Proper Bible Interpretation

[Matthew6:33]

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” – Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965)


Exegesis is the process of carefully interpreting and drawing out the original meaning from a biblical text. The term comes from the Greek preposition "Eck," which means "out of," signifying that an exegete draws out what is naturally present in the text rather than reading into it something that is not there. This method seeks to understand the author's original intent by analyzing the language, grammar, historical context, and literary structure of the passage. Exegesis is essential for proper Bible study because it respects the authority of Scripture and avoids imposing personal ideas or external concepts onto the text, which is known as eisegesis (reading into the text). Jesus Christ Himself is described as the greatest exegete because through His incarnation, He perfectly revealed and explained God the Father to humanity. The goal of exegesis is to faithfully uncover what God has communicated in His Word so that believers can understand His nature, His will, and His plan for salvation and living. It is the foundation for sound theology and teaching. Relevant Bible verses include:

• 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

• John 1:18: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

• Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son."​

 

[Matthew6:33]

I bring this up because at Church the other day someone tried to argue that Bible scholars agree that Genesis is an allegorical book. Moses wrote it but since nobody was there at the time of creation, there is no way it could be literal. I was told the Hebrew word for day (yôm - H3117) can mean a day, a period of time, or a year, to which I agreed but argued that it depends on the context you are reading.

For instance, in the creation account there is a numerical value placed with every use of the word yôm to signify a LITERAL day, not a period of time or a year:

[Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 NASB95]
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ...
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. ...
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. ...
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. ...
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. ...
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

When I told the person this, I was told that they went to Bible College and the scholars all agree that Genesis is allegorical.

Turns out this person is a science teacher and they are likely reading theistic evolution and/or old earth creationism/gap theory beliefs into the biblical text (eisegesis).

Anyway, I thought this would be a good thread because reading external ideas into the text (eisegesis) is a slippery slope because we make ourselves the authority on what the scripture says rather than letting the scripture speak for itself!

Pray God convicts this person to reevaluate their method of Bible interpretation, especially as it can influence others.

 

[dwb]

I was told that they went to Bible College and the scholars all agree that Genesis is allegorical.

College is the clue to ignore.

 

[Margery]

I bring this up because at Church the other day someone tried to argue that Bible scholars agree that Genesis is an allegorical book. Moses wrote it but since nobody was there at the time of creation, there is no way it could be literal. I was told the Hebrew word for day (yôm - H3117) can mean a day, a period of time, or a year, to which I agreed but argued that it depends on the context you are reading.

For instance, in the creation account there is a numerical value placed with every use of the word yôm to signify a LITERAL day, not a period of time or a year:

When I told the person this, I was told that they went to Bible College and the scholars all agree that Genesis is allegorical.

Turns out this person is a science teacher and they are likely reading theistic evolution and/or old earth creationism/gap theory beliefs into the biblical text (eisegesis).

Anyway, I thought this would be a good thread because reading external ideas into the text (eisegesis) is a slippery slope because we make ourselves the authority on what the scripture says rather than letting the scripture speak for itself!

Pray God convicts this person to reevaluate their method of Bible interpretation, especially as it can influence others.

That's what happened in the Baptist church I went to for quite a few years, before the new pastor started teaching this nonsense. He said Noah's flood was Hebrew poetry, and then a member who greeted me after an absence due to ill health, told me the church was now old earth creation, but they'd tolerate me just fine. She didn't seem to realize that I might not tolerate that. I did make my concerns known to the pastors including the older pastor who was retiring leaving the church in "good" hands.

None of them seem to grasp what I was saying about taking Genesis literally.

They had gotten into the seeker friendly model of doing church. Downplay all the tough stuff, eliminate prophecy (they did that with Rick Warren's Purpose Driven drivel back in the early 2000's shortly after I got there) as it's "divisive" according to the great Rick Warren, and by the time I left, there wasn't much beyond be nice, think nice thoughts, and be missional rather than missionary!!! Missional means be nice, don't challenge anyone and hope they like the coffee and fellowship at your church and think about "getting saved".

I left shortly after.

There are 2 standards of measurement in the church

The Plumb-line of God's word which doesn't change ever - or the revisions of scholars (scientists and theologians) that are as variable as a windvane turning in the autumn breeze.

Guess which one I prefer!!!

 

[mattfivefour]

The Bible is God's communication to us. It contains all that God knows we need and, therefore, all we need to know about Him ... and, for that matter, us. It is actually the one thing that provides us with the absolute security we need for our salvation. And it is for this reason that Satan's first attack was aimed squarely at God's Word-- "Has God said?" And ever since then it has remained the Adversary's first attack against every single human being who is God's or might in some way come to God. Old Slewfoot always --and only (for all attacks are aimed towards the same result)-- always and only attacks God's Word and His character ... for the former reveals the latter and the latter is bound up in the former.

We must hold firm to the Word as given, not adding to it or subtracting from it, or meandering from its truth. Well did the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to write: "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3)." Allow one tiny doubt to attach to one tiny part and eventually the door will be opened wide for the whole message to come tumbling apart.

 

[TCC]

Some approaches Answers in Genesis takes I'm not thrilled about. But the one main thing I really appreciate about that ministry is the super importance of exegetical takeaway from Genesis 1-11. We are blessed to have that ministry affirm the reasons why those first set of chapters are so important to everything else about the faith. Amen

 

[Hol]

Great OP @Matthew6:33

Sorry for the length of this, but Teren made a comment about Ken Ham that I agree with. I love his Ark project and most of Answers in Genesis work, but they’re a little too dogmatic for me.

There are two solid Bible teachers who tackle the old earth idea very different than most of us, but have won my respect.

Personally, I believe that yom is a 24-hr day when God explains what happened by using ordinal numbers, like first day (yom), second day, like you point out @Matthew6:33:
[Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 NASB95]
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ...
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. ...
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. ...
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. ...
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. ...
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book, Commentary on Genesis, explains yom in Genesis 1 like you. Of course he’s an exegete and many of us love his teaching.

But he’s got an old earth idea that I respect (though don’t agree with). He takes Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” and goes into lots of details with the Hebrew, while tossing in the ides that Ezekiel 28 may describe an old earth idea. (Like I mentioned, I don’t agree with him.)

From Ezekiel 28:
11Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12“Son of man, take up a song of mourning over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord GOD says:

“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14“You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16“By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.

Basically he describes the formless old earth as Satan’s mineral garden. I respect that because he is not suggesting evolution or that any plants, animals, or pre-humans had died. He implies that after Satan’s fall God took the desolation and darkness on earth and in six literal days made earth habitable for man.

A second believer, Dr. James Tour, debates fellow scientists about creation vs. evolution with an approach that I respect, and don’t agree with. He’s a chemist and exposes how claims that science has answers for the origin of life are all bogus. I love those debates. Sometimes he pulls out a blackboard and writes chemical formulas. I don’t understand the formulas but I can follow his description that the complexity of bonds forming and replicating is not possible. Where I don’t agree is that he hasn’t yet pointed to an exegesis of Genesis 1. He is currently teaching Isaiah and he is very biblically sound.

I’d like to be firm in my exegesis without getting dogmatic. That will take years!

 

[Margery]

I’d like to be firm in my exegesis without getting dogmatic. That will take years!

Very good point, because there are areas of Scripture where good Bible believers can disagree on interpretation, what a passage means without denying the absolute truth of the Bible.

Creation Scientists are quick to point out that their theories, are just theories, and as new data comes in, those theories are adjusted or scrapped. They work from an initial agreement, that the Bible is 100% true and authoritative. after that the theories multiply, as long as the theory fits inside the Biblical framework.

There are several different Creation Science groups out there, and others on their own, all working within the limits of Bible truth. And that would include the mineral garden ideas. I hadn't heard of Dr. James Tour yet but I'll keep an eye out, sounds interesting.

 

[TCC]

Great OP @Matthew6:33

Sorry for the length of this, but Teren made a comment about Ken Ham that I agree with. I love his Ark project and most of Answers in Genesis work, but they’re a little too dogmatic for me.

