How are you to interpret scriptures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pathway2

Guest
Be Honest. whilst I am not discussing the Creation story; I acknowledged that the bible isn’t 100% fundamentally literal, but what about cases like The book of Numbers. could that be historically accurate? or do I need to view this differently? were the Judges doing History?
 
Ever looked into the Archaeology surrounding the Old Testament? People left Steles and Papyrus and Bullae. The inscriptions on some of these discuss events that correlate strongly with incidents also spoken of in the Old Testament. One example is the Dibhon Stele. Israel and its neighbour were in a border dispute following the death of a king. The neighbouring country had paid Israel tribute or tax if you like, in wool and sheep. Then the Moab king decided enough was enough, wanted to be out from under the Israelite yoke, went to battle, and wrote about it on a stele. This stele also has mention of the House of David on it. The Old Testament also records this battle.

The Old Testament has a few different genres, one of them does have a strong historical aspect. Wars, geneology, reigns, good and bad kings.
 
Last edited:
but about the Camels of the old testament. they came 10th century BC.
 
Could you expand on this a little more. Do you mean our first evidence for Camels is the 10th century BC? What type of camel reference are you citing?
 
The Book of Psalms is a collection of songs and prayers.
The Book of Proverbs is a collection of wise sayings.
The Song of Solomon is a poem.
The Gospels are historical accounts as well as being full of theological teachings.
The Acts of the Apostles is another historical account.
The Epistles are more lessons in theology–instructions in how to live as God wants us to live.
To properly interpret the Scripture one must first determine the genre and purpose of the specific book one wishes to interpret.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, As David Bentley Hart masterfully points out, the oracularist literalism approach to the Bible, which is produced by Modernism (and creationism follows from it) has no connection with the ancient church or even with the church of the Middle Ages.

Allegorically finding Christ in the narrative, illumined by the Holy Spirit, and in keeping with the whole Tradition was the way in which the church fathers and scholastics interpreted the sacred scriptures, to include Genesis.
 
but if there were no camels in Egypt in Abraham’s time. who says they could be any in that time. I could say that It was 2 in the afternoon when it turns out it was half past two.
 
yes. wouldn’t have the writer focused on a more theological history than a literal history?
 
Pathway2 said:
wouldn’t have the writer focused on a more theological history than a literal history?
Click to expand...
I think you’re definitely correct. The patristics and the scholastics intentionally tried to find Christ in the entire Bible (including the OT). In fact, they would have taught that to do otherwise is doing it wrong. iow, to believe that God just wanted to teach you some various history lessons is incorrect. The allegorical approach to the Bible held full sway for a millennium and a half.
 
so even if the genesis may be inaccurate. there is a meaning to it?
 
Pathway2 said:
so even if the genesis may be inaccurate. there is a meaning to it?
Click to expand...
That’s not quite it. It’s more of this: Genesis is an allegorical tale communicating various truths. It in no way whatsoever was attempting to be a historical record of past events. In one way, since the book of Genesis predates the scientific revolution by thousands of years, how could it attempt to be a scientific account?
 
Pathway2 said:
but if there were no camels in Egypt in Abraham’s time. who says they could be any in that time. I could say that It was 2 in the afternoon when it turns out it was half past two.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow your reasoning.
I ask for the source for your assertion that there were no camels in the region at the time of Abraham.
You answer “but if there were none who says there could be any”?
How does that answer my question? Either there were camels in Egypt in Abraham’s time or there were not. What makes you think they were not, and why is your source to be thought more reliable than Scripture?
 
That’s fine, but this applies to Genesis or Abraham:
Magnanimity said:
Allegorically finding Christ in the narrative, illumined by the Holy Spirit, and in keeping with the whole Tradition was the way in which the church fathers and scholastics interpreted the sacred scriptures
Click to expand...
 
Because the facts have been checked. even if it was true. it is not a convincing argument for historical accuracy by saying some book which could have been edited, changed translated ect. by using evidence outside the bible you have made the book’s reliability stronger. Declaring the scriptures to be historically accurate without outside evidence is like saying that Christianity isn’t true because of what the Quran said.
 
Last edited:
I acknowledge that. It is that The History of the world and the history according to scripture is rather contradictory.
 
Would be the same for those books too—find Christ, look for the allegorical and spiritual truth that might apply to your life. Here is a very good video with an example of this allegorical interpretation of a violent Old Testament story. Check it out!
 
Pathway2 said:
Because the facts have been checked. even if it was true. it is not a convincing argument for historical accuracy by saying some book which could have been edited, changed translated ect. by using evidence outside the bible you have made the book’s reliability stronger.
Click to expand...
If I follow this, you doubt the reliability of Scripture but think that evidence from other sources can’t be used to prove the reliability of Scripture. If so, then in your eyes what can be used to prove the reliability of Scripture?
Pathway2 said:
Declaring the scriptures to be historically accurate without outside evidence is like saying that Christianity isn’t true because of what the Quran said.
Click to expand...
“If you claim the Bible is historically accurate without outside evidence you have to agree that the Quran is historically accurate without outside evidence.”.

I dispute that reasoning. Accepting one source does not mean I must accept all other sources that make similar claims to accuracy or reliability.

Further I do not accept the accuracy of Scripture //without outside evidence//.
I hold that the Roman Catholic Church is a reliable witness to the accuracy and Divine inspiration of Scripture.
Further I hold that historical evidence on the whole provides good supporting evidence for the claims made by the Church.

I accept the accuracy of the Bible on the grounds that I have good reason to believe the Bible is Divinely inspired.
If the Bible is true because it is inspired by God then any other document that directly contradicts the Bible must be false.

But the Quran repeatedly and directly contradicts the Bible. So no, the Quran is not true nor reliable.
Pathway2 said:
The History of the world and the history according to scripture is rather contradictory.
Click to expand...
I dispute that.

Some accounts of history contradict the contents of Scripture. Some accounts of history agree with the contents of Scripture. You can’t prove the Bible wrong by cherry-picking your sources.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top