30 thoughts on “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth – Intro”
Are they telling us that we are not supposed to “look behind the words” at all. We’re just supposed to take them at what they say? please tell me if i’m wrong.
Why is the combination of man and God what determines interpretation of the Bible. What if it was just God? Would we all understand it perfectly? If so, why didn’t God just write it himself. He could have written it in historical form or in poetry just like how the authors wrote it.
There were a few things they said that I really liked. The first was when they were talking about striving to find uniqueness whenever a person is interpreting what the Bible is actually saying. I never really thought about this as being a prideful thing, but that’s exactly what it is. It is entirely selfish when a person tries to take something God says and discover a unique meaning for it, without even thinking about what the text actually means, in order to make them look smarter than others. The second thing that I really liked was that throughout the chapter it helped me realize that I do have some bad habits that I need to correct in interpreting what the Bible says.
Why is it that after hearing a preaher or even a friend inform you of their views on a certain text in the Bible does it make it harder for you to figure out your own views or even the plain meaning of the text?
Is it at all possible for one to read and truly understand what a passage of the bible really is trying to say without doing exegesis and hermeneutics?
What exactly is selective exegesis and why is it wrong?
Just reading the first chapter i’ve already realized that i have many bad habits when reading the Bible. I tend to take the scripture at face value and not examine what it truly means. Since we are all interpreters of the Bible, how do we know if we are reading TOO much into the scriptures?
What does the author mean by devotional bible reading? I was under the impression that whenever u read the bible, even if its for devotions, u learn more and understand more about the bible?
It states to use “outside help” that is of highest quality when it comes to content and understanding. Yet while looking for a book for “adequate translation” how do we know if the author is translating correctly in the first place?
What is the basic goal of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and what does it mean they are denying Christ’s deity? I have frequently seen them going door to door around neighborhoods, but what are they doing? What message are they trying to spread?
The authors say on page 27 that historical context matters more for some books than for others. Why is this?
At one point the authors talk about matthew 20:1-16 where “denarius” is translated as “penny” in some translations like KJV. What would be the reason for translating it that way when a denarius is a days wages and a penny is not? The only reason I can see is if a denarius is the smallest currency they had. I don’t think that is a good excuse unless it is a completely literal translation.
At what point in exegesis is one supposed to stop relying on his own interpretive skills and consult one of greater authority? Wouldn’t it be wise to always consult someone who knows more about the text than yourself?
What are the general rules that apply to all the words of the Bible and how do we learn the special rules that apply to each of these literary forms? This is talked about on the top of pg. 23 having to do with interpretting properly the “then and there” of the biblical texts. I also really liked how on the bottom of page 22 it talks about how God chose to use almost every available kind of communication to communicate His Word. There are lots! And each type of communication has important significance.
How do we know which Old Testament laws to follow and which not to follow?
What is the best way to find out whether or not an exegesis is true? Especially when we need to go to another source to find out?
How can I “learn to recognize units of thought” (pg. 28)? And how would that enhance my exegesis?
How do I know that what I believe to be true and “plainly” interpreted, really is true and not what I want it to say?
How do we determine the difference between eternal relevance and historical particularity?
The authors talk about how the Bible has both eternal relevance and historical particularity (pgs. 21-22). When I’m interpreting the Bible, how am I supposed to decipher when it is speaking to us in our age and culture and when it is speaking about certain customs that were relevant for that specific time period?
Page 29 says “proper hermeneutics begins with solid exegesis.” Even if we do have good exegesis, how can we keep “here and now” interpretations from becoming too sujective?
Yup,
Page 20 talks about common “miss-interpretations” and sounds to me like the authors are leading you to believe these “miss-interpretations” are completely wrong and going as far as any miss-intrepretation is completely wrong. My question is if we intrepret Scripture wrongly or even “bad” do we void the Scripture we just read with that completely wrong miss-intrepretation? And if so, why do we and how can we still find comfort/peace/joy/guidance from our miss-intrepreted view about that certain Scripture?
One thing that really interested me was that many of the different sects of the church seemed to stem from different interpretations of only one verse. For example, the text makes it seem like the whole charismatic church came simply from “wealth and health” verse. Same with the people who believe in immersive baptism vs. infant baptism. My question is somewhat the same as Conner’s. Is your entire salvation on the line even if you only disagree with one seemingly non-integral part of scripture, such as the wealth and health gospel and different types of baptism?
