How to Effectively Study and Interpret of the Bible

[Behold]

we are to strive to become Christ like - who fully achieved that goal?

Paul teaches that "as many as be perfect".

So, before you say.. "well perfect doesn't mean that"... "and in the original greek (that does not exist")>.......... i suggest you don't.

 

[AW Bowman]

@Johann
Thank you for adding scripture and notes to my ramblings.

 

[Johann]

Paul teaches that "as many as be perfect".

So, before you say.. "well perfect doesn't mean that"... "and in the original greek (that does not exist")>.......... i suggest you don't.

And why not?

Paul's Use of "Perfect" (τέλειοι)
In Pauline theology, the term "τέλειος" carries nuanced meanings depending on the context, including moral and spiritual completeness, maturity, and the idea of being fully equipped or grown. A few relevant passages are:

Philippians 3:15: Here, "τέλειοι" is often understood as spiritually mature or those who are striving towards spiritual completeness.
1 Corinthians 2:6: "Yet among the mature (τέλειοι) we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away." This usage suggests a sense of spiritual maturity or those advanced in understanding.
Ephesians 4:13: "Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood (τέλειον ἄνδρα), to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Here, the term refers to the goal of Christian growth and maturity.
Early Church Fathers on "Perfect" (τέλειοι)
The early Church Fathers also discussed the concept of perfection, often aligning it with spiritual maturity and the process of becoming more Christ-like. Here are a few perspectives:

Clement of Alexandria:

In his work "Stromata," Clement interprets "τέλειοι" as those who have attained a higher level of knowledge and spiritual understanding. He often equates perfection with maturity and growth in Christian virtues and knowledge.
Origen:

Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, considers "perfect" to mean mature in faith and understanding. He emphasizes the process of continuous growth towards spiritual maturity and the ultimate goal of becoming like Christ.
Irenaeus:

In "Against Heresies," Irenaeus speaks of the perfection of man in the context of growth and maturity in the knowledge of God. He sees perfection as a process of becoming fully mature in Christ.
Augustine:

Augustine, in his various writings, often interprets perfection in the context of love and charity. He views perfect love as the fulfillment of Christian maturity and the ultimate goal of the Christian life.
Conclusion
The term "perfect" (τέλειοι) in Paul's writings and its interpretation by the early Church Fathers generally aligns with the concept of spiritual maturity. It encompasses the idea of growing towards completeness in Christ, involving moral and spiritual development, deeper understanding, and the embodiment of Christian virtues. Thus, "perfect" does mean mature, indicating a state of spiritual growth and completeness that believers are called to strive towards.

 

[Johann]

@Johann
Thank you for adding scripture and notes to my ramblings.

Be prepared for strong "rebuttals"

 

[Behold]

And why not?

Stop posting a language that you can't read.
Ok?
Thats FAKE, its FALSE, and this should not be so.

Now let me show you something.

Paul is talking about KNOWLEDGE........being perfect in Knowledge, "the same mind".... as this is the Divine Perfection that is most important regarding the walk of Faith.

BEHAVIOR, is a state.... as this is feeling related and desire related... whereas the perfection that Paul is talking about, is to gain FULL UNDERSTANDING... as that is divine perfection, and that can be gained as revelation knowledge, regarding the walk of faith.

Paul is not talking about being able to fully understand all mysteries in the Bible, as that is impossible, but the believer, is directed by Paul, to come to "perfection" in the understanding of God's Grace.

And who isnt?
Anyone and everyone who is a Calvinist, a Catholic, a Mormon, a JW, or anyone who believes that water baptism is REQUIRED for Salvation...........and most of all, its anyone who believes they can lose their Salvation.

See all those?
Those are all Hebrews 6:1, failures.. .and many are born again.....and many of them have more Theology then a Whale has a wet body, and they are useless , because they have never yet understood God's Cross, God's Grace, and God's Gift of Salvation.
So, God does not use them, because they are clueless regarding the very first principles of Salvation, even tho many of them are saved for DECADES.

They are failed BABY Christians, who want to fight about theology, and most of the time, they can't even explain what they believe, so they have to cut and paste some other person's teaching..

 

[AW Bowman]

Be prepared for strong "rebuttals"

It depends on the biblical strength of the "rebuttals". I like your new avatar.

 

[Johann]

Paul is talking about KNOWLEDGE........being perfect in Knowledge, "the same mind".... as this is the Divine Perfection that is most important regarding the walk of Faith.

