Whose Interpretation of the Bible is Correct?

All theology and church history is scripture interpretation. Some believers like the Catholics believe that theology is only possible within the communion of the church and in subjection to the church's norm of the church's living tradition (Kasper, 6). Historical recording and interpretation of experience whether they be recorded within the canon of Biblical writings or other historical writings all contribute to scriptural understanding. Many rules of faith were lived out in the church before dogma were defined and before rules and regulations were actually formulated.

The divine nature of God is not "an image formed by the art and thought of man" (Acts 17:29). Paul stated, "I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12). The Bible itself is not the only revelation, it is not even an infallible record of or witness to revelation. "We are all agreed that theology must keep in close touch with its Biblical sources, but to try to exclude non-Biblical categories is absurb" (Macquarrie, 11). There are many places within the Bible, such as the book of Jude, which make reference to other noncanonical works, such as the Book of Enoch.

Clariity of scripture has always been a concern. It was hoped the Bible would not contradict itself - it does. It was hoped that any interpretation would be according to its literal translation and meaning, but whose? Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? It goes beyond the literal meaning of the text to what the reader is clearly understanding within their framework of experience as well. Grammatical construction, historical context, as well as philosophical background all need to factor into interpretation. Theology is always part of a particular culture, time and geographical area. Consciously or unconsciously, "it will be guided by the prejudices of the culture and region, and by specific interests and concerns that play a part there" (Kasper, 12).