.....I stand alone on the word of God,

The B-I-B-L-E....

(flashbacks from the Methodist Sunday School I attended for a couple of years.)

Gotta run, but I shall return and respond.  I just had to finsish the song.

Good thread.

Hi GordW,

Happy Presbyting to you.  I chaired my first meeting of the whole of Presbytery last night.  I beat the set agenda time too.  So until such time as I go long I'm a hero.

Good question.  I would be willing to afford the whole of the Biblical text authority status provided that text was actually addressing a specific issue.  Metaphor, hyperbole and poetry partake in authority provided they are not being applied literally.

Other portions of the text I believe are intended to be interpreted literally and as such those portions of the text speak with authority.

The authority comes from a number of places and it is hard (hard for me at any rate)to prioritize an order to those places.  There is given authority.  The gospels being a witness to the life and teachings of Christ are, I believe, authoritative records of Jesus' life and teachings.  That doesn't mean that they are devoid of bias.  It means that bias needs to be considered as a filter for what is reported rather than the font from which events spring.

Tradition is another place that authority comes from.  While it is a popular out to beg the question "How faithful is the record anyway . . ." I believe that the tradition of preserving the text shows that the Church has been more faithful preserving the written record of scripture than it has interpreting the meaning of what is written.

And then there is self-evident authority or wisdom.  Portions of scripture lack embellishment and strike the audience between the eyes challenging sacred cows formed within the tradition.  When wisdom holds forth it is hard not to allow it access to authority that is typically beyond approach.

Sort of like the advice not to stand in a canoe.  Standing in a canoe can be done (I routinely do it) and there are times when standing in a canoe can be a wise thing (it allows for a better read of flat rapids).  And yet, standing in a canoe requires good balance, balance which might be inherent for some but can be learned by others.  So, advising novice paddlers not to stand in a canoe is good and novice paddlers would be wise to grant that advice authority lest they become all wet.

Depends on what I am looking to do with the text.  Some translations are written to be spoken aloud (NLT).  Those translations are preferred when reading the text aloud in worship.  Some translations are more poetic (KJV) and are appropriate for certain liturgies.  Other translations bring the most up to date scholarship with respect to actual translation of text from Hebrew or Greek into English and those are good to study from.

All translations have their flaws.  The NLT has some loose translation going on.  The KJV has a number of places where it is inconsistent in its translation from Greek to English.  It routinely has problems translating the Greek word "agape."

That is a big assumption.  I think that it is more likely that interpretation happens when we are reading the text rather than it being something that is actually inherent to a text.

First and foremost I think that where possible scripture interprets scripture.  So if Jesus says that such and such a Psalm means such and such a thing I would take that as given and I would probably always use that given to explore that Psalm.

Where scripture doesn't interpret scripture directly I think that the grand themes of the scripture are to be applied.  So, for example where Nuclear War is not mentioned in scripture I think that we can look at what the scriptures say about War in general and extrapolate from there.

Answered above.

No.  If that were true then I would expect that the text's one right answer would be timeless.  Jesus himself addresses the timeless nature of at least some scripture in the sermon on the mount where he says, "You have heard it said . . .but I say to you . . ."

Paul goes a bit further in his discourse on those who are weak in their faith versus those who are strong in their faith.  It appears that Paul doesn't advocate for one correct reading of a particular text or doctrine so much as Paul is advocating that we be faithful to that which we believe.  Changing one's mind is not problematic for Paul, being of two minds was.

Yes I have.  My interpretation of John 21:  15-22 changed when I saw that in the Greek text Peter doesn't answer Jesus' question as it is asked until Jesus goes and changes the question.

It is not about Jesus restoring Peter or even giving Peter a second chance to get it right

It is about Jesus working with what Peter had to offer while teaching him how to answer the question as it was originally asked.

The Bible is a collection of documents outlining the history of redemption that exists between God and some of the people of God.  It contains the Word of God but is not itself the entirety of God's word.

No.  All passages do not have the same weight and authority.  The reason why not is reasonable.  Not all texts speak to the same issue.  Some texts belong to a progression of thought which show that scripture at the beginning of the progression shapes the direction of interaction without revealing what the intended end of that progression is to be.

An example would be the text "An eye for an eye . . ."  Literalists tend to feel that this is a slam-dunk approval of violence on God's part.  What is rarely considered, by the literalists, is how this actually reduces violence from an escalating vengence to a controlled vengeance.  Further, when Jesus comes along and directly references this passage in the context of "You have heard it said . . .but I tell you . . ." Jesus is further wittling away at vengeance model to a forgiveness model.

