Old vs. New Testament?

So the things about not killing and stealing are mostly suggestions. I see.

It just proves that the Bible is opn to interpretation. When Jesus turned water into wine could be interpreted as getting drunk is moraally ok.

Here is something:
War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

NickFun wrote:

It just proves that the Bible is opn to interpretation. When Jesus turned water into wine could be interpreted as getting drunk is moraally ok.

I doubt it. How would you put your slant on the words in 1 Timothy 5:23?  "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

Intrepid wrote:

NickFun wrote:

It just proves that the Bible is opn to interpretation. When Jesus turned water into wine could be interpreted as getting drunk is moraally ok.

I doubt it. How would you put your slant on the words in 1 Timothy 5:23?  "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

I've know Christians to interpret this to mean grape juice. They abhor the idea that alcohol passed between Jesus' lips.

I doubt it too. The theologians who use painstaking methods including having a very good grasp of ancient language and also looking at how language was used in different settings and contexts have developed informed theories of interpretation. The casual reader may also make his/her own interpretation of what the text says, but it is unlikely to be an informed one.

Foxfyre wrote:

I doubt it too. The theologians who use painstaking methods including having a very good grasp of ancient language and also looking at how language was used in different settings and contexts have developed informed theories of interpretation. The casual reader may also make his/her own interpretation of what the text says, but it is unlikely to be an informed one.

Yes, their eisegesis is obviously correct. Woe be to the reader that thinks he can extract meaning from what the words actually say.

It just proves that the Bible is opn to interpretation. When Jesus turned water into wine could be interpreted as getting drunk is moraally ok.

NickFun wrote:

It just proves that the Bible is opn to interpretation. When Jesus turned water into wine could be interpreted as getting drunk is moraally ok.

Some have interpreted Jesus' conversion of water into wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana as a sign that he was the groom.

John 19:25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

I agree, That seams pretty farfetched and speculatory. I do think Jesus had a special relationship with Mary Magdalene, but never married her. I say this b/c of what i know of The Gosple According to Mary Magdalene.

Also no where in the bible does it say she was a prostitute, thats pure speculation.

Luke 8:2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Luke 7:37And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

38And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

39Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

John 11:2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

Doktor S wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I doubt it too. The theologians who use painstaking methods including having a very good grasp of ancient language and also looking at how language was used in different settings and contexts have developed informed theories of interpretation. The casual reader may also make his/her own interpretation of what the text says, but it is unlikely to be an informed one.

Yes, their eisegesis is obviously correct. Woe be to the reader that thinks he can extract meaning from what the words actually say.

I think the word you intended is exegesis. I don't think every theologian's exegesis is 'obviously correct' in all cases since there are still a lot of pockets of differences of opinion in what that literal interpretation should be. Everybody can't be right. Nor will the unschooled reader always get it wrong because sometimes the actual ancient text has the same meaning as the same words mean in modern times.

(I never discourage folks from reading their Bible because I believe God can and does bless them through the words even if they don't always have perfect understanding of what the literal translation of the words is.)

What most theologians try to do is to get inside the heads of those who were writing the text. Unless we read it through the eyes of those who wrote it and within the context of their experience and perspective, we are more likely to err in what they intended to say.