How should we be reading the Bible?

[djeter]

The Bible In Life

Many times I have sat by the bedside of someone who is sick and read the Psalms. Psalms are the personal prayers addressed to God, often by one who is in trouble or peril. They act as a remarkable channel for the anxieties and hopes of one who is ill.

When the time came for me to be the one in the bed, not beside the bed, I turned to the same source: Knocked out by the chemotherapy and unable to carry on the usual tasks of the day, one verse kept recurring in my mind, Psalm 118:5. It is usually translated “from out of the depths I called unto God; He answered me and set me free.”

But the “depths” can be translated as “narrowness” and free as “expansively.” A literal translation is – “From my narrowness I called to God and I was answered by breadth, O God.” My world grew through pain and the increasing recognition of the ways in which it both opened my heart and helped me draw closer to others in pain. A single verse offered a world and way of seeing that gave me strength and the breadth promised by the verse itself.

My spirit opened to an infinitely larger Spirit. When in pain, we tighten up like a fist. It is easy to push others away — after all, they are not feeling the pain — and to turn increasingly inward. Only I matter; only my pain is real. The Psalm urged me to expand, allowing me to embrace others, to understand that pain need not always be private, unshared. Open up, the Psalmist taught; both in heaven and on earth you are not alone.

The Psalmist also connected my pain to the human community throughout the ages. Thousands of years ago a poet gave words to what was deep within me. A hand reached across the generations to take my own. That, too, seemed like more than just a human gift; it was a gift from God.

Biblical sufferers touch us through their shared pain. In our fractured and difficult lives, reading a chronicle of difficulty and failure can be encouraging and even healing. The heroes of the Bible are not perfect, their marriages are not storybook, their relations with children not friction-less. All of us who struggle with real problems of families, of work, can look to the Bible not as one looks at a fairy tale, but with the recognition that everything has changed since the time of Abraham and Sarah except human nature.

Rabbi David Wolpe on reading the Bible here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/01/26/rabbi-david-wolpe-on-reading-the-bible/

dj

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m surprised, with as many interpretation threads there are, that more haven’t weighed in on their approach to reading scriptures in context. It’s the differences of how we read the Bible that helps form our interpretations.

 

[PJM]

=Prodigal Son1;6323240]**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.**

Some Protestants say the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. To receive an interpretation stating this, one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves. This seems, to me, to be putting one’s self into a position of authority the same as the Apostles, only without receiving an appointment, ordination, as the Apostles received from Christ.

I read the same passage and see the discussion between Christ and only the Apostles and learn how Jesus taught the Apostles that they could have confidence in teaching His truth, in His earthly absence. As a layperson, I have learned to also have confidence in the appointed men of the Church.

Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.

In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

Where does the Bible tell us that all the scriptures are speaking to each and every individual on everything written and everything written is to be applied to each and every one of us individually?

How is that really reading in context, to read a conversation exclusively between Christ and the Apostles and then apply the instructions from Christ to ourselves?

Pope Benedict XVI in his acceptance homily shared these words.

“There CANNOT BE your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.”

The Bible is a book “birthed by Catholics” for Catholics. NO I AM NOT sying it does not have application to others. It does however have specific application to those for whom it is written, and therefore, Catholics, through and in accord with Mother Church, are the ONLY ones able to properly and fully explain its message.

Even Catholics unless trained, must avoid personal interpetiations. Any understanding not in complete comformity with the CC are defacto: WRONG!

That is to be the guide, the measurement of truth.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pope Benedict XVI in his acceptance homily shared these words.

“There CANNOT BE your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.”

The Bible is a book “birthed by Catholics” for Catholics. NO I AM NOT sying it does not have application to others. It does however have specific application to those for whom it is written, and therefore, Catholics, through and in accord with Mother Church, are the ONLY ones able to properly and fully explain its message.

Even Catholics unless trained, must avoid personal interpetiations. Any understanding not in complete comformity with the CC are defacto: WRONG!

That is to be the guide, the measurement of truth.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Thanks PJM. Later in the thread I posted the Catechism telling us to interpret scripture in the Tradition of the living Church. I try to do this and then will check my interpretation against Church interpretation. It works, in my opinion.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by BrianH
What is the difference between a Catholic saying that John was written to the Apostles and a dispensationalist telling me that James is only meant for Hebrew Christians from the twelve tribes (which is clearly the audience because James WROTE it was )?

Its a new theory Prodigal or one that does not get much play. Like I said, IF I were a dispensationalist, I would have to go Pauline. But United Methodists don’t do dispensationalism in any form.

***I can see you have given the issue some thought. Good for you.

The difference is understanding the basic nautres and purposes of the two 'books".

The Old Testaments is largely historical, [including instructions of learn from our past errors], has prophetic content, and leads to and is incomplete without the NT.

The NT is primarily instructional, as opposed to historical [all though today it fulfills that role also.]***

**Matt.5: 17 **“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” **An Example: ** **Mark.10: 21 **"And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

The OT time and time again recalls events in the OT that are perfected in the NT. TWO examples. “Mana”, the bread of life becomming Eucharist the Bread of Eternal Life, and the OT sin goat [Lev. 5:6] and the Sacrament of Confession for known forgiveness of sins in John 20:20-23.

