 3:16-17  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  (17)  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[GoldenEagle]

To add to what Ninhao is saying... What do you make of these passages HumbleThinker?

Word of truth = Word of the Gospel = Word of God... I believe

Matt. 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

2 Tim. 2:15

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

 

1 Thess. 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

 

1 Cor. 2:13

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

 

James 1:18

Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

 

Rev. 1:2   

Who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 

 

 

God bless,

GE

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

 

So  since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right?

[HumbleThinker]

Hello HumbleThinker,

 

For my interest what do you say the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4 is ?

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Now these kinds of verses are what I think of when I think of someone trying to make a case for the Bible being the Word of God. It's verses like this where I can understand how many can feel confident in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and can concede the possibility that I am making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. It is quite conceivable that it is speaking of Scripture since Paul is speaking of Old Testament Scripture here. Though Paul could also be specifically talking about the words God spoke since Paul is putting emphasis on God swearing and one hearing his voice earlier in the chapter. Personally, I would connect this with verses like Ephesians 6:17: "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Here it seems to be talking about some specific words, potentially from Scripture, that the Spirit prompts in us to defeat what is opposing us and not necessarily the Bible itself, though again I could be splitting hairs here. Or it could be talking about the Spirit itself, though I am not familiar with the Greek here or if the Spirit is referred to as the word of God in other portions of the Bible.

 

Ok and similarly what do you suggest 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to ?

 

2Ti 3:16-17  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  (17)  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It certainly is speaking of Scripture. But it being inspired by God, thus making it profitable, does not make it the Word of God in my usage of the term. As GoldenEagle and I have concluded, we are using the term differently. He is using it in a manner that consolidates many of the aspects we both accept about the Bible including inspiration. I am using it in in reference to the Word which is spoken of in the opening chapter of John, which has qualities that the Bible does not. So this whole issue could likely ust be one of semantics.

[HumbleThinker]

Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

So  since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right?

In as much as He intends it to not have error. If speaking from a mistaken position about the size of mustard seeds compared to all seeds for example would better serve His spiritual purposes, I see no reason why He would correct it. Correcting this understandably mistaken notion of the people at the time would not serve any purpose and would likely just get in the way. As I believe you said before, Jesus was not teaching a course in biology. Jesus of course being both human and divine would presumably know that there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed, but His audience would not nor would they particularly need to. Other than things like this, though, no there would be no error.

[Guest shiloh357]

It certainly is speaking of Scripture. But it being inspired by God, thus making it profitable, does not make it the Word of God in my usage of the term.

 

That's the problem.   You are trying to have a discussion based on how YOU define kety terms and you are expecting to make YOUR defintitions of those terms the working definitions for the conversation.  Essentially, what you are doing isn't "interpretation."  You are trying define the Bible is your own way according to what you are prepared to accept based upon your agenda to force the Bible to be subserviant to the natural world and to science.

Edited December 17, 2013 by shiloh357
<<< Edited out insult please follow the terms of service... >>>

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

So  since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right?

 

In as much as He intends it to not have error. If speaking from a mistaken position about the size of mustard seeds compared to all seeds for example would better serve His spiritual purposes, I see no reason why He would correct it. Correcting this understandably mistaken notion of the people at the time would not serve any purpose and would likely just get in the way. As I believe you said before, Jesus was not teaching a course in biology. Jesus of course being both human and divine would presumably know that there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed, but His audience would not nor would they particularly need to. Other than things like this, though, no there would be no error.

 

Do you not understand that in ancient times, they used figurative language when they spoke and in this case, Jesus was using hyperbole???   Or is that just supposed to belong to modern times.  

 

THe problem with your approach to the Bible is that you can't tell the difference bewteen plain speech and figurative devices in the text.  When the Bible says that the mountains melt like wax in the presence of God, do you assume that they were so stupid as to believe that mountains actually melt, or is it more likely that they were using figurative language?   The more you post, the more clear it becomes that you don't have a clue when it comes how to interpret the Bible.

 

 

But Jesus treats Adam as historical.   How can Jesus be God and make that kind of error if Adam isn't really historical.  The rest of the NT also treasts Adam as historical.  How does your questionable handling of Scripture trump the words of Jesus?

[HumbleThinker]

To add to what Ninhao is saying... What do you make of these passages HumbleThinker?

Word of truth = Word of the Gospel = Word of God... I believe

Matt. 4:4

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

2 Tim. 2:15

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

 

1 Thess. 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

 

1 Cor. 2:13

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

 

James 1:18

Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

 

Rev. 1:2   

Who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 

 

 

God bless,

GE

These are indeed other examples I think of when I think of one making a very good argument for the Bible being the Word of God. I personally would not connect "word of truth" to "Word of God" in the verses in that way, but it does make for a pretty solid argument. I see Matthew 4:4 as speaking about the words God actually spoke or spoke through others. 2 Timothy 2:16 very well could be talking about Scripture or just about doctrine in general if we look to verse 18. Chronology of the early Church is not one of my strong suits, so I do not know how much Scripture other than the OT of course would have been in circulation at this point. But then it could also just be juxtaposing words of truth with the false and unpragmatic words spoken about in the surrounding verses. 2 Cor. 2:13 is speaking about the wisdom given to them by the Holy Spirit as opposed to worldly "wisdom" men come up with on their own. James 1:18 seems to be speaking about the Gospel, which you seem to be implying in the beginning of your post. And Revlation 1:2 certainly would not have John testifying about Scripture but testifying about those same things which he included in his Gospel.

Overall, I can definitely see strong reasons for calling the Bible the Word of God, and I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with doing that. I just think it may be co=opting a phrase that I think is used completely differently elsewhere and thus can cause some confusion that could be avoided. Then again, the phrase, at least in the English translations of the Bible, is used when speaking about connected but distinctly different things. So like I said, this is probably more semantics than anything else. It has been a nice conversation, though, and I've definitely learned some things.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

It certainly is speaking of Scripture. But it being inspired by God, thus making it profitable, does not make it the Word of God in my usage of the term.

That's the problem.   You are trying to have a discussion based on how YOU define kety terms and you are expecting to make YOUR defintitions of those terms the working definitions for the conversation.  Essentially, what you are doing isn't "interpretation."  You are trying define the Bible is your own way according to what you are prepared to accept based upon your agenda to force the Bible to be subserviant to the natural world and to science.

Which is the point of the whole conversation: to root out how much of this is semantics and how much of it is substantial. Take a chill pill.

 

Edited December 17, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< edited for quoted post >>>