Book Review: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible

Introduction

"A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible" (Paperback, Kindle, GoodReads) by Robert Stein comes to this reviewer as a recommendation by a friend and member of his Sunday School class. There was no expectation of a review, but the opportunity could not be passed considering the focus of the book: hermeneutics. Theology is an important aspect of the apologist's endeavor. The apologist defends what is true- what scripture teaches about the world. However, the apologist needs to make sure that they understand what scripture actually does teach about reality; otherwise, they may be wasting time defending something that is false. When something false is believed and defended, it can be easy to defeat and made the object of ridicule among skeptics. Correctly understanding what scripture teaches about reality requires that the reader understand how to interpret what is written in scripture. Robert Stein offers a basic overview of proper ways to interpret scripture that will be vital to the apologist's efforts.

Part 1: The General Rules of Interpretation

Chapter 1:  Who Makes Up The Rules? An Introduction to Hermeneutics

In the first chapter, Stein sets the foundation for his overview. He explains that with any communication, there are three parts involved: the author, the message, and the reader. He explains the different views on where meaning is found. If meaning is determined by the reader, then any message (the biblical text, in our case) can mean anything- thus meaning nothing objectively. The text itself cannot convey meaning since mere symbols are inanimate objects incapable of intentionally communicating to the reader. Stein argues that only the author of the text determines what it means.

Over-Protection, God and Evil

The other day I was reading an interesting article about parenting. It brought up two mistakes that today's parents often make that have crippled the next generation, and many of us. The specific points may shed some light on a couple of challenges that skeptics offer against Christianity.

The article is Three Huge Mistakes We Make Leading Kids...And How to Correct Them by Tim Elmore.

The article is written from a religiously agnostic perspective- Elmore makes no religious appeals to support his conclusions. The first two points in the article are what I want to focus on: the facts that parents are unwilling to takes risks with their kids and jump in too quickly to rescue their kids from "dangerous" situations.

Not Risky Enough
His first point about risks is simply that parents over-protect their kids. They do not allow their kids to do things that may cause even minor harm. Parents are too proactive in protecting children from harm that the children don't get the important experiences until they are in the real world and have no idea how to react appropriately. Elmore points out that this teaches our children that if there is a risk of any kind of danger, that the risk is too great- it is always better to be safe than sorry, even if the latter possibility is minuscule relative to the reward. This leads to not just a fear of physical activities, but also a fear of failure in general and an aversion to anything that is unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable. This also develops an expectation that when they take a risk, that buffers should always exist to prevent them from getting hurt if they do fail.

Convenient Explanations

A Convenient Explanation Offered
As a defender of Christianity I want to be sure that I am engaging with the most powerful evidence for opposing worldviews. Engaging with weak evidence tends to show that I am unaware of the more powerful evidence or simply cannot answer the more powerful evidence- both of which often would result in my arguing against a straw man. In so many of my discussions with fellow Christians about different worldviews I like to play "devil's advocate." This is my effort to inform them of the stronger evidence for opposing worldviews and give them some pointers for responding to what skeptics will use to show their worldview as true.

The other day I was in discussion with several friends about naturalism. We were discussing some of the weaknesses of the view from a scientific perspective. One person confidently offered a challenge and explained that there was no way for naturalism to explain the observations he cited. Now, I'm no supporter of naturalism; however, I explained to him how a naturalist could not only explain the observations, but that their models even predict the observation he cited. His response was a dismissive, "well, how convenient."