If a single text has more than one “plain” meaning, how do we determine which one is correct?
I have conflicting thoughts on the first chapter of this book. I agree with a lot of what it says, how we need to search for the original intent of the author and such. My problem however, is not everyone has the teaching and the resources to perform good exegesis and hermeneutics. I think we can get lost in the obsession with finding the right interpretation and the original intent, and lose the communion with God we are supposed to get from reading the Bible. God knew what he was doing when he wrote it, and he knew the broad spectrum of people who would read it, he didn’t make is super complicated so only well-educated and intelligent people could find the “true” meaning behind the scripture.
I think as we grow in our faith and our relationship with Christ the deeper study is good, but it can’t be expected of everyone and you can’t just assume people who aren’t at that level are doing it wrong. There’s still something to say from the simple communion with God, getting to know him better, and the intimate time spent with him in his word.
On page 22 of the book, it says that “Because it is God’s Word, they tend to think of it only as a collection of propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed- although invariably there is a great deal of picking and choosing among the propositions and imperatives.” I don’t understand this statement, is the book trying to say that we must pick and choose what we believe and what is relevant to us in our daily walk? Which would go on to mean that the Bible as a whole is not applicable to our daily lives and was just a once used instrument for long ago. But I believe it to be completely truthful and useful as a standard in my life so i must be reading incorrectly into this paragraph. So if you could help me out in telling me what they mean that would be very nice thankyou.
What is speaking in tongues? I always hear people arguing about it and never really know what it is. Also, what are your views on it?
How can we learn to practice good exegesis?
On page 24 in the middle of first parograph, it was talking about our gole isn’t to in interperat. Why shouldnt we do that, arent we supposed to look at the culture of the time and try adn see wht they are talking about s we can know how it applys to us today?
On page 127,it says that a difficulty is that there are 4 gospels. Then on 129, it explains that the gospels coincide and should be understood together. But it does not explain how the number of the gospels is an anoience. Do you have any ideas on this?
Are they telling us that we are not supposed to “look behind the words” at all. We’re just supposed to take them at what they say? please tell me if i’m wrong.
Why is the combination of man and God what determines interpretation of the Bible. What if it was just God? Would we all understand it perfectly? If so, why didn’t God just write it himself. He could have written it in historical form or in poetry just like how the authors wrote it.
There were a few things they said that I really liked. The first was when they were talking about striving to find uniqueness whenever a person is interpreting what the Bible is actually saying. I never really thought about this as being a prideful thing, but that’s exactly what it is. It is entirely selfish when a person tries to take something God says and discover a unique meaning for it, without even thinking about what the text actually means, in order to make them look smarter than others. The second thing that I really liked was that throughout the chapter it helped me realize that I do have some bad habits that I need to correct in interpreting what the Bible says.
Why is it that after hearing a preaher or even a friend inform you of their views on a certain text in the Bible does it make it harder for you to figure out your own views or even the plain meaning of the text?
Is it at all possible for one to read and truly understand what a passage of the bible really is trying to say without doing exegesis and hermeneutics?
What exactly is selective exegesis and why is it wrong?
Just reading the first chapter i’ve already realized that i have many bad habits when reading the Bible. I tend to take the scripture at face value and not examine what it truly means. Since we are all interpreters of the Bible, how do we know if we are reading TOO much into the scriptures?
What does the author mean by devotional bible reading? I was under the impression that whenever u read the bible, even if its for devotions, u learn more and understand more about the bible?
It states to use “outside help” that is of highest quality when it comes to content and understanding. Yet while looking for a book for “adequate translation” how do we know if the author is translating correctly in the first place?
What is the basic goal of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and what does it mean they are denying Christ’s deity? I have frequently seen them going door to door around neighborhoods, but what are they doing? What message are they trying to spread?
The authors say on page 27 that historical context matters more for some books than for others. Why is this?
At one point the authors talk about matthew 20:1-16 where “denarius” is translated as “penny” in some translations like KJV. What would be the reason for translating it that way when a denarius is a days wages and a penny is not? The only reason I can see is if a denarius is the smallest currency they had. I don’t think that is a good excuse unless it is a completely literal translation.
