A special article is the involvement of parallel places. Of course, reference to parallel passages from the Bible or even from other sources often helps to understand the meaning of an obscure expression. But it is worth comparing two different editions to make sure that parallel places can be indicated in very different ways and there is nothing easier than to choose one or two from the whole set of potential parallels that are suitable for proving the researcher's thesis, leaving all the others unattended. The simplest and most productive way is to look where else in the Bible the word is used and in what sense (and in the case of NT, you can also refer to other Greek texts of the time). However, it is necessary to take into account all cases when this word is used, and not just one or two suitable ones. In addition, it is worth remembering that the meanings of words can change over time, and even at the same time, words can be used differently in texts of different genres and by different authors, so if a word occurs in a certain meaning only in Homer or in Byzantine theologians, this is hardly of help us to determine its meaning in the NT.

3.2.3. "And in fact, this is what happened there..."

Such attention to the peculiarities of mentality is associated with a love for reconstructions. Indeed, in order to understand the exact meaning of the biblical text, it is necessary for us to have a clear idea of what exactly happened there and why it happened the way it did. Unfortunately, this cannot always be done with a sufficient degree of certainty (especially as far as OT is concerned), and here the researcher needs a considerable degree of sobriety and modesty in order to separate his own fantasies from fairly probable constructions.

An example of such a controversial and unclarified reconstruction is the question of how exactly the Israelites crossed the sea. Was it really the Red Sea, whose waters, contrary to the laws of physics, parted and became a wall? Or were they some swamps in the area of the current Suez Canal, which, under appropriate weather conditions (downpour or strong wind), could turn from easily passable into perishing swamps? In any case, the biblical text understands this event as a miracle, and the specific mechanism of the miracle can hardly be revealed.

Many such reconstructions are built on linguistic material. For example, in the OT there are words and expressions that are used only 1-2 times, and it is impossible to find out their exact meaning (other texts written in ancient Greek still help when reading NT). One of the most common ways is to find a word of the same root in other Semitic languages, such as Ugaritic or even Akkadian. How reliable such reconstructions are can be imagined by the following example: if we try to determine the meanings of Russian words from the dictionaries of the Bulgarian or Polish language, we will understand many words correctly, but there will be many mistakes: we cannot be completely sure that the Polish meaning will coincide with the Russian one.

3.2.4. "The author certainly means..."

Such reconstructions of the history of the text are often intended to clarify the author's position. Why, for example, does the Evangelist Matthew cite the detail that Luke omits, or vice versa? Here, as in the case of reconstructions, a certain amount of such reasoning is simply necessary, but it is difficult to stop in time.

Not a few such considerations arise when trying to explain the origin and development of a particular text (primarily the Gospels), about which much has been said in the previous chapter. Of course, such guesses can be interesting and useful, but when the text of a single book is dissected, only certain elements are taken from it as significant, and the rest are declared late and unreliable, then the main criterion for choice inevitably becomes the arbitrariness of the researcher. For example, for the school of demythologization (see Section 2.4.1.2.), one of the main criteria in the analysis of the Gospel texts is the expectation of the imminent Second Coming. If it turns out from the text that it should take place literally now, then the text is declared original and authentic. But if the text suggests that the Coming may not take place soon, the researchers believe that it was added at a later time, often precisely to explain why the Coming is delayed (the so-called "deferred parousia").

It is not difficult to see that such a difference is subjective and is based on the researcher's confidence that he has accurately comprehended the thoughts and feelings of the "historical Jesus". But such a researcher may not be alone, and as a result, one "historical Jesus" comes out as an anarchist revolutionary, another as a mystic detached from the world, a third as an ardent nationalist, and so on.

3.2.8. "So the Bible Supports ..."

Often, the meaning of a biblical text is adjusted to some modern system of beliefs that the text supposedly supports, if not proves. This, of course, is widely used by non-Christian and near-Christian religious groups, and anyone else. For example, Proverbs 5:15-17 is very clear in its context about fidelity to one's wife, but I have read these verses ("Drink water from your pool and flow from your well") quoted by supporters of urine therapy. The logic here is clear: urine therapy is an undoubted good, which means that it should be mentioned in the Bible, and if so, then it remains only to find where exactly. These poems seem to fit!

If the quote does not quite fit, it is "corrected" in this case. For example, the Gospel expression "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8) looks like this in one preacher of Eastern religion: "Blessed are those who cleanse their consciences, for they shall see themselves as gods." By the way, this interpretation is based on the fact that the verb form "they will see", οψονται, is given in the middle voice, therefore, it must mean "they will see themselves". In fact, the future tense from the verb οραω is always used in this voice, and if the author wanted to say "they will see themselves", he would have to express himself in another way, for example, εαυτους οψονται. But it is not a grammatical error that is primary here, but the desire to interpret the text in the spirit of pantheism, frankly speaking, alien to the Bible.

There is probably no Christian who does not recognize the absurdity of these constructions. But many, nevertheless, resort to such "exegesis" themselves, especially in an argument, when they select suitable quotations to prove a predetermined point of view, and even more so when they try to interpret these quotations in the right light, or to retranslate them in order to exclude undesirable understanding. This often happens in interfaith disputes, and recently such a move has often been made for the sake of political correctness. For example, translations in which the word "Jews" in the Gospels are translated as "Jewish spiritual leaders" are becoming more and more common, in order to eliminate interpretations that hold the entire Jewish people responsible for the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, in the spirit of combating anti-Semitism. The most radical examples to date are related to the justification of homosexual relations, which are unequivocally condemned in the Bible. All quotes condemning homosexuality are reinterpreted accordingly, and the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is translated as "Thou shalt not commit fidelity to thy partner" in order to include homosexual couples. For example, David and his friend Jonathan can even be declared such a couple, quite unsubstantiated.

Whether urine therapy, pantheism or homosexuality are good or bad, whether they are permissible for Christians – these are separate questions, and we will not touch on them at all now. But an impartial exegetical analysis will show that the Bible says nothing in their support.