|
|
|
Plain vs. Literal Interpretation
By. A.T. Ross
Many sceptics and opponents of creation science accuse us of ‘taking
the Bible literally.’ They say, ‘you fundementalists might take the
Bible literally, but we know that some parts aren’t meant to be
literal. Can’t you see how wrong you are on a literal interpretation of
Genesis?’
Granted, there are literalists out there in the world. The issue though
is whether or not we should be literalists. Were the entire Bible to be
taken literally we would have to believe that Jesus literally is a
wooden door (). No, of course he is not. He was merely refering to the
idea that only through Him is salvation come by.
But this brings up an interesting question: Should we interprete the
Bible literally or plainly? We’ve already discussed one problem with
taking the Bible literally. Dr. Jonathan Sarfari cleverly advises:
“When the plain sense makes perfect sense, take no other sense, lest it
be nonsense” (Sarfati, 2004)
While humorous and witty, this statement perfectly exemplifies proper
Scriptural exegesis and interpretation. We take the plain meaning as
the intended meaning, since the plain meaning is going to represent the
original author’s intentions rather than a biased and distorted
interpretation of it.
There are several kinds of writing used in the Scriptures, and these
include:
1. Poety. As in the Psalms. These
should be considered keeping rules of Herbrew repetition and
parallelism of ideas without rhyme and metre when trying to understand
the messages of them.
2. Prophesy. The prophesies of the OT
prophets in the last section of the OT, the last chapters of Daniel,
and Revelation.
3. Biography. The Gospels.
4. Historical Narative. Much of the
OT, such as Kings and Chronicles, and in the NT, such books as Acts,
etc.
5. Parables. Many of Christ’s sayings
are parables (Matt. 13:3-23).
6. Letters. The writings of Paul,
Peter, John, Jude, etc.
7. Autobiography/testimony. The author
of Acts, Luke, describes the conversion of Paul, and then uses it as
part of his own personal testimony.
It is necessary then for the believer to understand how to identify
with these various forms of authorship style in order to understand the
plain meaning of the Scriptures. The believer (and all bibleosceptics
out there) should understand that the Bible was written in a different
language in a past time, in a vastly different culture than the
American/Western culture of today. To interprete the Bible according to
Western culture is a dangerous mistake to make. We should try to
understand the times, culture, and atmosphere of the time in which the
authors were writing and apply that to our understanding of the Bible.
This is why Christians who don’t read their Bibles much and don’t study
the Scriptures tend to be weak Christians and manifest doubts about
Scripture. They don’t have the answers to sceptics who know to ask the
questions that seem tough to answer (See ‘Tips for Discussion with
Evoluionists, Sceptics, and Atheists’). The greatest defense is a good
offense, and the best offense is to devoutly study the Scriptures!
But, asks the Christian, isn’t everyone able to understand the Bible?
Implications for Biblical
Comprehension
The answer to the question above is, yes.
Everyone can comprehend Scripture on a basic level in order to achieve
salvation through Christ alone, and that is all is meant by saying that
everyone can understand it.
Of course, the details aren’t difficult to understand either
(demonstrated by the fact that this author can do so), it just takes a
little more work than merely looking at a page of Scripture. Every
Christian can understand even the less self-evidence plain meaning with
only minimal research if they so desired.
That is why this ministry exists, to aid the Christian in his or her
walk with Christ, to bring them closer to the truth of Scripture in
every area and walk of life.
References
J. Sarfati, Refuting Compromise,
2004, Master Books, pg. 68
|