Paul's Use of "Perfect" (τέλειοι)
In Pauline theology, the term "τέλειος" carries nuanced meanings depending on the context, including moral and spiritual completeness, maturity, and the idea of being fully equipped or grown. A few relevant passages are:

Philippians 3:15: Here, "τέλειοι" is often understood as spiritually mature or those who are striving towards spiritual completeness.
1 Corinthians 2:6: "Yet among the mature (τέλειοι) we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away."

This usage suggests a sense of spiritual maturity or those advanced in understanding.

Ephesians 4:13: "Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood (τέλειον ἄνδρα), to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

Here, the term refers to the goal of Christian growth and maturity.
Early Church Fathers on "Perfect" (τέλειοι)
The early Church Fathers also discussed the concept of perfection, often aligning it with spiritual maturity and the process of becoming more Christ-like. Here are a few perspectives:

Clement of Alexandria:

In his work "Stromata," Clement interprets "τέλειοι" as those who have attained a higher level of knowledge and spiritual understanding. He often equates perfection with maturity and growth in Christian virtues and knowledge.
Origen:

Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, considers "perfect" to mean mature in faith and understanding. He emphasizes the process of continuous growth towards spiritual maturity and the ultimate goal of becoming like Christ.
Irenaeus:

In "Against Heresies," Irenaeus speaks of the perfection of man in the context of growth and maturity in the knowledge of God. He sees perfection as a process of becoming fully mature in Christ.
Augustine:

Augustine, in his various writings, often interprets perfection in the context of love and charity. He views perfect love as the fulfillment of Christian maturity and the ultimate goal of the Christian life.
Conclusion
The term "perfect" (τέλειοι) in Paul's writings and its interpretation by the early Church Fathers generally aligns with the concept of spiritual maturity. It encompasses the idea of growing towards completeness in Christ, involving moral and spiritual development, deeper understanding, and the embodiment of Christian virtues. Thus, "perfect" does mean mature, indicating a state of spiritual growth and completeness that believers are called to strive towards.

And here I was under the impression you have read my post-obviously not and really not interested in Calvin or whatever CC, Mormon or water baptism.

Matter of fact, my post is in agreement with what you wrote-depending on context, of course.
J.

 

[Johann]

It depends on the biblical strength of the "rebuttals". I like your new avatar.

Thank you Mr. Bowman.

 

[AW Bowman]

@Behold
I am not at all clear what your objections are to this thread, nor do I understand what your particular belief system is. However, if you can give me some valid critiques concerning the tools and processes I am offering for assisting others in their Bible studies - thank you, otherwise please do not expect a reply.

 

[Behold]

@Behold
I am not at all clear what your objections are to this thread,

Ive not "objected" to your "Thread".
I posted today, regarding your post, and i explained it.

if you can give me some valid critiques concerning the tools and processes I am offering

You are deflecting.
You are insinuating that im not giving you valid critiques, and in fact, you can't even respond, so, you insinuate instead , to try to dodge.

Typical of your type.
Nothing new.

 

[Behold]

Paul's Use of "Perfect" (τέλειοι)
In Pauline theology, the term "τέλειος" carries nuanced meanings depending on the context, including moral and spiritual completeness,

Not correct.
Notice.
Coming into the "same mind" that is to be "perfected" has nothing to do with moral completeness, or behavior patterns, or trying to be like Christ.

The early Church Fathers also discussed the concept of perfection, often aligning it with spiritual maturity and the process of becoming more Christ-like. Here are a few perspectives:

"Early Church Fathers", were Peter worshiping heretics., and they never wrote one Epistle in a bible.

Listen, if its connected to a Pope or Mary or "baptism regeneration" or "purgatory", then throw it out.

Its dumpster food.

And when you find some self righteous person telling you that "the original Greek" is the answer, then put that one in the dumpster as well.

Clement of Alexandria:

He never wrote one Epistle in a bible, so, do not elevate any "church father" or their "writings"... to the position of the Apostle, or the NT.

Origen:

Origen created the concept of "soul sleep" that the Catholic Cult remodeled into "purgatory".

Origin had a "christian school" in Egypt, and He created the Hexapla.

Origin, was as crazy as they come, and took a Knife and castrated himself, because he read a verse that said...>"some made themselves Eunuchs'.

= Avoid this nut.

Augustine,

Heretic.

 

[AW Bowman]

What do our biases bring to the table? Mostly presuppositions, the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument). We all have them. So do our denominations and churches. A supposition can be defined as a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence, a hypothesis that is taken for granted, or a cognitive process of supposing. Other synonyms include assumptions, conjecture, guess, hypothesis, speculation, and surmise. A presupposition is therefore the making and accepting judgments decisions prior to having “good” evidence.

The most frequent evidence presented in a biblical discourse are “proof texts”. Using a proof text to establish a doctrinal or theological position is quite different than providing the same text as the “foundational text” to identify/discover a biblical doctrinal or theological position. A foundational text is the text that is used in conjunction (built upon) with other texts relating to the same subject matter, even those texts that seem to disagree with the argument being presented.

For example: What must one do to be saved? Well, here we go –

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:36-38 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [Salvation implied]

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Also of note are Mark 16:16, Luke 7:5, 18:42, Romans 8:24, 10:9-11, 10:13, Eph 8:26, 1Tim 2:15, & Titus 3:5,

There seems some disagreement among the authors as what a person must do to secure their salvation. Any of the above can be used as a “proof text”, and likewise, may be used as a foundational text upon which the doctrine may be developed. Most often proof texts are cited as the single text in a discourse – very poor choice of supporting an argument when there are competing texts, as included text in the above list.

Yet there is another problem associated in developing a doctrine, knowing what the words and/or phrases cited in a text mean, especially in the first century language and culture. As an example, what did “call on the name of the Lord” mean? What did it in tale? What did “believe on the Lord” mean? What did that require? What is the context of each scripture cited? If they support one another – how? If not, can the texts be reconciled?

My recommendation: Avoid the practice of poof texting.

 

[AW Bowman]

I thought that the idea of avoiding using a proof text to create and/or support a doctrine may not have been made sufficiently clear. So, I am going to provide a real-world example of the dangers of not only of proof texting, but of Bible study, scripture interpretation and, for those interested, translation,

Over the years I have become familiar with several denominations that have used the following text as a proof text to teach the women of the church that wearing pants of any kind, anywhere, was a sin.

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. [KJV]

A quick reading of this verse, I noticed two key words, pertaineth and garment. One of the things in doing a Bible study is to pick out the keywords in each verse of the passage you’re studying. This example being a single verse makes this task a little easier. So, at first glance we have two significant terms in reference body apparel. The just from a simple reading of this verse, it appears as though it is addressing two different things, so the first thing I did was to check out this verse in the Hebrew Aleppo.

ה לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך כל עשה אלה {פ}

The second thing I did was to check out these two terms in the BDB Hebrew – English lexicon. And then check out the English translation in the JPS Hebrew English Tanakh. Note: Hebrew is a verb based, concrete (picture drawing) language.

The English translation of De. 22:5 produced by the Jewish Publication Society:

A woman must not put on a man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God [JPS 2000 ed.] Notice the differences in two translations.

At this point I performed my own translation to see what "pictures" the Hebrew language was drawing and founding missing from the English translations. The picture of a woman developed as (1) a warrior with armor and weapons, and (2) a tradesman with tools such as hammers and saws. My general translation:

Instruction to women: Do not take up or array yourself with those implements of industry (labor or war) so as to perform those duties, tasks or responsibilities that God has assigned to men. Implied (according to the second portion of the passage): To be identified as a man – to deceive.

Instructions to men: Do not dress in the clothes of a female in order to pass as a woman. This includes the attempt to escape one’s God ordained duties, tasks and responsibilities by impersonating a woman, nor shall a man dress as a woman for sexual purposes. To be identified as a woman – to deceive.

Then I referenced Rashi's commentary which closely matched mine, but he also added the Hebrew worldview of, "A man’s attire shall not be on a woman making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a] nor may a man wear a woman’s garment to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [In addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a] because… is an abomination. The Torah forbids only [the wearing of] clothes that would lead to abomination [i.e., immoral and illicit behavior]. — [Nazir 59a]”

So, the conclusion is that using this verse as a proof text to forbid women wearing pants is, at best, grossly miss used.

May your studies be blessed.

 

[Johann]

I thought that the idea of avoiding using a proof text to create and/or support a doctrine may not have been made sufficiently clear. So, I am going to provide a real-world example of the dangers of not only of proof texting, but of Bible study, scripture interpretation and, for those interested, translation,

Over the years I have become familiar with several denominations that have used the following text as a proof text to teach the women of the church that wearing pants of any kind, anywhere, was a sin.

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. [KJV]

A quick reading of this verse, I noticed two key words, pertaineth and garment. One of the things in doing a Bible study is to pick out the keywords in each verse of the passage you’re studying. This example being a single verse makes this task a little easier. So, at first glance we have two significant terms in reference body apparel. The just from a simple reading of this verse, it appears as though it is addressing two different things, so the first thing I did was to check out this verse in the Hebrew Aleppo.

ה לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך כל עשה אלה {פ}

The second thing I did was to check out these two terms in the BDB Hebrew – English lexicon. And then check out the English translation in the JPS Hebrew English Tanakh. Note: Hebrew is a verb based, concrete (picture drawing) language.

The English translation of De. 22:5 produced by the Jewish Publication Society:

A woman must not put on a man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God [JPS 2000 ed.] Notice the differences in two translations.

At this point I performed my own translation to see what "pictures" the Hebrew language was drawing and founding missing from the English translations. The picture of a woman developed as (1) a warrior with armor and weapons, and (2) a tradesman with tools such as hammers and saws. My general translation:

Instruction to women: Do not take up or array yourself with those implements of industry (labor or war) so as to perform those duties, tasks or responsibilities that God has assigned to men. Implied (according to the second portion of the passage): To be identified as a man – to deceive.

Instructions to men: Do not dress in the clothes of a female in order to pass as a woman. This includes the attempt to escape one’s God ordained duties, tasks and responsibilities by impersonating a woman, nor shall a man dress as a woman for sexual purposes. To be identified as a woman – to deceive.

Then I referenced Rashi's commentary which closely matched mine, but he also added the Hebrew worldview of, "A man’s attire shall not be on a woman making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a] nor may a man wear a woman’s garment to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [In addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a] because… is an abomination. The Torah forbids only [the wearing of] clothes that would lead to abomination [i.e., immoral and illicit behavior]. — [Nazir 59a]”

So, the conclusion is that using this verse as a proof text to forbid women wearing pants is, at best, grossly miss used.

May your studies be blessed.

So far so good.

 

[AW Bowman]

Scattered throughout this thread one will find the basic information necessary for conducting a creditable Bible study. There remains a lot more that could, and most likely should, be included in the Bible study material, which I hope much will be included in the following translation material. Therefore, I will move on the hard part: Scriptural Interpretation (also referred to as hermeneutics).

Introduction

Please note that the process of performing a good Bible study, as previously outlined, is the important first step in the process of the interpretation of scripture. It is part of the entire process. It’s what every reader of scripture does – at least at some level.

There are a few things about the Bible we must first be aware of, and I think it would be appropriate to start off with some observations made by a few learned men. First a quote from Daniel Webster.

“I believe that the Bible is to be understood and received in the plain, obvious meaning of its passages, since I cannot persuade myself that a book intended for the salvation and conversion of the whole world should cover its meaning in any such mystery and doubt that none but critics and philosophers discover it.” (Mayhue 1986, 60)

then there is,

“The challenge to the church is to stress individual study of the Bible among those believe the Bible” (Osborne and Woodward 1979, 13)

If one believes the Bible, then it is imperative that they also study it. How one studies the scriptures becomes of paramount importance. They must also be capable of explaining their belief system to others in a veritable manner.

So let us move on to the process of interpreting scripture - - -

 

[Stumpmaster]

Scattered throughout this thread one will find the basic information necessary for conducting a creditable Bible study.

Hi @AW Bowman

Can you please explain how the title of your thread came to be so poorly worded.

Wrong: The Study and Interpret the Bible​

Right: The Study and Interpretation of the Bible.

 

[AW Bowman]

Hi @AW Bowman

Can you please explain how the title of your thread came to be so poorly worded.

Wrong: The Study and Interpret the Bible​

Right: The Study and Interpretation of the Bible.

Good call - - Can't change the title - and I apologized early on for the title that was posted.

 

[marks]

Good call - - Can't change the title - and I apologized early on for the title that was posted.

You can edit the title.



In the upper right corner of your OP, click the 3 dots, and you get the dropdown menu, including Edit Thread. Click that, and it will show you the thread title in an edit box.

Much love!

 

[Stumpmaster]

Good call - - Can't change the title - and I apologized early on for the title that was posted.

Accepted. Human error? Maybe. Enemy interference? Quite possible.

 

[AW Bowman]

You can edit the title.

View attachment 48689

In the upper right corner of your OP, click the 3 dots, and you get the dropdown menu, including Edit Thread. Click that, and it will show you the thread title in an edit box.

Much love!

Thank you. Done. I also changed the title to: How to Effectively Study and Interpret of the Bible

Of course, the method I am sharing is NOT the ONLY effective way to study the Bible, but it is my favorite way and it has worked for a very long time..