The ABC's of Interpretation

[Guest Summer Sun]

Hello! I'm new on here. But as for interpretation - well, Jesus only ever used scripture in context - it was only the devil who used it out context (I ws thinking of the temptations).

I always wish there was more 'good eduction' of scripture (for want of a better phrase) which can help people understand better, and also to be encouraged in their faith - after all we serve a faithful God whose word is true!

Summer Sun, there is a great little book by RC Sproul entitled Knowing Scripture that really lays out the good basics of interpretation. I am sure its still available through most Christian stores.

sw

Thanks St Worm! I'll look out for it!

[Guest Anne24]

I need help understanding something. In Luke 18:18-18 the Bible says:

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. "

Jesus is God too, and so that makes Him good. Why would He say that He wasn't?

Edited September 5, 2006 by Anne24

[EricH]

I need help understanding something. In Luke 18:18-18 the Bible says:

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. "

Jesus is God too, and so that makes Him good. Why would He say that He wasn't?

It is because the man came to him not recognizing that He was God. He thought he was only a "good teacher". Jesus was basically saying "If you don't think I am God, why are you attributing an attribute tp me that belongs only to God to me. If you look at the entire passage, the man's concept of what constituted goodness and obedience are messed up. He though he was good because he had obeyed some commandments. Jesus had to show him God's standards are much higher

[Guest Anne24]

Oh ok, that makes so much more sense now. I was just doing a study on different verses and I should have read the entire passage. Thank you!

[Tribulation]

8. Interpret prophetic books literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation.

Is it possible that someone could explain this one to me?

Are you saying that all the scriptures within the prophetic books are only supposed to be taken literally?

[EricH]

8. Interpret prophetic books literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation.

Is it possible that someone could explain this one to me?

Are you saying that all the scriptures within the prophetic books are only supposed to be taken literally?

No, it means that a literal understanding should be the 'default path" unless the context of the passage demands that it be taken symbolically. In other words we should take the authors literally inless they themselves give us clues that they intended their writings to be understood in some symbolic way

[Tribulation]

8. Interpret prophetic books literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation.

Is it possible that someone could explain this one to me?

Are you saying that all the scriptures within the prophetic books are only supposed to be taken literally?

No, it means that a literal understanding should be the 'default path" unless the context of the passage demands that it be taken symbolically. In other words we should take the authors literally inless they themselves give us clues that they intended their writings to be understood in some symbolic way

Are you saying that the prophecies contained in these books cannot relate to our current lives?

[Guest yod]

Dang....people can't even interpret what EricH wrote?

Thank you EricH for this valuable and timely post. It should be pinned somewhere prominent for everyone to reference easily.

[EricH]

8. Interpret prophetic books literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation.

Is it possible that someone could explain this one to me?

Are you saying that all the scriptures within the prophetic books are only supposed to be taken literally?

No, it means that a literal understanding should be the 'default path" unless the context of the passage demands that it be taken symbolically. In other words we should take the authors literally inless they themselves give us clues that they intended their writings to be understood in some symbolic way

Are you saying that the prophecies contained in these books cannot relate to our current lives?

No,

I am saying that texts have one meaning. That meaning is the one the author of the text willed to convey using normal rules of grammar context etc. When looking atg prophetic texts we accept the literal meaning unless the author indicates we understand what he says symbolically. Once we understand the meaning, we are free to make applications to our current life. But these applications must be in line with the one meaning the author intended

[Tribulation]

No,

I am saying that texts have one meaning. That meaning is the one the author of the text willed to convey using normal rules of grammar context etc. When looking atg prophetic texts we accept the literal meaning unless the author indicates we understand what he says symbolically. Once we understand the meaning, we are free to make applications to our current life. But these applications must be in line with the one meaning the author intended

Okay! Thanks for clearing it up!