There are two solid Bible teachers who tackle the old earth idea very different than most of us, but have won my respect.

Personally, I believe that yom is a 24-hr day when God explains what happened by using ordinal numbers, like first day (yom), second day, like you point out @Matthew6:33:
[Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 NASB95]
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ...
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. ...
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. ...
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. ...
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. ...
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book, Commentary on Genesis, explains yom in Genesis 1 like you. Of course he’s an exegete and many of us love his teaching.

But he’s got an old earth idea that I respect (though don’t agree with). He takes Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” and goes into lots of details with the Hebrew, while tossing in the ides that Ezekiel 28 may describe an old earth idea. (Like I mentioned, I don’t agree with him.)

From Ezekiel 28:
11Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12“Son of man, take up a song of mourning over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord GOD says:

“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14“You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16“By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.

Basically he describes the formless old earth as Satan’s mineral garden. I respect that because he is not suggesting evolution or that any plants, animals, or pre-humans had died. He implies that after Satan’s fall God took the desolation and darkness on earth and in six literal days made earth habitable for man.

A second believer, Dr. James Tour, debates fellow scientists about creation vs. evolution with an approach that I respect, and don’t agree with. He’s a chemist and exposes how claims that science has answers for the origin of life are all bogus. I love those debates. Sometimes he pulls out a blackboard and writes chemical formulas. I don’t understand the formulas but I can follow his description that the complexity of bonds forming and replicating is not possible. Where I don’t agree is that he hasn’t yet pointed to an exegesis of Genesis 1. He is currently teaching Isaiah and he is very biblically sound.

I’d like to be firm in my exegesis without getting dogmatic. That will take years!

Great observations Hol. I did not know Arnold had old earth considerations. The Satan fall to earth theory is interesting. I kind of held that view back in 90's. But I'm not sure if we see anything in scripture that affirms a fall of Satan from heaven that permits him in some way leadership of governing a planet God created. I know in Is 14 & Ez 28 there is comparison with a king mentioned. But just like in general, the idea of Santan being granted by God a sense of rule over His own physical creaton (we do see Lucifer as a leading angel of that angelic spiritual world). I just bring this up because it is something I have always wanted to look deeper into. At this point I won't, lol, but just paying homage to your awesome consideration in this way dear sister.

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? | GotQuestions.org

How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven? Where did Satan come from? Why did Satan decide to rebel against God?

www.gotquestions.org

So like when Jesus said He saw Satan fall like lightening (Luke 10:18), we tend to line that up with Rev 12. Personally I don't think those go together. Personally I would see Rev 12 as a future event of Satan no longer having access to the heavenlies and then he gets mad cuz he is stock on the earth thwarted...lol. The timing of that to me Is yet future. It would make sense that even though Satan after the fall could go before God in some fashion (like with Job), even after the fall, he will lose access to heaven when the raptured saints arrive ending whatever taunt or sense of access Satan has of the heavenlies. And as glorification is realized, then there would be really no point to the devil's mocking and taunting. Not that it would in heaven to whatever degree the devil has access now. But personally the fall in Rev 12 I don't think is the same as when Jesus saw him fall like lightening. Jesus did not say He fell to earth then. And of course not that Satan fell from any ruling influence over the world ever, as far as I know.

In any event just wanted to chime in on that one. And I think Hol, that your appreciation of men you know that have proven their deligence could also be very wrong in some areas. I believe that would apply to every single living fallen creature. Amen. There is a tendency, I believe, in evangelicalism, where we tend to see spiritual leaders as wolves or annointed. And although those with perhaps lest developed spiritual sensativities in certain areas could be wrong in areas, and there is "some" potential danger with that as with anything. Being off biblically does not qualify as a wolf. Lest that is all we are left with...lol. So yeah, just encouraged when the living and active grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is seen provisionally within the family, amen. Blessings.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

I bring this up because at Church the other day someone tried to argue that Bible scholars agree that Genesis is an allegorical book. Moses wrote it but since nobody was there at the time of creation, there is no way it could be literal. I was told the Hebrew word for day (yôm - H3117) can mean a day, a period of time, or a year, to which I agreed but argued that it depends on the context you are reading.

For instance, in the creation account there is a numerical value placed with every use of the word yôm to signify a LITERAL day, not a period of time or a year:

When I told the person this, I was told that they went to Bible College and the scholars all agree that Genesis is allegorical.

Turns out this person is a science teacher and they are likely reading theistic evolution and/or old earth creationism/gap theory beliefs into the biblical text (eisegesis).

Anyway, I thought this would be a good thread because reading external ideas into the text (eisegesis) is a slippery slope because we make ourselves the authority on what the scripture says rather than letting the scripture speak for itself!

Pray God convicts this person to reevaluate their method of Bible interpretation, especially as it can influence others.

Time for Pastor, Elder, and/or Deacon intervention
Most churches don't allow Sunday School/Bible Study teachers/leaders to teach counter to the Bible and/or approved doctrine, unless it's part of a comparative study for mature, discerning believers.


FWIW, not all Bible colleges teach literal interpretation of all of the Bible.

Not all Bible colleges vet their students before admission or prior to graduation (depends on policies and any requirements imposed by affiliations/parent denomination). Some only look at academic credentials prior to admission, and passing all of the required courses is all that is required to earn the degree, certificate, etc. Not all Bible colleges require agreement with a doctrinal statement, or it may be the doctrinal agreement only includes the core Christian beliefs comprising only those tenets of the Apostle's Creed.

Like other schools, some Bible colleges are better than others, theologically, academically, cost-wise, etc.

 

[Hol]

The Satan fall to earth theory is interesting. I kind of held that view back in 90's. But I'm not sure if we see anything in scripture that affirms a fall of Satan from heaven that permits him in some way leadership of governing a planet God created.

Thanks Teren, I didn't describe that well enough. The mineral garden was before Satan fell, after his rebellion it became this: And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep... from Genesis 1:2

 

[Matthew6:33]

Good discussion. The 'mineral garden' discussed above sounds like a variation of the Gap Theory. It is all based on hebrew language which I am certain Fruchtenbaum knows plenty about.

From what I remember, the premise of the Gap Theory is that God did not create anything 'without form (tôû h8414) and void (bôû h922).' The argument is that God would not create something that was defined in English as vain, vanity, confusion, emptiness, void, waste.

[Gen 1:2 NASB95]
2 The earth was formless (tôû h8414) and void (bôû h922), and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

They argue In Genesis 1:1 when God created (bārā' h1254) He was creating 'out of nothing' or making a 'brand new thing' that never existed before. He was not using elements that already existed (ʿāśâ h6213) and rearranging them or fixing them.

[Gen 1:1 NASB95]
1 In the beginning God created (bārā' h1254) the heavens and the earth.


[Gen 12:2 KJV]
2 And I will make of thee (ʿāśâ h6213) a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

They argue that there was a long time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This explains the angelic conflict, dinosaurs, fossils, evolution, billions of years, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Matthew6:33]

That's what happened in the Baptist church I went to for quite a few years, before the new pastor started teaching this nonsense. He said Noah's flood was Hebrew poetry, and then a member who greeted me after an absence due to ill health, told me the church was now old earth creation, but they'd tolerate me just fine. She didn't seem to realize that I might not tolerate that. I did make my concerns known to the pastors including the older pastor who was retiring leaving the church in "good" hands.

None of them seem to grasp what I was saying about taking Genesis literally.

They had gotten into the seeker friendly model of doing church. Downplay all the tough stuff, eliminate prophecy (they did that with Rick Warren's Purpose Driven drivel back in the early 2000's shortly after I got there) as it's "divisive" according to the great Rick Warren, and by the time I left, there wasn't much beyond be nice, think nice thoughts, and be missional rather than missionary!!! Missional means be nice, don't challenge anyone and hope they like the coffee and fellowship at your church and think about "getting saved".

I left shortly after.

There are 2 standards of measurement in the church

The Plumb-line of God's word which doesn't change ever - or the revisions of scholars (scientists and theologians) that are as variable as a windvane turning in the autumn breeze.

