Open to Interpretation
Okay so we have this book. It’s the most popular book in the entire world. It tells us about God, man, and how man relates to God. The information in this book is of the greatest importance. It is the key to whether we will spend eternity in a state of life or death!
Yet somehow it seems like the Bible is some kind of mysterious treasure map. (BTW, I just saw National Treasure and the 12 year old “Ennis boy” in me loved it!) With all of eternity in the balance it seems like the Bible would be clear and concise about what God has revealed about Himself. Instead we have numerous “versions” and “translations” of the Word of God — each one using different words that sometimes communicate completely different ideas.
Even with all these different translations, we go to church and hear educated teachers say things like, “well when you look at the Greek, what this passage really means is…” If that’s what the scriptures are really saying then why didn’t they just say it?! We are told that some sections are commandments for all generations while others are only relative to the culture of the day. We are told that some sections are to be interpreted literally while others are to be interpreted figuratively. Who says which is which and on what authority — as Godly people interpret the very same scriptures differently?
I imagine people wondering about God and Jesus opening up a Bible — the logical place to start. They read and begin to form their own interpretation of what God is like and how we relate to Him. Then when they talk to a more “schooled” Christian they realize that they didn’t get their special Hebrew/Greek/Relative/Absolute/Literal/Poetic decoder ring. What’s a non-believer supposed to think? Especially when they talk to another “schooled” Christian and they interpret God’s Word differently than the other Christian? Or they notice the little sub-text that says, “Not included in earlier manuscripts.” Uhhhh, okay, where’d that come from then?
In a society that says there is no absolute truth, why is it so hard to find it in the one place it is supposed to be?
October 6th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
(Gross generalization alert) Just like people do a poor job thinking, they do a poor job of reading as well.
With that said, though, the Bible is plenty challenging on so many levels…
I recently read How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee & Stuart. It does a great job of highlighting the important concerns we should pay attention to when reading the Bible…
* Historical narrative: it tells us what people did, not what people should do
* Letters: addressing specific situations among specific recipients
* Prophecy: a form of literature for which we have no modern equivalent
* Gospels: unique in world history
… and others. The point is this: the people who wrote it meant something specific, both in what they were saying and how they delivered it. We have a responsibility to be faithful to the true meaning of the text.
When it comes to questions of “what the Greek really means” and the like, I’m less troubled than when I hear people say, “here’s what it means for me.” In the former case they are treating the Bible with respect. In the latter, it’s utterly meaningless and devoid of significance.
Another book Fee & Stuart recommend along these lines (which I’ve not read) is How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler.
As for the “what’s a non-believer supposed to think?” question, C.S. Lewis wrote something to the effect that the Bible was not written to make converts; it was written for converts already made. Debatable, but worth considering…
The thing about “not included in earlier manuscripts…” it just means they have good evidence for including it, but not to the extent that they have evidence for the text around it. Also, these things are translated from ancient languages, that nobody speaks anymore, by a plurality of linguists. They don’t all come up with the same rendering, so if they can’t reconcile the plurality of renderings, they put the majority’s opinion in the text and the minority’s opinion in the footnote. That’s just treating the text with respect - saying, in effect, “we could be wrong - but we don’t think we are.”
By saying “we could be wrong,” that implies that there is a right answer - and that runs completely counter to the society that says there is no absolute truth and invokes postmodern deconstruction of language to strip everything of its meaning. So in a strange way, acknowledging uncertainty about the text in instances like that is actually making its meaning more clear than asserting they’ve got it nailed.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Agreed but don’t you think the different variations of the “official” translations contribute to the personal interpretations? The thought process being, “This version says this. This version says that. All I can do is interpret what I think God is saying here.” My point is that if that’s what the Greek says then say it. If we are to put so much stake in the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then why is there no “this is what it really means” version of it and all the while Biblical scholars are still arguing over it?
October 6th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Well laid out questions David. Not sure of any answers, except for saying tht though we don’t have the “decoder ring” (Good one!), We do have the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth, And His Word does say that if I seek Him I WILL find Him, when we seek Him with all our heart.. I assume this means even when we seek Him in His Word. So I have to confess, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to context, translation or interpretation. Or even what should or shouldnt be in there, but my spirit agrees with the fact that I can seek Him and He won’t let me down, as long as Im seeking Him with all my heart.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
First of all, I don’t know how much argument there is over key doctrinal points due to translation issues.
Second, there’s always going to be some degree of “y’all don’t speak the language, so let’s expand on this” when you exegete from the original languages. There are plays on words, idioms, and other linguistic constructions that change the meaning of the text and warrant explanation beyond what is feasible in a simple choice of “which word to use here?”
There’s also the challenge of incongruent vocabulary - there were three Greek words for “love” (agapeo, phileo, eros) but we only have one. Eskimos have a whole bunch of words for snow, but we just say… “snow.”
Even within the English language, explanations are in order. I used to work with a guy from South Africa who asked me if he could borrow my “rubber” - what we Yanks call “an eraser.” 100 years ago, referring to a “gay party” meant something entirely different than it does today. Go back further than that and you find that “gentleman” was properly used to refer to someone who owned property - not simply a respectable fellow. To address a crowd of peasants with the phrase, “ladies and gentlemen,” would be entirely unacceptable.
