Confirmation Bias and Bible Study

[Van]

Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, SNIP) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. [From the internet]

One of our problems in rightly dividing the word of truth is we might filter God's word through our presuppositions, or what we have already decided was true.

If you believe we were chosen individually as foreseen individuals, without or without foreseen faith, then a verse that says we were chosen when we were rich in faith and loved God, makes no sense. So we rewrite it to say we were chosen to be rich in faith and to be heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. (James 2:5)

A whole boat-load of examples might be given, but you get the idea. If our view requires us to nullify or alter the plain meaning of other verses or passages, we should realize we are on the wrong track.

 

[JD731]

Who cares? Discussion would make for a boring thread IMO.

 

[canadyjd]

Confirmation bias would lead to someone starting numerous threads with the theme of “let’s rewrite this passage of scripture” to force it to support my views.

Confirmation bias would lead someone with novice level understanding of the biblical languages (at best) to disregard the opinions of experts that have spent decades of research and study, publishing peer reviewed articles, because they bought a lexicon.

Confirmation bias would lead to someone claiming to be the victim of personal attacks every time someone disagreed with their views based on 2000 years of established understanding of meaning and context.

Confirmation bias has a perfect example on the BB, but I won’t mention any names.

I fully expect “taint so”, “personal attacks” “I know you are but what am I” and other such meaningless dialog.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Two defensive posts, but nary a word concerning interpretations that nullify the plain meaning of verses.

The things is interpreted to mean "all the things" rather than the things contextually in view.

All knowing is interpreted to mean "all knowing of everything" rather than all knowing of what is contextually in view.

 

[37818]

One of our problems in rightly dividing the word of truth is we might filter God's word through our presuppositions, or what we have already decided was true.

We all have presuppositions. And there are no escape form them. Where a point of disagreement occurs, different presuppositions are at work.

 

[Dave G]

Confirmation bias would lead to someone starting numerous threads with the theme of “let’s rewrite this passage of scripture” to force it to support my views.

I agree, and have seen that many times here on this forum.

Confirmation bias would lead someone with novice level understanding of the biblical languages (at best) to disregard the opinions of experts that have spent decades of research and study, publishing peer reviewed articles, because they bought a lexicon.

God's children are not limited by relying on scholars for the correct understanding of the Scriptures, sir.
They have the ability to come to it themselves by simply studying His word over time by the Holy Spirit that dwells in them ( 1 John 2:20-27 ).

For example, having a "novice level understanding of the biblical languages" is no impediment to believing what is written...
As long as the translation into their native language was performed faithfully and accurately.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dave G]

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Two defensive posts, but nary a word concerning interpretations that nullify the plain meaning of verses.

The things is interpreted to mean "all the things" rather than the things contextually in view.

All knowing is interpreted to mean "all knowing of everything" rather than all knowing of what is contextually in view.

"Verses" are snippets ( or pieces ) of something that the Lord says, Van.
What one "verse" says can ( and often is ), taken in direct opposition to what other "verses" say...
All alone and lifted out of the text.

As an example:

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).

All by itself, it appears that God loves everyone, doesn't it?
What's more, someone who never sees anything contrary to this "verse" will never think otherwise.
However, bringing more of His word into the subject, we see this:

" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." ( Psalms 5:5-6 )

" But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.
12 For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as [with] a shield." ( Psalms 5:11-12 )


So as I see it, the "plain meaning of verses", when divorced from what the rest of what the Lord says about a given subject, can be a very inaccurate method of understanding the Scriptures...
And hopefully you would agree, is far less than reliable.

 

[Dave G]

To study the Bible, all we as believers need do is to start at the beginning, and go through to the end...
Over and over again until His words begin to sink in.

 

[canadyjd]

I agree, and have seen that many times here on this forum.

God's children are not limited by relying on scholars for the correct understanding of the Scriptures, sir.
They have the ability to come to it themselves by simply studying His word over time by the Holy Spirit that dwells in them ( 1 John 2:20-27 ).

For example, having a "novice level understanding of the biblical languages" is no impediment to believing what is written...
As long as the translation into their native language was performed faithfully and accurately.

Wouldn't you agree?

I agree in part.

If someone has novice level understanding of biblical languages, they should not be rejecting the opinions of scholars to give a contrary understanding of BIBLICAL LANGUAGES, context, traditional understandings of scripture unless they have a better reason than they read it n a lexicon as a possible meaning.

So, I agree no understanding of biblical languages is necessary to understand scripture, but some folks rewrite scripture based on a flawed understanding of biblical languages to make it fit their beliefs.

Do you see what I am saying?

Peace to you

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Carson warned: “It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty” (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 14).
Ronald Enroth observed: “People, thinking that they were placing their allegiance in the word of God, were actually placing their allegiance in a man and his interpretation of the word of God” (Churches that Abuse, p. 48). Garry Friesen noted: “Claims to speak ex cathedra on matters of biblical interpretation are rejected as being nonauthoritative at best, and contrary to Scripture at worst” (Decision Making, p. 132).

Kevin Vanhoozer warned: “To believe in the absoluteness of our interpretations is like worshiping our own creations; it is like thinking one reads with the eyes of God” (Is There a Meaning, p. 184).

