Seized By Truth: Reading The Bible As Scripture Is Written

The Bible can be interpreted in a literal form ( i.e. direct instruction) or figurative form (i.e. poetical language). How one interprets the bible either by direct instruction or poetic language depends on how they were taught (Graham, 2009). There are two different categories professed and controlling beliefs in which a person operates within. A professed belief is generated by a formal verbal instruction which usually results in one’s behaviors not fully match with their beliefs. A controlling belief is generated by experiences that most often lead to one’s behaviors closely matching their beliefs because of what they perceive as truth (Graham,

The association further believes there is only one true interpretation of Scripture, although there may be several applications. The true meaning lies in the text and is that which the divinely-guided author willed to convey. It is recoverable through careful application of a literal (grammatical, historical, contextual) method of interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in the community of Christ. The Holy Spirit illumines the text, enabling the reader to embrace the significance of what God has communicated, and to see the glory of Christ in the Word of God. To sum this up, they believe they are right about

This book review is from the readings of Biblical Inspiration by Howard Marshall. The book is published by Regent College Publishing located in Vancouver, and British Columbia published the book in 2004. The book is braces around the interpretation of the Bible, and the inspiration of the Bible in our lives of today. There are many questions that are brought up the book, and these include: Is the Bible infallible? How do we interpret the Bible today? is its inspiration believable in and biblical criticism believable? All of the different opinions on biblical issues equivalent to these bring up issues and questioning within the community. It is Marshall’s goal to try and produce a statement that is concrete of what the Bible says in our lives today.

Ferrin’s process of inductive Bible study takes on a relational approach that consists of three essential parts or phases titled Foundation, Framing, and Finish Work. The structured methods encompass studying a book of the Bible and internalizing it rather than just memorizing the words (p. 3). The author diligently explains how that through the devoted application of all phases individuals and group Bible study participants are sure to “fall in love with God’s Word” (p. 3). Ferrin presents and or describes Scripture internalization as taking in the truth and then applying it to everyday life or living. Ferrin pointed out that the benefits of understanding biblical messages book by book include the Living Word of God becoming a reality within persons that grow more enjoyable and rewarding as time comes and goes.

It is imperative that we as humans study scripture reasonably and not view it in an irrational manner.

If the burden of authorship were laid on man, it would like the foresight of God for the future. Because God divinely authored the Bible, he can also use it to speak to us today despite the difference in culture from the date of its authorship to now. That does not mean that we can just find any meaning we want and assume that God planted it there, it is still our responsibility to ensure that we are using proper study habits to decipher the word. One of the biggest issues I see today is that we have a habit of taking scripture out of context reading only the portion of the verse that supports our thoughts or not taking into consideration the context of who the scripture was directed towards or the culture of that time. During the reading in this week’s session, there were two things that stood out to me. McGrath notes in the Christian Theology Reader that under Hodge’s view “Biblical Authority is specifically linked with the correct Biblical interpretation” (McGrath, 2011, p. 111) and that the Bible is “absolutely infallible when interpreted in the same sense intended, and hence are clothed with absolute divine authority” (McGrath, 2011, p.

It is known to most that the gospels often differ from historical facts due to the writer of each gospel putting significant emphasis on particular actions and attributes of Jesus. Also a major part in this difference is the fact that the gospels were written 35-60 years after the death of Jesus and some of these memories have altered over time. Differences in conflicting evidence, writing to different communities, writing during a different time period, and with different intentions are all more reasons as to why these gospels conflict with historical facts. There is said to be six accounts that are subdivided into two separate traditions. These two traditions are those having to do with the appearance of Jesus in Galilee

Most Christians would assert that the Bible has importance for their faith and understanding in how to live out their beliefs. However, there is great diversity in how exactly this takes shape. At issue is one’s perspective on how to read the Bible and the authority that is granted to Scripture. Differing viewpoints can be placed along a continuum ranging from conservative to liberal perspectives on the role of Scripture. Sparks (n.d.) highlights the hallmarks of different traditions based on a number of factors such as how the Bible is read, views of inerrancy, and the authority of tradition. Both Protestant Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals hold to biblical inerrancy as a hallmark of their faith. However, the two diverge regarding

“I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God.” Then, in the midst of that struggle with God, the message of the Scriptures became clear, like a long-shut door opening

I was born to a Christian mother I had 7 brothers and sisters we wasn’t perfect but we all loved the Lord. I went to church every time the door was open I loved Sunday school and loved to sing the good ole songs that Baptist Churches sing. I am now 52 and my mind has never changed I love the Lord with all my heart and soul he has helped me so much I wouldn’t be here now if it wasn’t for him.

Critical analysis of Christian doctrine often suggests overlapping principles concerning teachings. That is, the teachings of one individual, such as a disciple of Christ are re-interpreted and introduced by another, heightening discussion on historical relevance, intent, ethical implications and methods of delivery. The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain fall under this category of controversial interpretation. One is recognized as essentially playing off the other, delivering the same message while delivering a new level of interpretation. Literary interpretation of the gospel is ever-changing due to the influential nature of the modern environment, where current actions shape the initiatives of the past. While the common understanding is that these sermons lack independence as one re-introduces the theories taught in the previous sermon, the theory requires further interpretation before formulating a conclusion on the independent or collective nature of the sermons.

Considering that this view overcomes the apparent contradictions in the Bible by, for example, claiming that the account of God sending the Israelites to fight is intended to portray his desire for justice, it holds strong. Nevertheless, it fails to account for the fact that teaching within the Bible itself asserts that Biblical text is the word of God. Interpreters must be wary before referring to 'the teaching of the Bible,' for as John Locke asserts, [3]"the scripture serves but,

I believe in a Liberal- Evangelical view in terms of the authority of scripture. I am Evangelical in that I believe that the bible is infallible in all that is trying to affirm, and that the central narrative can be relatable, and inspiring to every person, and every people group around the world. This is because the Holy Spirit is involved in this process from both the compositional, and readability aspect. I am liberal in that I cannot affirm that the bible is the only written work of God. I can only affirm that is the only fully infallible written scriptural work. The issues of psuedonymity, the Synoptic Problem, Genesis 1-11, and the rewritten Bible have all been noticed as problematic areas for one’s hermeneutic. This paper will largely be a presentation of my hermeneutical implications through these issues.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding what someone really means, especially when it comes to understanding God’s word. As Duvall and Hays say, “…context determines meaning” (Duvall and Hays 149). I know full well what it is like to have my words taken out of context and twisted to mean something entirely different than what I originally meant. This can also be said of what Christians, including myself, potentially do when a specific scripture is taken out of context and twisted to mean something other than what God intended. For example, people can take an Old Testament scripture, such as Isaiah 61:9 that says, “Their descendants will be recognized and honored among the nations. Everyone will realize that they are a people the

Biblical Interpretation is important and necessary so that we can understand what the text is saying, what the intended theological message is, and how to personally apply and teach these Scriptural truths to carry forward the Gospel in rescuing others from despair and death to hope and life, thus displaying His glory and growing His Kingdom. It is about finding what God is revealing about Himself and His Son Jesus Christ. Moreover, it is for us to know that God desires to have a relationship with us and for us to be set apart in a covenant relationship with Him to display holy lives that bring Him glory. Interpretation, using hermeneutical principles, help guide us in proper boundaries for interpreting Scripture so that we can reveal the intended meaning of the text. Without this, we run the risk of imposing our own ideas on the text, therefore misinterpreting. Misinterpreting can cause us to miss theological truths, administer the wrong application, and neglect or overlook the meaning of the text which weakens the impact of God’s truth in our personal lives as well as others we are teaching.