And I’ll stop with a third point - context informs the “real meaning.” For example, in a recent post, you said, “I‚Äôve been clean almost two years now.” Does that mean you haven’t needed to take a shower for two years? If that’s not what you meant, why didn’t you just say what you meant?
October 6th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Another great example of why things are offered with a particular choice of words or in one style over another…
First, read this…
Then, see how it comes across when you just make your points.
For crying out loud, if he meant 87, why didn’t he just say, “87?”
October 7th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Thanks for playing Hugh.
Exactly! I’m not saying God is playing hide-n-go-seek but that with all the translations available today it seems like the Word of God is still being kept behind some kind of vail. I think maybe what I’m thinking of is a modern English, technical translation. If someone deemed the words of my post that you referenced to hold eternal value then in the context of my culture, experience, and intent of my words, they should translate what I said to, “I had not been physically addicted to caffeine for almost two years.”
The word love is a perfect example. If the original Greek used the “phileo” version of it then why doesn’t the New International Version print “friendly brotherly affection” instead of just printing the word “love” for the average person to misinterpret?
I agree that all writing can always be taken out of context. Maybe it’s just laziness and naivity on my part but it seems like enough people (particularly evangelicals) claim to hold the proper, dare I say “one true” interpretation of God’s Word that it would be an idea worth pursuing. The common, modern versions like The Message give you the general idea in modern English (a bad idea IMO) while the more accurate versions like the the English Standard Version leave you wondering things like “now is this an absolute commandment?”
So would this line of thinking lead to Baptist, Methodist, Pentacostal Church of God, etc. versions of the Bible? Even Grace Fellowship of South Forsyth versions of the Bible? Consider all the different views that are taught from pulpits around the world every day and most people drinking it in as truth because they aren’t “qualified” to interpret the scripture for it’s true meaning? And even if a few do take responsibility for their own study it essentially becomes their own interpretation of it.
October 7th, 2005 at 4:34 am
Maybe you want the Amplified Bible?
Here’s the ESV, Amplified, and NASB versions of Ephesians 1 side-by-side…
October 7th, 2005 at 5:57 am
The problem with that is that is an interpretation. Plus, it’s fairly easy because it is from contemporary writing. But even so, that “translation” loses something of your original feel and what you are communicating.
Your problem is that you have put your stock in a fairly ancient faith, with ancient founding documents. You could always try a more modern religion. I don’t think Scientology has multiple translations of Dianetics.
October 7th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Modern indeed. They do a full background check on you after getting your SSN. Then they keep you as a member through a promise to keep all your dirty little secrets secret, in exchange for cash. Interesting so many Hollywood types are involved.
p.s. sorry I can’t add to the real discussion…
October 7th, 2005 at 11:55 am
i think the heart of david’s question has to do with how you view the bible itself. what is the nature of the text?
if you see as a constitution or a set of laws and regulations than it is important to get all the wording correct so that you know what is and is not allowed. so you can figure out how God wants your church to worship or how many cups you need for communion etc.
on the other hand if you see the bible as the story of God’s savlation then the exact meaning or wording is not needed just the general idea to communicate the story.
now i personally fall inbetween. the bible is both the stories of God’s salvation and how we are to live out our saved lives.
for instance with the love words it really doesn’t matter in your personal and communinal life as one of God’s people that Jesus in his last coversation with peter uses the agape forms of love twice and then finishes it out with phileo when he reinstates peter. but what does matter is the idea that you find throughout the new testament that the love (agape, eros, phileo, storge) is an action loved lived out more than felt.
it is the general themes that we struggle with in the specifics of our lives when we struggle with the text.
my advice is to read several translations, listen to the Holy Spirit and don’t let people highjack the bible behind intellectualism.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
What do you mean by that?
Again… what do you mean by that?
October 10th, 2005 at 10:44 am
He means exactly what he said, in his original language. What’s so hard about that?
If that’s what the English says, then say it.
Get my point? We have enough trouble interpreting our own language. Why do we expect it to be all different when it comes to the Bible? We have the same human difficulties interpreting it. (And in some ways, it’s easier to translate the Bible because it’s in dead dilaects of the 3 languages in which it was written, so all the vocabulary used has fixed meanings–that is, it’s not changing every day like “live” languages are. Don’t let anyone tell you being a “dead” language is bad.)
It’s like interpretation of any literature–it goes by set rules, but it’s still hard, and there can be as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
Guess I’m not providing any answers, just trying to aid the questioner.
October 10th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Bible reading is easy. Bible Study is tough. There are no shortcuts. With culture, background, the meaning of words changing, etc., it’s amazing we can even function! This is why body language, inflection, etc. are parts of our language. The words alone can’t get all that is there across. However, what we lose in body language, we make up for in the amount of words that are used. It’s a principle called the “analogy of faith.” It speaks to the fact that no part of Scripture will contradict another part. So, I grow in my ability to be specific as I grow in the knowledge of God’s entire Word. Does this eradicate all issues? No. But it is a guiding principle that is rewarded to those who study the Bible. The average person will not benefit from this since they have not put in the work.
