On Interpretation of Scripture

[Guest Butero]

So in other words, if I am using science as my method of determining how we got here, I might come to one conclusion, and if I am using scripture alone to determine how we got here, I might come to another conclusion?  The problem is, the Bible tells us in absolute terms how we got here.  I believe it or I don't.  Science on the other hand looks at what they see, tries to determine what is the most likely scenario as to how we got here, and state those conclusions.  Lets look at these two "methods of interpretation" of nature?   I am not sure what else the scientists could be interpreting. 

 

1  The Bible.  It states how God created everything we see, and how it got here in Genesis.  There are no questions to be answered.  It is completely laid out.  I believe it or I don't.

 

2.  Science.  It looks at the things that exist.  It tries to determine how we most likely got here.  It states those conclusions.  All scientists don't agree on how we most likely got here.  The majority probably do believe in some sort of evolution, while a minority believe in creation science.  Both are basing their conclusions on what they see.  It is only an educated guess.

 

As a Christian, I Believe the Biblical account of creation.  I know that some scientists agree with the Biblical account of creation based on the evidence.  I know some scientists believe in evolution.  I look at the things around me, and I see absolutely no evidence evolution is true.  I don't see anything in the arguments of those who teach evolution their conclusions are true.  I find it far more likely, even without a Bible as my basis, there is a divine creator. 

 

Now, lets go back to what you said about interpretation.  If I understand you right, you are wanting to say your method of interpretation takes into account scientific evidence?  To me, that is not interpretation in the way I mean it.  It might be interpretation of a science book, but not the Bible.  I can't jam the two together, and if they aren't the same, I am not going to try to reconcile them.  I will believe one or the other, but not both.  How can I believe both if they don't agree?  I am not going to believe part of the Bible, but not the entire Bible, or hold to a literal account of part of the Bible but not the whole Bible.  I might do that with a science book, but not the Bible.  That is especially true, given the fact that the scientists are only working with evidence, and they don't have proof of how we got here. 

[HumbleThinker]

So in other words, if I am using science as my method of determining how we got here, I might come to one conclusion, and if I am using scripture alone to determine how we got here, I might come to another conclusion?

Closer, but this is still making the same category error of equivocating. To make your statement accurate, it should read "if I am using science as my method of determining how we got here [by interpreting Creation], I might come to one conclusion, and if I am using [hermeneutics] to determine how we got here [by interpreting Scripture], I might come to another conclusion." This properly pairs science with hermeneutics and Creation with Scripture. Also, emphasis should be placed on the two mights in your question, for the majority of Christians come up with non-conflicting interpretations of both by choosing to interpret Genesis differently than others choose to interpret it.

The problem is, the Bible tells us in absolute terms how we got here.  I believe it or I don't.  Science on the other hand looks at what they see, tries to determine what is the most likely scenario as to how we got here, and state those conclusions.  Lets look at these two "methods of interpretation" of nature?   I am not sure what else the scientists could be interpreting. 

 

1  The Bible.  It states how God created everything we see, and how it got here in Genesis.  There are no questions to be answered.  It is completely laid out.  I believe it or I don't.

 

2.  Science.  It looks at the things that exist.  It tries to determine how we most likely got here.  It states those conclusions.  All scientists don't agree on how we most likely got here.  The majority probably do believe in some sort of evolution, while a minority believe in creation science.  Both are basing their conclusions on what they see.  It is only an educated guess.

 

As a Christian, I Believe the Biblical account of creation.  I know that some scientists agree with the Biblical account of creation based on the evidence.  I know some scientists believe in evolution.  I look at the things around me, and I see absolutely no evidence evolution is true.  I don't see anything in the arguments of those who teach evolution their conclusions are true.  I find it far more likely, even without a Bible as my basis, there is a divine creator. 

