How to read the Bible: An Orthodox perspective

[Nordengrund]

I am a Protestant, but I do not deny Christ. I see praying to statues of Mary and David as idolatry.

[Cameroi]

orthodoxy, by its own definician, inveriably does it wrong. even protestant doctrines do so as well.

to understand what the writers intended to be saying, would require REAL understanding of the cultural context in which they wrote. the nuances that are lost today, that were obvious to anyone at the time the texts were written, completely changes the meaning of vertually everything in it.

[Nordengrund]

I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven.

[Enadail]

I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven.

Ah yes, the belief that what you say is more important then what you do.

This is the issue I have with the Bible... it can't be taken as literally true, as whatever we have today is far removed from the time period when it was written, in language and culture. And in the end, apparently modern interpretations often claim that one is rewarded for belief rather then behavior.

[Nordengrund]

I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven.

Ah yes, the belief that what you say is more important then what you do.

This is the issue I have with the Bible... it can't be taken as literally true, as whatever we have today is far removed from the time period when it was written, in language and culture. And in the end, apparently modern interpretations often claim that one is rewarded for belief rather then behavior.

If was not to be taken literally, then how do you translate it? How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible? It is there for us to find out the truth.

[Norstal]

Ah yes, the belief that what you say is more important then what you do.

This is the issue I have with the Bible... it can't be taken as literally true, as whatever we have today is far removed from the time period when it was written, in language and culture. And in the end, apparently modern interpretations often claim that one is rewarded for belief rather then behavior.

If was not to be taken literally, then how do you translate it? How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible? It is there for us to find out the truth.

Perhaps you should read the O.P. Reading is fun.

With all of this in mind, we see that the Scripture is not something to be read in a vacuum separated from the history, personality, and authority of the Church. It is something to be read with humility, obedience, and temperance. It is not merely a tool to absorb information, or a work of literature, or a collection of historical documents (although it can be used as such in certain contexts). It is a message directly to me, to you, by God asking where you are.

[Enadail]

If was not to be taken literally, then how do you translate it? How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible? It is there for us to find out the truth.

You kinda hit it on the head: how do you translate it. VERY FEW translations can be taken literally. If you translate from Hindi to English, you'll often lose meaning and words, it doesn't come across the same at all. And this is a contemporary language constantly being influenced and adapted to an English-centric world. If you try to translate from Greek, Aramaic, and ancient Hebrew, languages barely spoken and completely out of cultural and temporal context, HOW in the world can you expect to really know or understand what the original authors meant? Heck, playing a simple game of telephone (or an office gossip) tells one person telling someone else something can ruin a story.

If you are to take the Bible literally, then you have to assume that every version of the Bible is perfect. As humans are not perfect, we would have to assume God divinely interfered with every production of every bible ever. Which means he influenced the people making those copies. Which means those people lacked free will during that portion of their lives, which means free will is something that can be and would often be tampered with, leading us to conclude that free will is an illusion and what we do likely doesn't matter.

So either the Bible is perfect and doesn't matter, or its imperfect and can matter. Because whether religious or not, there are some good morals in there (morals shared the world around, with and without the bible), and those are the ones that count as far as I'm concerned.

Every modern Christian cherry-picks the bible; no one takes it literally. Whether you wear cloths of two fabrics or you don't stone a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night, you are ignoring some portion of the bible, and thus not taking it literally. The sooner you come to this understanding and accept it as a fact, the sooner you can actually understand whats written in there and come to peace with yourself and those around you who don't share in your belief system.

[Nordengrund]

If was not to be taken literally, then how do you translate it? How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible? It is there for us to find out the truth.

You kinda hit it on the head: how do you translate it. VERY FEW translations can be taken literally. If you translate from Hindi to English, you'll often lose meaning and words, it doesn't come across the same at all. And this is a contemporary language constantly being influenced and adapted to an English-centric world. If you try to translate from Greek, Aramaic, and ancient Hebrew, languages barely spoken and completely out of cultural and temporal context, HOW in the world can you expect to really know or understand what the original authors meant? Heck, playing a simple game of telephone (or an office gossip) tells one person telling someone else something can ruin a story.

