"I'm not interpreting it, I'm just reading it!"

Faith & Science Conversation
43

I agree with both of you, but I think there is a difference between “just reading it” and letting the Bible just say what it says. As you say, lifting a single verse out of Scripture is always dangerous, or trying to base a belief system on a single verse. There are a few key rules that I find helpful in interpreting scripture:

  1. All scripture must be interpreted in the context of all other scripture. The Bible is one work with one author.
  2. Know who is speaking and who is the audience - is the text directed to the nation Israel? Is it directed toward believers? Is it directed toward non-believers?
  3. What is the current “dispensation”? Adam and Eve had just one rule to live by, the nation Israel was under the “Law”, we are now under “Grace” and (try to) keep His commandments out of love for Him.

Put in this framework, you can then let the Bible just say what it says.

1 Like
44

I can agree and disagree on #1. I would say all scripture must be interpreted in the context which it was written as it is one work but has multiple authors spanning centuries who lived in different times and in different places. This in a sense also helps address #2. Generally speaking though, I would argue very little is actually written directly to today’s believers as again, say the church at Corinth had a different culture and context than today’s world. I think it is also a dangerous thing to just find where the Scriptures are written to believers and then just let it say what it says.

For example, I think this blogger mentioned above highlights some excellent challenges to reading Scriptures plainly to believers even under this final dispensation of “Grace”:

or even more controversial in today’s church:

3 Likes
45

While some frameworks are no-doubt better than others, and yours has much to commend it, even so I doubt any framework no matter how good gets one to a point where they can now passively let the Bible just “say what it says”. I propose that another rule to add to your good bunch might be: All of us in every place every time always bring our baggage with us and we’ll never escape the need to do interpretive work. So it is best just to acknowledge that and keep on eye on it as best we can.

2 Likes
46

Hi Tom,

Hope you are doing well by God’s grace.

Most people don’t realize how much hard work, scholarship, and imagination are needed to apply your point #2. To truly understand the audience, you have to understand their culture very deeply. For example, which idioms are based on a literal understanding, and which are hyperbolic or symbolic? What are the common understandings of the role of the divine, of demonic forces, of human agents in natural events? What is the message that underlies the medium?

These questions that interpreters bring to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Grerk texts are not necessarily intractable, but they have demanded a lifetime of assiduous scholarship from our finest minds. And many questions are still subject to vigorous disagreement among faithful scholars.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like
47

Very good points

48

Yes, i did not say the framework made it easy. I am resigned to the fact that there will be some things I will never understand, which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try your best to understand.

I did not mean to understate the effort involved, you bring up a good point.

2 Likes
49

@Relates
The Bible is simply the record of the Word of God (Jesus).

@heddle
Also in exodus, God does indeed talk about days (in reference to the Sabbath week), which I have recorded in another post.

@gbrooks9
I have also addressed this in a different post…unfortunately, this topic is now rather split… [quote=“pevaquark, post:42, topic:36573”]
Either way, you are doing a lot of interpretation there which in some sense is also proving @Christy 's point that the plain sense of Scripture (i.e. ‘just reading it’) does not capture the essence of God’s word and thus ‘just reading it’ with Genesis is a very precarious and dangerous thing to do.
[/quote] @pevaquark
Genesis is a lot more straightforward than other parts of scripture. [quote=“TGLarkin, post:43, topic:36573”]
I think there is a difference between “just reading it” and letting the Bible just say what it says. As you say, lifting a single verse out of Scripture is always dangerous, or trying to base a belief system on a single verse. There are a few key rules that I find helpful in interpreting scripture:

All scripture must be interpreted in the context of all other scripture. The Bible is one work with one author.
Know who is speaking and who is the audience - is the text directed to the nation Israel? Is it directed toward believers? Is it directed toward non-believers?
What is the current “dispensation”? Adam and Eve had just one rule to live by, the nation Israel was under the “Law”, we are now under “Grace” and (try to) keep His commandments out of love for Him.

Put in this framework, you can then let the Bible just say what it says.
[/quote]

Bang on! However…[quote=“TGLarkin, post:48, topic:36573, full:true”]
Yes, i did not say the framework made it easy. I am resigned to the fact that there will be some things I will never understand, which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try your best to understand.

I did not mean to understate the effort involved, you bring up a good point.
[/quote]

Mostly agreed, I would say, however, that the more “interpretation” that goes into any given interpretation, the farther from the pure truth it may get…Anyhow, I am still waiting for evidence from scripture (accompanied by sound reasoning) that points to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

I look forward to your responses!

50

So your interpretation of a translation of the Bible IS the Word of God, but the Bible itself is a mere record of the Word of God?

How does that work, honestly?

2 Likes
51

@benkirk
I fear that people have been misinterpreting this post…It occurred to me later that it did not sound the way I wished it to, but I believe it is written in almost exactly the form that the rhetorical question it was written in answer to intended.

It actually links back to the title of this topic…

52

@J.E.S

Yes, unfortunately the topic is “rather split” - - and you don’t seem to be able to tell me where to find the most relevant discussion, or what it is “split” about.

1 Like
53

Then maybe you could do us the honor of explaining it.

2 Likes
54

To a large extent that is true, when one is thinking in a Trinitarian manner as a Christian should and one includes the response of humans to the Word.

Anyhow, I am still waiting for evidence from scripture (accompanied by sound reasoning) that points to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

In the NT we go beyond indirect reference to the Word to direct reference to Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV2011)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe.

