On Interpretation of Scripture

[donfish06]

Here is my thought. First off, it is a very thin line to walk, imo. Obviously we are supposed to do all things in love, and that barely happens when discussing one's views. But at the same time it is not okay to be tossed about like a wave in a stormy sea with every wind of doctrine. You should have solid ground to stand upon.

 

With the thousands (if not more) of different views on so many doctrines we must still realize that there is a true interpretation. If there are 10 different ideas about, let's say baptism, then there is a MINIMUM of 9 that are wrong, if not all 10. But it doesn't mean that God does not care how one is baptized. 

 

So who is right? We are all right in our own eyes, but who is right in God's eyes? The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, yet there are millions claiming the endowment of said Holy Spirit who disagree on hundreds of key points of Christian doctrine. 

 

So my question is:

1) Does everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit actually have it? We know that God is not the author of confusion, so the Holy Spirit would not lead 100 different people to 100 different views.

2) How can we know the truth?

 

Thoughts?

[Guest]

1) Does everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit actually have it? We know that God is not the author of confusion, so the Holy Spirit would not lead 100 different people to 100 different views.

 

~

 

Actually

 

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

 

We

 

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Romans 8:16

 

Know

 

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Galatians 4:6

 

~

 

2) How can we know the truth?

 

~

 

We

 

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

Can

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

Know

 

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:29

 

The Truth

 

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

 

~

 

Believe

 

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

[HumbleThinker]

You presume I do not see what you are saying because I point out you are not answering my questions and that I am not agreeing with you. You gave Scriptures you claimed showed the Bible is the Word of God, I pointed out that they did not say what you claimed and asked for clarification, then you started talking about things that neither answered my questions nor were furthering your point that the Bible claims the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible does not say this, then there is no reason to claim it. The Bible does not need you to do this to make it look better. But if you believe it despite the lack of rationale from the Bible, then just say so. The actual wrong would be misrepresenting Scripture, not believing in a doctrine that is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture. Avoidance does not make you right and myself wrong.

I gave you a complete answer in the Job account- the hearing from God and God had it written down in

His Law and Jesus using it to overcome the wiles of satan... I believe by your response you flushed that

God's Word is just that 'HIS' to lead us to His Son. That pretty much concluded the begin, middle, and end of His

Word as to what is His Word demonstrated by The Word... The fact that it is demonstrated in

one place in God's Word then it is true in all places of His Word! Thanks for your replies. Love, Steven

And none disputed that, but that doesn't make it the Word of God. It makes it that which was written down and used by Jesus to overcome the wiles of Satan. You have not yet justified why this fact should then make us take the leap to calling the Bible the Word of God. The Bible doesn't need to be the Word of God for the former fact to be true or meaningful. And speaking of flushing, you've side stepped many of my questions, such as does the Torah melt ice, can God's Word be burned and ripped to pieces like the Bible can, why do you essentially promote a form of transubstantiation, etc. So you can fell this way if you wish, but I have pointed out why your points are not supporting this position as you claim they do, while you have not weighed in on many or most of my points. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is God's Word. It is you who are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word." But again, the Bible does not justify this; only the musings of men's minds do.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

 

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical.

As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

 

I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people.  1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following:

 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. 

 

I have brought this up before.  This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true.  Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved?  Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe.  You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me.  You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof.

 

This verse only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical figures or if he is using a common psuedo-historical reference within his culture to make a point about the role of women. And even if he took it as historical, us taking it or not taking it as historical does not change the point he is making. In the same manner, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree teaches us to tell the truth no matter what whether the event actually happened or not, which it didn't. Now barring any knowledge about God's Creation, the most likely understanding to be taken away is likely that Adam and Eve were historical figures. But with the knowledge we have of God's Creation, which cannot simply be ignored just because it challenges our beliefs, the historiocity of Adam and Eve can be put in doubt though not altogether excluded. Thus I take the skeptical position of not siding with either position definitively.

And our beliefs are not based on absolute proof, so it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to demand that absolute proof be given to disprove them. Besides, if it is a choice between my beliefs and what an act of God is clearly showing me, I'll take the thing that has God as it's author and not my own mind. So I hope you can equally see why I demand such a high degree of certainty, to the point of requiring necessity or near necessity, for a Biblical interpretation that explicitly or implicitly makes natural claims about Creation when it goes against a clear understanding of God's Creation.

 

But it doesn't go against a clear understanding of God's creation.  The evolutionists haven't come close to giving us that kind of evidence.  There is nothing hypocrtical in demanding proof before I will change my point of view.  I would expect it would be just as hard to convince you evolution is wrong and the Genesis account of creation is correct?  I would expect that you would require close to absolute proof to change your mind because you have all but made up your mind, so why should I be any different?

 

You can claim it is not convincing to you. That is more than fine. But please don't pretend like there is not a plethora of evidence given, some of it easily understandable and some of it more complex. Whether you accept it or not, this site has reams of evidence for evolution from many independent lines. So you can say that it is not convincing to you, but that is not what makes it scientifically valid and supported or not. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields who have not signed a Statement of Faith that explicitly makes them go against the ethics of their job as a scientist by intentionally forcing data to meet their a priori conclusion accept that evolution is scientific. Even some creationists accept that evolution is scientific, but still believe that creationism is the ultimately correct because of their interpretation of the Bible and are actively searching for ways to support this outside of the Bible. These creationists recognize things as they are, so even if they do not correctly accept evolution, they at least are not committing the error of misrepresentation.

 

I've noticed that the people who speak the loudest that evolution is not scientifically valid are the one's least able to actually interact with the evidence? Does that include you? If not not, there is a thread talking about the evidence for evolution where you can either begin talking about the nested hierarchy within the GULOP gene or you can bring up another piece that scientists hold up as evidence that you wish to discuss.

 

And what I expect to change my mind is greater certainty that Genesis must be interpreted as historical truth than there is that Creation must be interpreted as revealing that it is billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. So if (and these numbers are arbitrary) Creation reveals with 90% certainty that it is old and evolution is accurate, while the Bible only reveals a 60% certainty that Genesis should be taken literally, then I'm going to go with Creation.

[Guest]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is God's Word. It is you who are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word." But again, the Bible does not justify this; only the musings of men's minds do.

 

~

 

The

 

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 3:34

 

Musings

 

He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. Numbers 24:16-17

 

Of The Son

 

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

 

Of God

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

See?

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

[HumbleThinker]

Here is my thought. First off, it is a very thin line to walk, imo. Obviously we are supposed to do all things in love, and that barely happens when discussing one's views. But at the same time it is not okay to be tossed about like a wave in a stormy sea with every wind of doctrine. You should have solid ground to stand upon.

 

With the thousands (if not more) of different views on so many doctrines we must still realize that there is a true interpretation. If there are 10 different ideas about, let's say baptism, then there is a MINIMUM of 9 that are wrong, if not all 10. But it doesn't mean that God does not care how one is baptized. 

 

So who is right? We are all right in our own eyes, but who is right in God's eyes? The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, yet there are millions claiming the endowment of said Holy Spirit who disagree on hundreds of key points of Christian doctrine. 

 

So my question is:

1) Does everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit actually have it? We know that God is not the author of confusion, so the Holy Spirit would not lead 100 different people to 100 different views.

2) How can we know the truth?

 

Thoughts?

Thanks for your thoughts! Indeed it is a fine line, but one I have freely chosen to walk and one I suspect will not be as fine as many think when all is said and done.Would it be much easier to pick one and disregard the other? Of course, but understanding Scripture and Creation are both important to me in my relationship with God. Plus history is on my side that Christians throughout the Church's history have been quite devout while still being scientific or at least recognizing nature as a work of God and mode of revelation about Him and His works.

 

God is my firm foundation, so He grants me the strength and light necessary to find my way through the fog instead of just sitting within it hoping that it will pass. I don't find doctrine to be of any help in this matter, so the difficulty in working out which doctrines to accept, which to toss out, and which to modify appears manageable and ultimately fruitful. God Himself says that "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" in the OT and "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" in the NT.

 

All of your points are great and are unfortunately the cause of many to either leave the faith or throw up their hands and settle for a very shallow faith. There are certain measures we can take to weed out the people who obviously have not received revelation from the Holy Spirit, such as by following 1 John 4 (By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God...whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.) or Matthew 7 (You will know them by their fruits). But it becomes more difficult when good-hearted honest Christians genuinely believe that they have understood certain things correctly and that the Holy Spirit has granted this understanding to them.

 

From my experience, we all have to find our own solution to this situation because of its very personal nature. I've found that throwing away the idea of 100% certainty and while retaining 100% confidence in one's views (and 110% confidence in God of course ) helps. Needing 100% certainty only invites unhealthy amounts of doubt that one then feels the compulsion to cover up with a false facade of certainty and lash out at anything that is honest in not providing 100% certainty. Leaving aside the idea of 100% certainty leaves room for a healthy amount of doubt that works against hubris and supports humility. Ultimately, you have to have confidence that God has or will be found if you seek Him with all your heart, mind, and strength and figure out for yourself how best to fulfill the call in 1 John 4 to "not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God."

 

And in closing a quote from Augustine: "In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.”

[HumbleThinker]

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is God's Word. It is you who are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word." But again, the Bible does not justify this; only the musings of men's minds do.

 

~

 

The

 

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 3:34

 

Musings

 

He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. Numbers 24:16-17

 

Of The Son

 

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

 

Of God

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

See?