If you are to take the Bible literally, then you have to assume that every version of the Bible is perfect. As humans are not perfect, we would have to assume God divinely interfered with every production of every bible ever. Which means he influenced the people making those copies. Which means those people lacked free will during that portion of their lives, which means free will is something that can be and would often be tampered with, leading us to conclude that free will is an illusion and what we do likely doesn't matter.

So either the Bible is perfect and doesn't matter, or its imperfect and can matter. Because whether religious or not, there are some good morals in there (morals shared the world around, with and without the bible), and those are the ones that count as far as I'm concerned.

Every modern Christian cherry-picks the bible; no one takes it literally. Whether you wear cloths of two fabrics or you don't stone a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night, you are ignoring some portion of the bible, and thus not taking it literally. The sooner you come to this understanding and accept it as a fact, the sooner you can actually understand whats written in there and come to peace with yourself and those around you who don't share in your belief system.

Though I am a Baptist and I take the Bible literally, I am respectful of others' beliefs and am a nice person.

So, I should learn to read Hebrew or Greek, then read the Bible literally?

[Tekania]

It should be noted that there really are two camps of the "sola scriptura" concept as well..... the more classical reformed concept of it espoused by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli which hold that the knowledge to repentance and salvation is complete within the scriptures (but which hold the various creeds and confessions in support as well as justifiable traditional elements); and that of the Fundamentalist and Evangelic (as well later baptist movements) which hold to a radical scripture only concept (which reject creeds and confessions).

[Just another Georgizm]

If you hate Martin Luther King Jr. then you're a racist and that's that

He was talking about the guys named after this guy.

You don't say.

[Enadail]

Though I am a Baptist and I take the Bible literally, I am respectful of others' beliefs and am a nice person.

That's great. But I hope you realize that simply stating "I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven" comes across as "I believe that certain groups are deserving of eternal reward not because of anything they've done but because of what they think, while others are doomed to eternal torture not because of how good a person they are but because they don't accept the same values as me" and is extremely not nice. Its more or less saying, you may be a great person, but if you don't believe in x, you're deserving of eternal punishment. I kind of see it in line of saying "Oh, you don't like the Yankees? Well, you deserve to fall into a pit of acid."

Unless you can conclusively prove that my not believing in God somehow makes me a worse person, its more or less a horrid insult. And while you may believe in a world after this one, I think we can both agree that this world does matter, and how people behave in this world matters. And to say that a persons actions in this world don't matter because of a belief more or less advocate anarchy.

I don't know you, so I can't say if you are a good person or not; I hope you are, in the same way I hope everyone I meet is. But often people blind themselves to their words and actions because they're enamored in their beliefs (I know I do it all the time).

So, I should learn to read Hebrew or Greek, then read the Bible literally?

I would say that's definitely a great start to understanding a historic document like the Bible. But you'll never understand it literally, as you can't know or understand the time period, the people, the culture. You'll always be influenced and biased by what you know of this modern world and could never fully understand the mindset of the Biblical authors, and thus, never understand it literally. The best you could do is get a better understanding.

[Seleucas]

Distruzio, what do you think of TULIP Calvinism? I tend to like Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity more because they are more humane (I am an atheist, BTW), but the God in the Bible does seem like a creep a lot of the time, which seems to go with mass-murderer John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible.

L (limited election) is probably the weakest point of Calvin's doctrine. The only reason why it stands is the notion that a group of people won't go to heaven, and that itself is a rather elementary point to make.

Maybe he saw that he had the acronym "TUIP" lined up and needed to make his point more memorable.

Well, more specifically, limited election is more or less the doctrine of predestination; some, God has predetermined to spare, others He has predetermined to send to Hell. It's not so much saying that some people won't be saved, but that they CAN'T be saved. It's definitely not a very pleasant doctrine, but it is fascinating in much the same way as a train wreck.

[Nordengrund]

Though I am a Baptist and I take the Bible literally, I am respectful of others' beliefs and am a nice person.

