Misquoting Scripture w/o Context

I started noticing this when I read the Bible on my mission. The scripture mastery verses I learned in seminary often meant something completely different when read in context.

I don’t think we are alone in doing this. All churches have reinterpreted scripture to some extent. Religion changes over time, and when the texts remain the same, they are reinterpreted to match a modern context. Jesus and his followers repurposed much of the Old Testament to testify of Christ (for example, much of Isaiah). We repurposed Ezekiel to have the Bible prophesy of the Book of Mormon, thought it probably originally referred to the gathering and reunification of Israel.

We are so far removed from the original linguistic, historical, and cultural context of the scriptures that it is nearly impossible to understand their original intended meaning. We still use scripture as authoritative evidence, even though we change the meaning of the scriptures over time. This creates problems, but I think it is also a major reason why religions remain relevant through so many major changes in history. I think this is simply the way our religion adapts to new doctrines and beliefs, constructing a continuity with the past that may not have been there originally.

Oh, boy, does the Church do this. And as DJ says, it’s not just our Church.

I believe that it is a pretty simple matter. I think that when the 90’s version of RMN read that passage in Hebrews, he saw the “without us” phrase and immediately saw it through his lens as pertaining to the temple. I think it’s really easy, once that happens to bend and shape the verses around it to fit your desired outcome. (PS, we all do this in a lot of ways. “Bad calls” in sports are a great example. It always seems to happen the most and the worst to your team, especially when you lose, but really, never seems to happen to your opponent, because for some reason, you agree with the refs, there).

Some of my personal faves:

– Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and his Spirit dwells in you? – Paul was talking about the community, not our individual bodies. Read the whole chapter.

– Speaking of the Spirit… how about the Spirit? – I’m pretty sure that when early Christians talked about “the spirit of God”, they didn’t mean it as a person-like being with its own distinct consciousness. I think they meant it in the sense of the aura of God or the influence of God. The “Holy Ghost” in modern English could be rendered as the Divine Spirit. Since in Greek spirit = breath, and having breath means being alive (for example “last breath” is the end of life) then having the Spirit of God even has a sense of living a Godly life. If I’ve lost you, then let me try again with this: School Spirit does not mean the ghost that wanders the halls.

– Ensign to the nations – In Isaiah 11, yep, God gathers Israel. That’s great. But in Isaiah 5, which is also often quoted for the same meaning, the purpose of the ensign is actually quite different. In Isaiah 5, God finally gives up on Israel and sets up an ensign to attract distant foreign powers. They shall come with speed swiftly… to destroy God’s rebellious children.

– D&C 119 – I have heard both staunch believers (DAB) and nuanced believers (including here at this site) select the phrases they want out of this section to support how they want tithing to be. Both have to ignore other verses in the same section in order to do this.

– D&C 89 – It says nothing about coffee, tea, hot chocolate, postum, or herbal tea, that is other than prohibiting hot drinks in general. It does seem to endorse beer (mild drink made of barley). Oh, and also, it’s not a commandment, at least according to God.

FWIW, although this has always been a problem, I think it’s actually worse now. People don’t have a book in front of them; they have an app. I’m not saying technology is bad. But, what I am saying is that now Paul’s treatise on God’s unimaginable love for us is reduced to a single reference. Click on it. Read the verse. What does it mean? How can anyone know what Paul was talking about in a long, multi-sheet letter by reading one phrase? Especially one phrase translated from the original Greek into the King’s English in the 16th Century and displayed on your phone disembodied from the rest of the text.

Fwiw, I believe relatively few members understand the Book of Mormon well for this exact reason. They prooftext verses instead of reading it as history (whether they accept it as actual history or not).

It is a freaking fascinating book when read from the lens of social science, and reading it that way makes it incredibly compelling – again, whether or not it is actual history.

Prooftexting is the bane of historical and religious scholarship – but it is a core aspect of “the natural human”. The key for me is reading in context, so I can share the contextualized meaning with others. I only can impact my own sphere, so I try to be aware enough to do so accurately – and charitably.

How about:

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

It’s not always a bad thing. I mean… how else is one to read the scriptures but through their lens?