 

Now, lets go back to what you said about interpretation.  If I understand you right, you are wanting to say your method of interpretation takes into account scientific evidence?  To me, that is not interpretation in the way I mean it.  It might be interpretation of a science book, but not the Bible.  I can't jam the two together, and if they aren't the same, I am not going to try to reconcile them.  I will believe one or the other, but not both.  How can I believe both if they don't agree?  I am not going to believe part of the Bible, but not the entire Bible, or hold to a literal account of part of the Bible but not the whole Bible.  I might do that with a science book, but not the Bible.  That is especially true, given the fact that the scientists are only working with evidence, and they don't have proof of how we got here.

The limits of language prevent it from speaking about anything "in absolute terms" in the vast majority of cases. This issue is only increased, not decreased, with religious texts. Just because we have a favorite religious text, I'm sure both of us would say the Bible, doesn't mean we should treat it differently than any other text. There are some parts that almost certainly should be taken literally and other parts that almost certainly should not. I'm sure we both agree on this despite disagreeing on which verses to apply this to. However, a huge chunk of Scripture, arguably a majority of it, doesn't present us with such certainty. And given that we can be almost certain that Creation can only be taken literally by its very nature, we thus can rightly conclude that Creation gives us more certain conclusions about natural phenomenon than Scripture does, which isn't a problem since Scripture isn't a science text but a spiritual text. Where we come from, with all its spiritual implications, is better answered in Scripture; Creation can tell us nothing about such matters. But Creation can and does tell us where are physical bodies come from and how they got to be the way they are and our physical relation to other life.

[missmuffet]

In a perfect world every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination.This is not a perfect world as we all know.Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit listens to the Holy Spirit.So,one reason different people have different interpretations of the BIble is that some do not listen to the Teacher-the Holy Spirit.

Some other reasons for different beliefs among those who teach the Bible are:

1.Unbelief

2.Lack of training

3.Poor hermeneutics

4.Ignorance of the whole word of God

5.Selfishness and pride

6.Failure to mature

7.Undue emphasis on tradition.

[missmuffet]

 

The longer I have studied the Bible there's one thing that I have learned.  The more literal I take the scripture, the more it makes sense, and more truth has been revealed to me.  The Bible is a masterwork that would be impossible to recreate.  It is an integrated message system written from outside our time domain.  God has even hid treasures within scripture to those that seek it.  The names, puns, symbolism, simile's, idioms all can have significant meanings that add to the overall meaning.  Every letter and detail is there for a reason.  You use scripture to interpret scripture and can't use worldly knowledge to apply an outside meaning.

 

Such as all those that hang on a tree are cursed.  That didn't make a lot of sense until Jesus hung on a symbolic tree on the cross bearing our curses.  Or take for example the first 10 names in the Bible.  Here's an paste from a webpage that shows it quite well.

 

The Names Bible Code:

An awesome prophecy emerges when the meanings of all 72 names in the genealogy from Adam to Jesus are read sequentially!

The meaning of a name was very important in bible days. Sometimes the bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Famous biblical persons such as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons, all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.

Some have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) were intended by God to be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the bible read when the meaning of each name is rendered in the order given in the bible.

Read down the right column where the meaning of each consecutive name

in Jesus' genealogy is given, and note the unfolding prophecy.

"The God-man is appointed; a mortal man of sorrow is born!

The Glory of God shall come down and teach that His death shall bring the grieving comfort and rest."

 

 

The Promise to Fallen Man

(Jesus is called, "The Glory of God", in 2Cor. 4:6.)

 

If you are worried something has got lost in translation over the years.  Well the oldest scriptures found, the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found to be completely accurate to the Bible we use today.  There's also other sources such as the Matthew fragment and translations of the day but hopefully you believe your Bible is accurate.  The Bible is there to bring us out of confusion not bring us into confusion.

 

Granted the Greek and Hebrew are more accurate languages than English.  Yet the overall meaning isn't lost in the translations.  You can read into a greater meaning and understanding BUT it will not change the original meaning only add to it.

 

Lastly Jesus himself said that not a single letter or punctuation mark would pass away before it was fullfilled.