At what point in exegesis is one supposed to stop relying on his own interpretive skills and consult one of greater authority? Wouldn’t it be wise to always consult someone who knows more about the text than yourself?
What are the general rules that apply to all the words of the Bible and how do we learn the special rules that apply to each of these literary forms? This is talked about on the top of pg. 23 having to do with interpretting properly the “then and there” of the biblical texts. I also really liked how on the bottom of page 22 it talks about how God chose to use almost every available kind of communication to communicate His Word. There are lots! And each type of communication has important significance.
How do we know which Old Testament laws to follow and which not to follow?
What is the best way to find out whether or not an exegesis is true? Especially when we need to go to another source to find out?
How can I “learn to recognize units of thought” (pg. 28)? And how would that enhance my exegesis?
How do I know that what I believe to be true and “plainly” interpreted, really is true and not what I want it to say?
How do we determine the difference between eternal relevance and historical particularity?
The authors talk about how the Bible has both eternal relevance and historical particularity (pgs. 21-22). When I’m interpreting the Bible, how am I supposed to decipher when it is speaking to us in our age and culture and when it is speaking about certain customs that were relevant for that specific time period?
Page 29 says “proper hermeneutics begins with solid exegesis.” Even if we do have good exegesis, how can we keep “here and now” interpretations from becoming too sujective?
Yup,
Page 20 talks about common “miss-interpretations” and sounds to me like the authors are leading you to believe these “miss-interpretations” are completely wrong and going as far as any miss-intrepretation is completely wrong. My question is if we intrepret Scripture wrongly or even “bad” do we void the Scripture we just read with that completely wrong miss-intrepretation? And if so, why do we and how can we still find comfort/peace/joy/guidance from our miss-intrepreted view about that certain Scripture?
One thing that really interested me was that many of the different sects of the church seemed to stem from different interpretations of only one verse. For example, the text makes it seem like the whole charismatic church came simply from “wealth and health” verse. Same with the people who believe in immersive baptism vs. infant baptism. My question is somewhat the same as Conner’s. Is your entire salvation on the line even if you only disagree with one seemingly non-integral part of scripture, such as the wealth and health gospel and different types of baptism?
If a single text has more than one “plain” meaning, how do we determine which one is correct?
I have conflicting thoughts on the first chapter of this book. I agree with a lot of what it says, how we need to search for the original intent of the author and such. My problem however, is not everyone has the teaching and the resources to perform good exegesis and hermeneutics. I think we can get lost in the obsession with finding the right interpretation and the original intent, and lose the communion with God we are supposed to get from reading the Bible. God knew what he was doing when he wrote it, and he knew the broad spectrum of people who would read it, he didn’t make is super complicated so only well-educated and intelligent people could find the “true” meaning behind the scripture.
I think as we grow in our faith and our relationship with Christ the deeper study is good, but it can’t be expected of everyone and you can’t just assume people who aren’t at that level are doing it wrong. There’s still something to say from the simple communion with God, getting to know him better, and the intimate time spent with him in his word.
On page 22 of the book, it says that “Because it is God’s Word, they tend to think of it only as a collection of propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed- although invariably there is a great deal of picking and choosing among the propositions and imperatives.” I don’t understand this statement, is the book trying to say that we must pick and choose what we believe and what is relevant to us in our daily walk? Which would go on to mean that the Bible as a whole is not applicable to our daily lives and was just a once used instrument for long ago. But I believe it to be completely truthful and useful as a standard in my life so i must be reading incorrectly into this paragraph. So if you could help me out in telling me what they mean that would be very nice thankyou.
What is speaking in tongues? I always hear people arguing about it and never really know what it is. Also, what are your views on it?
How can we learn to practice good exegesis?
On page 24 in the middle of first parograph, it was talking about our gole isn’t to in interperat. Why shouldnt we do that, arent we supposed to look at the culture of the time and try adn see wht they are talking about s we can know how it applys to us today?
On page 127,it says that a difficulty is that there are 4 gospels. Then on 129, it explains that the gospels coincide and should be understood together. But it does not explain how the number of the gospels is an anoience. Do you have any ideas on this?