Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation

Bible Truth website ^ | Revised 8/01 | Cooper P. Abrams III

[fortheDeclaration]

Bump for read

[maestro]

Thank you for your postings.

Maranatha!
(The Rapture)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

This is a great article, thank you.

Becky

[Hank Kerchief]

I think this is not very good. No doubt there are some good ideas, but some are quite wrong. On my first pass I noticed these things:

...Often we are told to let the Bible commentator or scholar tell you, because he has education and incites that the ordinary Christians does not have?! The problem with this answer is which Bible commentator should not go to who you can trust [?] has the correct answer?...

(This guy needs an editor.)

..."Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble..." This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or it could mean any length of time of trouble.

I'm quite sure "day" never means a "twenty hour" period in the Bible, or, a "time of trouble."

Syntax. Important to arriving at the correct meaning of a word is the study of syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in is [?] grammatical setting. It deals with understanding the word's grammatical use as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or part of speech. It also seeks to decide the tense, mood, voice, and case of a word.

Syntax is not "a study", does not "deal" with anything, and does not "seek" anything. If this writer's understanding of English syntax is so poor, how is he going to instruct others on Biblical (Greek and Hebrew) syntax.

NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OR MODERN SCIENCE

At one time, the generally accepted interpretation of certain passages of Scripture made the world (earth) the center of the universe, with everything going around it. That interpretation had to be corrected to accomodate scientific evidence. Certainly, the interpretation of some passages may be corrected when better scientific evidence is obtained, includeing archaeological evidence.

(Note, evolution is neither science nor a theory.)

NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE

How about two passages of Scripture? There are only two passages of Scripture for the virgin birth, but we consider that a major doctrine.

I do not think I need to make a more thorough study of this. Thanks for the post, though.

Hank

[Woodkirk]

This is a very inciteful article worth keeping in mind -----
-- er, I mean , insightful.

[american colleen]

Because the best interpreter is God Himself, and by letting Scripture interpret Scripture we are letting God, the Author of the Bible tell us what He means by what He said.

Isn't this circular reasoning?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

No it's common sense reasoning. Have you ever tried it, I don't mean common sense:), I mean reading the bible on your own following these rules of intrepratation? Do you really believe a man could say better what God means then God?

Becky

[RnMomof7]

3. It is obvious from reading Revelation 20, that the thousand years is literal and not figurative. There is nothing in the passage that would indicate that the period of time is figurative. Thus if we accept literally what the Bible says we are letting the Bible interpret itself. The correct interpretation of the passage is that Christ will literally reign for one thousand years on earth! The literal meaning of the words tell us what God said. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. The question the "spiritualizers" of the Bible should ask themselves is, why did God say literally that this period of time would be a thousand years? If He had some other period in mind, why did not just plainly state what He meant? Why would He say one thing and mean something else. Clearly, the truth is that God said what He meant. He said one Christ will reign one thousands years because that is what will happen.

Sometime is really means is...

Good article thanks....now if I could get you to see that elect means elect and predestined measn predestined in context we would be all set:>)

[Iowegian]

You know it is so much easier to let someone else tell you what you must believe than to let God tell you through His Word with guidance from the Holy Spirit. Whether their guides actually used the Scriptures to decide what their masses must believe is highly doubtful, given the lack of evidence for their unique beliefs.

[Iowegian]

Good summation, and most (if not all) errors do come when these guidlines are NOT followed, whether my RC, NC or cultist.

[Cvengr]

by letting Scripture interpret Scripture ...

Might be better understood by stating ..."By letting (some verses of) Scripture interpret (other passages of) Scripture..."

This is one of the guiding principles used in discerning what has become known as the Canon of Scripture contained in the Holy Bible. Many Books were considered canonical because Christ referred to them in His ministry. Others were first hand accounts which reinforced one another on many same events. In regards to Prophecy, many passages are directly interpretted in following verses.