Here the author of Hebrew explains how God spoke to the Jews first indirectly about Salvation and Creation and then directly through Jesus Christ. This does not make the Genesis account parabolic, but when one speaks to people who do not understand scientific language and concepts, you do not speak to them in those terms.

Genesis speaks an ancient scientific language nd concepts to an ancient people. God expects us to be able to make th4e transition to modern science.

2 Likes
55

Excellent point Roger. One thing I ponder is that when Hebrews was written, you know the writer had no idea what he was putting on paper would become canon, thus he was not writing about Jesus as described and recorded with ink, but rather Jesus incarnate. While we rely on the written text to help understand who Jesus is, ultimately we are spoken to through our relationship with Christ Jesus.

1 Like
56

@gbrooks9
It is split between here and (I believe) the “Distasteful…Implications Of Evolution Before The Fall.”

57

@jpm, Thank you, Phil.

That is why I say that the Bible is relational, because through it and the Spirit, which is relational, we know God the Son and God the Father Who are relational, because we are relational and reality or Nature is relational.

That is a lot of philosophy and theology, but it is all needed to reconcile faith and science.

58

@benkirk

I thought someone would notice that intentional bit of irony. For some reason, people seem to think that (since I take Genesis literally), I take everything in the Bible (including obvious hyperbole) completely literally. It is true: some verses in the Bible are difficult, and need some interpretation. However some on this forum appear (and I say this so as to avoid “putting words in somebody’s mouth”) to assert that the Bible is VERY vague in MANY large areas, and is very often in need of great interpretation. Truth be told, the Word of God as revealed in the Bible should be taken as it says, and only in areas that obviously (for the sake of our lack of understanding, not an error in scripture) need it should theologians do interpretive work.[quote=“benkirk, post:53, topic:36573”]
It occurred to me later that it did not sound the way I wished it to,…

Really? Then it also must have occurred to you that this was not a matter of readers misinterpreting it, no? Yet you did nothing to retract nor correct it.
[/quote]

It is still a matter of readers misinterpreting. What is meant by this is that I could have better phrased my thoughts on this (instead of patterning off of the rhetorical). I have “made no effort to retract or correct” because, when interpreted correctly, I am in agreement with my own comment (and, of course, I can enumerate later [if I deem you worthy of the honor ;)])

By the way…

Congrats! You have won a new irony meter. Please send in your email address, credit card number, and any other sensitive personal information along with $30 for shipping and handling to redeem your prize. Thank you. :unamused:*

*this offer is of a highly facetious (and potentially sarcastic!) nature and it is not recommended that you accept it. Any copying of text within this quote box without this * message included is strictly forbidden… :wink:

59

There is the rub. How do we know we are understanding it properly without proper training. The eunuch needed Philip to direct him, and his reading was at least a lot closer than we are. I am quite surprised at what insights can be gained from reading what a scholar has to offer. If you have not done so read Walton, Wright, and perhaps even Enns. You may not agree with all they offer, nor do I, but they will surely open your eyes to some things you have missed.

2 Likes
60

I see.

-Why are the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradictory?
-How is there light three days before the sun and moon? Is the moon really a lesser light?
-What does it mean that we are to rule over creation? What does it mean that we are created in God’s image?
-What does it mean when God says that it was good on each day? Why does it say that things were ‘good on each day?’
-Why doesn’t the 7th day have evening and morning at the end of it?
-Why does God need to rest after creating things? Is He done creating things or is He always creating things?
-Why does Genesis 1 described a very ordered account patterning the weekly pattern of the Sabbath but Genesis 2 seems to occur in an unknown timescale?
-The order of creation is different, why? One starts with man and the other ends with man.
-What or who was that serpent in the Garden? Was he right since they did not literally die a physical death in one 24 hour period (i.e. a day?)? Would you be wrong to think it means non-physical death? Or did God mean ‘in that day’ to refer to a period longer than 24 hours?
-If the serpent was a spiritual demonic entity, why does it say he will crawl on his belly and then die someday?
-If they were eternal beings at first (which it doesn’t say but many YEC assume this was the case based upon interpretation), why was there a tree of life that could give immortality?
-Who were the sons of God that married the daughters of men before Noah’s flood?
-Etc… so many questions that require interpretation that is not so straightforward.

4 Likes
61

Which translation? They’re all different.

And why are the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradictory in EVERY translation?

In which language?

Do you take the firmament literally, with waters both above and below? Last time I checked, that was in Genesis.

[quote=“J.E.S, post:58, topic:36573”]
It is still a matter of readers misinterpreting.[/quote]

No, there’s zero misinterpretation in reading, “To be honest, I would put my interpretation forth as the Word of God…because it IS the Word of God,” as anything other than you explicitly claiming that your interpretation IS the Word of God.

Then you’re tacitly admitting that we didn’t misunderstand. Go on, you can overtly admit it.

[quote]I have “made no effort to retract or correct” because, when interpreted correctly, I am in agreement with my own comment (and, of course, I can enumerate later [if I deem you worthy of the honor :wink:])
[/quote]How does something so plainly stated require any interpretation?

There goes my new irony meter!

1 Like
63

@gbrooks9
cwhenderson:
How would evening and morning be determined prior to the existence of the sun, moon, and stars (day 4)?
That is a very interesting question, @cwhenderson, one that I have been pondering lately. Interestingly, Genesis 1 implies (as God first created light, and called the light day and the darkness night) that the time span of a day is set by God, and he created the sun and the heavenly bodies to mark it.

It was in this very topic (at least, I assume you are still on this track). Enjoy!

(P.S: This reply was in this topic all along as well…)