Guess which one I prefer!!!

This is word for word what is happening in my Church. Even with the old pastor 'retiring' and a young pastor coming in.

I prefer the latter plumb line too! When I start adding too much of my own stuff (or others' stuff) to the scripture it gets too complicated too fast!

 

[TCC]

Good discussion. The 'mineral garden' discussed above sounds like a variation of the Gap Theory. It is all based on hebrew language which I am certain Fruchtenbaum knows plenty about.

From what I remember, the premise of the Gap Theory is that God did not create anything 'without form (tôû h8414) and void (bôû h922).' The argument is that God would not create something that was defined in English as vain, vanity, confusion, emptiness, void, waste.


They argue In Genesis 1:1 when God created (bārā' h1254) He was creating 'out of nothing' or making a 'brand new thing' that never existed before. He was not using elements that already existed (ʿāśâ h6213) and rearranging them or fixing them.


They argue that there was a long time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This explains the angelic conflict, dinosaurs, fossils, evolution, billions of years, etc., etc., etc.

I use to hold that view too. The Gap theory. The difficulty there, from what I understand (as per a reasonable concern from Answers in Genesis), is that if there was physical life on earth before the formless and void Genesis statement, then we have animals on earth dying before the fall. We have death before the fall. I'm not that aware of the mineral theory. Personally, I would believe the fall might have happened when God created the world and put Adam and Eve in charge. I believe that might have been too much for Lucifer to handle. It would be somewhat Ironic if the devil fell because of this.

 

[Matthew6:33]

Time for Pastor, Elder, and/or Deacon intervention
Most churches don't allow Sunday School/Bible Study teachers/leaders to teach counter to the Bible and/or approved doctrine, unless it's part of a comparative study for mature, discerning believers.


FWIW, not all Bible colleges teach literal interpretation of all of the Bible.

Not all Bible colleges vet their students before admission or prior to graduation (depends on policies and any requirements imposed by affiliations/parent denomination). Some only look at academic credentials prior to admission, and passing all of the required courses is all that is required to earn the degree, certificate, etc. Not all Bible colleges require agreement with a doctrinal statement, or it may be the doctrinal agreement only includes the core Christian beliefs comprising only those tenets of the Apostle's Creed.

Like other schools, some Bible colleges are better than others, theologically, academically, cost-wise, etc.

Thankfully it is not a pastor or Bible teacher, just a fellow servant.

 

[Hol]

Good discussion. The 'mineral garden' discussed above sounds like a variation of the Gap Theory. It is all based on hebrew language which I am certain Fruchtenbaum knows plenty about.

From what I remember, the premise of the Gap Theory is that God did not create anything 'without form (tôû h8414) and void (bôû h922).' The argument is that God would not create something that was defined in English as vain, vanity, confusion, emptiness, void, waste.


They argue In Genesis 1:1 when God created (bārā' h1254) He was creating 'out of nothing' or making a 'brand new thing' that never existed before. He was not using elements that already existed (ʿāśâ h6213) and rearranging them or fixing them.


They argue that there was a long time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This explains the angelic conflict, dinosaurs, fossils, evolution, billions of years, etc., etc., etc.

You summarized Fruchtenbaum’s position to a “T.”

A funny thing happened with this thread. Suddenly I put two + two together and realized that both Fruchtenbaum and James Tour grew up in observant Jewish homes. My blind spot has been my ignorance about rabbinical teachings that changed dramatically after Jesus rose from the grave. Recently I learned that they began to allegorize Hebrew Bible worse than Augustine They also switched to other chaotic methods like numerology (gematria) and Greek philosophy.

I’m not sure, but I did query google’s AI to ask if rabbis in the dark ages had switched to allegories. Take it with a grain of salt, this quote is AI generated: “Yes, many rabbis in the Dark Ages, particularly those involved in mystical traditions like Kabbalah, taught that Noah's Ark was an allegory, in addition to other interpretations. They understood the story not just as a literal historical event, but as a symbolic representation of the human mind, inner struggles, and the relationship between God and humanity, seeing the text on multiple levels of meaning.“