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

Again, this says the Bible is the word of God where? You still are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word."

[Guest Butero]

You can claim it is not convincing to you. That is more than fine. But please don't pretend like there is not a plethora of evidence given, some of it easily understandable and some of it more complex. Whether you accept it or not, this site has reams of evidence for evolution from many independent lines. So you can say that it is not convincing to you, but that is not what makes it scientifically valid and supported or not. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields who have not signed a Statement of Faith that explicitly makes them go against the ethics of their job as a scientist by intentionally forcing data to meet their a priori conclusion accept that evolution is scientific. Even some creationists accept that evolution is scientific, but still believe that creationism is the ultimately correct because of their interpretation of the Bible and are actively searching for ways to support this outside of the Bible. These creationists recognize things as they are, so even if they do not correctly accept evolution, they at least are not committing the error of misrepresentation.

 

I've noticed that the people who speak the loudest that evolution is not scientifically valid are the one's least able to actually interact with the evidence? Does that include you? If not not, there is a thread talking about the evidence for evolution where you can either begin talking about the nested hierarchy within the GULOP gene or you can bring up another piece that scientists hold up as evidence that you wish to discuss.

 

And what I expect to change my mind is greater certainty that Genesis must be interpreted as historical truth than there is that Creation must be interpreted as revealing that it is billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. So if (and these numbers are arbitrary) Creation reveals with 90% certainty that it is old and evolution is accurate, while the Bible only reveals a 60% certainty that Genesis should be taken literally, then I'm going to go with Creation.

 

 Evolutionists do give evidence, but it is not convincing to me.  I see it as the Bible gives us a 100 percent certainty the Genesis account of creation must be taken literal, and creation itself at best gives us a 30 percent chance evolution took place.  Just looking at creation alone, I would say there is at least a 70  percent chance evolution is not true.  If I didn't believe in God, the creation would show me that each creature began as it is today.  Without a missing link, there is no evidence in the creation for evolution.

[GoldenEagle]

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is God's Word. It is you who are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word." But again, the Bible does not justify this; only the musings of men's minds do.

 

 

The Bible is the Word of God… There are both internal and external evidences for this. Let’s first discuss the internal evidences for the Bible being God’s Word:

The first internal evidence is the unity of the Bible. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a period of around 1500 years, had over 40 authors with various backgrounds, written on three continents, in three different languages, yet remains one unified book from the beginning to the end.

The second internal evidence is the prophecies within the Bible. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies relating to Israel, specific cities, and mankind in general. There are over 300 prophecies in the OT specifically detailed regarding Messiah – all of which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The only explanation is these prophecies were divine in their origin.

A third internal evidence that the Bible is God’s Word is the authority and power found within it. This is a little more subjective than the first two internal evidences but is still a testimony to the divine nature of origin of Scripture – the Bible. People have been transformed by the power of God’s Word. Deadbeats and derelicts have been transformed by it, criminals have been reformed by it, drug addicts have been cured by it, hate has turned to love because of it, and sinners have been rebuked by it. The power of the Holy Spirit is evident through it in transforming lives because it is truly God’s Word – the Holy Scriptures.

 

Fourth internal evidence that the Bible is God’s Word because of it’s scientific accuracy. In Job we’re told God “hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7).  The author of Job could only have known that the Earth hung in space by God’s revelation of said fact… Particularly before the invention of astronomy and space travel. It was revealed to Isaiah even that the earth was of circular shape as Isaiah declared “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth…” (Isaiah 40:22).

Fifth internal evidence that the Bible is God’s Word because the Bible DOES attest to itself being Scripture that is breathed by God… Scripture points to salvation through Jesus Christ.

2 Tim. 3:15-17

¹⁵ and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of Godmay be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sixth internal evidence that the Bible is God’s Word lasting influence the Bible has as specified in God’s Word itself. The Bible which is God’s Word has always generated a response. Either to embrace the God of the universe or reject it. Early Roman emperors such as Diocletian, communist dictators, modern day agnostics, or even the “new” atheists have all tried to diminish the importance of the Bible. Men have scorned it, laughed at it, burned it, ridiculed it, and even made laws against it. But the Word of God is true and has survived throughout the ages. It is just as applicable today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. This is the Word the Lord will remain forever. The Bible is still the most widely published book in the world. This is the Good News preached to all who would listen.

1 Peter 1:25

…but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

So three follow-up questions HumbleThinker...

What are your thoughts on the above?

Why are you speaking against the Bible being God's Word?

If the Bible is not God's Word as you are claiming then what is it?

God bless,

GE

[OneLight]

HumbleThinker, you seem to not believe that the bible is the word of God. DO you see scripture as mans word? If so, how can you be sure you are saved and not following a lie?