 

Matthew 5:17-19

Amplified Bible (AMP)

¹⁷ Do not think that I have come to do away with or ^[a]undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

¹⁹ Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

Yes,whenever you can take the Bible literal that is important.

[enoob57]

No, but it is up to us to decide what it means. Just because we want God's Word to be authoritative, inerrant, or whatever does not mean that we should build arguments around this want. Neither God nor the Bible has any need for such things to support them. The Bible says what it says, and unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure it out for ourselves.

Well I have decided in my heart to allow what God Says about His Word to be what 'IS' in my mind about it...

there is a huge mess outside of the established foundation of the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture

 

SCRIPTURE

The word means "writing." In the Old Testament it occurs in the King James Version only once, "the scripture of truth," in Dan 10:21, where it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), "the writing of truth." The reference is not to Holy Scripture, but to the book in which are inscribed God's purposes. In the New Testament, "scripture" and "scriptures" stand regularly for the Old Testament sacred books regarded as "inspired" (2 Tim 3:16), "the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2). Compare on this usage Matt 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21; 24:27,32,45; John 5:39; 10:35; Acts 8:32; 17:2,11; Rom 15:4; 16:26, etc.; in Rom 1:2, "holy scriptures." See BIBLE . The expression "holy scriptures" in 2 Tim 3:15 the King James Version represents different words (hiera grammata) and is properly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "sacred writings." In 2 Peter 3:16, the term "scriptures" is extended to the Eppistle of Paul. In James 4:5, the words occur: "Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?" The passage is probably rather a summary of Scripture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g. Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn.

(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The sole purpose of Scripture is to develop a objective truth for His Children and those who throw it away do so at their own peril....

 It is really a no brainer as the world in which we have been born into is darkness and filled with error. So anyone believing that which

is born out of that can be trusted to determine truth is really in a hurt locker of inconsistencies of reason an logic... why do you think

God tells us to renew our minds by washing it with His Word?

 

Does the Torah cause ice to melt? And the Torah consists a lot of what God said and those things that He has passed down to the present generations from the patriarchs. These things are indeed contained within the Bible as can be seen in the many places where it reads "Thus says the Lord." And for as long as I can tell, the Jews have been interpreting what these words mean. It's why they have an Oral Torah, which many, particularly Orthodox Jews, see as being necessary to understanding the Written Torah. So I'm not sure if this is the best choice for your position.

The Jews and their history is an example for us to understand through the Holy Spirit's guidance Who God 'IS'

and by knowing we are foundationed in His Word in personal relationship with Him...

1 Cor 10:11

11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for

our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

NKJV

 

These last few seem to be straying farther from the point. What do any of these say about whether Scripture is the Word of God or contains the Word of God, and whether any or all parts of it should be taken literally. You seem to be equivocating God's words with God's Word. These are two distinct concepts.

God In The Person of Jesus Christ taught us that The Jewish Scripture was His Word. At age 12 He amazed the

Jewish scholars. He defeated satan at His temptation with the use of those very Scriptures. He taught them and quoted them.

The last written The Revelation put a seal upon the completed canon

Rev 22:18-19

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things,

God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of

the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the

things which are written in this book.

NKJV

By God placing the inspired seal on the last Book of what would become the canon of Scripture He 'IS'

clearly showing the verbal, plenary inerrancy of Scripture in original writings as a unified Word from God...

I live everyday in assurance of this and I grow by it into a living hope that God's Word is the final authority

of this life and what is done in it... I do not interpret Scripture but Scripture interprets me and I adjust

myself accordingly... Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

The limits of language prevent it from speaking about anything "in absolute terms" in the vast majority of cases. This issue is only increased, not decreased, with religious texts. Just because we have a favorite religious text, I'm sure both of us would say the Bible, doesn't mean we should treat it differently than any other text. There are some parts that almost certainly should be taken literally and other parts that almost certainly should not.

