Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation
Bible Truth ^ | Revised, Aug 2001 | Cooper P. Abrams, III

Posted on 10/29/2002 5:18:29 AM PST by xzins



TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: actual; allegorical; bible; figurative; interpretation; literal; real; symbolic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-516 next last
To: Irisshlass
KJV- James 1:4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

I may not be understanding your point.Are you saying this to refute that we do not need anything but the bible for knowledge of God? or that we need something else to be saved?

IMO, this verse is talking about christians maturing through the tyring of our faith.

Becky

21 posted on 10/29/2002 11:16:55 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; Dutch-Comfort
But the people who are denying that Jesus was not divine are not taking ALL scriptue literally. Jesus claimed divinity several times. What about the times God spoke from above while Jesus was on earth, This is my Son....

Totally beside the point, Becky. Our Dutch friend was arguing that every view has some validity, that every opinion is just a viewpoint on an infinite truth that we can not ever describe fully.

Many, many views are indeed, varying viewpoints on the same truth. But not all of them. There are those with valid ideas and there are those with wrong ideas. To say every view has validity is to deny that there is such a thing as wrong.

SD

22 posted on 10/29/2002 11:23:34 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; irishlass
I may not be understanding your point.Are you saying this to refute that we do not need anything but the bible for knowledge of God? or that we need something else to be saved?

It is a linguistic refutation of the 2 Tim 3:16 "argument" for the sufficiency of Scripture. When Scripture says "if you have x, then you may be perfect," if x is "Scripture" you use this argument to say that Scripture alone is sufficient to make one "perfect."

When x is "steadfastness," you do not argue that steadfastness alone is sufficient to make one perfect.

The wording is identical, yet the idea taken is not. You are not consistent. 2 Tim 3:16 does not aruge for the sufficiency of Scripture alone, anymore than James 1:4 argues for the sufficiency of "steadfastness" alone.

SD

23 posted on 10/29/2002 11:32:07 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
There are those with valid ideas and there are those with wrong ideas. To say every view has validity is to deny that there is such a thing as wrong

I really do need to get better at keeping in mind that you all can't know what I am thinkging:)

You are right. MY post was meant to show that things that are wrong can be shown wrong from the bible. That to say "every view has vailidity is to deny that there is such a thing as wrong."

Sorry for not being clear.

Becky

24 posted on 10/29/2002 11:32:34 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
MY post was meant to show that things that are wrong can be shown wrong from the bible.

Many of them. But not all. Many things require interpretation, and we all know that interpretations differ.

SD

25 posted on 10/29/2002 11:39:09 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Do you think you take the bible literally? Do you believe that the parts you say are symbolic, or metaphorical have clear indications of such? Or is it just that you know it was meant that way, rather stated or not?

Becky

26 posted on 10/29/2002 11:49:24 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

Then the Jews started arguing with one another: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they said. Jesus replied: "I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him."

Makes perfect literal sense to me!

You forgot CONTEXT.

I'm going to quote the passage starting a verse before you do.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

At this point in the narrative, it does indeed appear that JESUS could be talking about a literal EATING of His FLESH and DRINKING of His BLOOD.

But, ... as we continue to read the passage, we see that He has something else in mind.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

As occurs at other times in the narratives of JESUS' life and ministry, when His disciples get time to be alone with Him (i.e. away fron the crowds), they ask Him personally for explanations for some of the things He had just taught.

JESUS is, typically, gracious to explain to His disciples what they don't understand, as He does in the following ...

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So, ... in the preceding passage JESUS explains that His just previous teachings (about the issue of EATING His FLESH and DRINKING His BLOOD) is spiritual in nature.

He explains to His disciples that the LIFE (everlasting) which He gives is SPIRITUAL ... that He has nothing of eternal value to offer them which is FLESHLY in nature. (Note that this was the subject of His previous discussion with the crowd, as well.)

JESUS further explains that it is the words that He gives to them which yield the SPIRITUAL blessing He offers ... and, as such, ... these words are LIFE to those who accept them.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Even upon hearing JESUS' further explanation, many of His disciples leave off following Him at this point.

Many Jews of that day were looking for a PHYSICAL (i.e. FLESHLY) deliverance (under the leadership of the Messiah) from the overlordship and oppression of Rome and for a re-establishment of the glory of ISRAEL.

However, in this passage, JESUS was successful in communicating to His disciples that this was not what He was offering. What He was offering was SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL.

As a result of understanding this communication from JESUS, many of His 'followers' left off following Him.

These were not interested in the SPIRITUAL deliverance that JESUS offered. Their hopes that JESUS would be ISRAEL's PHYSICAL deliverer were dashed, and they left off to continue to look for another (as the JEWS continue to do today).

The (12) disciples whom JESUS had personally selected did not leave Him at this time. Though we get the sense that they did not completely understand where JESUS was coming from at that time, they did understand that He was the One which was promised.

