Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

I have been designated a Thumper.

I think I'm going to wreck his stereotype, though.

Lady Lash, wouldn't surprise me a bit girl!

You miss the point that I'm not interpreting a damned thing, but rather reading what was written as it was written, on the assumption that what was written was what was meant.

Exodus 34:27-28: "Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

Deuteronomy 4:13: "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deuteronomy 9:9: "When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

Deuteronomy 5:2-3: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."

1 Kings 8:9,21: V9 There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt." ... V21 "And there I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord, which He made with our fathers when He brought them from the land of Egypt."

2 Chronicles 6:11: "And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord, which He made with the sons of Israel."
The tables are part of the abolished first covenant: Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. "Now even the first covenant had ... the TABLES OF THE COVENANT."

Heb 9:1-4
Hebrews 9:1,4 "Now even the first covenant had ... the tables of the covenant"
This merely illustrates how they are unable to find any way to make any real distinction of terms between the 10 commandments and what they call the ceremonial law.
Here is what Romans and Galatians says about the law:

"We are not under the law" (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:18).
We are dead to the law (Rom. 7:4).
We are delivered from the law (Rom. 7:6).
Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4).
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ .... we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24, 25).
"The law" has been abolished (Eph. 2:15).
G. Other covenants that are not the 10 commandment Sinai covenant. The Law of Galatians 3 is the Sinai covenant, as the context says!

The first time covenant is used, it is to Noah, of the covenant (agreement) that if he builds the ark, God will make the flood waters come and destroy the earth. The rainbow is a sign of the covenant that God will never do this again!

See Gen 6:18; 9:9-17. This most certainly is not the ten commandments or the Sabbath law!
Next time covenant is used, it is to Abraham: "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land" Gen 15:18. This is known in Gal 3:16 as the three "promises" which are: 1. Great nation promise that was fulfilled in Egypt. (Gen 46:3; Deut 10:22) 2. Land promise that was fulfilled in Joshua. (Josh 21:43; Deut 30:5) 3. The seed promise that was fulfilled in Christ. (Gal 3:16; Gal 3:29; Heb 6:11-13;19-20; Acts 13:32-33,38)
Sinai Covenant was distinct from the Abraham covenant as Deut 5:2-3 proves: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today." Gal 3 shows that the Sinai covenant was added ON TOP OF and ran concurrently with the Sinai covenant which was the ten commandments. When Christ came, the Sinai covenant was abolished. "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. " … "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions … until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. " … "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. " … "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. " (Galatians 3:24) … "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. " (Galatians 3:17-25)

Are you under the impression that those statements are incompatible?

Just some verses for consideration. I realize that many people do interpret the Bible in different ways and I really have no desire to get into a bible debate here; mainly because this is a forum which people from all walks of life come and offense is bound to happen.

Perhaps C.I. could explain what he is trying to tell us.

Re: Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????


Doesn't the question of "Why does the bible get misinterpreted so often?" imply that there is a "correct" intepretation out there somewhere?

What *is* the *correct* interpretation of the Bible. Is there a collective authority which defines iterpretation, and on what basis do they measure things?

One way might be to think of the Bible,and other written records from that time,as charting the destruction of the matriarchy which had been in operation for the whole of previous human history.
Such an epochal change would necessarily be considerably confused, time consuming and messy and may yet be unaccomplished.In such a schemata Paganism can be seen as simply a stage in such a shift as the vast range of divinities was gradually refined into monotheism and subsequently into an urban,scientific civilisation.

Thus the Bible as a totality can sit in the mind as a direction finder in such a dramatic and hopefully beneficial re-ordering despite its multitude of internal inconsistencies and labyrinths of ambiguities which are generally beside the point except to those who derive a living from them or even a modicum of ephemeral amusement.

6 or 7 thousand years is a very short period of time when compared to the 2 million years,some say 4,of previous human history during which time nothing of significance seems to have taken place contrary to what has happened in our patriarchal era.

"Let there be light" may simply be a poetic phrase to describe the introduction of the patriarchy.

This discussion has taken place previously. Here's one place...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1722694#1722694

which began here

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1722468#1722468

Others also claim that they are simply reading what was written, as it was written, yet their "reading" is not consistent with yours. Since many of these "readings" contradict yours, it cannot be the case that you are all correct in your readings. And so the challenge remains, no matter how many different ways you restate your opinion.

How is it you know that your "reading" of the Bible is anything more than just another interpretation of what was actually written? Is it that you posses reading comprehension skills that others do not? Is it that the text of the Bible is so literal and unambiguous that there is no way for any rational person to ever come away with a "reading" that is not what was intended by the author(s)? Give me a reason that supports what you are claiming.

I

Where you brought up several points unsubstantiated. One of them apparently missed Paul's statement to Agrippa at Acts 2:20:". . .I went bringing the message that they should repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance. . ."

You bible thumpers are always quoting only the scriptures that suit your philosophy.

Again, Implicator, no interpretation involved, just reading the words that are there, imputing to them no meaning other than that which is theirs by definition, taking each sentence as being a complete thought in and of itself ... same way one would read any owners manual, technical guide, or legal treatise.

Now, either the Bible is an owners manual for the soul, a technical guide to the universe, and a treatise setting out and clarifying the laws and their particulars, complete in every detail, incontravertible, in keeping with its claims for itself, requiring no interpretation or interpolation, leaving room for none such, or its an assemblage of myth, tradition, and self-agrandizing agenda, interpreted by some to mean what is necessary to support a particular agenda, by others interpreted in such fashion as is convenient to support some other particular agenda. Which is it?

Additional info about the law may be found in the 7th Chapter of Hebrews. I direct your attention to verse 12: "For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law."

I went and finally read this link (sorry, I've been overly busy lately.)

MA, a question from this.



What 'law' is being fulfilled?

THat's what I'd like to know. As far as I can see, the law is "an eye for an eye" apparently.

Questioner asked-



The law of Destiny.

Questioner/Wolf_O'Donnell,

Christ took the punishment for all of our sins; therefore, the law was fulfilled.

That man was different from animals because he could sacrifice his life for an idea which an animal is as incapable of doing as it is as incapable of constructing a half-decent metaphor.And that he was conscious of that difference which requires him to be reminded in the welter of events of it in case by forgetting he falls back into the animal kingdom.

This does not answer the question.

What law? Law of Destiny? Can you point me to where in the bible this law is detailed?