I've been pondering this question for a while, and I figured I'd throw it out there (I think someone already did a while back, but I think this is worthy of a topic).

There are literally thousands of interpretations of the Bible. How is one supposed to choose which one is right? Are the all right? Or are they all wrong? Is there only one correct interpretation?
The Bible is clearly relative to the individual's interpretation, but what does this mean for Christianity as a whole? The same thing for Islam, and Judaism, and every other religion with a book.

I'm looking forward to your responses when I get back from my CT scan.

That is getting pretty deep into archeology, history, and anthropology, but perhaps this site will be interesting to you.

Textual Criticism

There are literally that many interpretations. But it is also true that some of those interpretations are more correct than others. One of the best ways to work out the meaning is to read the Bible itself. And I don't just mean read it, find something that looks right and then slap it down to support your view. With permission, I quote my own post from earlier:

One needs to consider the context - not just what the individual verse says, but how it fits into the chapter, then how it fits into the book, then how it fits into the whole Bible. What style was it written in (historical, narrative, poetry, prophecy). Who was it written for (if known)? Who wrote it (if known)? Why was it written (was it a warning, a judgement, a call to celebrate, a call to persevere....). When was it written (Old Testament or New Testament). What part of the Old/New Testament is it (the Law, the writings, the wisdom books, or the prophets/ gospels or teachings or revelation). If we wrote a time-line of biblical events, where on that timeline does this event occur? What Greek/Hebrew words are used in the verse (may need a concordance for this part if you're not a Greek/Hebrew scholar). What words are repeated in the passage (repeated words or phrases usually denote special significance). What context is the word used in in this verse? What context was the same word (again, may need a concordance) used in different parts of the specific book (assuming it was used again), and what context did the same author use the word in within other texts they wrote - if they wrote more than one book, that is). What did the author originally intend their reader to gain from the text? Is it the same today?? How does this passage point to Jesus Christ? If Old Testament, how was this passage fulfilled through Jesus? If New Testament, what does this passage show about the character of Jesus?

This takes a lot of time and effort, and naturally not everyone has the time. Luckily, the primary message of the Bible is amazingly simple and easily defined, so that even those with the least time can understand the implications. Parts of it might not be so easy, but for the primary message, it is just that easy (though some do take the Bible much less literally and do not care what the text actually says but rather try and fit the Bible into their own version of spirituality, in which case context becomes meaningless for them).

To the other half of your question, I would say that I believe that there is only one true interpretation. However, I don't think anyone could ever hope to ever completely know what that interpretation is, considering there is so much in the Bible. I know I haven't got everything right. And if anyone person or group does say they have all the answers, I would say they don't realise that we are all humans and cannot know all the answers. But I think if people follow the steps I suggested in the paragraph earlier about context, I think at the very least most of the passages will become quite clear and obvious. There are still "grey areas" regarding certain principles or events, but the vast majority of them make no difference

The most obvious I can think of being Eschatology (study of End Times). Unless the End Times actually start, does it matter if someone believes in Premillenialism, Postmillenialism, or Amillenialism (or a combination somewhere inbetween). What happens at the End of Days when Jesus returns is not important. It doesn't affect how I live, so unless millions of people start disappearing in front of my eyes, then it is an inconsequential doctrine. As such, I'm happy to discuss all the different ideas on this (and in the end, I do have my opinion on how to view this), but largely consider it a curiosity.

Like I said, I believe there is only one answer. Only one of the views on Eschatology will be correct. Will it be mine? Or someone elses? Or perhaps it will be something no one has yet thought of. But ultimately, it doesn't matter, unless we get thrust right in the middle of it (particularly Pre-millenialist views).

Sorry, there's more I'd like to say, but at this time of night my mind's wandering. All the best, and I hope what i have said makes some semblance of sense

~ PA

Church , honestly this is a great question and one that should be asked.. bravo to you.....