 

[Dave G]

Do you see what I am saying?

Absolutely.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

D. A. Carson warned: “It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty” (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 14).
Ronald Enroth observed: “People, thinking that they were placing their allegiance in the word of God, were actually placing their allegiance in a man and his interpretation of the word of God” (Churches that Abuse, p. 48). Garry Friesen noted: “Claims to speak ex cathedra on matters of biblical interpretation are rejected as being nonauthoritative at best, and contrary to Scripture at worst” (Decision Making, p. 132).

Kevin Vanhoozer warned: “To believe in the absoluteness of our interpretations is like worshiping our own creations; it is like thinking one reads with the eyes of God” (Is There a Meaning, p. 184).

It is also all too easy to read the interpretations of Don Carson into the text of Scripture and to transfer the authority of Scripture onto him, investing him with a false, even idolatrous, degree of certainty. Proverbs 11:14 applies.

 

[Marooncat79]

P

Confirmation bias would lead to someone starting numerous threads with the theme of “let’s rewrite this passage of scripture” to force it to support my views.

Confirmation bias would lead someone with novice level understanding of the biblical languages (at best) to disregard the opinions of experts that have spent decades of research and study, publishing peer reviewed articles, because they bought a lexicon.

Confirmation bias would lead to someone claiming to be the victim of personal attacks every time someone disagreed with their views based on 2000 years of established understanding of meaning and context.

Confirmation bias has a perfect example on the BB, but I won’t mention any names.

I fully expect “taint so”, “personal attacks” “I know you are but what am I” and other such meaningless dialog.

Peace to you

Amazing, in 2000 years of Xian History, someone on here wants to rewrite everything

 

[Van]

"Verses" are snippets ( or pieces ) of something that the Lord says, Van.
What one "verse" says can ( and often is ), taken in direct opposition to what other "verses" say...
All alone and lifted out of the text.

As an example:

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).

All by itself, it appears that God loves everyone, doesn't it?
What's more, someone who never sees anything contrary to this "verse" will never think otherwise.
However, bringing more of His word into the subject, we see this:

" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." ( Psalms 5:5-6 )

" But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.
12 For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as [with] a shield." ( Psalms 5:11-12 )


So as I see it, the "plain meaning of verses", when divorced from what the rest of what the Lord says about a given subject, can be a very inaccurate method of understanding the Scriptures...
And hopefully you would agree, is far less than reliable.

Confirmation bias ignores the contextual meaning to prove or support some previously held viewpoint. Let us consider your post.

To what does "the world" refer? Every individual? Nope. To humanity, or to fallen humanity because of the need of a Savior. Next let us consider how this "love" is manifested or expressed. Does God unilaterally save everyone? Nope. So the love provides the means and opportunity for salvation, provided the person hears and learns (thus their heart has not been hardened) the good news.

One final point, did I say if we need to alter the plain meaning of the verse under study, we may be on the wrong track, or if we need to alter the plain meaning of other verses (plural) we should realize we are on the wrong track. In my example, Ephesians 1:4 is the verse under study and James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, or 1 Corinthians 1:28 where God has chosen the "lowly" (people held to be of no account by the world's value system) are the verses which all must be altered.

 

[Marooncat79]

That’s at least 30 verses I would guess that you claim need to be edited

Interesting, that’s how cults form

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to those who hurl innuendo implying that scripture should be misconstrued rather than correctly understood.

For example, some prefer the KJV over the NKJV. Both sides feel the other side misconstrues scripture. Should the fact that if someone feels our existent translations can be improved, they should be castigated as wanting to alter the text to fit their presuppositions?

"Kevin Vanhoozer warned: “To believe in the absoluteness of our interpretations is like worshiping our own creations; it is like thinking one reads with the eyes of God” (Is There a Meaning, p. 184)." [from post # 10]

 

[Dave G]

"Kevin Vanhoozer warned: “To believe in the absoluteness of our interpretations is like worshiping our own creations; it is like thinking one reads with the eyes of God”

Contrary to what Mr. Vanhoozer has stated ( and you have quoted ), the Lord tells us this:

" 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.
15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 )

Those that are outside of Christ cannot understand the Scriptures, while those that are in Christ and have the Spirit of God in them, do indeed read with a godly mind.
They don't have a "confirmation bias" other than what comes naturally to them by the Spirit and power of God.

They can and do rest assured that they've actually understood what the words say, because it is given to them to do so.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

I believe the Bible, yes, its possible to twist scripture, private intereupt but over times, I realized that God will always led me to someone or led me to understand something in the Bible that contradicts their view and it all make sense.

 

[Van]

Contrary to what Mr. Vanhoozer has stated ( and you have quoted ), the Lord tells us this:

" 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.
15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 )

Those that are outside of Christ cannot understand the Scriptures, while those that are in Christ and have the Spirit of God in them, do indeed read with a godly mind.
They don't have a "confirmation bias" other than what comes naturally to them by the Spirit and power of God.

They can and do rest assured that they've actually understood what the words say, because it is given to them to do so.

If this is how you read into our text, the natural man receives not "any of" the things of the Spirit of God, have at it. It is nonsense.