How To Read and Understand The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter aliciar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still blown away as I continue to learn about the Truth. I was raised Jewish and was familiar with the Old Testament but the New Testament was all new to me. After reading the New Testament I had questions. I believe they compliment each other and without reading the Old, the New looses much of its meaning. I think jumping around is okay after you have chewed on the word from beginning to end at least a few times. Caution must be used. Things need to be seen in context so the before and afters are important. I do not think you can loose by opening the Truth and examining its lessons. We can always be taught something new and I like that. Ask questions. There are plenty of people out there willing to help you on your walk and I am grateful.
Shawn
 
buffalo said:
I see a real scholar has entered the thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am quite fond of sarcasm myself, however, if one’s discussion partner can not provide any arguments to accompany it, one is left with the impression that sarcasm is, shall we say, a sneer covering a whole lot of nothing.
 
aliciar said:
I Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. .
Click to expand...
this method is just about useless

start with the daily Mass readings, if possible with a devotional that has the readings plus a short devotion based on them–One Bread One Body from presentationministries.com or Word Among Us from wau.org are both good.
 
Lapin_Lascif said:
I am quite fond of sarcasm myself, however, if one’s discussion partner can not provide any arguments to accompany it, one is left with the impression that sarcasm is, shall we say, a sneer covering a whole lot of nothing.
Click to expand...
**back to you… This was your post… embarrassing isn’t it?🙂
**Aliciar, I suggest that you heed the words of Buffalo.

Also, you ought to appreciate the privilege that has been bestowed upon you.

Well into the nineteenth century it was still forbidden by Holy Mother Church to translate the Bible into languages that the plebeians could actually read.

The wise and benevolent fathers of the Church rightly observed that it would be far more advantageous to them to tell the commoners (that would be you and I) what to believe, how to live and, not unimportantly, how many tithes have to be paid.

So count your blessings, I’d say, and read the Bible any old way you want to.

For what it is worth, I have always preferred to read it front to back; starting with Genesis, where we find wondrous tales of talking snakes, giants roaming the Earth and folks living to the ripe old age of 900 years, all the way through to Revelations, which is my favorite book as it clearly demonstrates the superiority of Christian morals and ethics as it foretells how our Lord and Savior is going to deal with non-Christians, skeptical intellectuals and other rabble.
 
There really isn’t a right way or a wrong way to read the bible. I’ve read the bible front to back several times – the favored method of early monastics, who called this approach “lectio continua.” I’ve also read sections of the bible together, such as the Pentateuch, prophets, Wisdom literature, letters of Paul, etc. These days I tend to read individual books of the bible together with a commentary (just finished Genesis using a commentary by Walter Brueggemann and am beginning Exodus with a commentary by Terry Fretheim). In my old parish, I led a program using The Great Adventure Bible Timeline Seminar, and some groups have continued by doing studies of Revelation and First Corinthians. Sometimes I go back and read a favorite book (Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis, etc.) because I love to read and re-read those books.

The bottom line: read the bible, and if one method doesn’t work for you, find another method. No matter how you read it, you will profit from your exposure to God’s Word. A life-long habit of bible reading can strengthen your faith and transform your life.
 
I think you need to read the Prophets to understand about the coming of the Messiah. Actually if you read the lyrics of Handel’s Messiah, you will be introduced to the meaning of Jesus and his time on earth and the Prophets and Revelations, through beautiful music. I think it is a great introduction to the Bible.

Definitely read Genesis, and Exodus and the other history books. They are a fun and lively read. The whole Bible is an amazing book. Once you get started on it, you will probably never put it down in your entire life. There are layers and layers of meaning in it, and it can be read in many many ways, including Peter’s typology method.
 
aliciar said:
I am trying to learn how to read and understand it. I used to read it like a normal book and started with Genesis. Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. I would like to learn how to interpret the bible.
Click to expand...
That’s the wrong way to do that and even most n-C preachers will say so because it encourages strange and errant beliefs and actions.

Start with Matthew and the Gospels and read the entire New Testament before going on to the OT.

There is less to “interpret” than most people realize. Much of the Bible is pretty straightforward, and the real interpretation has long ago been settled by the Church.

Want to learn to read the Bible and know your faith? Begin a systematic study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or at least the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and notice the footnotes and scripture references. It’s worth it, believe me.
 
=aliciar-I am trying to learn how to read and understand it. I used to read it like a normal book and started with Genesis. Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. I would like to learn how to intepret the bible.
Click to expand...
First know that what ever is your understanding it must be the same as Catholic teaching. It must conform to the doctrinal and dogmatic positions of the CC. The reason for this is that there can only be a single truth on any given issue.