The most widlely used critical edition is based on the work or Eberhard Nestle ( 1851-1913) this is truly a remarkable piece of work. Its a devised a text based on agreement of any 2 versions amoung the editions of Westcot and Hort, Weiss and Von Tishendoff, but who also supplied a wealth of textual variants.

The Nestle Aland is now in its 27th edition and this gem forms the basis of the United Bible Soceities editon for translators....



.
so what is a critcal edition and how does a scholar use it?????

A critical edition contains a greek or hebrew text that, in the judgement of the editors , best approximates the earliest available form of what was written......, this form provides manuscript evidence for and against the decisons made by the editors, so scholars and translators are able to use both the judgements reflected in the body of the text and the vairiants to make there own textual decisions or conclusions...


Now if one is wanting the beleivers edition I think KJV tends to be the popular one for christians

Even given a single text, interpretation will differ. This is due to personal experience of language. For example, the American use the words Pants to describe clothing worn over your underwear. For us Brits, Pants are underwear. This is why misunderstandings are fairly commonplace, even on these forums.

In terms of Christianity, the Nicene creed was developed to outline the core beliefs of Christians. Everything else, pretty much, is detail, and subject to debate, hence the numerous various denominations of Christianity. At their core, however, most of them will believe in the same thing.

Robbie, If i may perhaps the best way is to take a class on the bible and how it was put together, how it was translated what were the influences and also I think one needs to have a good working everyday understanding of history, literature, other cultures and the influences especailly the greeks and perhaps a bit of philososphy ( the bible was heavily influenced by platonism) i am a NB ad take this very seriously and I am learning just for converstational/kicks not for reasosn as in taking it on as a lifestyle..... ..I think one should really do their research before discussing the bible and which one is months of research...IMO .....


I would not recommend just reading a bible and deciding ..what would you base discernment on????? As with the great classics such as homer and the aenied we take a course that is why its classical literature. there are experts in the field of the bible that is what one would seek out IMO.......find an expert on the subject and go from there......

it ceratinly matters what pov you are coing at the bible with..the beleivers persepctive is alot different then the scholarly crtical pov....I think this approach has lead to so many things taken out of context and one is only as good as the data they themselves have when it comes to interpretation of any kind..........Quite frankly we are a bible illiterate culture IMO.....

There are literally that many interpretations. But it is also true that some of those interpretations are more correct than others.

And who decides which are more correct than others?

I agree. Otherwise it is like looking at the Mona Lisa and deciding that it is an ugly picture that is not so great and one you would not like hanging on your wall for a lot of people.

But do we honor or reject exegesis? When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, was he validating reincarnation? Now, without exegesis, tell me what he meant.

the critical text provides biblical studies, enlightenment premises. protestant theological perspectives and scientific methods...

the beleivers is focused on all believing the same, the scriptures are used to support the vested belief s basically original sin, virign birth, salvation, heaven etc .... IMO

Ex, good grief tthat is a great point and question, thats what I am saying... how would you possibly go about it with the standard beleivers response which is let spirti tell you or guide you to the meaning.....

If we want to do that we could just throw rune stones out and be done with it all.

Check out George Carlin on youtube under "religion" and you will see what religion is like without exegesis.

Oh I know a freind was recently discussing bieng baptized Catholic, i said, "oh what lead you to this decison"..he said well the bible is the most read book and sells the most copies so it must be true... . well good luck with that. was what i said......" he is well into his 50's capable of making decisions........ but yes i think i understand exegesis.....

I posit with you on this Bella...

It is also the most shoplifted book . . . hmmm.

I would say that there are as many interpretations as there are people who read the Bible. The flexibility is pretty good actually - bit like a crystal ball in some ways - they can see what they want to see. Means it can cruise along with secular social mores most of the time. Not all mind you. I just wrote this in another thread: There seems to be an inherent flexibility in how one interprets/reads the Bible. Like the kids in school who delve deeper into texts, finding meaning that the authors never intended - but reflecting the underlying archetypes and social constructs of the reader AND the author. Who knows which is which in some instances?

I think with Jesus and what he said - they all agree generally on the main points. Which is the most important part. I am sure someone will tell me if I am wrong lol.



Hope all is well.

Let me offer another view since the view you have given is quite elitist, which claims only the scholar can understand the Bible, but also one that will lead to a lacks of any spiritual understanding. Taking courses is an excellent way to gain better appreciation in addition and outside of what the Bible was meant for. Culturally speaking the millions of people who use the Bible as a guide for a spiritual life and relationship with God are using it as it was intended to be used. This can clearly be seen in the Book itself when it states such things as:



This clearly tells us knowing the Scriptures goes hand in hand with knowing the power of God. Something no course or even preacher can get across to anyone. One must know God as they know a person to actually know their power. You can definitely hear about someone's friend and how great they are but it remains just that until you actually meet them yourself. One must read for themselves and through prayer have God reveal Himself to them. The greater context of this passage is placed in a lesson where people are attempting to use worldly wisdom of what they know on marriage and apply it towards the celestial knowledge they believe they have a grasp. Jesus told them they neither know Scripture or the power of God. In the same way the scholar can look at the Bible as they might the works of Shakespeare but in the end they know neither Scriptures nor the power of God.



This might be an ill suited example but one that excellently shows that one can read the Bible and see a simple narrative of Christ suffering, rising on the third day, that repentance and forgiveness will be proclaimed, and how it relates to the Old Testament, but without the open mind as spoken here they will not understand what it means to the believer. It has greater meaning and perhaps only believers will be able to understand this example. What is more important though is that one needs an open heart to accept God and going back a few verses to Luke 24:32 this point is made with the mentioning of burning hearts. So definitely a burning heart comes before an open mind when it comes to understanding Scripture the way it was meant to be understood. How can one truly understand a love letter unless the love the person who wrote it to them as well?



This passage concisely illustrates how one can even approach the Word and want to believe in it as believers do but fall short of having the 'word abiding in' them while they refuse to go to Him.

In the end, only we ourselves can ultimately decide that. However, in order to arrive at an attenable position, one would have to go through all the points of context that i mentioned in my second paragraph. Let us say for now that two people have different ideas on a passage (and let us for now assume that I did not believe either version). If I asked one, what contextual reasoning they had, and they say "Well the writer has used this same word seven other times in previous chapters, and each of those times it has referred to concept x. Additionally, just before this verse the writer has been speaking about said concept x, and he picks up with that same concept right after the verse. To me, this would seem to indicate that this is the authors intention, even though the single line itself might seem to imply something else if read on its own", I would consider this. Then if I asked the other one the same question and they said only, "the passage speaks for itself", the latter has obviously not done contextual reading. I would therefore take the former's view as more accurate, even if I disagreed with them, and I would suggest the latter do more work, even if I agreed with them.

I don't believe there is a single authority (a denomination or Pope) who can provide more correct interpretations. But if a person goes through the steps of context, at the very least they are headed in the right direction. They may ultimately arrive at different conclusions, but that is why we have differences of opinion. As I said, no one has the full truth, nor could they ever hope to. But contextual study puts one on the right road.

Clearly this is your pov and its what works for you as a beeliver and I am happy for you my freind.........


Now I admit I am inspired by certain quotes and literature or is it that i beleivve that I am inspired to inspire?? the later, this is what I believe.... my beleifs supply my experinces, they color them and guide them and give meaning to them I bring to any piece of writng a whole history of personal experinces and collective/personal beleifs therefore i breathe the life into whatever meaning i find.....

...you call this god , i call this life and beiing human.....who's right clovis?? or pehaps we both are or maybe we both aren't ??? does it matter, not to me how about you?????

