A) Well, it's hard to answer this without an example. *Generally* speaking, any interpretation that is both reasonable *and* agrees with the entirety of scripture is sound. Any interpretation which does *not* agree with the entirety of scripture or is *not* reasonable is not sound. Interpretation is, generally, only required when a strictly literal interpretation of the passage, taken out of context, disagrees with the entirety of scripture.
B) How is "taking something metaphorically" any more true in context than "twisting the text" of the Bible?
Again, without an example I cannot answer this well. This is the system I follow:
Unless there is sound (proven) reason for believing that a particular passage is allegorical or symbolic, that passage is factual.
Provisos:
1) Only scripture and hard (unquestionable) evidence can be used to determine the validity of a scriptural passage.
2) When taking scriptural passages as fact, the reader must be very careful not to read in more information than is plainly stated in the text, or at the very least not to insist that such implications are necessarily true, unless such implications are reasonable and are further supported by other scriptures.
3) When taking scriptural passages as fact, the reader must not be seduced into forming an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the scripture or of any particular translation. The reader must be willing to accept that *any* rational, reasonable, logical interpretation is a possibly valid interpretation as long as that interpretation does not contradict scripture.
C) If you don't follow the literal meaning, wouldn't that be "twisting the text," even if it's to a lesser degree?
This depends. Let's look at an example so you'll understand where *I'm* coming from. I hope you understand here that I don't use the term "twisting the text" when someone's interpretation disagrees with my own. Still, this should be instructive.
We read in Exodus "Thou shalt not kill." Now, if we Christians take this single sentence out of the bible and interpret it strictly literally out of context, it means that we cannot kill - not people, not animals, not plants, not the bacteria that make us sick which we kill with antibiotics.
Now let's put this back into the bible. Exodus tells us that, under certain situations, it *is* permissible to kill people. Exodus tells us that, in certain situations, it *is* permissible to kill animals. Exodus also makes it plain that it is permissible to eat plants, to attempt to cure disease, etc. etc. etc. Exodus *also* makes it plain that killing a person is murder **with a very few explicitly defined exceptions**.
So, *when* this passage is taken in context, we see clearly that "Thou shalt not kill" means "thou shalt not murder". Further, we can see that "thou shalt not murder" is, in fact, a *literal* interpretation of this passage - a more *narrow* interpretation, it is true, but a literal one nonetheless.
This is **almost always** the case in scriptural interpretation. A literal interpretation - one supported by other scriptures - is **almost always** what is required. In fact, I cannot think of any case in which Christian doctrine depends on a "metaphorical" interpretation when the existence of a metaphor is not clearly (and I do mean "clearly") identified by the immediate context.
A specific example would aid us in answering your question immensely.
Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/
1rst, many dont understand Jn 5:39;14:6;3:3,5;10:1,7 with regard 2 interpretation. Having read the entire Bible I attest 2 the fact that Noah's flood took place (theres ways (including interpretation, teachings) that seem right 2 men but its end=death. 1 must b careful not 2 go beyond whats written.
Report Abuse
So, what exactly is the difference between "twisting the text" and "metaphorically" interpreting the Bible?Yes; God said what He meant and meant what He said.So, what exactly is the difference between "twisting the text" and "metaphorically" interpreting the Bible?
twisting the text i think means misunderstanding or comprehending it differently and metaphorically is used in a metaphor im guessing
It's decided by your denomination. If your denomination dictates you are supposed to take the bible literal and you're saying certain things are metaphorical, you're twisting the words of the bible. The same applies if the reverse is believed by your denomination.
It only goes to show, how many thousand ways can a simple book be interpreted. And if it was really the word of an all-knowing being, I'm sure they'll be a lot less to be "interpreted."
It's the difference between exegesis, letting the Bible speak for itself, and esigesis, pulling meanings from the text you want to be there. It's one of the dangers of private interpretation. We were warned of this in the Bible.
2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Ask yourself this, upon whose authority do you interpret the meaning of a particular Bible passage? If the answer is invariability your own authority, do you not see the danger inherent in that method of hermeneutics?
Claiming that the "Holy Spirit" is your authority is also inherently dangerous. It's impossible to verify outside yourself and many a wolf and false teacher has claimed the authority of the Holy Spirit and done evil.
The Holy Spirit leads you to all truth.
That is why you have to have a close personal loving relationship with Jesus.
But satan twists the words for evil purposes.
and he uses many preachers to do this for their own monetarily gain.
Which are called False Prophets.
This puts a blemish on Christians.
But they will soon fail just as the stock market is doing.
Let us not forget this: God has a plan.
And God's ways are much higher than ours.
The bottom line when interpreting the bible is taking into account the context - the scriptures surrounding the one in question - and maknig sure that the interpretation agrees with the rest of the bible.
The Bible is always to be taken literally unless the context clearly demands otherwise. Even hyperbole, parables, etc are used in the Bible to teach a literal truth. The bible is not open to any ones own private interpretation- as is recorded in the Bible itself. The Bible always interprets itself.
There is no difference, besides "That is what YOU do, this is what I do".
It is a self-serving practice, but understandable because the Bible is fundamentally incompatible with reality.
Obviously not all of the Bible is supposed to be taken literally. Jesus tells parables...
How's it such a stretch to think anything else in there's a metaphor? Or before the end times will we all trade in our cars for chariots? That's what the book says.
Depends who's mouth it's coming out of.... if you're a preacher I think you get to say pretty much what you want..... if us lesser mortals dare to question it that would probably be termed blasphemy...
no a metaphor is a way of making a point, twisting is coming up with a different meaning then what was intended
Yeah, but then you'd have to believe that the world is flat because in Matthew when Satan took Jesus to the top of a tall mountain, the "four corners" of the world (impossible on a spherical planet) were visible.
I don't know any Christians who want to be flat-earthers.
twisting the text is turning a sentence around.and metaphorically well i dont know.
I think it depends upon who is doing the interpreting.
No comments:
Post a Comment