One should also understand that the OT is primary Historical and Prophetic. Its role is capture and share the history of Gods [orginal] chosen people, and to Prophsey about the comming times of Jesus. The NT finds its roots in the OT, and fulfills and perfects it.

A good practice is to read both the “forwards to each chapter” and the “footnotes” provided. This is especailly helpful with difficult to understand verses.

Also I recommend reading the entire NT TWICE before even begaining to read the OT. The OT will make a great deal more sense if you do this.🙂

A good Catholic Comentary is also a great idea. I use "Haydock’s Catholic Comentary" which can be downloaded for easire use.

In order to capture all that is taking place, I suggest reading as I suggested. There is nothing wrong in just opening the Bible and reading whats beofre you, but that will not gain you a necessary insite into the entire Bible. I suggest you highlight what strikes you.

Finally one should pray to the HS for guidance before reading and thank God for His granted Wisdom and understanding at the end of your reading.

Love and prayers,
 
buffalo said:
Agreed - the Catechism boils it all down nicely. 👍

When I read the Catechism I was awed by the beauty and truth that jumped off its pages. I was truly humbled.
Click to expand...
This was my own experience too. 👍
 
buffalo said:
You must read scripture as a whole. You must also interpret it as the Church understands and teaches it.
Click to expand...
My aunt, who was President of the Dominican nuns in the Western Hemisphere, was a theologian, and taught theology at Catholic University. She used to say, “WHAT interpretation of the Bible by the Church? It has nothing to say on about 95% of it.”

In the end, “interpreting the Bible as the Church understands and teaches it” does not solve the problem of interpretation, because, suddenly, we must interpret the Church’s articulated interpretation, which leaves us in pretty much the same predicament.

There is an additional problem: Error by Church hierarchy.

Many times in its history, the Church has condemned bishops misleading their flocks with error and heresy.

So, bishops can err, can’t they?

Thomas More, a saint, was a mere lay person, clerically, when he disagreed with nearly every English bishop, and so was beheaded.

Truth from below, not above.

So, the simple analysis, “You must also interpret it as the Church understands and teaches it,” hides a vast amount of detail to the contrary, and instead of being a keystone idea, is only a starting point in the discussion.
 
Ah but Mr Dawson, the reason the Catholic Church does not offer interpretation on that (arguable) “95%” is because it generally never does so on any given point until an error or attack arises, and there is, if one is honest and objective, a good bit of latitude within most of scripture for it until then.

It has been my own experience that whenever teachers/preachers have sat down and studiously tried to catalog their interpretations of as scripture as possible, that the grossest errors have soon been set forth by them in short order.

IMO “Dispensationalism” is one very good modern example. 🤷
 
Peter_Dawson said:
My aunt, who was President of the Dominican nuns in the Western Hemisphere, was a theologian, and taught theology at Catholic University. She used to say, “WHAT interpretation of the Bible by the Church? It has nothing to say on about 95% of it.”

In the end, “interpreting the Bible as the Church understands and teaches it” does not solve the problem of interpretation, because, suddenly, we must interpret the Church’s articulated interpretation, which leaves us in pretty much the same predicament.

There is an additional problem: Error by Church hierarchy.

Many times in its history, the Church has condemned bishops misleading their flocks with error and heresy.

So, bishops can err, can’t they?

Thomas More, a saint, was a mere lay person, clerically, when he disagreed with nearly every English bishop, and so was beheaded.

Truth from below, not above.

So, the simple analysis, “You must also interpret it as the Church understands and teaches it,” hides a vast amount of detail to the contrary, and instead of being a keystone idea, is only a starting point in the discussion.
Click to expand...
Infallible teaching is the Pope together with the Bishops. An individual Bishops teachings are not binding.
 
Aliciar, and all, I would like to recommend a book:: “You Can Understand The Bible” a practical and illuminating guide to each book in the Bible … by Peter Kreeft. © 2005 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco. I do believe I paid about $16.95 for my copy. Well worth the cost and then some!!
 
Pookie_Dupre said:
Aliciar, and all, I would like to recommend a book:: “You Can Understand The Bible” a practical and illuminating guide to each book in the Bible … by Peter Kreeft. © 2005 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco. I do believe I paid about $16.95 for my copy. Well worth the cost and then some!!
Click to expand...
Peter Kreeft is great. Even if I wasn’t familiar with Dr. Kreeft’s work, I’d believe anything told to me by someone who goes by the name of “Pookie”! 👍
 
aliciar said:
I am trying to learn how to read and understand it. I used to read it like a normal book and started with Genesis. Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. I would like to learn how to intepret the bible.
Click to expand...

**It’s not a book. It’s a collection of books. And like most books, it was written by intelligent human beings. So it deserves to be read intelligently. How many books would you read by “open[ing] [them] up and read[ing] the first passages the page falls on” ? 🙂 **​

Some idiots have made it into a laughing-stock; as a result, it is treated by many with utter contempt; and they have every excuse for doing so. We can either dismiss it - or, we can reclaim it from the idiots. I think we should reclaim it - what do you think ?

By “idiots”, I mean people who say this kind of thing:

**Is the United States of America in Bible Prophecy? **
  • Can the United States of America be found in the Bible’s prophecies? Yes, America, the greatest country the world has ever known, is described in key endtime Bible prophecy. This website will help you search your own Bible to discover the amazing truth regarding America and its future role in world events.
  • [http://www.america(name removed by moderator)rophecy.com/ (http://www.america(name removed by moderator)rophecy.com/)
Or this:

*(Isaiah 18:1 Paraphrase) Woe to the land of the airplane, which is beyond the Red Sea, Africa, and the Atlantic Ocean. *

Now we know that this nation must be in North America or South America, so we look for the next detail.
That is how not to read the Bible. :eek:
 
Church_Militant said:
Ah but Mr Dawson, the reason the Catholic Church does not offer interpretation on that (arguable) “95%” is because it generally never does so on any given point until an error or attack arises, and there is, if one is honest and objective, a good bit of latitude within most of scripture for it until then.

It has been my own experience that whenever teachers/preachers have sat down and studiously tried to catalog their interpretations of as scripture as possible, that the grossest errors have soon been set forth by them in short order.

IMO “Dispensationalism” is one very good modern example. 🤷
Click to expand...
Hi.

Your “Ah” sounds good until one realizes that it implies either (a) Catholic’s shouldn’t interpret 95% of the Bible, and should wait until after the Church says something, and (b) since the Church HASN’T interpreted 95% of the Bible, but DOES urge us to read it, we should interpret thew Bible on our own – but, of course, with a spirit of readiness for Church guidance.
 
buffalo said:
Infallible teaching is the Pope together with the Bishops. An individual Bishops teachings are not binding.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree, buffalo.

One has to be careful about assuming that because a bishop is only a bishop, his teachings are not “binding.”

In fact, I believe that even though one has to be careful with a bishop’s teaching, one is BOUND by a bishop’s teaching about Scripture unless one can generate an articulable rational reason for doubting it.

Another problem with ignoring the teaching of one who is “just” a bishop is that the popes, collectively, have said extremely little to interpret Scripture at times when they had infallible teaching intent.

You are implicitly reducing the Church’s role as guide in interpretation of Scripture to nearly zero.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
I sort of agree, buffalo.

One has to be careful about assuming that because a bishop is only a bishop, his teachings are not “binding.”

In fact, I believe that even though one has to be careful with a bishop’s teaching, one is BOUND by a bishop’s teaching about Scripture unless one can generate an articulable rational reason for doubting it.

Another problem with ignoring the teaching of one who is “just” a bishop is that the popes, collectively, have said extremely little to interpret Scripture at times when they had infallible teaching intent.

You are implicitly reducing the Church’s role as guide in interpretation of Scripture to nearly zero.
Click to expand...
Each bishop is authoritative in his own diocese, teaching as part of the ordinary magisterium. Nonetheless, I agree with the proposition that the Church has not authoritatively taught the proper interpretation of much of the bible. I think one should thoroughly understand Catholic doctrine, but that will guide your reading of only a small (albeit important) part of the bible, especially the Old Testament. The dirty little secret about being an adult Catholic Christian is that we are obliged to use our own minds and judgment a lot of the time.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
I sort of agree, buffalo.

One has to be careful about assuming that because a bishop is only a bishop, his teachings are not “binding.”

In fact, I believe that even though one has to be careful with a bishop’s teaching, one is BOUND by a bishop’s teaching about Scripture unless one can generate an articulable rational reason for doubting it.

Another problem with ignoring the teaching of one who is “just” a bishop is that the popes, collectively, have said extremely little to interpret Scripture at times when they had infallible teaching intent.

You are implicitly reducing the Church’s role as guide in interpretation of Scripture to nearly zero.
Click to expand...
Your claim that if my bishop teaches the Holy Eucharist is just a symbol it would be binding? Not.

The Pope in Communion with the Bishops is protected by the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top