[american colleen]

Have you ever tried it, I don't mean common sense:)

:-) ! LOL.

I'm wondering if it's possible at all, honestly. Every one of us reads articles like the one posted here, and determines whether it is true or applicable or wrong depending on where we sit theologically. You know what I mean?

Try as I might, using the formula outlined in this essay (because for a few years I was indeed a lapsed, questioning Catholic), I could never get beyond John 6 and the Catholic and Orthodox belief of what He said, without adding to it to make what He said mean something else. This is what kept me Catholic.

BTW, I don't want to get into anything other than a discussion here, it's just when I read the conclusion by the author, I honestly see circular reasoning in it and therefore, I was left still wondering how the author proved "Who is right" to anyone other than those who agree with him. His own method is the one that every other religion claims as their own method, and yet no one agrees on "Who is right."

It is one of the last incredible days of summer here in the northeast, so I am going "down the cape" to attend the Scallop Festival, and won't be back until later on... so I'm not ignoring you, I just won't be around! Have a good day :-)

[drstevej]

***Such theories, such as the Gap Theory, in no way have any value within themselves....Yet, today the Gap Theory is still being taught by a few proponents as fact, and yet it was never anything more than a man's theory or speculation. ***

Actually, the Gap Theory, does have an exegetical reference. The terms [Hebrew: tohu v'bohu] translated "without form and void" in Hebrew strongly imply a prior judgment, and would better be translated "desolate and a wasteland".

tohu...

UhoT n.m. formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness -- 1. formlessness, of primaeval earth, of land reduced to primaeval chaos (both + Uhobfw and voidness), ' T-tay:riq city of chaos (of ruined city); = nothingness, empty space; of empty, trackless waste. 2. fig. of what is empty, unreal, as idols (coll. of idolmakers), groundless arguments or considerations, moral unreality or falsehood; = a thing of nought, worthlessness; as adv. acc. I said not, yinU$:Qab UhoT seek me emptily, to no purpose.

---

w = and

bohu...

UhoB n.[m.] emptiness, alw. c. UhoT q.v.; Uhobfw$ UhoT of primaeval earth; of earth under judgment of ' y ; Uhob$ y"n:b):w Uhot-waq the line of wasteness and the stones of emptiness, i.e. plummets, employed, not as usual for building, but for destroying walls; v. sub }b) 6.

---

This terminology is the basis of the question whether there was some event between 1:1 and 1:2 that transformed the original creation of God into a scene of judgment.

The Gap Theory is simply a theory, but it is an attempt to explain the actual language of the text of Genesis 1:2.

[RnMomof7]

We discussed the gap theory a bit in my survey class..Just another one of those things that in the long run make no difference IMHO:>)

[Woodkirk]

I tend to forgive authors, particularly on the internet, spelling errrors, as I too would like uthers to forgiv me mine. Those are gnats compared to the substance of the article. I chalk a lot of it up to "copyist" errrrors and try to not let it iterfere with my abillitee to understand what the author is s sayingg.

Regarding the belief that the earth was the center of the universe, that was imposed on people by the same autocrats who withheld the scriptures from them. Many myths fell by the wayside when the scriptures found their way into the hands of the common man and those who wanted to know the truth.

The grammatical /historical method is the "bands and cords" that bind the imaginative/allegorical and keep in check.

[RnMomof7]

Regarding the belief that the earth was the center of the universe, that was imposed on people by the same autocrats who withheld the scriptures from them.


The same ones that taught the amil position...error upon error

[drstevej]

My point is that the author's illustration was ill chosen.

[RnMomof7]

I got it..:>)

[Hank Kerchief]

Regarding the belief that the earth was the center of the universe, that was imposed on people by the same autocrats who withheld the scriptures from them.

The same ones that taught the amil position...error upon error

Luther and Calvin both held the earth was the center of the Universe. Are those the autocrats you're talking about?

Hank