That's great. But I hope you realize that simply stating "I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven" comes across as "I believe that certain groups are deserving of eternal reward not because of anything they've done but because of what they think, while others are doomed to eternal torture not because of how good a person they are but because they don't accept the same values as me" and is extremely not nice. Its more or less saying, you may be a great person, but if you don't believe in x, you're deserving of eternal punishment. I kind of see it in line of saying "Oh, you don't like the Yankees? Well, you deserve to fall into a pit of acid."

Unless you can conclusively prove that my not believing in God somehow makes me a worse person, its more or less a horrid insult. And while you may believe in a world after this one, I think we can both agree that this world does matter, and how people behave in this world matters. And to say that a persons actions in this world don't matter because of a belief more or less advocate anarchy.

I don't know you, so I can't say if you are a good person or not; I hope you are, in the same way I hope everyone I meet is. But often people blind themselves to their words and actions because they're enamored in their beliefs (I know I do it all the time).

So, I should learn to read Hebrew or Greek, then read the Bible literally?

I would say that's definitely a great start to understanding a historic document like the Bible. But you'll never understand it literally, as you can't know or understand the time period, the people, the culture. You'll always be influenced and biased by what you know of this modern world and could never fully understand the mindset of the Biblical authors, and thus, never understand it literally. The best you could do is get a better understanding.

What I mean is that as long as you accept Christ and live like a Christian, you are going to heaven.

[Dominion of Drakia]

That's great. But I hope you realize that simply stating "I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven" comes across as "I believe that certain groups are deserving of eternal reward not because of anything they've done but because of what they think, while others are doomed to eternal torture not because of how good a person they are but because they don't accept the same values as me" and is extremely not nice. Its more or less saying, you may be a great person, but if you don't believe in x, you're deserving of eternal punishment. I kind of see it in line of saying "Oh, you don't like the Yankees? Well, you deserve to fall into a pit of acid."

Unless you can conclusively prove that my not believing in God somehow makes me a worse person, its more or less a horrid insult. And while you may believe in a world after this one, I think we can both agree that this world does matter, and how people behave in this world matters. And to say that a persons actions in this world don't matter because of a belief more or less advocate anarchy.

I don't know you, so I can't say if you are a good person or not; I hope you are, in the same way I hope everyone I meet is. But often people blind themselves to their words and actions because they're enamored in their beliefs (I know I do it all the time).



I would say that's definitely a great start to understanding a historic document like the Bible. But you'll never understand it literally, as you can't know or understand the time period, the people, the culture. You'll always be influenced and biased by what you know of this modern world and could never fully understand the mindset of the Biblical authors, and thus, never understand it literally. The best you could do is get a better understanding.

What I mean is that as long as you accept Christ and live like a Christian, you are going to heaven.

But what does it mean to accept Christ? And does this also not necessarily limit the freedom of God to save whom He wills? Consider the words of St. John Damascene:

Some say that [Christ delivered from hell] only those who believed[68],
such as fathers and prophets,
judges and together with them kings, local rulers
and some others from the Hebrew people,
not numerous and known to all.
But we shall reply to those who think so
that there is nothing undeserved,
nothing miraculous and nothing strange
in that Christ should save those who believed[69],
for He remains only the fair Judge,
and every one who believes in Him will not perish.
So they all ought to have been saved
and delivered from the bonds of hell
by the descent of God and Master —
that same happened by His Disposition.
Whereas those who were saved only through [God’s] love of men
were, as I think, all those
who had the purest life
and did all kinds of good works,
living in modesty, temperance and virtue,
but the pure and divine faith
they did not conceive because they were not instructed in it
and remained altogether unlearnt.
They were those whom the Steward and Master of all
drew, captured in the divine nets
and persuaded to believe in Him,
illuminating them with the divine rays
and showing them the true light

also, we should note that the doctrine of universal salvation was not quite condemned. Gregory of Nyssa taught this and was never condemned by an ecumenical council...and finally, here's the words of a modern Orthodox theologian, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:


"We do not know if every one followed Christ when He rose from hell. Nor do we know if every one will follow Him to the eschatological Heavenly Kingdom when He will become ‘all in all’. But we do know that since the descent of Christ into Hades the way to resurrection has been opened for ‘all flesh’, salvation has been granted to every human being, and the gates of paradise have been opened for all those who wish to enter through them. This is the faith of the Early Church inherited from the first generation of Christians and cherished by Orthodox Tradition. This is the never-extinguished hope of all those who believe in Christ Who once and for all conquered death, destroyed hell and granted resurrection to the entire human race..."

