Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Proper interpretation of the bible
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Proper interpretation of the bible
The Bible is one of the most influential books in human history. It has survived through numerous attempts to destroy it and all it represents. It has been interpreted different ways throughout the years but two of the most important modes of interpretation are the Traditionalist and Modernist views. The Traditionalist perspective has existed for centuries and originated almost as soon as the Bible itself. Modern biblical scholarship’s rise has been more recent, being led by Charles Briggs in the past few centuries. Along with this rise has come much debate about which perspective is right and whether they can coexist. In order to determine if the views are compatible one can examine the purpose of the way of interpretation, the assumptions made by each, the levels of interpretation of each, and the purpose of the Bible in both modes of interpretation.
Determining the purpose of a way of Biblical interpretation is vital because it sets the course. The purpose is the guiding compass for all interpretations that comes. Ancient interpreters have always viewed the Bible as a book whose main purpose was spiritual nourishment and enlightenment. In fact, what the Bible explicitly says is not the most important aspect of it in Traditionalism. Kugel captures this excellently when he says, “that there was something considered even more important, more powerful than the words of the text themselves.” This leaves the question of what exactly is this something that is more important? For the ancient interpreters it was the meaning that was underlying the words, the mission of serving and worshipping God. Knowing this is vital in understanding that the purpose of Traditionalist views is to expound on this mission of service in every part of ...
... middle of paper ...
...reas. In the case of Traditionalism and Modern biblical scholarship however there is very little area for agreement. In looking at the purpose of the way of interpretation, the assumptions made by each, the levels of interpretation of each, and the purpose of the Bible in both modes of interpretation one can see conflicts in each area. Modernism is always conflicting the ancient interpreters view because whether or not it was meant to, it is now a replacement for all that Traditionalism teaches. Considering all of this, if Modern biblical scholarship remains as is and does not return to what it was originally meant to be, the two will never be able to be reconciled.
Bibliography
Holy Bible: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1982.
Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York, NY: Free Press, 2008.
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
The DTIB says that exegesis should focus on historical context in the grammatical relations to determine what the text meant when it was originally written (p. 203). This is really hard given some of the topics covered in the Old Testament. For me as a pastor I always look for the application of the scripture when reading a scriptural text. I pay close attention to the scripture so that I do not force things out of the scripture that are not present. It is hard to completely understand the view of the author when we have limited understanding of that culture. I tried to find as many things as I can about the culture that is related to the scriptural text, which I 'm studying. This way I have a marginal understanding of what the culture was like for the author and his
It would be naïve at best and blasphemous at worse to say that any theological construct could fully capture the full purpose and workings of God, especially concerning His redemptive plan for humanity. Clearly, there is eschatological construct that is without flaws. However, the further one goes away from the plain sense of the Scriptures the more error it accrues. Since no human can know the purposes of God apart from divine revelation, it is essential to center all endeavors of understanding God’s Word, the Bible. By allowing the Bible to speak for itself and thereby constructing a theological schema according to it, one can reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Likewise, Progressive Dispensationalism is not without flaws and imperfections, but it allows the Scriptures to speak for itself.
The Bible for many has several interpretations, and meanings. There is not one interpretation or meaning in which Christians all believe identically. Each part of the Bible has its own symbolic meaning to each faith, and their ways to interpret those meanings may differ from other Christians. In Having Words with God: The Bible as Conversation by Karl Allen Kuhn, Kuhn describes the Bible as a conversation between several and God. In this essay there will be a different approach to the same metaphor effect describing the Bible but, as a Pizza. The Bible is like a Pizza in the ways of having many toppings (topics) and layers (depths within the text), not to mention the types or styles just like there are many styles of scripture
N.T Wright (2008) stated that “When we read the scriptures as Christians, we read it precisely as people of the new covenant and of the new creation” (p.281). In this statement, the author reveals a paradigm of scriptural interpretation that exists for him as a Christian, theologian, and profession and Bishop. When one surveys the entirety of modern Christendom, one finds a variety of methods and perspectives on biblical interpretation, and indeed on the how one defines the meaning in the parables of Jesus. Capon (2002) and Snodgrass (2008) offer differing perspectives on how one should approach the scriptures and how the true sense of meaning should be extracted. This paper will serve as a brief examination of the methodologies presented by these two authors. Let us begin, with an
The most important question one must ask is how should the Bible be interpreted? The first and obvious, yet important thing to say about the Bible is that it is literature. In fact, it is a whole library of books: some of them history, some poetry, and some in the form of letters. When we approach literature, one usually asks the question “How does the author want it to be understood?” When reading the Bible, one should always try and follow the natural understanding of a passage in its context. Dr. John Lennox, who is a professor at Oxford University explains this idea well, by showing how the early Christian fathers used this “literal understanding” to counter a metaphorical interpretation.
Harris, Stephen. Understanding The Bible. 6 ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2002. Print.
Writings of historical scholars, Josephus, Aristotle, and Plato, to name a few, are taken as truth and fact, yet the writings of the Scripture are constantly disputed. Why? Perhaps because of the ethical imperatives imposed to which people do not want to adhere. Perhaps because of man’s ego and pride that disallows them to submit to a Higher Authority. Nonetheless, The Bible has been, and still remains, the most widely read and revered book of all
The, political, cultural, social and religious circumstances the Bible was written in is unfamiliar to today’s society. Therefore, it would make sense to interpret the Bible in today’s perspective without going astray to the core of Christianity.
For centuries now Christians have claimed to possess the special revelation of an omnipotent, loving Deity who is sovereign over all of His creation. This special revelation is in written form and is what has come to be known as The Bible which consists of two books. The first book is the Hebrew Scriptures, written by prophets in a time that was before Christ, and the second book is the New Testament, which was written by Apostles and disciples of the risen Lord after His ascension. It is well documented that Christians in the context of the early first century were used to viewing a set of writings as being not only authoritative, but divinely inspired. The fact that there were certain books out in the public that were written by followers of Jesus and recognized as being just as authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures was never under debate. The disagreement between some groups of Christians and Gnostics centered on which exact group of books were divinely inspired and which were not. The debate also took place over the way we can know for sure what God would have us include in a book of divinely inspired writings. This ultimately led to the formation of the Biblical canon in the next centuries. Some may ask, “Isn’t Jesus really the only thing that we can and should call God’s Word?” and “Isn’t the Bible just a man made collection of writings all centered on the same thing, Jesus Christ?” This paper summarizes some of the evidences for the Old and New Testament canon’s accuracy in choosing God breathed, authoritative writings and then reflects on the wide ranging
New Revised Standard Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1989. Print. The. Russell, Eddie.
The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Nashville: Abingdon Press, ©2003.
Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1995. Print. (BS195 .C66 1995)
Thus, an effort is made to highlight how Bible interpretation – through its publication – has developed in the history of Christianity.
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.