Do we read the scriptures or do the scriptures read us? If you want to find a Christ that divides families into the wheat and the tares you will find him. If you want to find a Christ that unites humanity you will find him. The Christ we find tells us more about ourselves than it does Christ.

As for the subject of the thread. If the church stopped misquoting scripture and sharing verses out of context Sunday School would *poof* out of existence overnight.

I mostly agree with this, and there are certainly scriptures that have multiple correct interpretations. I think they’re meant to be that way, actually. One tiny example. Was this a prophecy/prediction or a command/directive?

Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Even in full context the argument could be made either way.

Where I disagree is that some scriptures are clearly talking about something else. OON gave some great examples. Here are a couple of my favorite pet peeves:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne…

(Matt 5:34)

In context it’s very clearly talking about swearing as in an oath, not swearing as in profanity. I cannot count how many times I have heard this taught in Primary and YM as the latter. Kind of like the wine was really grape juice.

My all time favorite is Moroni 10. First line, verse 1 (emphasis added):

Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites;

Two verses later we get a “promise” (which comes true way less often than most people believe or want to believe) starting with

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things,

It’s pretty clear the “ye” is the Lamanites – he just said that’s who he’s writing to.

All that said, I really believe Bednar was talking about exactly this kind of thing. It is important and necessary that we gain our own testimonies and understandings and not rely on the understandings of others. Come Follow Me will work for those who actually do it. I suggest ignoring the little book generally speaking, and I suggest ignoring the chapter introductions in the scriptures.

I used to get very upset by this, and it still can frustrate me. But over time, I came to realize that, as Jedi said, even in context most scriptures are open to multiple interpretations. What I still get frustrated on is when the ambiguity comes from the selected English translation. This is not the fault of the people quoting (or mis-quoting), but when they go on at length about something they haven’t researched, then they annoy me.

The most striking recent example was the conference talk from last year about “certain” men and women in the New Testament. And how they were confident in their choice because “certain” means they knew what they were talking about and doing.

….

Nope. That’s a double meaning of the English term “certain” that doesn’t come from the original text. I had a professor at BYU who explained that a series of parables (starting with the Good Samaritan) are tied together by the use of this term that notates a person of particular note. It shows who we should pay attention to, and she interpreted the repeated use between parables as an indication that the parables and stories were to be read together to answer the question “What shall I do to achieve eternal life?” Using this interpretation, the story of Martha and Mary is part of the answer right along with the parable of the Samaritan.

Now, is her interpretation 100% verifiably correct? No. Is her interpretation based on the original writing as best as we can determine in modern times? Yes. It frustrates me when we treat the King James as the Adamic tongue. Jesus didn’t speak English. He spoke Hebrew. And the same goes for the Book of Mormon. Only the D&C is cleared from this because it was composed so recently, relatively speaking. But every year puts it more in risk of the same dangers.

I’m all for taking things in a modern context. I just think that we should first find the intent of what was being said and apply that intent to our modern days.

When it comes to Come Follow Me, I have yet to attend a single Sunday School lesson. I haven’t actually been to Sunday School in several years – it’s never been my favorite. Instead, my sister and I do the reading and discuss every week. I have a beautiful companion book that talks about the world of the NT. It goes over cultural topics that are relevant to the stories. It explains the society of the time. My sister is an anthropologist and between the two of us, when something is unclear, we always try to put it in a contemporary context before taking the lessons from that to apply to our own lives.

Sorry this was a bit sideways of the primary topic. But the frustrations have been interlinked for me, so I’m guessing I’m not alone on that.

I have always chalked this up to how we practice our religion, which is very participatory…inviting everyone to share ideas and testimonies.

And by doing so…interpret scripture however is convenient for the point being made.

We don’t really value accuracy of context as much as we do conformity in thought and supporting our current leaders’ interpretations.

Perhaps there are several purposes for scripture…and bending meaning helps us “liken the scriptures” to our lives.

I think we are taught to try to do it, and we often get it wrong and no one corrects the true meaning of things.

I think we may have many doctrines in our church based on a history of someone applying their own view on a scripture that was never intended to be read that way.

I think all religions cherry pick the verses they want. In reality maybe 1% of the Bible gets used. The rest is just noise

I have often thought it would be interesting to pick a page at random and read it in Sunday School. Then try to explain everything it says.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk