How to Interpret the Bible

http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/interpreting-the-bible ^ | May 1, 2011 | Faith Facts

[grumpa]

In 1993 Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a book entitled Christianity in Crisis. In the book he exposed problems within evangelicalism. Many think that in actuality Hanegraaff understated the problems of both doctrine and practice within Christianity, and time has made the issues even more acute.

Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. And maybe we don’t. Some serious introspection is in order.

[grumpa]

If you are not ready to be challenged, this article might make you a bit uncomforable.

[scripter]

Thanks for posting. Will read it later.

[mnehring]

this article might make you a bit uncomforable.

Actually, although I'm not finished reading it, this seems one of the more rational articles on the subject I've read in a while.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

There are the ultra-fundamentalists who think that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally—making a mockery of language itself including the language of Scripture.

You know, it's funny, I keep hearing about these folks, but of all the fundamentalists I've met over the years, I haven't actually met any.

[grumpa]

Ever talk to a Dispensationalist or a Church of Christ person?

[scripter]

Just finished reading and I liked it. From what I've seen on FR, some here won't like the article because it doesn't support their particular theology... I'd like to be wrong.

I was glad to see the reference to context, something many either don't understand or ignore.

In addition to a number of books, I use Logos Bible software to study the Bible. Well, who am I kidding... I rarely use books any more because Logos is excellent.

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Olog-hai]

I see no mention of the Sabbath or other commandments. Too sticky a topic for one that wishes to challenge one's thoughts on the Bible?

Also no mention of Isaiah 28:10-13, which gives one of the most important clues on how to study scriptures.

It always helps to have a copy of the Bible with Strong's Dictionary if you want the meaning of the words in the text.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Yes actually. And the problem with Hanegraaf's statement, especially as you're trying to apply it to dispensationalists, is that attacking somebody for thinking "that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally" essentially just serves to allow the attacker to set themselves up as the arbiter of what is supposed to be taken "literally" and what isn't. In essence, overturning Hanegraaf's argument and making it self-contradictory, at least by their application.

He complains about people not taking the Bible seriously as the inspired Word of God, but then basically turns around and encourages them not to do so, since doing so is "taking every word literally," which is a big bad, horrible no-no.

Further, the argument over how literally to take the Bible is one that a lot of people, frankly, just don't even understand. I think we can all understand that Jesus wasn't saying He was literally a plant (John 15:1), nor was He saying He was a wooden plank with a doorknob (John 10:9), nor did He really mean that we should actually eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:54) - well, except many Catholics on that last one. Nevertheless, making those arguments, as Hanegraaf does, is something of a red herring. Nobody makes those arguments - nobody "takes the Bible literally" in that sense, and trying to use this as an argument is simply a straw man.

Now, concerning dispensationalists - amillennialists and other heretics will tend to try to, ah, expand this idea of "not taking the Bible too literally" to mean, basically, that wherever something the Bible says is in conflict with their theology, then it's meant to be taken "figuratively." Hence, they set their own theology up as the arbiter of what determines whether the Bible is "literal" or not. This is done, for instance, with the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. Amillennialists, preterists, and others will jump through every hoop to make this non-literal. Yet, there's not any *scriptural* context to suggest that this isn't meant to be taken literally.

Yet, by making the "only dummies would take the Bible over literally" argument, they essentially give themselves an out to dispense with all those uncomfortable questions about why their theology is in such conflict with the actual words of Scripture. The millennial reign is just figurative, or is happening right now in a, well, non-millennial fashion, because we said it is. And if you point to Scriptural context to refute this, you're just an uneducated buffoon who takes the Bible too literally.

[BereanBrain]

Hank sold out to the “different” doctrine guys several years back.

I guess his books weren't selling well enough, so he had Willow Creek guys onto his program to promote their “seeker sensitive” theology.

Sorry, but Hank USED to be bible based sola scriptura, but now he's more into doing and saying what he has to to get listeners

[jdlevy95]

Jews know that G-d gave every letter in the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai— and the correct interpretation/application of the letters/words/phrases/sentences...in Hebrew (or, lashon hakodesh—the holy tounge.) It’s so liberating...no revisionists, no doubts. Pure genius. God says “I want this” and we do it. I don’t envy you guys.

What is the New Testament written in originally?

[RaceBannon]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

when Jesus says “This is My Body”, Catholics believe Him, what do you do?

[B4Ranch]

Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/3438053039/yesnomaybe-20

[SVTCobra03]

The biggest problem with post-modern evangelism are the emergent, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven churches that cater to itching ears.

[Quix]

Hmmmm

place marker.

[RatRipper]

Have read some of the website already. Looks like an excellent resource to me. Thank you for sharing it.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

when Jesus says “This is My Body”, Catholics believe Him, what do you do?

I understand His statement in light of the biblical theology surrounding the "eating" of the Word of God and it acting as spiritual sustenance (Job 23:12, Jer. 15:16, Ezek. 3:1-3, Rev. 10:9), connecting this with the idea of Jesus also being the Word of God. In other words, there is a well-established line of doctrine in Scripture which treats the "eating of God's Word" as spiritual and/or soemthing that happens in visions (i.e. figurative), so I would also understand Jesus' words in John 6 the same way.

[Uri’el-2012]

What is the New Testament written in originally?

Many who have studied the Greek in the book
of Matthew detect underlying Hebraisms.

This would suggest that it was originally
written in Hebrew for Hebrews.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The NT was originally written in Greek, including Matthew. In fact, there's no evidence for an Aramaic Matthew (rather than Hebrew, for which there's NO early evidence) until the 3rd century.

[aruanan]

This would suggest that it was originally written in Hebrew for Hebrews.

Wasn't Aramaic, followed by koine Greek, the business and everyday language of that region for centuries, Hebrew being relegated to the more erudite regions of scholarship? Of course, Hebraisms could have persisted across languages in much the same way that many figures of speech are found throughout the Romance languages and English today.