Chronological progression appears to be one way to weight texts speaking to the same issue.  What is the last word on this particular word.  Paul's attack on the Judaizers and their mandatory circumcision as a sign of belonging comes to mind.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Drat. Promising myself not to drone on...I'll come back to the great questions here when I've thought enough to be laconic.

Great thread!

For me the New Century version is the B-I-B-L-E for me. Anyone else read that?

I am Christian and thus the Bible, both OT and NT, is the textual foundation of my faith.  I say "textual" because, of course, the experience of Jesus Christ in one's life is also foundational.  I consider the Bible to be the sacred book of my faith.

The Bible is a collection of history, mythology, history as mythology, mythology as history, poetry, wisdom, law, and insight into the human condition from the perspective of early monotheists.  It is also our main source of knowledge about Jesus Christ.  It was written, not by God, but by the Christian saints who preceded us and our Jewish spiritual ancestors.  To them, we are forever indebted for putting into words their vision of God and for showing us The Way.

Catholics were once afraid that if everyone read the Bible, there would no end to personal and usually heretical "interpretation."  As it turns out, they were right, but it also lead to an opening up of the text and, for us Protestants, a more vigorous and intellectual engagement with Scripture and our own Christian history.  I don't think that anyone's reading of Scripture is as valid as anyone else's.  Whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, we need educated interpreters of Scripture to facilitate the learning of the faithful.  As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to learn as much as we can about Scripture and its history (it didn't fall out of the sky, carved in marble).  We need this kind of knowledge both for our own spiritural guidance and in order to defend a Christian view of Scripture from such idolatries as fundamentalism and literalism, and to explain our faith to critics (who often think that literalism is the default view).

I love the Christian langauge, it's ideas and symbols, and my favourite version of the Bible is the King James Version.  I recognize it's imperfections and shortcomings, however, so my main study Bible is the New Revised Standard Version.  I also refer to the Scholar's Version of the Gospels (from the Jesus Seminar, which also includes Thomas) because of it's very helpful annotation.

God is unchanging but the way in which we understand God does change in sometimes subtle ways, sometimes not so subtle.  We need to keep this in mind when we read Scripture and try to read it for the Word and not the letter.

"No.  If that were true then I would expect that the text's one right answer would be timeless.  Jesus himself addresses the timeless nature of at least some scripture in the sermon on the mount where he says, "You have heard it said . . .but I say to you . . .".

..

because he was the Messiah, to correct the ways, not because it is tobe treated as  fluid over time.

stephenbooth ...... I really feel that you are on Gord's back in a very bad way....

If that is not your intent then perhaps you would consider being a bit less crass???

Rita

• Does the Biblical text have some form of authority for you?  WHy?  Can you describe from whence that authority comes?

No, the Biblical texts have no authority for me other than that they are the traditonal sacred stories of our Judeo-Christian faith. Apart from that, they are of some historical value because they allow precious glimpses into the culture of their time, glimpses that one does not get from ordinary history texts.

• Which is your preferred version/translation/paraphrase of the text?  Why?

The German Martin Luther translation. Not only because it is the one I grew up with, but also because it appears to be a more accurate translation. 

• Assuming that interpretation always happens with any text (ancient or modern, sacred or secular) can you outline the base assumptions that guide you interpreting those selected texts we call theBible?

What guides me in interperting the texts is my own interpretational framework and my own mystical experiences. 

• DO you think the assumption in the question above is wrong?

No, I don't.

• Does the text have one "right" or "true" meaning for everyone?

No, it doesn't. 

• Over time have you interpretated some texts differently as your life experiences and situations have changed?

O yes, my interpretations have changed, and are still changing.

• WHat is the Bible to you?  What role does it play in your life?

 I refer to it and turn to if for inspiration, but no more so than other works of inspirational literature.

• Do all passages have the same weight or authority?  IF not, how is the differential weight assigned?

To me, this his is a matter of personal liking. In the OT, I like the Psalms, Proverbs, and Songs best. In the NT the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Well, Gord, this is it. I missed this thread when you first posted it, and I am glad you dragged it up from the archives. I look forward to what others have to say.

IT

Russ

Good question.  I would be willing to afford the whole of the Biblical text authority status provided that text was actually addressing a specific issue.  Metaphor, hyperbole and poetry partake in authority provided they are not being applied literally.

