How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[InvestigateTruth]

That is not true.

Would you make or build something that you don't like?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I might. But, since I'm not God, that is irrelevant.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Well, here it can be argued that God has done His part, but most poeple chose not listen or obey God since God has given them free will to choose the way of God or not.

Please tell me which way would be God's preferred way? Do you have some divine insight that billions of other people do not have, or have not had?

We do not have a single word of scripture that was written in God's hand, nor even in Jesus' hand. All we have is second-hand information, sometimes cryptic, sometimes not.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I might. But, since I'm not God, that is irrelevant.

Well, since we have not seen God, we don't know anything about Him.
But even a wise human, would love His childeren and takes care of them, much less an All-Knowing God and powerful God.
So, I think if we roughly divide people, there are probably 3 Main groups, there are those who don't believe in God(s), those who believe in God but not scriptures, and those who believe in scriptures.
So, assuming that there is a God, and the Scriptures are True, then according to Scriptures, God is All-knowing, and He created us in His image, so, then I think it becomes relevant to conclude, this All-knowing God must have loved His creation, otherwise it would be pointless for Him create, and that contradicts with His attributes which is All-knowing, to create a pointless thing that He doesn't even like.
This argument holds if the scriptures are True.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please tell me which way would be God's preferred way? Do you have some divine insight that billions of other people do not have, or have not had?

We do not have a single word of scripture that was written in God's hand, nor even in Jesus' hand. All we have is second-hand information, sometimes cryptic, sometimes not.

Well, the assumption in OP, is the Scriptures such as Bible are from God.
Now, the problem is about correct interpretation. So, the question was if there is a consistant way to correctly interprete the Scriptures or not.
Then you said since these scriptures have been interpreted differently by different people, thus God was not succesful in getting His Message through, thus these scriptures cannot be from God. Then I said, maybe these scriptures are from God, and there is a proper way to interpret and God has doen His part, but most people failed to find a proper way to interpret them. How do you know that is not the case?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, since we have not seen God, we don't know anything about Him

Try to keep that in mind and stop pretending that you do.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Try to keep that in mind and stop pretending that you do.

I didn't. The Prophets said God talked to them and know about Him. So my understanding of God is through Prophets, but not directly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't.

Of course you did. You know whether or no god has preferences and feelings. You know that he's motivated by those preferences and feelings. And you know that those preferences and feelings are entirely anthropomorphic.

It's silly and pretentious in the extreme.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course you did. You know whether or no god has preferences and feelings. You know that he's motivated by those preferences and feelings. And you know that those preferences and feelings are entirely anthropomorphic.

It's silly and pretentious in the extreme.

It is part of Baha'i principle that no One can know God directly, and in Baha'i Scriptures He is called Unknowable Essence. We can only know God through His Prophets. So, this is what I believe, and like I said No one knows God. So, I hope this is clear.
But I think we got off-topic here, I am discussing the OP from scriptures, that's why I put this thread in the Scriptural Debates.

 

[Shiranui117]

It is believed by most people that the Scriptures contain both literal and symbolic verses and stories.
How do you decide where to interprete a passage literally and where to inteprete it symbolically or Figuratively.
I am looking for a method that can be used to decide "consistantly" if a passage is symbolic or literal.

Look at the Apostolic Tradition; i.e. the writings of the Fathers.

 

[Pegg]

It is believed by most people that the Scriptures contain both literal and symbolic verses and stories.
How do you decide where to interprete a passage literally and where to inteprete it symbolically or Figuratively.
I am looking for a method that can be used to decide "consistantly" if a passage is symbolic or literal.

context is always a good indicator, also if the text is based on reality or on something unreal, then it is likely symbolic...ie, the book of revelation mentions things that dont exist in reality therefore we know they are symbolic of something else. There is no seven headed wild beast that stands on the sand and the sea...it has to be a symbol of something else.

Have you ever seen one of these locusts?
Rev. 9:1-11 “And the likenesses of the locusts resembled horses prepared for battle; and upon their heads were what seemed to be crowns like gold, and their faces were as men’s faces, but they had hair as women’s hair. And their teeth were as those of lions; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates. And the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running into battle. Also, they have tails and stings like scorpions; and in their tails is their authority to hurt the men five months. They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss.”

they are quite obviously symbolic for something else and are not literal.

 

[M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh]

I am looking for a method that can be used to decide "consistantly" if a passage is symbolic or literal.

An ability to recognize and understand biblical idioms is helpful, but I don't recall any such method as you are seeking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is part of Baha'i principle that no One can know God directly, ...

And yet you insist upon the most anthropopathic conception of God. Why is that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Look at the Apostolic Tradition; i.e. the writings of the Fathers.

Why should that have any worth whatsoever?

 

[Shiranui117]

Why should that have any worth whatsoever?

Because the Christian Bible as we know it wasn't canonized, not even at a de facto level, before the year 367. The Fathers' writings were around way before that.

Also, Christian tradition is not a product of the Bible. If anything, it's more accurate to say that it's the other way around. The Bible is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Pegg]

Because the Christian Bible as we know it wasn't canonized, not even at a de facto level, before the year 367. The Fathers' writings were around way before that.

