Interpretation of bible scripture by different denominations

[Curiousmind]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

 

[HTacianas]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

Rather than interpreting the bible it is probably best to simply accept that the bible means the same thing it has always meant. But unhappy with that, we have countless thousands coming along claiming that it means some other thing and they have the only truth. That leaves us with countless thousands of splits, schisms, and heresies that we have to shake a magic eight ball and hope for the best.

 

[Curiousmind]

Rather than interpreting the bible it is probably best to simply accept that the bible means the same thing it has always meant. But unhappy with that, we have countless thousands coming along claiming that it means some other thing and they have the only truth. That leaves us with countless thousands of splits, schisms, and heresies that we have to shake a magic eight ball and hope for the best.

So I think you are Catholic arent you ?

 

[HTacianas]

So I think you are Catholic arent you ?

No. I'm not Catholic. I have nothing against the Roman Church as it is original and apostolic.

 

[sandman]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

The Bible never tells us to interpret …it states … rightly divide the Word of Truth… and that is my quest.

There are specific keys and principles to follow that allow the Bible to interpret itself.

The word > rightly divide in the Greek is orthotomeō meaning …to cut straight, cut rightly or correctly. The intrinsic nuance meaning, there is one way to rightly cut it…. all others are wrong..... Everybody divides the Word ...the question is ….it is rightly divided.

We have various religions and denominations because of varying interpretations …so, who do you trust. Some may say …. “well, I believe such and such” but, what if such and such is wrong ….your belief doesn’t make it right, and your belief is not going to override what is truth. … So who or what do you trust.


You trust God. Some of the basics are: Read what is written not what you believe. Does it fit with the entirety of the Word? Does it fit with the context both immediate and remoter. To whom is it addressing Jews? Gentiles? Or church of God? ….those are just the absolute basics …I have an entire page of keys and principles that I follow for allowing the Bible to interpret itself …happy to post it if you want it.

 

[Peacemaker1]

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

the blood of Jesus is God our creator being made flesh like us, to give His flesh for us, that is the new living way, not the ways the jews had, having riches in the world, and all in judaism believe in that way, as richness seems the truth for them from God, and not Christ being rich, to be made poor for our sakes.


the ones wavering in this faith of the poorness of Christ, miss Christs words also, blessed are the poor, if we ask in faith, we cant ask for less than Solomon asked for, wisdom and a heart for israel, then believiing a greater than Solomon came for us, without wavering we ask in faith for THIS wisdom, SEEING that the rich pass away as a flower.




1 Kings 39 Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?
10 And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing.
11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;
12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.


Matthew 12:42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

2 Corinthians 8:9For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

James 15 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.

 

[Peacemaker1]

You trust God. Some of the basics are: Read what is written not what you believe. Does it fit with the entirety of the Word? Does it fit with the context both immediate and remoter. To whom is it addressing Jews? Gentiles? Or church of God? ….those are just the absolute basics …I have an entire page of keys and principles that I follow for allowing the Bible to interpret itself …happy to post it if you want it.

no need for interpretation, or contexts, or any preparation guidance or hints, that all ended when Christ came to earth, the wolves in sheeps clothing killed the good Shepherd, but there was life in His body and blood, and we are of His body, and when we thirsted out of His side came water, now we are fed in a very good pasture, all those wolves in seeming sheep clothing, no longer have anything to offer, or what should seem appealing.

 

[Lost4words]

The Bible never tells us to interpret …it states … rightly divide the Word of Truth… and that is my quest.

There are specific keys and principles to follow that allow the Bible to interpret itself.

The word > rightly divide in the Greek is orthotomeō meaning …to cut straight, cut rightly or correctly. The intrinsic nuance meaning, there is one way to rightly cut it…. all others are wrong..... Everybody divides the Word ...the question is ….it is rightly divided.

We have various religions and denominations because of varying interpretations …so, who do you trust. Some may say …. “well, I believe such and such” but, what if such and such is wrong ….your belief doesn’t make it right, and your belief is not going to override what is truth. … So who or what do you trust.


