Does it pass the “smell test”?

 Ever get the idea or feeling that a thought or idea or conclusion “just doesn’t smell right”?

There are several ways to check the veracity of a statement or claim.

Keep an open mind. Collect data about it.

Who said it? Are they credible? Are they biased? Trustworthy? Did they really say it? If they use unfamiliar words, get a dictionary. Are there cultural issues to look into? Historical background.

What do other sources claim? Books, magazines, other.

List those points which agree or disagree. Talk it over with others you respect. Parents, friends, subject matter experts on both sides of the issue.

When it comes to Bible interpreting, similar principles apply but formally we may refer to it as hermeneutics and exegesis. Biblical theology is also helpful. Eisegesis is always a bad idea. 

That’s when you read into it what you want it to say. Or, when someone has facilitated a paradigm that bends the meaning to adhere to an agenda to manipulate and influence a certain end by any means.

There are not 80 possible interpretations. The verse in question is part of a paragraph, part of a unit of related paragraphs, part of a book. 

Those determine the context which rules out many invalid interpretations. And some authors wrote more than one book like 1 Peter and 2 Peter. 

John wrote his Gospel, three letters and Revelation. His thoughts are consistent and can be used to tighten the interpretation. Just as you can understand people you hang out with, strangers sometimes can be confusing. Familiarity with an author can narrow it down. Chapter and verse divisions are not inspired. In a nutshell, we need to understand what the writer was communicating to his original audience. The New Testament, for example, was written in first century context to a specific community. It was written in context. It should be read in context. We have to put ourselves in that community’s shoes to make a good interpretation.

First of all, not all manuscripts are equal. Over time errors were introduced by copyists. Bruce Metzger and the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (GNT) is the closest to the original autographs. Metzger explains why. 

The modern translations use UBS GNT or something similar. Speaking of translations or versions, literal ones like New American Standard are better for getting at the meaning. 

It is one version that can be linked to a concordance online (tecarta.com and blueletterbible.com, etc.) Strongs concordance is like a dictionary. 

Much better are lexicons such as BDAG and Verbrugge. Additionally, Mounce has helpful tools in English.

What about NIV? NIV is not literal word-for-word. It is thought-for-thought. It’s easier to read than others. NLT is dynamic, ie useful to capture the original meaning for modern readers. 

For example, in Rev. 2:7, NLT captures John’s intended meaning, “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches. To everyone who is victorious, I will give fruit from the tree of life in the paradise of God.” Literally it says in Greek, “To nikonti doso phagein ek tou xylon tes zoes o estin en to paradeiso tou theon.” 

John’s Semitic influence on Biblical Koine (common) Greek was understood to mean anyone who overcomes, not that only one person would overcome and receive gifts associated with eternal bliss.

None of this approach requires a commentary, but commentaries can be helpful to see various theories of meaning. 

They also stimulate more ideas which can be tested in context and against Bible theology. Good, solid doctrine should be based on non-symbolic indicative prose, not poetry or verses that may be vague to the modern reader. 

Poetry, like art, may be beautiful but has to pass the smell test and align with doctrine. Peter was right:

2 Peter 3:15-18 NIV [15] Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 

[16] He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 

[17] Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 

[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. …

After all this effort, if there is disagreement, you might consider using these tools to see where it lies. It may be because one party is reading into it ((Eisegesis) instead of exegesis (reading to understand the author’s intended message).

Thanks for reading.

Edit: Paul R. House on being careful with tough passages:

This tremendous passage [Daniel 7] has inspired hundreds of books, articles, sermons, lectures and media presentations. 

It has been treated both honourably and unethically, as most symbol-heavy biblical passages have been. 

Many interpreters have heard good and bad readings of this passage. Thus, one ought to be cautious and humble when drawing conclusions from it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/ipnuz9/does_it_pass_the_smell_test/