Also your ommiting history and logic. Who collected the OT books? Who wrote the NT? For whom was it collected and written?

** Matt.4: 23** And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people
.
** Matt.9: 35** And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.

Matt.24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.

Matt.26: 23 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Friend ar you being completely honest with yourself or simply seeking debating points?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[BrianH]

***I can see you have given the issue some thought. Good for you.

The difference is understanding the basic nautres and purposes of the two 'books".

The Old Testaments is largely historical, [including instructions of learn from our past errors], has prophetic content, and leads to and is incomplete without the NT.

The NT is primarily instructional, as opposed to historical [all though today it fulfills that role also.]***

**Matt.5: 17 **“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” **An Example: ** **Mark.10: 21 **"And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

The OT time and time again recalls events in the OT that are perfected in the NT. TWO examples. “Mana”, the bread of life becomming Eucharist the Bread of Eternal Life, and the OT sin goat [Lev. 5:6] and the Sacrament of Confession for known forgiveness of sins in John 20:20-23.

Also your ommiting history and logic. Who collected the OT books? Who wrote the NT? For whom was it collected and written?

** Matt.4: 23** And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people
.
** Matt.9: 35** And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.

Matt.24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.

Matt.26: 23 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Friend ar you being completely honest with yourself or simply seeking debating points?

Love and prayers,
Pat

My comments are not related to the “two books”. My comments are clearly related to the dividing of the Gospel of John. Please explain why you started talking about the Old Testament.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.**

Some Protestants say the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. To receive an interpretation stating this, one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves. This seems, to me, to be putting one’s self into a position of authority the same as the Apostles, only without receiving an appointment, ordination, as the Apostles received from Christ.

I read the same passage and see the discussion between Christ and only the Apostles and learn how Jesus taught the Apostles that they could have confidence in teaching His truth, in His earthly absence. As a layperson, I have learned to also have confidence in the appointed men of the Church.

Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.

In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

Where does the Bible tell us that all the scriptures are speaking to each and every individual on everything written and everything written is to be applied to each and every one of us individually?

How is that really reading in context, to read a conversation exclusively between Christ and the Apostles and then apply the instructions from Christ to ourselves?

Your “problem” seems to be with self designating self as the sole authoritative and infallible interpretater of Scripture.

Your “problem” thus is exclusively with The Catholic Church, for it is the only one that does what you are rebuking. Read your Catechism # 85. Look all you want (PLEASE!) you will find no statement like it in ANY Catechism of ANY other (well Christian groups, it’s universal in all the cults).

I totally agree with your rant here, you just have your finger pointed in the wrong direction.

.

 

[SyCarl]

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.**

Some Protestants say the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. To receive an interpretation stating this, one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves. This seems, to me, to be putting one’s self into a position of authority the same as the Apostles, only without receiving an appointment, ordination, as the Apostles received from Christ.

I read the same passage and see the discussion between Christ and only the Apostles and learn how Jesus taught the Apostles that they could have confidence in teaching His truth, in His earthly absence. As a layperson, I have learned to also have confidence in the appointed men of the Church.

Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.

In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

Where does the Bible tell us that all the scriptures are speaking to each and every individual on everything written and everything written is to be applied to each and every one of us individually?

How is that really reading in context, to read a conversation exclusively between Christ and the Apostles and then apply the instructions from Christ to ourselves?

I prefer the exegesis to your personal interpretation.

Wherefore, beloved, you need not expect to hear from us what the Lord then refrained from telling His disciples, because they were still unable to bear them: but rather seek to grow in the love that is shed abroad in your hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto you; that, fervent in spirit, and loving spiritual things, you may be able, not by any sign apparent to your bodily eyes, or any sound striking on your bodily ears, but by the inward eyesight and hearing, to become acquainted with that spiritual light and that spiritual word which carnal men are unable to bear. For that cannot be loved which is altogether unknown. But when what is known, in however small a measure, is also loved, by the self-same love one is led on to a better and fuller knowledge. If, then, you grow in the love which the Holy Spirit spreads abroad in your hearts, “He will teach you all truth;” or, as other codices have it, “He will guide you in all truth:”as it is said, “Lead me in Thy way, O Lord, and I will walk in Thy truth.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Number 96, paragraph 4
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xcvii.html

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.**

Some Protestants say the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. To receive an interpretation stating this, one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves. This seems, to me, to be putting one’s self into a position of authority the same as the Apostles, only without receiving an appointment, ordination, as the Apostles received from Christ.

I read the same passage and see the discussion between Christ and only the Apostles and learn how Jesus taught the Apostles that they could have confidence in teaching His truth, in His earthly absence. As a layperson, I have learned to also have confidence in the appointed men of the Church.

Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.

In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

Where does the Bible tell us that all the scriptures are speaking to each and every individual on everything written and everything written is to be applied to each and every one of us individually?

How is that really reading in context, to read a conversation exclusively between Christ and the Apostles and then apply the instructions from Christ to ourselves?