You trust God. Some of the basics are: Read what is written not what you believe. Does it fit with the entirety of the Word? Does it fit with the context both immediate and remoter. To whom is it addressing Jews? Gentiles? Or church of God? ….those are just the absolute basics …I have an entire page of keys and principles that I follow for allowing the Bible to interpret itself …happy to post it if you want it.

Thats called interpreting God's word!

You read it and come out with what 'you' think it is saying. Thus, your interpretation.

 

[sandman]

Thats called interpreting God's word!

You read it and come out with what 'you' think it is saying. Thus, your interpretation.

It’s called understanding of what God had written by seeing how it fits together, which is just the opposite of reading what I believe.

 

[Lost4words]

It’s called understanding of what God had written by seeing how it fits together, which is just the opposite of reading what I believe.

When, in reality, everyone knows that it is indeed 'your' interpretation of scripture! Fact.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

[Sailore Hymseer]

.
I personally am not overly partial to any particular Greek family of New Testament text, but I do mostly always study from the Textus Receptus.

Many people believe that the very few and minor textual differences between the different families of Greek text have caused different versions of the Bible to be produced that contradict one another and even many Protestants and Catholics make a gentle uproar concerning how their translations are superiors to one another

But I believe that the truth is, if you take the King James and the Catholic Douay Rheims translations and read them side by side, one cannot even tell any difference between 99.6 % of both translations.

For example - with Catholic and Protestant translations - the only disagreement is found regarding issues within the New Testament about Priests, Eucharist, Mary, and in the Old Testament disagreement exists concerning bowing down to images and Idols.

outside of these 4 topics - the King James is an exact duplicate copy, word for word exactly - down to the very last dot. to around 99.6 % - duplication = exactly

Going back to the subject of the very few and minor textual differences between the different families of Greek text - these very minor differences have not at all caused contradictions between different translations of the Bible

but rather - the different Translations contradictions are created from translators deviating away from the original Greek manuscript message and attempting to invent a new theology. -

" from their individual personal perspective

Even the manuscripts that the Catholic Church uses - all of these manuscripts command to not bow to images and idols, they all use the same Greek word that Catholics mistranslate as priests

Truly all manuscripts are exactly the same regarding everything pertaining to the topics and subjects orbiting the many, many things that all denominations disagree and differ upon and it is not the difference between the manuscripts - but the difference in how the translators deviate in a conscience effort / willingly, to falsely and untruly mistranslate and change the original message.

all manuscripts are exactly the same regarding everything pertaining to the topics and subjects orbiting the many, many things that all denominations disagree and differ upon. -

this in fact - is not caused by textual differences within the manuscript families but translations making the changes that deviate from the manuscript.

 

[The Liturgist]

So I think you are Catholic arent you ?

My friend @HTacianas and I are Orthodox, neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, although I like the traditional Protestant churches and traditional Roman Catholicism, for example, the beautiful Latin Mass which Pope Francis is trying to prevent people from being able to attend even if they want to, which is wrong in my opinion. I really liked Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II.

The Orthodox churches are the ancient churches of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, Africa and at one time, the Assyrian Church of the East, which is often grouped with us (although it is not Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) even reached into China, Tibet and Mongolia before the genocidal warlord Tamerlane killed most of them.

 

[The Liturgist]

I actually understand your denial of what I say…. Because with Catholicism there is no biblical standard of truth.

So, it must be very confusing for you to have someone who follows biblical scripture as the fountainhead of truth and holds that in the highest esteem…. rather than extrabiblical writing and the words of some dude speaking Ex cathedra.

That’s actually not true. Roman Catholicism prioritizes the Bible as the center of its Magisterium. And in many respects it follows the Bible more closely than some Protestant and most Restorationist denominations, and also more than most non-denominational churches. For example, the Catholic doctrine on the Liturgy, the Eucharist, Marriage (and Catholic priests can get married, just not priests in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church), and many other subjects, for example, Christology, and their emphasis on the immorality of homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia are entirely Biblical.