Tragically, there are those who teach the Bible who have not done the work also and it is heartwrentching when someone, who really wants to learn the Bible, falls under the spell of this type of teacher.
Bottom line? It’s Eve’s fault!
October 11th, 2005 at 7:52 am
sorry it has taken me so long to answer your questions about what i mean.
when i say “listen to the Holy Spirit”
sometimes i encounter passages in the Bible and have no idea what they mean or i think there is more to this than meets the eye. instead of running to my commentaries or biblical study tools. i pray and ask for God’s wisdom to understand what the passage means. since i teach 3 bible classes a week i still go to the commentaries and use other tools but my primary tool is the bible itself and the wisdom from God.
“don‚Äôt let people highjack the bible behind intellectualism”
simpley put God has given us the written word for us to read and understand. i have encountered people (ministers, deacons, elders, bible school teachers, professors and people in general) who feel the only way you can really understand the bible is to spend hours and hours pouring over commentaries, reading theearliest copies in their “origenal” languages and reading about the culture of the time. leaving the ordenary christian with kids and a job feeling inadiquate to the job or reading and understanding the bible. don’t let and intellectual snob rob you from your own bible reading and studying just because you don’t have access to commentaries or bible dictionaries.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Josh, you must run in interesting circles, because I’ve never met anyone who has discouraged ordinary folks from digging into the Scriptures regardless of their level of training or tools available. In fact, usually the more capable the scholar, to more passionate they are about getting people to dig in for themselves. Here I’m thinking of folks like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Howard Hendrix, and every teaching pastor at any church I’ve called home.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
But if “hours and hours pouring over commentaries, reading the earliest copies in their ‘origenal’ languages and reading about the culture of the time” is what’s required, as everyone that has responded has essentially said in one way or another, doesn’t it seem like it would be dangerous to encourage someone who doesn’t have the time or resources to dig in for themselves?
Imagine encouraging people to go out and purchase a few unstable chemicals and dig into the exciting world of chemistry for themselves.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
eric,
they don’t intentionally discourage poeple but they make people feel that they cann’t understand what the bible says.
for instance i was talking with an older member and she had just gotten out of a bible class and she felt that the teacher had basically told her that if she didn’t have all the language tools and commentaries she couldn’t really understand the text.
david,
the difference between dangerous chemicals and the bible is that God wants us to read his word and study it and because of thathe guides us in our understanding.
all,
i am a big fan of commentaries and other tools in fact i turn to them weekly. i also want everyone to read the word not just study it but experience it as well. we should just read it alone but in community so we can understand it together.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
we shouldn’t just read it alone but in community so we can understand it together. like this forum we are understanding what each of us is talking about by dialogueing about this very important topic
October 11th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Chemistry isn’t the best anology but for being the word of God, the Bible seems quite dangerous when it is so easily taken out of context when left to our own studies - like you said, community. But even in that, it is still taken out of context and distorted pitting communities against each other as to what the true meaning is ‚Äî leaving the individual to decide what they think it really means. In other words, “what it means to them.”
No, I’m not calling for one church to dispense the Word (been there done that), but with Baptists saying that it’s sinful for women to teach and COC saying that you must be physically baptized to be saved, you’d think The Church would have put in enough study time to know what the absolute truth regarding these and other issues actually is. Heck, we’ve got Christian churchs that justify homosexuality by using the scriptures. God gave us His absolute truth yet no Church-wide effort to find it is being made. Everyone continues to congregate with those that agree with them and condemn those that disagree.
I know, more whining tone, but I just wanna see where my thought process goes.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
I like Dan’s thesis:
It’s Eve’s fault.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:13 am
if you are talking about doctrinal and theological issues the chemistry analogy is perfect i think we have all seen wacky theology and doctrine because people don’t want to use the tool available or won’t use them. people will also go to sources that back up their preconcieved notions instead of looking for sources that challenge one to think
they alsodevelope their theology/doctirne without discussing it with people. we have one member who about once every couple of months hands me a paper on some theological issue he has written all on his own. he is not asking me to give him input but wants me to go along with what he has written.
david this reminds me of the bible study we used to have in highschool before school started. good discussion by christians from different backgrounds.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Just this moring I heard Bryant Wright tell everyone listening to WSB AM 750 to learn about how the world will end by reading the last book in the Bible.
Yeah, just jump right in and you’ll find all the answers in the most confusing book in the entire collection.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
i thought i was supposed to read the left behind series to understand how the world is going to end?
October 12th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
The more I’ve thought about this, the reality is that a person today really cannot approach the Scriptures without the help of heavy-duty scholarship (Holy Spirit or not). He must have Hebrew and Greek language skills. He must deal with textual criticism and be able to assess the value of the extant manuscripts and codices. The good news is that there is a fairly simple way to bring all of these forces to bear‚Ķ read a good modern English translation and someone else has done this work for you.