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx#_ftn70

[BoudreauxLand]

I am a Protestant, but I do not deny Christ. I see praying to statues of Mary and David as idolatry.

It is but we dont pray to statues. That is what most people stereotype about Catholics/Orthodox.

[Disserbia]

I don't want t say about how I think protestants fit in to Christianity because I don't want to anger anyone, but I think its a very slippery slope, and not necessarily something that we should accept without question. Don't get me wrong I think people have to right to believe anything they want, that is what freedom of religion is, but I don't believe calling your beliefs something its not is covered by freedom of religion. Anyway no one should take me too seriously, I'm not entirely convinced and I resent the church I was raised in.

[Disserbia]

I am a Protestant, but I do not deny Christ. I see praying to statues of Mary and David as idolatry.

I sense that it might get ugly in here...

[Dominion of Drakia]

I am a Protestant, but I do not deny Christ. I see praying to statues of Mary and David as idolatry.

It is but we dont pray to statues. That is what most people stereotype about Catholics/Orthodox.

agreed. this stems from a failure to distinguish between adoratio and veneratio in Latin. Veneration of an icon/statue/other image merely means to send respect to the person depicted (e.g., when I venerate an icon of the Mother of God, I show my respect for the Mother of God). Worshipping (adoratio), however, is reserved for God alone.

[Tekania]

orthodoxy, by its own definician, inveriably does it wrong. even protestant doctrines do so as well.

to understand what the writers intended to be saying, would require REAL understanding of the cultural context in which they wrote. the nuances that are lost today, that were obvious to anyone at the time the texts were written, completely changes the meaning of vertually everything in it.

That's a pretty good rewording of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I. The Reformers only held that the text was accurate in its original tongue and context.

[Enadail]

What I mean is that as long as you accept Christ and live like a Christian, you are going to heaven.

That shows you really didn't get my point, and I'd have to think willfully, as I'd like to think my statement was pretty clear.

So if I live my life "like a Christian" (which mind you, doesn't mean much, because while you can throw around 'No True Scotsman', there's plenty to show being Christian doesn't mean being good), but don't accept Christ, no matter how much good I do, you believe I am deserving of eternal punishment? That if I save an entire building of orphans from a bomb, give all my money to worthy charities, never lie, cheat, or steal, I deserve the same punishment as someone who thinks Jesus is the son of God but killed 3 people? You don't see how that's an insult at all? If not, there's not much more I can say.

My belief is this: if there is a god and god is good and just, then god doesn't care if I believe or not and is more concerned with how I lead my life. If there is a god and god is not good and just, that god is not deserving of my praise, and I will lead a good life in spite of that god. If there is no god, I've lived a good life and there was no loss to it.

If God exists and is more concerned with my belief that he put out a bunch of books that made no sense and contradicted each other then he is that I am a good person, why in the world would I want to praise him?

I hope you take anything I said to heart. I'll say again, a literal interpretation of the bible is impossible, and any biblical scholar can tell you that. Taking the bible literally is really only a good way to alienate non-believers and any rationally minded person.

[Dyakovo]

Apparently the Orthodox perspective (at least according to Dis) is that lay people aren't smart enough to read the bible themselves...

I don't have much time to respond today. I have meetings scheduled in a few hours I have to prepare for and hopefully catch a few winks of rest. I'll catch up on everyone's concerns as soon as I get a few hours to myself. I did, however want to address this little quip by Dyakovo...

It isn't that the layman is too stupid to read the Bible for himself. Its that the layman is too uneducated to discern the Bible appropriately without proper guidance. You've seen my approach to typically divisive issues that seem to stand in the face of traditionally espoused Protestant doctrine b/c of my faith in accordance with historical Christianity. How, then, can this point I make be confusing to you? Laymen can and often preach hatred when misreading Scripture and yet claim to be Christians. How could Christs message of love and humility be confused so? By disregarding proper guidance.

