Interpreting the Bible

[LiamOS]

The Bible teaches certain things for certain instances. It also teaches us that we have a New Testament and there are things in the New Testament which negate things in the Old Testament.

The testaments had different purposes. The old testament exists primarily to teach man that he is a sinner and that he has not means of escaping eternal punishment as a result of his sin.

The new testament teaches man is a sinner, but that Christ suffered the punishment for all sins. Hence man can escape his punishment by accepting Christ as savior.

To this, McCulloch presented a very pertinent question:

Is there any indication of this interpretation of the the purpose of the Jewish scriptures, known to the Christians as the Old Testament, it the Old Testament itself? Or was this a purpose attributed to the OT by the Christians, who needed to keep the OT myths but not the OT theology and instructions?

For debate:
-Why is it acceptable to take some parts of the Bible as true, and some others as allegory? Without God telling you in person, it stands to reason that it's all relevant all the time; commandments are commandments.
-Why is it possible to interpret the Bible in so many ways? Does this speak of the Bible's accuracy?
-For the literalists, why is Genesis taken as literal when other episodes such as Joshua and the sun(In case you do take a it literally, please voice your opinions here) are not?

[EduChris]

Why is it acceptable to take some parts of the Bible as true, and some others as allegory? Without God telling you in person, it stands to reason that it's all relevant all the time; commandments are commandments.

Whenever an author puts anything down in writing, the author is counting on the readers sharing some common understandings about the nature of that particular text. A grocery list is recognizable as such to most people. A genealogical family tree is also recognizable. Poetry, songs, laments, stories, and technical instructions all have their own distinct forms. In the case of the Bible, any of these forms (and more) appear, and it is our duty as readers to properly categorize the respective genres--or if we're not quite sure about a particular item, we should at least keep an open mind and not try to force that item into a mold that doesn't quite fit.

Why is it possible to interpret the Bible in so many ways? Does this speak of the Bible's accuracy?

No, it speaks of human ingenuity and of the under-determinacy of all texts. Here's an analogy: we're all using this Internet forum, and the web pages are given in HTML format which are then interpreted by various browsers. Some very smart people have sat down together and tried to come up with a complete and comprehensive "standard" for how a browser should interpret HTML pages, but even with all of this very detailed effort, some of us right now are perceiving these HTML pages differently because our various browsers each follow their own different, but yet legitimate, interpretations of the HTML "standard."

For the literalists, why is Genesis taken as literal when other episodes such as Joshua and the sun(In case you do take a it literally, please voice your opinions here) are not?

I don't think it's possible for anyone to take the first two chapters of Genesis absolutely literal. The creation of the whole universe told in just a couple of chapters? Obviously we have only a sketchy outline, and any Christian--whether they accept evolutionary theory or not--is forced to color in quite a bit of interpretive detail.

[arayhay]

I haven't yet met a Christian who thinks Christianity should be adhering to Mosaic law. The very concept is foreign to me. Could you give me an example of a denomination that holds faithfully to the Mitzvah or the 613? I don't doubt one exists.

But Christianity's relationship to the Mosaic law is an odd one. Some brands of Christianity toss it out altogether; some accept only those parts which are explicitly re-iterated in the NT; and others selectively apply (sabbath keeping for example).

Messianic Judaism for one. In the first century Christianity didn't exist. Jesus / Yahshua and ALL His followers were and remained Jewish. None of the covenants are with 'the church' or the 'christians'. A select few; those who could read kept the scriptures from the people until the early 1500's. Its hard to hard to not be ignorant about something you know nothing - except what others tell you [passion plays for instance] - about.


No one can keep all 613 or so laws. some are for the Priests, some are for woman only. All the sacrifices are to be done in the Temple.