Also, the liturgies of the different rites of the Roman Catholic churches, such as the Mass, consist almost entirely of scriptural quotations, which is also true in the case of Orthodox Christianity, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and most other liturgical churches.

Finally, your argument is refuted by the fact that Roman Catholicism has produced many of the most accurate and beautiful translations of the Bible, such as the Vulgate, the Vetus Latina, the Challoner Douai Rheims, the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox Bible, and they also curate some of the oldest and most important manuscripts.

 

[sandman]

That’s actually not true. Roman Catholicism prioritizes the Bible as the center of its Magisterium. And in many respects it follows the Bible more closely than some Protestant and most Restorationist denominations, and also more than most non-denominational churches. For example, the Catholic doctrine on the Liturgy, the Eucharist, Marriage (and Catholic priests can get married, just not priests in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church), and many other subjects, for example, Christology, and their emphasis on the immorality of homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia are entirely Biblical.

Also, the liturgies of the different rites of the Roman Catholic churches, such as the Mass, consist almost entirely of scriptural quotations, which is also true in the case of Orthodox Christianity, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and most other liturgical churches.

Finally, your argument is refuted by the fact that Roman Catholicism has produced many of the most accurate and beautiful translations of the Bible, such as the Vulgate, the Vetus Latina, the Challoner Douai Rheims, the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox Bible, and they also curate some of the oldest and most important manuscripts.

what you present is just fluff.

You can set a beautiful table …but I have seen what is served …I did my time with the RCC …. And that is one of the main reasons why I have no affiliation with any Religion or denominations. Not saying they are all bad …but in the very least …. the majority all have their roots in a works-based doctrine. ….And quite honestly if the Bible were being adhered to… there would be no religions or denomination in Christianity.

I could do pages on the RCC … but I am not here to bash.

I didn’t start this, someone else threw the first stone …. but this is as far as I go with this.

 

[concretecamper]

Also, the liturgies of the different rites of the Roman Catholic churches, such as the Mass, consist almost entirely of scriptural quotations

https://stjohnvianney.vermontcatholic.org/scripture-in-the-order-of-the-mass

 

[The Liturgist]

what you present is just fluff.

You can set a beautiful table …but I have seen what is served …I did my time with the RCC …. And that is one of the main reasons why I have no affiliation with any Religion or denominations. Not saying they are all bad …but in the very least …. the majority all have their roots in a works-based doctrine. ….And quite honestly if the Bible were being adhered to… there would be no religions or denomination in Christianity.

I could do pages on the RCC … but I am not here to bash.

I didn’t start this, someone else threw the first stone …. but this is as far as I go with this.

The problem with your argument is that it rests on Perspicuity of Scripture, which has been shown to not actually be the case. The Bible does not interpret itself. The various Restorationist churches are all, without exception, the result of people sitting down and reading the Bible and attempting to derive doctrine from it alone, with no assistance from the writings of the Early Church, except for the Stone/Campbell movement, which in the case of Stone and Campbell, they did have theological training, but subsequently, the Churches of Christ, one of the two denominations that resulted from their movement (the other being the mainline Christian Church/Disciples of Christ) has struggled to maintain doctrinal consistency - beliefs vary dramatically between individual parishes, but it is absolutely the case that the Churches of Christ are operating on the basis of perspicuity of Scripture and Sufficiency of Scripture (with the exception of those who are fortunate enough to have hired a pastor trained at the Pepperdine School of Divinity).

It is a fact that the Roman Catholics gave us several of the best Bible translations, it is a fact they curate several of the most important manuscripts, such as the ancient Greek manuscript known as the Codex Vaticanus, which along with the Codex Sinaiticus, which was stolen from an Eastern Orthodox monastery in Sinai, Egypt, in the 19th century, and the Codex Alexandricus, is one of three codices of the Alexandrian text type, also known as the Minority Text, which has been very influential in the past 150 years, and it is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church bases its doctrines on scripture - indeed, many Papal buils and encyclicals begin with a quote of scripture from which they take their name, and it is a fact that almost all of the text in the various liturgies of the Roman Catholic Church are of scriptural origin.