Other portions of the text I believe are intended to be interpreted literally and as such those portions of the text speak with authority.

The authority comes from a number of places and it is hard (hard for me at any rate)to prioritize an order to those places.  There is given authority.  The gospels being a witness to the life and teachings of Christ are, I believe, authoritative records of Jesus' life and teachings.  That doesn't mean that they are devoid of bias.  It means that bias needs to be considered as a filter for what is reported rather than the font from which events spring.

Tradition is another place that authority comes from.  While it is a popular out to beg the question "How faithful is the record anyway . . ." I believe that the tradition of preserving the text shows that the Church has been more faithful preserving the written record of scripture than it has interpreting the meaning of what is written.

And then there is self-evident authority or wisdom.  Portions of scripture lack embellishment and strike the audience between the eyes challenging sacred cows formed within the tradition.  When wisdom holds forth it is hard not to allow it access to authority that is typically beyond approach.

Sort of like the advice not to stand in a canoe.  Standing in a canoe can be done (I routinely do it) and there are times when standing in a canoe can be a wise thing (it allows for a better read of flat rapids).  And yet, standing in a canoe requires good balance, balance which might be inherent for some but can be learned by others.  So, advising novice paddlers not to stand in a canoe is good and novice paddlers would be wise to grant that advice authority lest they become all wet.

Depends on what I am looking to do with the text.  Some translations are written to be spoken aloud (NLT).  Those translations are preferred when reading the text aloud in worship.  Some translations are more poetic (KJV) and are appropriate for certain liturgies.  Other translations bring the most up to date scholarship with respect to actual translation of text from Hebrew or Greek into English and those are good to study from.

All translations have their flaws.  The NLT has some loose translation going on.  The KJV has a number of places where it is inconsistent in its translation from Greek to English.  It routinely has problems translating the Greek word "agape."

That is a big assumption.  I think that it is more likely that interpretation happens when we are reading the text rather than it being something that is actually inherent to a text.

First and foremost I think that where possible scripture interprets scripture.  So if Jesus says that such and such a Psalm means such and such a thing I would take that as given and I would probably always use that given to explore that Psalm.

Where scripture doesn't interpret scripture directly I think that the grand themes of the scripture are to be applied.  So, for example where Nuclear War is not mentioned in scripture I think that we can look at what the scriptures say about War in general and extrapolate from there.

Answered above.

No.  If that were true then I would expect that the text's one right answer would be timeless.  Jesus himself addresses the timeless nature of at least some scripture in the sermon on the mount where he says, "You have heard it said . . .but I say to you . . ."

Paul goes a bit further in his discourse on those who are weak in their faith versus those who are strong in their faith.  It appears that Paul doesn't advocate for one correct reading of a particular text or doctrine so much as Paul is advocating that we be faithful to that which we believe.  Changing one's mind is not problematic for Paul, being of two minds was.

Yes I have.  My interpretation of John 21:  15-22 changed when I saw that in the Greek text Peter doesn't answer Jesus' question as it is asked until Jesus goes and changes the question.

It is not about Jesus restoring Peter or even giving Peter a second chance to get it right

It is about Jesus working with what Peter had to offer while teaching him how to answer the question as it was originally asked.

The Bible is a collection of documents outlining the history of redemption that exists between God and some of the people of God.  It contains the Word of God but is not itself the entirety of God's word.

No.  All passages do not have the same weight and authority.  The reason why not is reasonable.  Not all texts speak to the same issue.  Some texts belong to a progression of thought which show that scripture at the beginning of the progression shapes the direction of interaction without revealing what the intended end of that progression is to be.

An example would be the text "An eye for an eye . . ."  Literalists tend to feel that this is a slam-dunk approval of violence on God's part.  What is rarely considered, by the literalists, is how this actually reduces violence from an escalating vengence to a controlled vengeance.  Further, when Jesus comes along and directly references this passage in the context of "You have heard it said . . .but I tell you . . ." Jesus is further wittling away at vengeance model to a forgiveness model.

Chronological progression appears to be one way to weight texts speaking to the same issue.  What is the last word on this particular word.  Paul's attack on the Judaizers and their mandatory circumcision as a sign of belonging comes to mind.

Excellent answer, Rev. John!

you sound like a bunch of bible burners.

why do you spend all day on a Christian website supporting reasons not to believe and encouraging doubt, i think you need a new hobby, stamp collection maybe, train set? 

why dont you do this to muslims and jewish websites?