In this blog, "let us reason together", I will discuss fundamental scriptural topics that I believe are necessary in order to understand what is the true "gospel", or good news. I am not here to support any given denomination. I am here to read and study what the Bible says, and learn what it is teaching; as opposed to searching the Bible to prove what I already believe. "Christianity" as we know it today covers a very broad array of different theologies, and I believe it is important to examine the Bible with nothing short of a careful, thoughtful, in-depth look into what the Lord is teaching as opposed to what we have believed simply because it is what we are used to. With that said, the most important teachings of the Bible will also simply be the character that the Lord wishes to impress upon us, and the love that we show to one another as a result of our love for the Lord.
It is not my intention to offend, but rather to share this wonderful message of hope and Glory to God, in which He has planned, from before the creation of Earth, the reconciling of all mankind back into harmony with Him. We lost favor with God, as a people, after Adam's sin, and we are told that we are going to receive it again. (Acts 3:21)
If anyone has any disagreements, I would urge you to find scriptural evidence on the contrary. I urge everyone to study each set of scriptures to understand truly what the Lord is teaching. I do believe that if you study what the scriptures teach in their entirety, you will come to a different conclusion than you might have previously believed. If you were to ask yourselves if you have ever truly studied the scriptures as opposed to simply hearing a message in Church, or simply reading passages like you would a normal book, and your answer is "no", then you might be surprised what you find if you study the Bible like you would a college major.
In all my life, there is no more wonderful a thing than the understanding of God's plan for mankind.
I think I have the honor of the first comment! Hello, brother! Stephen Austin forwarded me the link to your blog. I appreciate you going into depth here.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind I'll share some of my thoughts on these verses and I'm looking forward to your responses.
First, it's important to lay down the framework for interpreting scripture in order to stay on the same page. I agree, the meaning becomes somewhat different when you take a "college major" approach to studying. The Bible should be interpreted in much the same way we look at a college textbook, the same common-sense ways we analyze texts, whether it is Shakespeare or physics.
I would put the assumptions in this order:
1. We assume the writer means what he says. That is, the writer intends for us to understand, at the very least, generally, what he means and gives us the tools in his context to figure it out, even if we have trouble with words or phrases. If the writer doesn't mean what he says, then it become anyone's guess as to what he means and then there is no objective way to settle the matter. So we take the writer at his word, once we're certain exactly what he actually wrote, whether we personally agree with what he says or not.
1.A. This means, interpretation is not the important part. Textual analysis will give us what he wrote, which is what he means. If we don't like what he means, if we are certain that he wrote that way, we don't have the flexibility to go back and try to find another interpretation that fits what we expect better.
1.B. This also means that we allow the writer the possibility to contradict himself. If we are certain one passage says and means this, but we are also certain another passage means the opposite, then we flag it as a suspected contradiction, no resolution, and we go back, textual analysis, and determine if we really missed something in figuring out what was written. If not, the writer contradicts himself, period, and his whole writing is suspect. (I don't believe the Bible really has actual contradiction, but this method is important in being honest -- and there are minor apparent contradictions which I have not yet resolved where I still scratch my head).
2. The writer provides context. If we can't figure a word out after going through original languages, or the meaning is unclear, or lost, we expand our analysis. We figure out what was the nature of the whole writing? What is he trying to teach? How is this word used in the same paragraph? (if not there, then the same book?, if not there then other writers writing around the same time?)
2.A. Sentences are rarely used by themselves. They are part of flowing narratives and a whole thought. Therefore, by pulling out a sentence we cannot be sure of its meaning until we examine it in the context. (i.e. you can rely on proof-text paragraphs and chapters, but not proof-text sentences or phrases).
2.B. Sometimes all you have is what the sentences seems to mean at face value, but if so you cannot rely on this as the foundation of a doctrine (e.g. no one really knows for sure what is meant by the "baptism for the dead" in 1 Cor 15. Mormons build a whole doctrine of proxy baptism that is completely against the rest of scripture).
3. We interpret the words as written at the time they were written. The writer used those words deliberately with the meanings they had at the time of writing. That is, writing about a computer in the early 1900s, one meant a live human operator performing computations. We cannot go back and substitute our current meaning for an electronic device and expect to get a useful meaning, even if the sentence makes sense on the surface.
The order of trusting your interpretation is:
ReplyDelete1. Immediate context (the chapter/sentences around the verse)
2. General context (the whole book)
3. Historical use of the word/phrase at the time of writing
4. What it immediately seems to say
5. Global context (whether it fits with the rest of scripture)
Interpreting literally according to common sense means identifying historical/grammatical contexts:
1. When a passage is in narrative form, we treat it as straight history. Characters are assumed to be real, places, events, etc. Unless specifically told something is symbolic, everything is real.
2. Prophetic writing is interpreted as prophecy: we allow for symbols to be concretely identified as symbols (otherwise we don't flat out assume they are symbols). We also allow for things we don't understand rather than forcing ourselves to assign meanings so that we get a concrete interpretation. If we don't understand it, we remain faithful to the words and flag it for further study later.
3. Poetic writing: we expect grammatical representations with metaphors, personfication, comparisons (e.g. just because a psalm talks about God's hands does not mean he absolutely has physical hands anymore than these kind of words are used in modern poetry and no one has a problem).
Finally, while we may assume the Bible can be trusted as accurate (until we believe we find some actual contradiction to suggest otherwise), we expect two more things:
1. Humans have limited knowledge. Even if what they write is true, it may not be complete. Meaning that it may true up to an aspect, but does not speak to every aspect.
2. God’s knowledge is unlimited. That is, if we find areas where God speaks directly, and it seems to on the surface contradict the writings of another spirit-inspired human, we assume that God’s words, not man’s words will be definitive and complete. This is very important, particularly because we find that the bulk of the Old Testament scriptures on death and the grave accord with what a human sees of death (body in the grave, decomposing, resting) but much of what we get about the ultimate fate of the soul/spirit will come from the direct words of the Father and his Son and from visions given to the prophets.
So those are my starting assumptions. Hopefully, it is common-sensical. The same patterns we use to interpret non-religious books we use here. Because language is ultimately intended to convey meaning. Interpret any other way and you can't rely on getting out the same meanings as were put in.
That was so well-put that I'd like to ask you to teach a whole class on it with me sitting in front chair.
DeleteI agree with everything you said. One thing I would like to point out though is that not all writing that was inspired by God, especially in the prophetic sense, was something that you could say "the writer meant what he said." There are many prophecies that I expect were visions that perhaps the writer did not understand, but he wrote them under the guidance of our Father nonetheless. I believe that it is more than fair to say that God orchestrated the scriptures as they are written, and all is a part of God's plan. Everything that has happened, that is going to happen, is a part of much more that we do not fully understand; but what we can understand is the outcome that God wishes, as well as some of the key moments and points in between.