Simple - that dreaded "C" word again - context. Simply "letting the spirit guide you" is definitely NOT a "standard believers response". I have yet to read anything like that on these forums from most of our Christian members. The only way to know what Jesus meant by "you must be born again" requires contextual study. In the case of this example, it is a relatively simple matter of context - read the verses just before it:


John 3:3-8
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

I have boldened the two relevent sections. The first is where we get the quote paraphrased as "you must be born again". Then Nicodemus asks Jesus how this can be for no one can reenter the womb. Jesus answers that one must be born of water AND of spirit. The first, birth by water, is quite obviously the waters of the womb. The second, reborn in spirit, is something else entirely.

I'm not going to go into details of exactly how we interpret "born of the Spirit", because that is not really the point of this thread and would lead to more contextual reading. But the point is that it is definitely NOT talking of reincarnation, because Jesus explained exactly what he meant - born again - born of water (natural birth) and the spirit (spiritual birth).

Now, Sheri, hopefully you've read this far, but as you can see there was no comment that "the spirit led me" to any conclusion. It's basic context. We learn it in High School, and in almost every text, we use it. For some reason though, people seem to forget about it when it comes to the Bible, and accuse people of rationalising when they do.

You are absolutely correct, Belle. Being that most agree on the important parts, the differences in denominations are generally irrelevant, because most of these differences are on points that fall into the so-called "grey areas" or revolve around a particular tradition of some sort. Most all believe the same thing - which sort of says something about the message of the Bible then, don't ya think?

thankyou for clarifying this, I guess I was coming at this way to deep...

what threw me off is how do you say "i know for sure' and he siaid this but it wasn't that.... when historically we know about what amounts to 4 lines about jesus none of it is about what he said or didn't say.. this is why i am lost i guess.....now I understand that the beleivers bible is interpreted differently.. little by little ai am getting this .. thanks for your help .....

Well to be honest I would have expected God to write a book that at least some things could be agreed upon. Believe in God, ask him for forgiveness and you shall receive his heavenly reward, and be nice to each other along the way.

To be honest and practical - just that there is a lot of things that don't really matter in the Bible. Keep it in the private sphere and don't stretch to far with what you think you know. Don't go looking for answers too far from what is obvious.

Personally I think that the fact that the Bible sets itself up as "The word of God" leads us non-believers (and many believers) to view each word and sentence as equally important. Not just it was written about God and there are some parts where Jesus talks about what people should do, but that every sentence is imbued with Holy importance.

The good cop bad cop OT/NT God sets up some pretty powerful and confusing imagery IMO.

Each time God does something we are thinking about his character, nature and what that means in relation with how he wants us to live. Think about it: the creator of EVERYTHING wrote a book. So I can see why some believers would be careful about dismissing things thay may matter.

Context and exegesis certainly are of utmost importance, when considering the "born again" issue in John 3.

Just consider the many Greek meanings of *born -- gennao* in these verses.
Which specific meaning will the student accept -- conceived? begotten? or the whole process? As pertaining to being conceived of the father or the mother? ... etc.

If anyone is interested in seeing how vast this study on "born again" can be, have a glance through the following site.
http://www.textweek.com/mkjnacts/jn3a.htm

As to arriving at a conclusion regards "born again"? In my opinion, the key thought should be *context within the meaning, as Jesus used the word.*
The "born again" question is difficult to resolve, and probably will be decided on the basis of one's beliefs.

Regards,
Karlis

My view is highly contrasted from yours. While yours states that you would 'not recommend just reading a bible and deciding ..what would you base discernment on?' and that 'the best way is to take a class on the bible and how it was put together, how it was translated what were the influences and also I think one needs to have a good working everyday understanding of history, literature, other cultures and the influences especailly the greeks and perhaps a bit of philososphy,' my view says it is advisable to do both. Though it would not really be deciding what to base discernment on but actually reading and simply understanding with an open mind and heart. So sure one in the future will learn something about our culture if they find a guide to a VCR player, but if they actually had the VCR player they could work the VCR too and actually use the guide as it was intended to. The difference is we have the same type of body, soul, and spirit, that the ancients had so the guide is still very applicable.