There is no shame in admitting that the institution that delivered the Bible and the faith centuries ago know both the Bible and the faith better than you.

Sure, there's no shame admitting it if it is true... Unfortunately there's no evidence indicating that they know it any better than the average person that has taken the time to actually read the bible.

[BoudreauxLand]

What I mean is that as long as you accept Christ and live like a Christian, you are going to heaven.

That shows you really didn't get my point, and I'd have to think willfully, as I'd like to think my statement was pretty clear.

So if I live my life "like a Christian" (which mind you, doesn't mean much, because while you can throw around 'No True Scotsman', there's plenty to show being Christian doesn't mean being good), but don't accept Christ, no matter how much good I do, you believe I am deserving of eternal punishment? That if I save an entire building of orphans from a bomb, give all my money to worthy charities, never lie, cheat, or steal, I deserve the same punishment as someone who thinks Jesus is the son of God but killed 3 people? You don't see how that's an insult at all? If not, there's not much more I can say.

My belief is this: if there is a god and god is good and just, then god doesn't care if I believe or not and is more concerned with how I lead my life. If there is a god and god is not good and just, that god is not deserving of my praise, and I will lead a good life in spite of that god. If there is no god, I've lived a good life and there was no loss to it.

If God exists and is more concerned with my belief that he put out a bunch of books that made no sense and contradicted each other then he is that I am a good person, why in the world would I want to praise him?

I hope you take anything I said to heart. I'll say again, a literal interpretation of the bible is impossible, and any biblical scholar can tell you that. Taking the bible literally is really only a good way to alienate non-believers and any rationally minded person.

Well i do not know much about who goes to hell or heavan. My guess would be you do go to heavan or you would enter purgatory for a little while.
And yes, you are correct, the old testament should not be taken seriously. (someparts anyway)
Roman Catholics view the Old Testament as inspired literature - but not as inerrant.
When (in their scholar's estimation) an Old Testament account is deemed to be allegorical based on contextual evidence, then they generally accept that as allegorical rather than as historical. Examples of Biblical accounts that Roman Catholics teach is allegory (stories that teach truths about God and man) rather than as historically accurate records:
- Adam & Eve & the Garden of Eden
- Noah and the Flood
- Job
- Jonah
So, for example: Catholics teach that the "Adam & Eve" story *is* a story intended to teach us *about* how God's creation became sinful. Rather than Adam and Eve being real, historical people who were bamboozled by a serpent, they teach that the point of the story is to teach us how humans as a whole fell from grace (and from innocence) after they were created by God.
The official line is this:
"Everything that the Bible teaches about faith (that is: religious doctrine) and morals is true"
and not
"Everything that the Bible teaches is a historical record of actual events"
Note, however, that Catholic scholars - like most historians - consider very many of the events recorded in the Old Testament to be historical events. They do not dismiss it entirely, but - rather - critically evaluate every account to establish its "historicity."

[Pope Joan]

I have the distinct impression that the Church of Rome's doctrine places the Church itself in higher authority and respect than it does scripture. Their position is like the OP, that the Church "created" the Bible, the NT is somehow the child of the Church.

I dispute the historical accuracy of this. Surely the core documents of the NT precede any institutional churches with the possible exception of those in Egypt and Syria.

So it boils down to authority. Does a believer cede higher authority to the institutional church, or to the New Testament? If we choose the NT, then we try to use the best scholarship to identify and interpret the manuscripts.

We Mennonites are not sola scriptura, nor do we believe all scripture has equal weight. We put the Gospels first, then the NT letters, then the law and the prophets. The books of history with killing of women and infants come last.

We have virtually no institutional authority. It exists on paper, but in reality there is a loose confederation of congregations who each run their own business, including the ordination of their own ministers.

[Tmutarakhan]

How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible?

I don't know... how about you try loving God with all you have, and loving others as yourself? Somebody suggested that once, but... what did he know?

[Menassa]

How does a Christian live if they do not literally follow the Bible?

I don't know... how about you try loving God with all you have, and loving others as yourself? Somebody suggested that once, but... what did he know?

Who was that person who suggested it again?