Your personal rules of Bible interpretation

Ed's Living Rule:
If you have trouble with one passage,
go live by the passages you understand.

 

What needs interpreting? Bible does a pretty good job of explaining Bible.

We can get more depth out of studies of languages, cultures, etc., but this does not involve the change of straightforward meaning which is implied by the word 'interpret.'

 

True, Helen. Always let Scripture explain Scripture.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Just believe what it says.

 

Amen!

Allow ONLY The Bible to interpret itself, This is the only way it should be interpreted.
There are way to many "Books & Folks" who pretend to be able to interpret Gods word.

Misinterpretations, and there are MANY, cause confusion, this is not the reason for the Bible.
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion,

I would strongly suggest staying away from these places, before you pick up your Bible and start reading, instead of turning to goggle, ask God, The author of this great book to reveal what is being said, always understand the context, who wrote it, who they were talking to, and what they were talking about, God does want us to understand his word and he will teach those who seek.

Psa 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

Just my 2 cents worth

Glorifying Jesus Christ all day long as our Lord and Savior

Dan

 

It is impossible to communicate without interpretation and that includes the Bible. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is a good interpretative tool.

First and foremost are the basic rules of interpretation.
1) A word only has one meaning in one and the same context (i.e., the text has a single meaning).
2) A text cannot mean what it never meant.

The works of good authors are greatly beneficial in understanding the word. It keeps one from making the mistakes of ignorance. They are the ones who have diligently compared Scripture with Scripture and thus, are qualified to give some insights. We must, however, remember that they are not Scritpure and therefore must be understood as opinion, not as fact.

 

My copy of "Pulpit Helps" received yesterday has an article by A.W.Tozer in it that might apply to this thread. The title is "Exposition Meaningless Without Application". I'm assuming that application has to include interpretation; scripture interpreting scripture first and foremost.I'm going to wait until tomorrow is over to get involved in the article- although it is brief, but I thought this might be something to mention tonight.
Blessings, Dave Resting in Him!

 

Just some examples of where there may be the need for "Interpretation", (Understanding Gods Word)

Church = born again believers Acts 20:28

Sea = many people, restless mass Is.17:12; Rev.13:1

Second death = Hell Rev.20:14

Take up thy cross = deny self; always put Jesus first in all things Mt.16:24

Tares = false doctrine Mt.13:38

Revelation 17:9, "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth."

Jeremiah 6:2 says, "I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman." And we also understand the the Church of Jesus Christ is considered the "Bride of Christ" as well because of many areas of Scriptures that call describes her as such.

In Christ
Dan

 

All interpretataion is in past tense.

Consider the literary genre. A narrative cannot be interpreted the same way that an epistle is. A narrative is not intended to teach doctrine but to provide a narrative.

Proverbs are principles not promises. For example Prov. 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

Context is everything.

A text may be interpreted to apply to more than one context. This is called sensus plenior. Such as Isaiah 7:14.

 

I would disagree. Isaiah 7:14 only has one meaning. A text may have different applications. It only has one meaning.

Multiple meanings destroy the possibility of rational communication. For more info read Milton Terry, Walter Kaiser, Grant Osborne. There are others as well.

 

I would disagree. Isaiah 7:14 only has one meaning. A text may have different applications. It only has one meaning.

Multiple meanings destroy the possibility of rational communication. For more info read Milton Terry, Walter Kaiser, Grant Osborne. There are others as well. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not talking about rationalistic thought. Not all scripture is rationalistic any way. That kind of thought is what permeated German rationalism and early dispensationalism. It is what dominated liberalism.

We would never recognize it on our own but the Holy Spirit inspired such scripture.

How would you deal with Mt.1:22-23 and Isaiah 7:14, Mt.2:15 and Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:17-18 and Jer. 31:15, John 12:15 and Zech. 9:9?

 

Matt 1:22-23 tells us what Isa 7:14 meant (if there was any doubt after reading Isa 7:14).

Hosea 2:11 is a historical statement which Matthew uses as such. "Fulfilled" does not always mean prophecy. Other authors do this just as we do today. Basically the same with Matt 2 and Jer 31. There is no need to look for deeper meanings. We just need to know what fulfilled means.

IMO, there are more difficult passages than these by a long shot ... but if you don't know what they are, I won't tell you ... Seriously, I don't think any of these requires changing the hermeneutic to understand. It is easiest just to assume the normal hermeneutic and adjust our understanding to that. It does ruin some preaching for many who no longer get to preach these fanciful things that the text doesn't actually say ...

 

' love that rule, Ed!

My rule: Never think you've learned it all, (even when studying the simple things).

And most importantly: APPLICATION, APPLICATION, APPLICATION!


Rob

 

My hermeneutic rule from personal experience:

If a preacher/teacher tells you that his particular view is the ONLY way to interpret a passage from the Bible--do some study on your own--he's probably wrong.

Tim

 

I have found this advice from John MacArthur helpful (Charismatic Chaos, chapter 4)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS4.HTM

DHK

 

So how many times does God have to say something before it is true and should be believed? And by what method did you come up with this number???? ... What you have said is a common idea, but I don't think it is valid. God's truth is God's truth, whether he says it once or a hundred times. I think we would be unwise to say that because he only said it once, that it is somehow negotiable.

 

Scripture interpreting Scripture, sitting under the teaching of gifted men of God, we all agree.

And of course the obvious:

James 1:5
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.

HankD