I think you make a very valid point.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I prefer the exegesis to your personal interpretation.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Number 96, paragraph 4
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xcvii.html

While I would never argue with St. Augustine, I have to point out that he does not specifically mention that the Holy Spirit will guide/teach you all things from scriptures, or an interpretation of scriptures.

The main point of this discussion is how we interpret scriptures, more specifically our approach to reading the Bible in context. Now, your example brings us back full circle to the question, ‘who has the Holy Spirit guided in truth when you have multiple interpretations, all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit?’ Where does a non-believer seeking truth turn too when there are multiple ‘truths’, again, all claiming Holy Spirit guidance?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you make a very valid point.

Thank you MyRdmrLvs. While we have to spiritually weigh spiritual things, we still use our God given minds to do that. There’s a spiritual logic that must be applied to truly discern truths.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My comments are not related to the “two books”. My comments are clearly related to the dividing of the Gospel of John. Please explain why you started talking about the Old Testament.

Hey Brian,

It’s not ‘dividing’ John, it’s applying context of who Christ was speaking too. There were sermons meant for all and there were instructions only spoken to the men He appointed/ordained.

 

[BrianH]

Hey Brian,

It’s not ‘dividing’ John, it’s applying context of who Christ was speaking too. There were sermons meant for all and there were instructions only spoken to the men He appointed/ordained.

It is division in the context of how dispensationalists use the word. In other words, they believe that the audience must clearly be established. So the gospels were written for the Jews as no Gentile was a part of the body until Acts…but we do not need to go off into that just yet. I still cannot believe I am having this conversation with a Catholic

James was only written to Hebrew Christians. In context, James choose not to address Gentile Christians. What are your thoughts on this? If I apply a dispensationalist logic to John, and I understand you do not see it that way but I clearly do, I have to apply that to the entire New Testament. So help me work through James to begin with. The funny thing Prodigal is a Catholic might make a dispensationalist out of me, something no dispensationalist has ever been able to do

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is division in the context of how dispensationalists use the word. In other words, they believe that the audience must clearly be established. So the gospels were written for the Jews as no Gentile was a part of the body until Acts…but we do not need to go off into that just yet. I still cannot believe I am having this conversation with a Catholic

James was only written to Hebrew Christians. In context, James choose not to address Gentile Christians. What are your thoughts on this? If I apply a dispensationalist logic to John, and I understand you do not see it that way but I clearly do, I have to apply that to the entire New Testament. So help me work through James to begin with. The funny thing Prodigal is a Catholic might make a dispensationalist out of me, something no dispensationalist has ever been able to do

I can see how you think of this as division, but we have to read scriptures, within scriptures. The ‘division’ you say I am reading into the Bible is a division between authority and multitudes, or laypeople. You are mistaken this for divisions along other lines. We know with the new and everlasting covenant there were no more divisions along other lines. There were believers and non-believers.

**Col 3:11 Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all. **

Christ is in all His believers, but authority is limited when it comes to the appointed/ordained and the multitudes; authoritative and laypersons.

I hope I explained it better this time.

 

[KathleenGee]

It’s Lent. Keeping it simple…

We read the bible in Spirit and truth…in the Judeo-Catholic tradition as a member of the united faith community…in one heart and one mind.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Brian,

I was wondering if you understood the ‘divisions’ as I explained them?

 

[BrianH]

Brian,

I was wondering if you understood the ‘divisions’ as I explained them?

It is a distinction about who is addressed…in some cases.
Lets think this through some more though.
What about the synoptics and the same words, what scholars call Q, having different audiences in Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Or should we stick to John?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is a distinction about who is addressed…in some cases.
Lets think this through some more though.
What about the synoptics and the same words, what scholars call Q, having different audiences in Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Or should we stick to John?

John and Matthew were eyewitnesses to Christ. Mark and Luke wrote what the others told them. Yet all Gospels tell the same story, without contradiction. All Gospel authors tell us the audiences being addressed if we read back far enough.

 

[BrianH]

John and Matthew were eyewitnesses to Christ. Mark and Luke wrote what the others told them. Yet all Gospels tell the same story, without contradiction. All Gospel authors tell us the audiences being addressed if we read back far enough.

You have read the synoptics in a Bible side by side at the same time?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have read the synoptics in a Bible side by side at the same time?

I have spent time reading Gospel against Gospel. Anytime I read something in one, I look it up in the others. Where one may not mention a specific point, another covers it.

As an example of something not being mentioned specifically by one, but covered by another, let’s look at Matthew 15:28.

**Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour. **

Matthew states the daughter was cured that hour. Does that mean it took the mother an hour to go home and see the daughter cured, or was the daughter cured upon the mother’s return?

Mark tells us that being cured in that hour was prior to the mother’s return home.

**Mar 7:30 And when she was come into her house, she found the girl lying upon the bed and that the devil was gone out. **

Different authors wrote it differently, but say the same thing. Without Mark’s account, one could assume the mother had returned home, told the daughter what was spoken and then she was cured. The reason this is important is the story tells us that the daughter was cured based on the mother’s faith.