Also, Christian tradition is not a product of the Bible. If anything, it's more accurate to say that it's the other way around. The Bible is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition.

you are right, Christian tradition has nothing to do with the bible...the bible was around a lot longer then any of the so called 'church fathers' and they did not always use the bible as the basis for their teachings.

Some of the church fathers taught thing which were contrary to the hebrew and Greek scriptures and this is acknowledged by the catholic church:
For example, the Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4)
Yet the Church Fathers taught that man has an immortal soul:
“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The ideas that they began teaching in the 3rd/4th centuries were based on Greek philosophy, not the bible. And that is why christians should not consider their writings as valuable in learning about Christianity...they dont teach christian ideas, you only get those teachings from the canonized scriptures.

 

[Levite]

There is a framework of guiding methodologies for interpretation of the text in the Rabbinic tradition, but there are several variations of the basic methodologies, and no single way is considered dogmatic. And while there are certain "received" interpretations of various commandments in terms of the halachah (Jewish Law), there are very few, if any, "received" interpretations pertaining to theology, cosmogony, and philosophy, which are considered areas with much more room for a plethora of different understandings, not requiring reconciliation or consistency.

The Rabbis teach us that Torah has infinite levels of meaning, and infinite capacity to be interpreted. Therefore, they give us general methods for interpreting verses, but no rigorous standard of consistency, and they explicity tell us not to expect everyone to interpret the verses in the same way.

My personal belief is that this is because Judaism has usually seen Torah as a set of histories, parables, poetry, and teachings constructed to support the commandments, which are the bone and blood of Torah, as it were. Some consistency is necessitated by the need for universally understood legal minimums of observance, but what is important is proper observance, and the establishment of moral, ethical, and spiritual behavior in society. This in contrast to other religions which seem to see the Bible as a repository of ultimate Truth, the purpose of which is to engender and strengthen a proper belief of one sort or another. Judaism doesn't care much what one believes, aside from monotheism and acceptance of the covenant: Judaism cares much, much more about how one acts, what one does.

And that is, of course, in relation to Jews alone, since we understand that the Torah is meant only for the Jewish People, and has nothing to do with non-Jews, who are not bound by it or obligated to any of the commandments within it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a framework of guiding methodologies for interpretation of the text in the Rabbinic tradition, but ...

Levite, I would love to see you demonstrate. What guiding methodologies would you employ to evaluate:

• the six days of creation,
• the flood, and
• the Exodus?

Are each of these [also] literally true?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Look at the Apostolic Tradition; i.e. the writings of the Fathers.

Why should that have any worth whatsoever?

Because the Christian Bible as we know it wasn't canonized, not even at a de facto level, before the year 367. The Fathers' writings were around way before that.

Also, Christian tradition is not a product of the Bible. If anything, it's more accurate to say that it's the other way around. The Bible is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition.

Apostolic tradition is the reflection of the victors of an intense polemical struggle. There is absolutely nothing in this victory that insures (or even suggests) veracity.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Originally Posted by Reverend Richard
Please tell me which way would be God's preferred way? Do you have some divine insight that billions of other people do not have, or have not had?

We do not have a single word of scripture that was written in God's hand, nor even in Jesus' hand. All we have is second-hand information, sometimes cryptic, sometimes not.

Well, the assumption in OP, is the Scriptures such as Bible are from God.
Now, the problem is about correct interpretation. So, the question was if there is a consistant way to correctly interprete the Scriptures or not.

The human species has had several millenia to attempt consistent interpretation. Have we been successful yet?

Moses and the Jews gave us the Old Testament as a record of Gods relationship with mankind. Then Jesus (and aledgedly the disciple St. Paul) came along to tell us a "new" story, or at least claims to have fulfilled the old story via Old Testament prophecy. Then Mohammed said wait, the Christians and the Jews have it wrong. Islam, by following the Quran, is the true way to achieve salvation. Then the Mormons come along with a different spin on Christianity, as well as new scripture to support their view. Of course we could go on-and-on about this or that schism or "ism" that popped up between these more well known scriptural milestones.

Has anyone been consistent, so far? Why would you (or any of us) expect this to change in the future?

Then you said since these scriptures have been interpreted differently by different people, thus God was not succesful in getting His Message through, thus these scriptures cannot be from God.

I am sorry if I left the impression that the scriptures "cannot be from God." Perhaps they are. I have no way of interpreting them consistently to know. And apparently, thousands if not millions of theologians, Bible scholars, priests, rabbis, ministers, and imams, have not or cannot agree on a consistent interpretation.

Then I said, maybe these scriptures are from God, and there is a proper way to interpret and God has doen His part, but most people failed to find a proper way to interpret them. How do you know that is not the case?

My point is, if God is the omniscient and omnipotent being that we say He is, why have all of His attempts failed to clearly show His intentions and his wishes for humanity?

You say God has done His part in providing scripture? Indeed, if God is supplying us with scripture, He has certainly flooded us with it. We have volumes of it.
But I ask, which scripture should I believe? Surely God would could make that clear if He wanted to.