1. Context, context, context - Too many people take one passage out of its setting to make it mean something it was obviously not intended to mean. This does not mean, however, that a scripture cannot have multiple applications.

2. Know your audience - New Testament audiences are not that varied, and all scriptures in it are profitable for teaching but they must be rightly applied. Jesus’ audience in the Gospels were Jews still under the Old Covenant, so that must be taken into account - particularly when reference is made to the Law of Moses.

3. The Bible is progressive revelation - More and more light is continually revealed as we get to the Epistles. The Old Testament and the Gospels should be interpreted in light of the Epistles.

4. Beware careful about drawing conclusions from narrative absent other scriptural support - Enough said.

5. Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established - Nothing of any substance will only be mentioned once. Don’t make mountains of molehills.

6. Determine the order of importance by the degree of emphasis - Assume that if something is repeated over and over that it is important.

7. Do not approach the scripture with preconceived ideas absent a sufficient biblical foundation - Otherwise you will attempt to make the Bible fit your flawed perspective.

8. Use scripture to interpret scripture - This one goes along with rule 3.

9. Be aware of culture and history - This is important in understanding context.

10. Understand figurative language - This is most important when interpreting the book of Revelation. Understanding the symbols requires fairly extensive knowledge of the Old Testament prophets since the symbolic language is consistent.

Yeah, I have that book. Excellent read.

But the two documents are not the same in their age, the way they came to exist, or, more to the point, the fact that most of us here think one of them is divinely inspired. What I’m trying to say is that the stakes are lots higher for knowing the meaning of the NT than of the constitution. So you might be comparing apples to oranges.

When I read the Bible and interpret it however I do, I don’t think I’ve exactly “tapped into God’s personal thought process” and I certainly don’t think I understand the Bible on the same level as God. However, I do think that God intentionally (as in, divinely directed) gave us a written message for us to use to find our way to him. The Bible itself claims that in various places, for instance:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.1 Thess 2:13

Yes, I sometimes wish the Bible were a precise mathematical formula that we could all precisely understand and not argue about what it “really” means. But that isn’t what God gave us. He not only gave us a story, it is many people’s stories, written over many years, by many authors, in more than one foreign language, about more than one foreign culture, and on a topic that just makes no human sense–and it had to be translated various times before we could even begin to understand it. It is a wonder we get any of it!

If it were a precise, provable formula we wouldn’t need any faith–we would only need reason and logic and information. But somehow and for some reason God asks us to believe. He makes the message of Christ hard for us logical thinkers, but easy for children.

I wonder if the God of all logic didn’t somehow intentionally make logic the stone that makes us stumble and the rock that makes us fall. Why didn’t he just let us find him via reason and logic, why does he make us be little children and accept by faith. It isn’t fair!

[Sorry, Chris. Don’t take any of that as a personal attack. I’m just thinking about this in relation to the topic I posted about this morning in the Forum–people losing their faith because something in the Bible or the Christian life doesn’t “make sense.”]

I also agree that the Bible is a very nuanced text, if I understand that term correctly. I mean, if the text is divinely inspired, it might have meanings on many levels and relevance for many times.

I too object to people who think they know it all, who think they know the one and only right meaning of a given Biblical text, no questions allowed. On the other hand, I fear the stance that is its opposite–that the Bible is full of error both specific and general, irrelevant, etc. and therefore, is not authoritative.

I still have to come back to exploring the part faith has in how we view the Bible. It is almost like a catch-22. If we don’t have faith, we can’t accept the “imperfections” (in transmission or translation or interpretation) because logically one would conclude that a divinely-inspired document wouldn’t have any imperfections. On the other hand, if we “have faith” we could accept any old thing and take it as divinely inspired–lots of sad examples of that through history.