-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Basics of Bible Interpretation
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
- Status
trust that God indeed gave to us an infallible scripture
The person must be born again, andcome to the scriptures in prayer, seeking to learn and to apply the truths in it
Person needs to realize the Holy Spirit guides them into the truth he inspired in the Bible
Apply the literal sense as the intended sense, but also understand based upon genre, parable/prophecy/historical etc
Scriptures interpret scriptures, seek out cross references
progressive revelation
Scriptures gives to us our theology, not us forcing what we already hold into it
Cannot get a conclusion that disagrees with other scriptures on the issue
We should expect to find Christ in the Old Testament. 'These are [the Scriptures] which testify of Me' (John 5:39).
Also, if possible, learn and use the original biblical languages used by God in the scriptures.
I heard a preacher give the best interpretation of scripture I ever heard... The most basic rule of interpretation is simple... Let scripture interpret scripture... If scripture conflict with another scripture then the reader who is interpreting scripture is wrong, not the scripture... I agree with the input of the other brethren and I thought I would add this... Brother Glen
Why do you think Scripture needs interpreting?
Why not just accept it as the Word of God as written?
That's a good answer but for one point that Martin makes - you make no suggestion that the LORD Jesus Christ is the all-pervading focus of Scripture.
That is key.
That line is often stated as a truism, BUT it is the basis for many of the discussions/arguments with Bible-believing Christians.
In application it leads to a focus on ethnic, carnal Israel rather than the focus on the LORD Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of prophecy.
It divides the Old & New Covenant Scriptures & fails to see that the Old are interpreted & fulfilled by the New Covenant in the blood of the LORD Jesus Christ.
I heard a preacher give the best interpretation of scripture I ever heard... The most basic rule of interpretation is simple... Let scripture interpret scripture... If scripture conflict with another scripture then the reader who is interpreting scripture is wrong, not the scripture... I agree with the input of the other brethren and I thought I would add this... Brother Glen
I would add, "Let the New Covenant Scriptures interpret the Old."
Apparently someone doesnt know what it means to interpret scripture.
This speaks to the fact that there are various levels of context. You are speaking of the wide context of all of the Bible here. So, one should interpret according to the immediate context (the verses before and after), the chapter context, the context of the book, the context of the Old or New Testament, and the context of the whole Bible.I heard a preacher give the best interpretation of scripture I ever heard... The most basic rule of interpretation is simple... Let scripture interpret scripture... If scripture conflict with another scripture then the reader who is interpreting scripture is wrong, not the scripture... I agree with the input of the other brethren and I thought I would add this... Brother Glen
The reader should never interpret something as a figure of speech unless there is a clear indication in Scripture (context, accepted types of figures of speech, etc.) that the figurative interpretation is correct.
To interpret figuratively when the passage is not figurative makes the reader the boss, not the text.
To interpret figuratively when the passage is not figurative makes the reader the boss, not the text.
I have found all the comments interesting. I wonder if any of you have biblical principles or texts behind your suppositions to support them (other than Martin, who gave one).
If interpreting is "to construe or understand in a particular way" then we will do that somehow or another when we "accept it as written," won't we? What does it mean to accept it as written?
Literal interpretation: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
Grammatical interpretation: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Neh. 8:8).
Etc., etc.
Grammatical interpretation: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Neh. 8:8).
Etc., etc.
This reply would make sense if "private interpretation" was the opposite to "literal interpretation", but it isn't. A private interpretation can be excessively literal or excessively metaphorical ... or anything else.
In fact, there is no passage to back up the misguided assumption that we should so overemphasize literal interpretation to the extant that Christians do today.
Jesus Saves!
Active Member
There was a time in my life when I confessed to being saved, but was deceived and still lost. At that time I tried to read religiously, but never gained any spiritual wisdom. And before long, I was right back out as I was before I confessed because there was no change. Once I truly got born again and met the author of the Book, I began to understand a little more every time I read and mused on his. Word. I had to and still have to desire the sincere milk of the word that I may grow. You have to be born again spiritually to begin to understand God's blessed word.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14 KJVS
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.
James 1:5 KJVS
[5] If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
I have found God's word full of treasures, but we have to read, pray, and ask his guidance.
I discover new blessings often when I'm willing to dig deeper where I've already dug.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14 KJVS
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.
James 1:5 KJVS
[5] If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
I have found God's word full of treasures, but we have to read, pray, and ask his guidance.
I discover new blessings often when I'm willing to dig deeper where I've already dug.
I completely disagree. An interpretation is either literal or metaphorical. It cannot be "excessively" in either direction. It is what it is, as my son likes to say.
The word "private" in the passage is the Greek idios, which any lexicon will tell you means "one's own." If I am doing my best to interpret literally, then I will not have "my own" interpretation, even though it could be wrong. On the other hand, a metaphorical interpretation when there are no figures of speech involved is always "one's own."
Witness A. T. Robertson's statement about the 1000 years of Rev. 20:2--"In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one." It's so much easier to simply say 1000 years is 1000 years--literally!
If one understands figures of speech, and interprets them correctly, then carefully looks for the grammatical-historical meaning, one cannot go wrong. On the other hand, if the interpreter insists on interpreting non-figures as figures, he makes himself the authority.
Last edited:
The problem lies in the vague nature of the word, literal.
It is often used and very often misused.
I also bristled at the way it was used in John's post
Rob
Last edited:
That's why we use the term "grammatical-historical."
For the record, though, here is a linguistic definition of "literal meaning."--"Variously of the meaning of a sentence or other expression as determined solely by the separate words etc. of which it is composed, or of what is said, as opposed to what is implied or implicated, in a given context" (Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 229).
This should clarify things. Interpreting literally simply means looking at what the words and grammar actually say. However, metaphorical interpretation looks for what is implied.
Sorry, I don't understand this. What exactly did you bristle at? And how does the term "literary" describe something in 2 Peter? (I assume you mean 1:20.)
So what is "interpretation" as it applies to Scripture?
A concordance search yields 72 occurrances in the KJV.
The word is generally used to explain the meaning of dreams, or to translate into an understandable language. God-given spiritual understanding is required for the former, while knowledge of both languages, or a spiritual gift is required for the latter.
I think it is a useful word for the study of Scripture as it implies that more than a basic understanding of contextual meaning is needed. More than a straightforward literal understanding taking into account "Literal, Grammatic, Historic hermeneutic."
Interesting that the the Gk is translated "expound" or "explained" in Luke 24 -
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
If we had been there, there would be fewer arguments
! As it is we rely on the inspired Apostles in their preaching & letters.
- Status