 

All of the Bible should be taken literally.   Just like when I read a fictional novel, I interpret it literally.  When  I read a poem, I interpret it literally.  When I read a nusery rhyme I intepret it literally.   The point behind interpretation of ANY text is the literal meaning.   It appears that you are confusing literal with "face value."   I don't interpret the Bible at face-value.  To interpret a passage literally means that I interpret it as literature.  Within the body of hermeneutics, there are subsets of rules that exist for different individual generes.  The rules I apply when reading Hebrew poetry are not the same rules that I use when interpreting prophecy or Hebrew proverbs.   I intepret them each in a literal fashion according to the rules that apply to each one.  The same goes for an historical narrative.   There are rules that apply to an historical narrative that I cannot use when I am looking at poetry.   So part of the confusion

 

 

I'm sure we both agree on this despite disagreeing on which verses to apply this to. However, a huge chunk of Scripture, arguably a majority of it, doesn't present us with such certainty. And given that we can be almost certain that Creation can only be taken literally by its very nature, we thus can rightly conclude that Creation gives us more certain conclusions about natural phenomenon than Scripture does, which isn't a problem since Scripture isn't a science text but a spiritual text. Where we come from, with all its spiritual implications, is better answered in Scripture; Creation can tell us nothing about such matters. But Creation can and does tell us where are physical bodies come from and how they got to be the way they are and our physical relation to other life.

 

 

The text of the Bible is spiritual, in that it is divine in origin.  But the mistake you are making is assuming that the Bible as a spiritual text has no authority where the issue of origins is concerned.  Stephen J. Gould made the same argument many times.  He was not opposed to Christians using the Bible as a spiritual text, as  a source of peace and comfort, but he rejected the Bible as authoritative where the issue of origins was concerned and believed that the question of origins to be the domain of science and science alone.

 

The Bible isn't merely a spiritual text.  It is an inspired text.  That means that the information it contains finds its origin with an all-knowing God who is incapable of error and who doesnt lie.  This information was superintended as it was transmitted to the human writers and done so without any mixture of error.   The view that the Bible is inerrant is embedded in the fact of its inspiration.  But it is also an immutable text.  It hasn't changed in thousands of years.  That has been proven historically.  The reliabiltiy of the Bible is a fact of history.

 

What I have seen in this thread is that you are trying to define interpretation on your terms and you are demanding that YOUR definition of "interpretation" be the working definition used in this threads and other threads in which you are involved.   Textual criticism is a process and a body of rules that are universal to all forms of literature including the Bible because it is among other things, literature.  There is no warrant for an customized approach to the rules of interpretation or the authority of the Bible hinged on the whims of your evolutionary agenda in the Bible.

[HumbleThinker]

In a perfect world every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination.This is not a perfect world as we all know.Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit listens to the Holy Spirit.So,one reason different people have different interpretations of the BIble is that some do not listen to the Teacher-the Holy Spirit.

Some other reasons for different beliefs among those who teach the Bible are:

1.Unbelief

2.Lack of training

3.Poor hermeneutics

4.Ignorance of the whole word of God

5.Selfishness and pride

6.Failure to mature

7.Undue emphasis on tradition.

I agree with you that these are true, though I may disagree with your statement that "In a perfect world every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination." On its surface, this makes it seem like, for example, that we would be not using hermeneutics at all to interpret the Bible but simply reading and waiting for direct revelation. If so, I don't agree with this ideal, for I think it falsely sets up a mutually exclusive relationship between God's illumination and hermeneutics. God surely can do this is He please, but I do not believe He wishes us to rely on direct revelation absent any human effort at all times. This would be like the hyper-Calvinists who suppose that we as believers do nothing in terms of proselytizing since God will save and damn people on His own accord absent any human actions. But your use of the word "study" and your addition of "poor hermeneutics" in your list makes me think that you accept that hermeneutics at least is a method ordained by God to lead us to correct interpretation of the Bible despite it being a fallible processes developed and used by fallible humans. If this is the case, I would add that studying God's Creation in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination is only marginally less important than studying Scripture.