The difference between our views is that you would advise others not to read the Word as a guide to a spiritual path and that the Bible is only accessible through scholarship. While I believe both are great concepts, one can do one, or the other, or both, or none at all, but I understand they serve different purposes, while your view claims one is superior to the other.

Your view is one based in scientism, and while scientism can be used for good, in the case of your view it is an misapplication of science though. Mikael Stenmark, the 'Head of Department and Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Department of Theology, Uppsala University, Sweden' (source), which is a public university and the oldest in Scandinavia (source), in his book entitled 'Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion' it labels your view in this matter as the fourth claim of scientism which is:



In a review of the book by Ciprian Acatrinei, 'of the Department of Physics at the University of Crete in Greece', he states this regarding the fourth claim of scientism:



And in general regard here is what he says regarding scientism itself:



http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68...18/Default.aspx

The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion states this in its review of the same book:







source

So in the end your view of which would 'not recommend just reading a bible and deciding' and that 'the best way is to take a class on the bible and how it was put together, how it was translated what were the influences and also I think one needs to have a good working everyday understanding of history, literature, other cultures and the influences especailly the greeks and perhaps a bit of philososphy,' is not only rejected by the faithful who know better but also by scholars themselves who view your opinion as unscientific but ultimately also harmful to science itself.

So who shall be believed, you? Or the head of a Department of Physics at a secular university and other professors? As I stated though the best way is to not state one view is superior than the other, that one must choose between religion or science, because both are useful and offer unique benefits that the other cannot replicate. So again my view only advises one to read the Word for themselves if they wish and also take classes on the Bible if they wish but to know the purpose of each endeavor and not confuse one for the other. To misapply science in places it has no real applications other than in the constructs of the mind and opinion of those who misuse science not only is harmful to religion but science as well.

I haven't had any problems taking an NASB, NIV, KJV, or NKJV to church. With me it just depends on what church I go to. I know which translation is being used and that's the one I'll take with me so I can follow along with the reading. I don't think it should be as controversial as some people make it out to be. If you really want to do an indepth study on something use several versions with a commentary. You can read pretty much any translation for free on the Internet.

While thats all well and good, how is it that one discerns which translation or which version is the appropriate one? How did you decide?

I believe the consensus among Christians on this forum is that all translations and versions provide the same core message and are all acceptable.

Phew...........finally ..................that took a long time . (god has been distracting himself with computer games in the meantime and has aged somewhat- he's a great grandpappy now too-he's been busy-having fun as we should be )




God >>>>

There's really not that big of a debate over it. I'm content with using the KJV, NKJV, or NIV. However, there are certain people who like the KJV only, so a lot of times when I quote scripture on the Internet I'll quote it from the KJV; as not to start a debate.

I think a lot of times the language in the NIV, NASB, or NKJV is a bit refined and easier for some people to understand.

The way that I look at it is this: There are absolute truths, by which these words were written with certain intentions. The reason why God is described in so many different ways is because of the way we received Him and comprehended Him. He is who He wants to be regardless of how we comprehend Him. Another way to look at it is this: Even if a person cannot count, 2+2 will always = 4. God is who He is without our say so.

And so in reading on these words, I would say that one should study the Bible. You will get something out of it, but perhaps thats just one piece of many to understanding the many mysteries of God. I think it worth the while, seeing that the spiritual side of us is the one side that gets the least attention (though it be the most important!)

Sorry brain a snoozin......................

Tee hee well it was biblical in some sense.

Why yes I did ........................

I think it's beddybyetime..pathetic !!

