On Interpretation of Scripture

[HumbleThinker]

The Bible doesn’t give us an age, but it is certainly not 4.5 billion years old.  The Bible claims by inspiration of God that He made it six regular days.   If you disbelieve that claim,  then you are calling God a liar.   If God can’t get it straight, in Genesis 1, why should anyone trust anything else He has to say down the line.  If the first three chapters of Genesis are false then there is no reason to put faith in anything else God has to say, is there? 

 

There really is no place for you to sit on the fence here.  Either you believe the Bible or yoy don’t.  It is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  God is either 100% true and correct in every word, or He is not worthy of anyone’s faith.

You are calling God a liar through His Creation. This is why understanding of His Creation is necessary. It prevents us from holding views that are in conflict with it. It also equips those who would wish to argue with what God's Creation reveals to actually discuss it instead of just repeatedly stating their interpretation of Scripture and implying that it is infallible.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The Bible doesn’t give us an age, but it is certainly not 4.5 billion years old.  The Bible claims by inspiration of God that He made it six regular days.   If you disbelieve that claim,  then you are calling God a liar.   If God can’t get it straight, in Genesis 1, why should anyone trust anything else He has to say down the line.  If the first three chapters of Genesis are false then there is no reason to put faith in anything else God has to say, is there? 

 

There really is no place for you to sit on the fence here.  Either you believe the Bible or yoy don’t.  It is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  God is either 100% true and correct in every word, or He is not worthy of anyone’s faith.

You are calling God a liar through His Creation. This is why understanding of His Creation is necessary. It prevents us from holding views that are in conflict with it. It also equips those who would wish to argue with what God's Creation reveals to actually discuss it instead of just repeatedly stating their interpretation of Scripture and implying that it is infallible.

 

That is just absurd  I am not calling God a liar through creation.   I am saying that the Bible clearly reveals that the earth is not as old as scientists say.  I am saying that science is wrong and the Bible is right.  

 

Placing my certainty in something that is demonstrably false by God's own Creation is impossible for me as it would violate my faith.

 

So you are placing science as a greater authority than the Bible?  

 

If God didn't grant it to you from on high, then yes it is your interpretation.

 

Nope, that is not how intepretation works. You are confusing interpretation how it is applied. Exegesis is an objective process and thus interpretation is objective.  Application is subjective and is personal.   Interpretation simply arrives at determining what kind of text we are dealing with.

 

There is inerrancy in the since that the author's were inspired and so did not err in matter's relating to theology. And then there is inerrancy that every minute word in the original manuscripts is absolutely perfect as God intended. This is just to name two.

 

 

Nope, you don't understand inerrancy as it relates to the Bible.  Inerrancy doesn't cover scribal errors like mispelled words or those types of textual variants.   Inerancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.  That's it.  Nothing else matters inerrancy.  Everything in the Bible is truthfully recorded.

 

And the human conception of that doctrine is nowhere found in the Bible. The "doctrine of inspiration" found in the Bible does not say what you are making it say.

 

 

Yes it does, even if you lack the integrity or basic honesty to face up to it. 

 

His Creation says otherwise. His Creation says that the things told to have happened over 6 days happened over many millions of years.

 

The Bible is true and you are wrong.  I believe the Bible over science.  I have chosen that the Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and practice for me.   You obviously place the findings of science above the Bible.

 

You and I are never going to agree, and I have pretty much said all I can say about exegesis to you without repeating myself.  You don't understand how REAL biblical exegesis works and frankly I don't think you care.   You have created a framework that suits what you are prepared to accept in the Bible whereas, I have complete faith in God and in His integrity and the integrity of the Bible.  So there is no reason for me to continue a fruitless discussion with you, as you and I have no common ground on which to meet.

[HumbleThinker]

That is just absurd  I am not calling God a liar through creation.   I am saying that the Bible clearly reveals that the earth is not as old as scientists say.  I am saying that science is wrong and the Bible is right.

And I'm saying that Creation says that the earth is older than you think the Bible says it is. I'm saying Creation is right and hermeneutics is wrong, specifically yours. Do you notice the false equivalence in both our statements here? Both are comparing an act of God with the method by which the other act of God is understood. The proper comparison is between the Bible and Creation and science and hermeneutics. The Bible and Creation do not conflict. The science of the vast majority of relevant scientists conflicts with your hermeneutics. Just as clearly as you think the Bible says the Earth is young in relation to science's claims, which you can only determine through hermeneutics, I think Creation clearly says the Earth is ancient, which I can only determine through science.

 

 

So you are placing science as a greater authority than the Bible?

Again, false equivalence. I'm placing Creation above the Bible on matters of science. Creation is natural and has a natural purpose, whereas the Bible is spiritual and has a spiritual purpose. The Bible is far greater on matters of the spirit.

 

 

Nope, that is not how intepretation works. You are confusing interpretation how it is applied. Exegesis is an objective process and thus interpretation is objective.  Application is subjective and is personal.   Interpretation simply arrives at determining what kind of text we are dealing with.

