Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

While agreeing that we must have a high view of Scripture, we must also
have a low view of ourselves. That means we must realize that our reading
of Scri[pture is influenced by our philosophy of life. That philosophy
must be founded on the Bible, but seldom is, if our highest view of
Scripture is that it teaches us how to go to heaven in our
"afterlife". That means in general that those accepting such a view are
believing that man is a dichotomy of "body" and "soul". However, that view
is in general based on reading a contemporary English translation
(includes the King James). If we go back to the Bible we find that the
translation is very much influenced by Greek philosophy. My example
usually is that in Gen.1 "nephesh" is translated as "living being" and in
Gen.2 (at least in older translations) as "soul". Add to that the Bible is
clear on the fact that "man" is created for the earth, so that it clearly
states that when Jesus comes back we will rise up out our graves, and
together with all Christians alive at that time, will meet Jesus coming back.
So, we must study a lot, and be prepared to be not understood by those, who
do not have the willingness, or are not able to read the Bible in the
original. I can only read a little, little bit of Hebrew and Greek, but
was shown this by my (Christian) philosophy professor. But because of the
continued misunderstanding on this point, I do not want to discuss this
with people in general, since they are usually not able to go back to the
original language. Besides since it took a three hour lecture by my
philosophy professor, it is not a subject that can easily be discussed here.

Jan de Koning

At 10:19 PM 18/12/2003 -0700, Terry M. Gray wrote:
>For what it's worth Jack's quote comes from
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0905.asp
>
>(not sure why he didn't give us the source). But since Hugh Ross has been
>specifically mentioned now in the course of the discussion, it's only fair
>to point to the full context of this remark. This paragraph is from an
>Answers in Genesis response to a Hugh Ross supporter.
>
>I don't know the full answer to Jack's question. Personally, I think that
>if we are going to regain the trust of the typical evangelical that we
>must affirm a "high view" of scripture. For me the issues are cast as
>hermeneutical or interpretation questions and not as questions about the
>nature of scripture. This was the genius of Hodge and Warfield and others
>in the Old Princeton line (check out the essay by Noll and Livingstone in
>*Perspectives on an Evolving Creation*. When we so glibly say that the
>Bible contains errors or that it is only relevant to faith and life and
>can't be trusted in matters of history or science, our opinions are cast
>aside by those who believe that "scripture cannot be broken".
>
>TG
>
>
>
>
>>Jack Haas wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings to the group.
>>>
>>> I offer the following quote as all too typical of the way a large
>>> segment of the church regards scripture and nature:
>>> _______________________________
>>>
>>> "...trust the Bible, as Jesus did (‘it is written’; ‘Scripture cannot
>>> be broken’ John 10:35). And Jesus never separated biblical morality
>>> from biblical history. Indeed, Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘I
>>> have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then
>>> will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ If Jesus was wrong
>>> about earthly things (like a recent creation and a global Flood—Luke
>>> 17:26­27), why should we believe what He says about heavenly things?
>>> And in the passage above, Jesus taught about the moral issue of
>>> marriage by connecting it with the fact of the creation of man and
>>> woman as Genesis says! The Sabbath commandment, another moral issue,
>>> was given explicitly because God created the heavens and earth in six
>>> normal-length days and ‘rested’ on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8­11).
>>> If you compromise the Bible, then what is to stop you from
>>> compromising Christ? We all need to learn to not take our views to the
>>> Bible but let the Bible dictate what our views should be. God is never
>>> wrong, so we should trust Him. If we elevate our words to be equal to
>>> God’s then we are trying to equate ourselves with God. If we regard
>>> ‘nature’ as the ‘67th book of the Bible’, as Dr **** teaches this
>>> means that man’s fallible science, which tells us of ‘nature’, has
>>> been elevated to the status of Scripture. That’s the problem. Remember
>>> John 1:1-3."
>>
>>Jack -
>> I agree that the kind of biblical interpretation espoused here
>> is quite
>>inadequate. But I agree with the comments at the end about the notion of
>>nature as "the
>>67th book of the Bible" (& wish "Dr ****" had been identified). The idea
>>that our
>>experience of the natural world is on the same level with historical
>>revelation for
>>telling us about God & God's relationship with the world has to be
>>rejected. Scientific
>>investigation of nature can help us to understand God's presence &
>>activity in the world
>>but only when it is placed in the context of God's self-revelation in the
>>history of
>>Israel which culminates in Christ. OTOH, that historical revelation is
>>not simply to be
>>identified with the Bible, which should be seen rather as witness to
>>revelation.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
>>George L. Murphy
>>gmurphy@raex.com
>>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>--
>_________________
>Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
>Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
>Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
>grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
>phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
Received on Fri Dec 19 10:50:16 2003