So, being born again is not achieved by practicing good works. Salvation, on the contrary, is an act of mercy by God upon the individual as it says above. Titus 3:5 parallels Jn 3:5 in that it describes being born again as a washing again birth in the realm of the Holy Spirit. This washing again birth, i.e., regeneration is exclusively the renewing process of the Holy Spirit. So the exclusive connection between washing & water, the Holy Spirit and regeneration is repeatedly made in God's Word. This teaching is also substantiated in the Old Testament, especially in the passage which Jesus was referring to in His conversation with Nicodemus: The scripture which Nicodemus was sure to be familiar with relative to the phrase "born of water" is about how God will sprinkle clean water on the Jewish people...cleansing them from all sin...giving them a new heart...putting a new spirit in them...by putting His Spirit in them. (Ez 36:24-27). This indeed is being born again indicated right there in Old Testament:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/living_stream.htm

While your explanation appears to be logical that a methodical research provides solution. . . . we must then assume that God's word was intended for the more intelligent of our species . . . those who can read and analyze and form conceptual solutions . . . and that excludes the lesser intelligent or educated who must then depend on the word and concepts and beliefs of others.

I would like to believe that the word of God was intended and wholly understandable to all of his creation but apparently that is not the case.

" . . . .in that it describes being born again as a washing again birth in the realm of the Holy Spirit. This washing again birth, i.e., regeneration is exclusively the renewing process of the Holy Spirit. . . . .So the exclusive connection between washing & water, the Holy Spirit and regeneration is repeatedly made in God's Word. This teaching is also substantiated in the Old Testament, especially in the passage which Jesus was referring to in His conversation with Nicodemus . . . "

I said, "without exegesis."

Popularity certainly isnt grounds for truth. However, Id take your friends responce and go a step further. 2000 years ago a carpenders son in Israel told his followers that his message would be preached across the globe. With all the other religons and all the other Gods that were worshiped at the time, and with all the forces that tryed there best to stomp out Christianity at its start, the statistical odds of that prophecy coming true are near impossible. Yet here we are today discussing this mans teachings with people from all over the world.

That is quite true preacherman and it is good evidence for us believers. Non-believers though will either not be able to comprehend such prophecy or will gloss over it. It matters not since they can believe as they wish and the Word as it was meant to be read is only for us, those who freely choose it. The numbers are really impressive too and we have 2% left to go at last count.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

this mans 'assumed' teachings in all fairness there is little historical evidence that there was this man named jesus( the one we know of was an apocolyptic jew, not a christian...) , let alone any of the things that he was purported to have said or did.... it is also established that the gospesl are narratives, used to convert using these narratives they are not meant to be taken literal just to be fair...(.yet let me mention i do Know that the beleivers interpretation is fatih based and based in assumption).

.......now IMO this is how one converted people to christianty( this is common in any sales pitch a hook) one is sold on the lore and then one that has been done they assume the rituals and traditions of christiainity to further spread it. commonly known as propaganda.. ....In this context this has been one heck of a effective system ...i have always maintained if one wants to get a buisness going study christianity for tips....


one can go through any book and make claims and find passages to support the claims i could do it with the bible myself .. language is ambiguous and quite frankly we all do this and that is the fun of the englsih langauge.....


but 'true' is another story altogether....


but in all fairness i do get that the beleivers interpretation is not about fact it is about the vested interest in keeping the traditon alive .and a lifestyle based in faith.....



we have more than one audience on Um and its only fair to have a all inclusive attitude..

Let's not so easily assume that because Christianity survived other religions it was somehow of a greater truth or in any way superior. Other religions did not have an emperor endorsing it because it blended nicely with his preferred faith in Sol Invictus. Other religions did not have forced converts or an emperor who started a campaign to spread the religion far and wide like his conversion of Olga of Russia. Other religions did not have a missionary concept but depended upon the truths within their faith to represent themselves. As often as not, the growth of Christianity was written in blood and delivered by the sword.

ah yes Ex, how could i forget...oy vey...

The bible is the word of God, written by men. The only bible I read if the King James bible, is our older bible and the closer to the Greek tests. I do not interpret anything I read the bible and I understand the way if written there, and I memorize it the same way is written, and I don't have any problems, and this helped me during my life. And I advised you to do the same, do not read any other bible but the King James bible, and do not read any book about the bible, just the bible.

Pa quoted:" Simply "letting the spirit guide you" is definitely NOT a "standard believers response". I have yet to read anything like that on these forums from most of our Christian members"

one more thing this is a quote from clovis a christian on how to read the bible.....

Clovis quoted:

" The Spirit will guide everyone to the same meaning. It is pretty simple. People in dead faiths without the Spirit will disagree and be unable to understand the Bible."


Clovis also quoted:

"All a Spirit-filled Christian needs to do to win souls is act themselves and allow the Spirit to guide them. The Spirit calls to spirit. "


this is a quote from our christian Mr. Walker :

"Unless of course the bible actually was written through the revelatory spirit of a real and sentient god speaking to human beings."

Then one might need to understand the nature of god to be fully able to understand the bible...."


I add that this is obviously one who can speak for god/spirit ....

Mr.walker quoted:
"My observation is that if it walks like god, talks like god and shows a personal interest in you, the safest thing to do is call it god

The core message of the Bible (salvation through Christ) is very simple, and can be understood by absolutely everyone. The Bible is amazingly simple in this regards. However, the more you learn, the more you realise you still have much to learn. The deeper you dig, the more you realise you have to get to the bottom of it all, and that no one can ever know.

On the surface your refutation also appears logical, but if you look at it as if this should be the case, then once I have read the Bible once, I should understand everything there is to know, no matter what my intelligence, and thus have no further reason to read it again. You are also limiting God by saying that the Creator of all taht is can be so easily understood and defined, boxed in and labeled.

I do agree that there are some things in the Bible that people won't understand if they haven't got the brains or the education to work it out. But there are also things that everyone can get and understand, even if it's just at the basic level.

Know what I mean,

In Judaism it's fairly easy. There's only Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Jews accept the Torah that was given at Sinai along with other writings that are known as the OT, they also use the Talmud. Reform Judaism denies the Torah as being given by God and they do not believe in the Talmud. Conservatives also don't believe that the Torah was given by God, but that we should slowly phase out the laws.


In essence, if a person wants to follow Judaism, and believe in the Torah, they wont' have to worry about interpretations/translations. Whenever there is a dispute, so long as they don't contradict one another, both rabbis are correct. There is a lot of freedom and a lot of choice in Judaism.

I was addressing Expatriate's comments on exegesis. When looking at a passage, context is important. Now, Clovis is not speaking about matters of context. He's referring to something else entirely. It's the view that the Bible can only be understood by the help of the Holy Spirit. That's not denying the importance of context, but rather highlighting the importance of the Holy Spirit in helping to understand. No matter how much help from the Holy Spirit one receives, if they don't use context, then the answer/s they get are suspect, at best - even you agreed when I quoted the verses of John 3 and showed what being "born again" meant.

As for Mr Walker, his comment is similar - he attests that the Bible is written by the revelation of God, and then supposes that the best way to understand the Bible is to perhaps learn about the one who wrote it (God).

Neither Mr Walker or Clovis are advocating that a "standard response" to any question of context is "the spirit guided me", and I think they would both agree with that.

Hope that clarifies my meaning

Pa i actaully get that you and I agree on this ( and that at a very shallow superfical level one can get the principle the bible is trying to get across, the whole point of narratives, most are written for children) and as a matter of fact you are a rare christian that does consider context and you are very matter of fact about this.... but you said that you had not ever read any christian on here that would say the spirit will guide you to the meaning..

many do as a matter of fact just in the past few days i have caught a few more and am thinking of starting a thread..i hope for your input when i do..
thankyou for your post as I also see that you do agree tthat there are many ways to interpret the bible....the believers way is just one way....

Yes, thats one of the things I like about Judaism.