What a text says is not application but interpretation, and it is exactly what we have been talking about. Again, something objective doesn't make it certain, so speaking about the objectivity of hermeneutics doesn't mean anything here. Science is objective as well, but you still have great problems with it. Disagreeing with the interpretations of scientists is NOT disagreeing with Creation, so neither is disagreeing with your interpretation of Scripture disagreeing with Scripture.

 

 

Nope, you don't understand inerrancy as it relates to the Bible.  Inerrancy doesn't cover scribal errors like mispelled words or those types of textual variants.   Inerancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.  That's it.  Nothing else matters inerrancy.  Everything in the Bible is truthfully recorded.

You seem to think your position is the only position of anyone ever. I've heard laymen and more learned people give many different degrees of inerrancy, all of which think they idea of inerrancy is justified by the idea of divine inspiration of the authors. You may think only one of them is right, but that does not mean they do not exist.

 

 

Yes it does, even if you lack the integrity or basic honesty to face up to it.

More character assassination based on nothing. Hardly Christian behavior. Inspiration in the Bible simply says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." You cannot derive your doctrine from this. It is stretching this verse to the point of snapping. That you need Scripture to be this or that to find it profitable is of no consequence to anyone but yourself.

Edited December 10, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[HumbleThinker]

You don't understand how REAL biblical exegesis works and frankly I don't think you care.   You have created a framework that suits what you are prepared to accept in the Bible whereas, I have complete faith in God and in His integrity and the integrity of the Bible.  So there is no reason for me to continue a fruitless discussion with you, as you and I have no common ground on which to meet.

Note how you come to this conclusion simply because I do not agree with YOU. This is not an accurate manner to derive anything about another person other than they fact that they do not hold the same positions you do. This is not a Christian tactic. Accuracy is a Christian tactic. Drawing unwarranted conclusions about another person based on a leap of logic and emotion is not a Christian tactic. Simply reflecting things as they are is a Christian tactic. Conflating the Bible with one's interpretation of it is not a Christian tactic. Declaring that another disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible and taking it no farther (ie. saying that they disagree with the Bible) is a Christian tactic. You can say they are wrong til the cows come home, but there is no reason to say they are somehow less of a Christian than you or that their faith somehow isn't as good as yours just because they disagree with your interpretation of Scripture. That's just hubris.

[Guest Butero]

What I am seeing here is not a question of interpretation of scripture.  What is being describes is whether we believe what the Bible says is absolutely true, like in the case of the Genesis account of creation.  Interpretation is where all parties agree that what the Bible says is true, but we believe it is meaning something different from another person.  To me, not taking the Bible literal is not a legitimate form of interpretation.  It is rationalizing unbelief in what it says. 

 

Evangelicals are the group that believes in the absolute inerrancy of scripture.  That is the camp I belong to.  Nothing anyone says will change that.  If you are offering an interpretation based on a literal belief in the text, I will consider it, but if you are saying the text is wrong, as in Noah's flood or the virgin birth of Christ, I will reject that completely.  I won't even consider it.  When science goes contrary to scripture, I will reject science as being in error, not the Bible. 

[HumbleThinker]

What I am seeing here is not a question of interpretation of scripture.  What is being describes is whether we believe what the Bible says is absolutely true, like in the case of the Genesis account of creation.  Interpretation is where all parties agree that what the Bible says is true, but we believe it is meaning something different from another person.  To me, not taking the Bible literal is not a legitimate form of interpretation.  It is rationalizing unbelief in what it says. 

 

Evangelicals are the group that believes in the absolute inerrancy of scripture.  That is the camp I belong to.  Nothing anyone says will change that.  If you are offering an interpretation based on a literal belief in the text, I will consider it, but if you are saying the text is wrong, as in Noah's flood or the virgin birth of Christ, I will reject that completely.  I won't even consider it.  When science goes contrary to scripture, I will reject science as being in error, not the Bible.

Let's see if I can explain this better because I've obviously haven't done a good job so far as there is still some confusion as to what I am saying. Let's begin with Aquinas again: "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." In the exact same way that Aquinas is speaking about holding to the truth of Scripture while recognizing the possibility, though not equal probability, of multiple interpretations of Scripture is what I'm saying.

Now that that is settled, on to the point of literalism. By your wording, you seem to agree that taking the Bible literally is a manner, the only legitimate manner, of interpreting Scripture. My contention is that Scripture nowhere says this and I would ask you to show me where Scripture says that Scripture must be taken literally. We should not hold to anything dogmatically that Scripture does not unequivocally say be held dogmatically (ie. the resurrection of Christ, monotheism, etc.).

An indirect clue of the artificial nature of this belief is that it seems to cause one to jump to the conclusion that those that do not hold to the idea that Scripture must be interpreted literally must be disbelieving Scripture in one manner or another. That simply doesn't logically follow, and the consistency with which many literalists jump to this conclusion in my experience should lead them to more closely scrutinize their position.

But that brings us to the thrust against literalism: by what standard do you declare what should and shouldn't be taken literally?

If there is any standard, then literally interpreting the Bible is not a dogmatic position, but one that is determined through hermeneutics, even if flawed hermeneutics. And when interpretation is based on hermeneutics, then 100% (false) certainty is out of the window, though one should obviously be 100% confident in their conclusion. And when 100% certainty is out of the window, then everything is open for discussion; there is nothing or next to nothing that can be dogmatically said to be simply "disagreeing with Scripture," but must be said to be disagreeing with one's interpretation of Scripture. And once we're at this point, we can actually have a discussion about what the most probable interpretation of Scripture we should hold that includes all sources of information, which opens the possibility of one or more of these sources contradicting your interpretation with a certain degree of certainty. The most likely interpretation of God's Creation, for instance, contradicts your interpretation of Scripture with a high level of certainty. And following Aquinas' and Augustine's principle, this understanding should be thrown out unless you can show that your interpretation of Scripture is more likely than the mainstream interpretation of God's Creation, or more precisely that the mainstream interpretation of Creation is wrong. This is simply reasonably given that the Bible is spiritual and Creation is natural.

[Guest Butero]

The Bible doesn't have to come out and state, "you must interpret the content literally."  It is just expected that I believe the content to be true.  Genesis doesn't have to come out and say, "this record of events is true."  It is just expected that I know it is true.  Genesis is a record of how we got here.  Anyone can see that.  I either believe it or I don't.  I personally believe every word of it.  I believe there was a real Adam and Eve, and they were real people.  I believe they were the first human beings, and we all trace our roots back to them.  There is nothing in Genesis that says they were not real people, and I don't see it as a legitimate form of interpretation to question whether they were real and the first human beings. 

 

As for what you call Augustine's method of interpretation, I hold to the first part only.  There is nothing in scripture that will be proven false.  It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars.  I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture.  Doubters have always existed and will remain till Jesus returns.  At the risk of being mocked and ridiculed by these enlightened ones, I will continue to hold to a literal view of scripture, and will continue to reject evolution. 

[HumbleThinker]

The Bible doesn't have to come out and state, "you must interpret the content literally."  It is just expected that I believe the content to be true.  Genesis doesn't have to come out and say, "this record of events is true."  It is just expected that I know it is true.  Genesis is a record of how we got here.  Anyone can see that.  I either believe it or I don't.  I personally believe every word of it.  I believe there was a real Adam and Eve, and they were real people.  I believe they were the first human beings, and we all trace our roots back to them.  There is nothing in Genesis that says they were not real people, and I don't see it as a legitimate form of interpretation to question whether they were real and the first human beings. 

 

As for what you call Augustine's method of interpretation, I hold to the first part only.  There is nothing in scripture that will be proven false.  It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars.  I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture.  Doubters have always existed and will remain till Jesus returns.  At the risk of being mocked and ridiculed by these enlightened ones, I will continue to hold to a literal view of scripture, and will continue to reject evolution. 

If you are going to claim that we must take Scripture literally, then yes it does. It doesn't help that your argument creates a false equivalence between taking it literally and "believing the content to be true"  Unless Scripture comes out and literally says that Genesis has to be taken literally, much less has to be taken literally to be a true follower of God if you believe such a thing as some do, then there is no reason to accept such a thing with 100% certainty, for that is just a musing of men, a man-made condition between men and God's inspired Scripture."Anyone can see that" is neither hermeneutics nor a logical argument, but a fallacy that presumes the conclusion.

 

So Augustine and Aquinas were unbelievers now? Is anyone, great Christian or otherwise, a unbeliever because they don't 100% agree with your interpretive style? Who are you to build artificial conditions to who is and isn't an unbeliever that is not explicitly found in Scripture?

 

When you claim that "nothing in Scripture will be proven false," you are stating exactly what Augustine believed; the two of you simply went about it different ways. If anything were unquestionably demonstrated by the "science" of his day (as opposed to merely philosophy/other religions), then by definition it could not contradict Scripture. But instead of forcing the demonstrable findings of what could be plainly seen by anyone putting their mind and time into it to fit his interpretation of Scripture, he forced his interpretation of Scripture to meet these findings. This is a slight simplification for the sake of brevity (nothing Augustine said was ever brief), but the notion is the same: one can accept the truth of Scripture without becoming dogmatic about how to interpret it. That literalism as we know it today is a comparatively modern invention compared to the age of Judaism and Christianity should tell us something about the source of literalism: the human mind.

[Guest Butero]

Just one minor thing I want to say about your reply.  I never claimed that someone that doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture is unsaved.  I never made that claim about you or Augustine.  I just said that yours is not a legitimate means of interpretation.  You are claiming that unbelief in part of the scripture is a legitimate means of interpretation, and I reject that.  I also reject the idea that if science supposedly proves something, I have to make scripture agree with science.  I will do no such thing.  I will reject the claims of science. 

 

The reason why mankind is in the condition we are in is because of original sin, committed by the first man Adam.  It is because we all come from the first couple, Adam and Eve, we need a savior.  To accept evolution is to reject major doctrinal positions we must believe to truly understand the condition of the human race.  Of course, all of this is of little importance since science is far from proving evolution to be true.  They offer a sliver of evidence, but nothing close to conclusive. 

[x141]

If it is indeed the word of God, then it is the language of God, and one must have God's interpretation of his own words which only the spirit that proceeded from the Father who is now in us can lead us into.