Now, it was just a matter of figuring out what He was promising.

JESUS asks them ... "Will you also leave ME... ?"

Peter answers Him ... "To whom else would we go ? It is only YOU who have the words of life."

Peter, himself, here recognizes that the LIFE that JESUS was promising His followers was sourced in His WORDS, rather than His FLESH.

This is completely in accord with Peter's own preaching, teaching and/or writings (the letters of I & II Peter). If literally eating JESUS' FLESH ... had been of such vital importance, than, surely, Peter would have mentioned in his own preaching, teaching and/or writings.

Peter does not.

Peter does, however, emphasize BELIEF in JESUS, in accord with JESUS' own words in the chapter you referenced ...

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now, ... is there any other way that this passage (in it's totality) could be faithfully interpreted, other than this ?


27 posted on 10/29/2002 12:00:56 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Do you think you take the bible literally?

Sometimes. Or some parts, rather. The parts that were written to be taken literally.

Do you believe that the parts you say are symbolic, or metaphorical have clear indications of such?

Usually. But not always.

Or is it just that you know it was meant that way, rather stated or not?

This is why just the Book is not sufficient. Part of the message conveyed by the Book is in the understanding of what the various books within are all about. Who wrote them, to whom and why. There is a parallel Tradition, also passed down, which helps us to understand how to understand the Bible.

SD

28 posted on 10/29/2002 12:04:30 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Romans 16:15-27
1 Corinthians 1: 17-31
1 Corinthians 2: 1-16
1 Corinthians 3: 16-20
1 Corinthians 4: 1-20
1 Corinthians 5: 11-13
1 Corinthians 6: 1-20
1 Corinthians 11: 8-34
1 Corinthians 15: 1-4,.......50-57
1 Corinthians 16: 1-9,.......22-24

2 Corinthians 4:7.......................'Vessels',......'VESSELS'........"God is the Potter,....NOT Harry!"

:-)
Maranatha!

29 posted on 10/29/2002 12:11:02 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Quester
He explains to His disciples that the LIFE (everlasting) which He gives is SPIRITUAL ... that He has nothing of eternal value to offer them which is FLESHLY in nature. (Note that this was the subject of His previous discussion with the crowd, as well.)

So, you don't believe in the Resurrection of the Body? OR isn't the body "fleshly" in nature?

JESUS further explains that it is the words that He gives to them which yield the SPIRITUAL blessing He offers ... and, as such, ... these words are LIFE to those who accept them.

OK. So wouldn't it behoove us to take Jesus' WORDS very seriously? To find out and investigate what He means? Why am I supposed to believe that because He says that His Words are "Spirit" that I am supposed to then simply ignore the meaning of what He says? Does saying something is "spirit" mean that it is "metaphorical?"

Now, ... is there any other way that this passage (in it's totality) could be faithfully interpreted, other than this ?

Yes, you could assume that Jesus' words are very serious indeed. Even though they are "spirit," we are still supposed to heed them. Then one could search the Scriptures for an instance where Jesus tells us exactly how we are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

SD

30 posted on 10/29/2002 12:11:28 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; drstevej; fortheDeclaration
I agree that the genre has some impact on the interpretive result one gets when one is in a particular genre. With that, I think we'd also agree that the interpretive result rendered by the methodology is the bottom-line concern. We hope to arrive at the correct conclusion by a repeatable methodology such that reasonable others using the same method will arrive at the same conclusion with great regularity. (I wouldn't say "invariably" because we are dealing with humans.)

Even better is to arrive at the "end" intended by the author. In this case, God being the ultimate author because all scripture is "God-breathed," we hope to arrive at the "end" intended by God. We assume, as opposed to some on these threads, that God actually desires an inquiring human to arrive at the correct end. "Ask and ye shall receive; Seek and ye shall find; Knock and the door will be opened unto you."

Given that God wants us to receive, then we could surmise that there is a God-ordained methodology that would lead us to the correct conclusion by a repeatable methodology such that reasonable others using the same method will arrive at the same conclusion with great regularity.

I would propose to you that those methodologies that enable interpretation to be all over the map - those that enable personal "interpretations" to rule on the meaning of passages -- MUST be wrong.

I have great concern over allowing a "genre" to rule over the words that actually appear within a writing. There is place that must be given for genre, but it should not be place that results in scattered or whimsical or various interpretations. Reasonable people reading the writing using a standard methodology must be able to arrive at similar conclusions.

This is my way of saying that genre does not rule over "scripture compared with scripture." If the context or if other scripture interprets a word or phrase symbolically, then I have no problem with it being symbolic. Most often the scripture will tell us what a symbol means.