As for your list, I would also add:

1. Overzealousness

2. Inappropriately attaching one's self to the teachings of one's teacher

3. Dogmatically holding to one style of interpretation

4. Ignorance of all of God's modes of revelation, including Creation

5. False humility that is simply covering up selfishness and pride

6. False maturity masking a failure to mature

7. Undue ignoring of tradition.

IOW there must be a balance, which I'm sure we can agree on.

Edited December 14, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[HumbleThinker]

Well I have decided in my heart to allow what God Says about His Word to be what 'IS' in my mind about it...

there is a huge mess outside of the established foundation of the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture

That doesn't change anything, though. It's simply a restatement of your point. Unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure out for ourselves what "God Says about His Word." Words on a page are just words on a page. We can decode them to pronounce what they say, but until we interpret them, they only have potential meaning. Words do not have inherent meaning, since all languages are arbitrarily created by humans.

 

The sole purpose of Scripture is to develop a objective truth for His Children and those who throw it away do so at their own peril....

 It is really a no brainer as the world in which we have been born into is darkness and filled with error. So anyone believing that which

is born out of that can be trusted to determine truth is really in a hurt locker of inconsistencies of reason an logic... why do you think

God tells us to renew our minds by washing it with His Word?

And what context of Ephesians 5:26 tells you that "the word" is speaking of Scripture? I personally see none. To me, it seems like with the other verses that you are starting with your conclusion that just about any mention of "God's words" or "the word" or "Word of God" is speaking about Scripture, then reading that into these verses, which is of course unnecessary and hasty hermeneutics.

 

The Jews and their history is an example for us to understand through the Holy Spirit's guidance Who God 'IS'

and by knowing we are foundationed in His Word in personal relationship with Him...

1 Cor 10:11

11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for

our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

NKJV

Ok, but does the Torah cause ice to melt? I'm trying to understand your justification for reading just about every mention of word or words as referring to Scripture instead of that which was with God and is God since the beginning or the words God Himself spoke or other such things.

 

God In The Person of Jesus Christ taught us that The Jewish Scripture was His Word. At age 12 He amazed the

Jewish scholars. He defeated satan at His temptation with the use of those very Scriptures. He taught them and quoted them.

The last written The Revelation put a seal upon the completed canon

Rev 22:18-19

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things,

God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of

the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the

things which are written in this book.

NKJV

By God placing the inspired seal on the last Book of what would become the canon of Scripture He 'IS'

clearly showing the verbal, plenary inerrancy of Scripture in original writings as a unified Word from God...

I live everyday in assurance of this and I grow by it into a living hope that God's Word is the final authority

of this life and what is done in it... I do not interpret Scripture but Scripture interprets me and I adjust

myself accordingly... Love, Steven

What part of Scripture says He did this? You seem to be, from my perspective, reading your own understanding into verses that are saying saying it at plain reading, something you claim to deplore. Just because you think it is a foundational belief does not justify reading it into Scripture. All the verses you have supplied so far have been talking about the contents of Scripture, the words God Himself spoke directly or through His prophets or that supernatural element that has been with God and is God since the beginning.

[HumbleThinker]

The limits of language prevent it from speaking about anything "in absolute terms" in the vast majority of cases. This issue is only increased, not decreased, with religious texts. Just because we have a favorite religious text, I'm sure both of us would say the Bible, doesn't mean we should treat it differently than any other text. There are some parts that almost certainly should be taken literally and other parts that almost certainly should not.

All of the Bible should be taken literally.   Just like when I read a fictional novel, I interpret it literally.  When  I read a poem, I interpret it literally.  When I read a nusery rhyme I intepret it literally.   The point behind interpretation of ANY text is the literal meaning.   It appears that you are confusing literal with "face value."   I don't interpret the Bible at face-value.  To interpret a passage literally means that I interpret it as literature.  Within the body of hermeneutics, there are subsets of rules that exist for different individual generes.  The rules I apply when reading Hebrew poetry are not the same rules that I use when interpreting prophecy or Hebrew proverbs.   I intepret them each in a literal fashion according to the rules that apply to each one.  The same goes for an historical narrative.   There are rules that apply to an historical narrative that I cannot use when I am looking at poetry.   So part of the confusion

 

 

I'm sure we both agree on this despite disagreeing on which verses to apply this to. However, a huge chunk of Scripture, arguably a majority of it, doesn't present us with such certainty. And given that we can be almost certain that Creation can only be taken literally by its very nature, we thus can rightly conclude that Creation gives us more certain conclusions about natural phenomenon than Scripture does, which isn't a problem since Scripture isn't a science text but a spiritual text. Where we come from, with all its spiritual implications, is better answered in Scripture; Creation can tell us nothing about such matters. But Creation can and does tell us where are physical bodies come from and how they got to be the way they are and our physical relation to other life.

The text of the Bible is spiritual, in that it is divine in origin.  But the mistake you are making is assuming that the Bible as a spiritual text has no authority where the issue of origins is concerned.  Stephen J. Gould made the same argument many times.  He was not opposed to Christians using the Bible as a spiritual text, as  a source of peace and comfort, but he rejected the Bible as authoritative where the issue of origins was concerned and believed that the question of origins to be the domain of science and science alone.

 

The Bible isn't merely a spiritual text.  It is an inspired text.  That means that the information it contains finds its origin with an all-knowing God who is incapable of error and who doesnt lie.  This information was superintended as it was transmitted to the human writers and done so without any mixture of error.   The view that the Bible is inerrant is embedded in the fact of its inspiration.  But it is also an immutable text.  It hasn't changed in thousands of years.  That has been proven historically.  The reliabiltiy of the Bible is a fact of history.

 

What I have seen in this thread is that you are trying to define interpretation on your terms and you are demanding that YOUR definition of "interpretation" be the working definition used in this threads and other threads in which you are involved.   Textual criticism is a process and a body of rules that are universal to all forms of literature including the Bible because it is among other things, literature.  There is no warrant for an customized approach to the rules of interpretation or the authority of the Bible hinged on the whims of your evolutionary agenda in the Bible.

You must be reading some pretty dry poems and novels if they are supposed to be interpreted literally. Or you are just stretching the meaning of literal farther than its current accepted usage as stated by modern-day literalists. If my usage of the word literal is not speaking of your usage of it, then my topic is not aimed at you. Yet in our exchanges, I see no meaningful difference between your usage of literal and the literalists usage of literal, which is predominantly juxtaposed against metaphorical. For example, the literalists this post is addressing are those who claim that places that clearly speak of a flat and immobile earth are poetic, and thus should be interpreted metaphorically instead of literally, whereas Genesis should be interpreted literally, or understood by its "plain reading." But I agree that part of our issue here is symantics; even the subtle nuances of our usage of some terms are getting in the way.

And the Bible has no authority on NATURAL origins because it conflicts with God's Creation when literally interpreted beyond the fact that it has no intention of being an authority on natural origins, which is a much better measuring stick for such matters. When it is equally a presumption to presume that the Bible IS a science/history text as it is to presume that it ISN'T, then the logical course of action is to take the Bible as scientifically/historically accurate only where there is evidence in God's Creation, and recognize that whether it is or isn't has no bearing on its spiritual purpose, which is to bring men back into communion and right living with God. A classic example is Jesus's statement that a mustard seed is the least or smallest of all. How do some come to the conclusion that He was only speaking about the mustard seed in relation to regional seeds? Because they see the mustard seed is in fact not the smallest seed in God's Creation, and then utilize the multiplicity of meanings in language to say that Jesus MUST have meant that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds that his audience would know of or that He wasn't even calling the mustard seed the smallest at all. At least that has been the tenor of all the expositions of that text in relation to its scientific veracity that I've read.

Edited December 14, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[Guest shiloh357]

You must be reading some pretty dry poems and novels if they are supposed to be interpreted literally.

 

To interpret a ficitonal novel as a fictional novel is to intepret it literally.  A non-literal approach to a fictional novel would mean to interpret it another way and to assign my own meanings to the text to make it speak to me the way I want it to.  

 

In interpretation, the author supplies the intepretation, not the reader. The reader's job is to ascertain the author's intent, not to assign meaning which the author didn't intend.

 

For example, the literalists this post is addressing are those who claim that places that clearly speak of a flat and immobile earth are poetic, and thus should be interpreted metaphorically instead of literally, whereas Genesis should be interpreted literally, or understood by its "plain reading"

.No, there is no such thing as a metaphorical interpretation.  That is where your understanding is deficient.   A metaphor is a literary device that has a literal meaning behind it.   This is true with figurative device.   The reader's responsbility is to ascertain the literal meaning behind the metaphor.

 

Poetry uses imagery and metaphorical devices to convey a understanding the author wants to convey.  To interpret a poem literally means that I take into account the figurative devices in the process of intepreting the text.   In this case, a poetic text in Psalms that claims the earth is fixed, flat an immovable requires a different set of rules than a historical narratives because there are different rules that apply for different forms or genres of literature.

 

In addition a familiarity with the language, and the connotations that certain words and the thought patterns that flavor the text is helpful.  For example the use of "earth" in English isn't the same as in Hebrew.   The word transated "earth" in Heberw is eretz and refers exclusively to dry land.  The word "earth" in English includes the whole planet including the water.

 

So it may not occur to the uniformed person such as yourself that if the Heberw Bible refers to the "earth" as flat that it is referencing the dry land portion of what we call, "earth."   Thus it is not claiming that the whole planet is flat, but is refering only to the dry land.  But then you don't understand how interpretation works and are thus liable to such mistakes.   "Four corners of the earth" in Hebrew would refer to the dry land not to some kind of ancient cosmology.

 

And the Bible has no authority on NATURAL origins because it conflicts with God's Creation when literally interpreted beyond the fact that it has no intention of being an authority on natural origins, which is a much better measuring stick for such matters.

 

It doesn't conflict with God's creation at all.   God would not create a Bible that contradicts His creation.  How would that serve His purpose?  Why would God inspire a Bible and then give us false information that contradicts how He represents himself in the created order.  God doesn't operate that way, so your empty claim that the Bible and creation contradict simply holds no water.  It may contradict the evolutionary lense through which you view the world, but there is nothing about creation that contradicts the Bible.

 

A classic example is Jesus's statement that a mustard seed is the least or smallest of all. How do some come to the conclusion that He was only speaking about the mustard seed in relation to regional seeds? Because they see the mustard seed is in fact not the smallest seed in God's Creation, and then utilize the multiplicity of meanings in language to say that Jesus MUST have meant that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds that his audience would know of or that He wasn't even calling the mustard seed the smallest at all. At least that has been the tenor of all the expositions of that text in relation to its scientific veracity that I've read.

 

 

Jesus was employing hyperbole to make a point.  Jesus was teaching a course in botany.  The Bible uses phenomenolgocial language and not the modern scientific precision we are used to.   So it really isn't a problem and there is no reason for you to try to make an issue out of a non-issue.

 

When it is equally a presumption to presume that the Bible IS a science/history text as it is to presume that it ISN'T, then the logical course of action is to take the Bible as scientifically/historically accurate only where there is evidence in God's Creation, and recognize that whether it is or isn't has no bearing on its spiritual purpose, which is to bring men back into communion and right living with God.

 

The Bible sin't a science book but the spiritual purpose of the book is closely tied the natural world that God created.   You keep trying divorce what you think the spiritual purpose of the book is (and you are wrong about its purpose) from the world that God created.   The fact is that the Bible has authority on all matters it speaks of including creation because its authority is rooted in God's authority.   So to claim it has no authority in matters of creation is a major theological error on your part.