I am not Roman Catholic; I am attesting to this as a neutral third party, who loves many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church, but who disagrees with them on other issues such as Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility and the doctrine of Purgatory as it was popularly understood in the past, and also the Immaculate Conception (which is unnecessary in Orthodox theology as our theology of original sin is not Augustinian; rather we base our refutation of the heresy of Pelagius on the writings of St. John Cassian), and the idea of Created Grace (we believe grace is an Uncreated Energy of God), but primarily the liberal theology of Pope Francis.

 

[The Liturgist]

https://stjohnvianney.vermontcatholic.org/scripture-in-the-order-of-the-mass

Indeed. The Traditional Latin Mass is equally scriptural. Much of it actually comes from the original translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vetus Latina, which along with the Liturgy was translated by Pope St. Victor in the second century, so that the less wealthy citizens of Rome who did not possess an education and knowledge of the Koine Greek language could enjoy full access to the Bible and to the Mass, the Divine Office and other liturgical services such as Baptisms, Requiems, and so on. The Vetus Latina is somewhat more elegant than the Vulgate, due to it being written in a Classical Latin that had become hard for the laity to understand by the time of St. Jerome, two centuries later. For example, where the Vulgate translates “Glory to God on High” as “Gloria in Altissimus Deo”, the Vetus Latina translates it more elegantly as the familiar “Gloria in Excelsis Deo.” The Vetus Latina is also interesting in that it is one of two Bibles that uses the Western Text Type, the most obscure of the three major textual variants of the New Testament (the others being the Alexandrian Text Type, and historically the most dominant, the Byzantine Text Type, which is part of the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version was translated); the only other Bible that uses this is the Syriac Aramaic translation of the four Gospels (and only the four Gospels) known as the Vetus Syra, which was produced in order to replace the Diatessaron, a gospel harmony in which the four were mashed together in an ugly manner, by Tatian, who was a prominent Syrian church father, who then apostasized and became the leader of a Gnostic cult, in the mid second century. The Vetus Syra was completed in the early third centuries amid widespread concerns about the orthodoxy of the Diatessaron, and was itself displaced in the late fourth century by the Peshitta, which is the main Syriac Aramaic Bible (however, as it was translated before the 27 book Athanasian Canon had become standard, it features only 22 books in its New Testament, and thus the remaining five books in the Peshitta are from a later translation known as the Harklean Bible, by St. Thomas of Harqel, who if I recall was a sixth century Syriac Orthodox scholar.

 

[concretecamper]

Indeed. The Traditional Latin Mass is equally scriptural.

Speaking as someone who has attended both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, I can say the prayers are remarkably similar.

 

[The Liturgist]

Speaking as someone who has attended both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, I can say the prayers are remarkably similar.

Similiar, yes, but the TLM prayers are more ornate and beautiful. The only thing about the Novus Ordo I like is the choice of anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), but I don’t particularly like the selection of added Eucharistic Prayers (especially Eucharistic Prayer no. 2, which is based on a misunderstanding of an ancient Antiochene anaphora that may not have even been used in Rome*, but is used to this day in Ethiopia, but the text from which it was taken, the Apostolic tradition of St. Hippolytus, is equivalent to a Pontifical, a liturgical book that contains only those parts of the liturgy the bishop needs to know. If you look at the text of the same Eucharistic prayer as used by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which refers to it as the Anaphora of the Apostles, it is substantially longer in its original context.

Also, there are some cases of really bad revisions to the Propers, where Collects have been rewritten in such a way as to lose their original meaning. Here is a recent article on one of these problematic revisions from New Liturgical Movement:

A Tale of Two Collects: Different Worldviews in Old and New Prayers

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org

*St. Hippolytus might have been presenting it as an exemplary anaphora, since the most widespread form of Anaphoras is that based on the ancient liturgy of Antioch, and it was like this even in antiquity. Antioch was always a liturgical powerhouse.

 

[concretecamper]

Similiar, yes, but the TLM prayers are more ornate and beautiful

I think the atmosphere created is more ornate, but the prayers of either are amazing and equally efficacious.