If it doesn't mention that something is a symbol, then we should ALLOW, at least, that it is an open question. We should look at our interpretation with a literal application of the word/phrase and we should look at our interpretation with various reasonable "meanings" that might apply were the word/phrase a symbol.

I default to the words having greater import than the genre.

31 posted on 10/29/2002 12:33:16 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Dan, I have not, but would you please post it? Thanks.
32 posted on 10/29/2002 12:35:04 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dutch-Comfort
First point: You state that infinite and singular are incompatible concepts. I disagree utilizing the following syllogisms:
1. Mathematical: the summation of a particular infinite series geometric series (mathematical expression I won't inflict on you an actual example plus from your previous notation you know them as well as me)can through careful analysis of limits be knowable, and might even be approximated as a calculable function. (the geometric series behind Tan and Sin come to mind if you want to get down and funky)the syllogism would be that 1. a series is infinite 2. It is knowable through study to a practical application of what it means
2. Linguistic: In your own posting your refer to an infinite mystery, where you correctly used mystery and not mysteries. The content of the mystery might be unknowable and unreachable, but the numer of mysteries, uno. A syllogism would be 1. There is a thing of infinite size
2. It is one thing 3. It is possible to know that thing in the sense of what it feels like, smells like,but its size/dimensions are unreachable

Second: Well I would agree with your syllogism that all constructs of the text of the Bible are finite, I might even agree that every denomination has things its wrong about, us being human.

....yet for reasons touched on above I think it is possible to know the infinite God of the Universe---being careful to say to know, not know or comprehend all that he is. Only through Jesus is it possible to know him in a personal way, for reasons of his infinity beyond comprhension that you reference
33 posted on 10/29/2002 12:39:45 PM PST by Scarlet_Pimpernil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What, the whole essay? That post had the link to it.

Dan
34 posted on 10/29/2002 12:48:08 PM PST by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Quester
"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

Enjoyed your post, great analysis. Like to highlight one thing perhaps lacking (or perhaps I skimmed over it too quickly) in the posted article. Perhaps the key principle to understanding the bible is self-examination: Most people would rather interpet the bible in a way that validates their lifestyle rather than objectively--myself included. If one picks a verse out of context that seems to say go ahead with this or that sinful way, I can convince myself of it. Studying in groups helps alot (or forums like this one)
35 posted on 10/29/2002 12:56:48 PM PST by Scarlet_Pimpernil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
That was a link??? Oh!!

How long is it? Would it overwhelm the thread to post it? Should it be a thread all its own? Comparison of the two would have great value.
36 posted on 10/29/2002 12:59:44 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
So, you don't believe in the Resurrection of the Body? OR isn't the body "fleshly" in nature?

I believe in the resurrection of the body and that that body most likely, would be fleshly.

My comment was made in regard to JESUS' own statement ...

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is His statement. Ask Him about it. I merely accept it within the context in which it is given.

OK. So wouldn't it behoove us to take Jesus' WORDS very seriously? To find out and investigate what He means? Why am I supposed to believe that because He says that His Words are "Spirit" that I am supposed to then simply ignore the meaning of what He says? Does saying something is "spirit" mean that it is "metaphorical?"

Once again, it is JESUS' own statement you are asking about. I suggest that you check with Him.

Yes, you could assume that Jesus' words are very serious indeed. Even though they are "spirit," we are still supposed to heed them. Then one could search the Scriptures for an instance where Jesus tells us exactly how we are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Well, I do believe that's pretty much how it typically goes ...


37 posted on 10/29/2002 1:04:59 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maestro
LOL! Amen!
38 posted on 10/29/2002 1:05:34 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CCWoody; drstevej; Wrigley; Jean Chauvin; Corin Stormhands; Revelation 911; the_doc; ...
NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

Hey, didn't you crucify Woody for pointing out this very thing with the 1000 years mentioned only in Rev 20 on another thread?

Of course, I might point out that you Premillennialists don't even follow your own rules, but that might be too much fun and I doubt I have the time.

BTW, xzins, are you going to apologize to us Amillennialists for bearing false witness against us or just run and start another thread when the heat get to be too much for you?
39 posted on 10/29/2002 1:13:37 PM PST by theAmbassador
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sola gracia; sheltonmac; the_doc; RnMomof7; jude24; Frumanchu; Jean Chauvin; CCWoody
I am very hesitant to read someone who doesn't follow his own rules. What a dispensational joke this it.

Actually, I gave up Premillennialism when I figured out that the first resurrection mentioned in Rev 20 could not literally be the resurrection of the dead. One can literally understand this by looking no further than Rev 20, but one can also figure this out by looking at how the Bible treats any discussion of the resurrection of the dead.

Of course, being Berean is essential to figuring this out, but having the heart of Lydia is something one cannot be without.
40 posted on 10/29/2002 1:23:49 PM PST by theAmbassador
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-516 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson