How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Regarding MIracles, Jesus Himself said:
"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12

No, the author of Mark writes that Jesus said this.

And who was the Author of Mark?

I don't know. And, given ...

The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author. A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter, on whose memories it is supposedly based. However, according to the majority view the author is unknown, the author's use of varied sources telling against the traditional account. The gospel was written in Greek, probably around AD 60-70, possibly in Syria.

According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ." Other early writers such as Irenaeus agree with this. "No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark." Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.

Mark wrote primarily for an audience of gentile Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire: Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g. Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42), and Aramaic words and phrases are expanded upon by the author, e.g. ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36). When Mark makes use of the Old Testament he does so in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. [source]

... neither do you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't know. And, given ...... neither do you.

And That's why in most of my posts, I said "The Authors of Bible have said so and so".
However, these Authors have said, All Scriptures are inspired by God, and that is what I believe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And That's why in most of my posts, I said "The Authors of Bible have said so and so".
However, these Authors have said, All Scriptures are inspired by God, and that is what I believe.

And you believe that (perhaps) because some anonymous author of 2 Timothy wrote something that, given 2 Tim. 3:15, arguably meant something far more limited. You take an anonymous comment and use it to validate anonymous comments - many of which were penned afterwards.

Do you seriously not see a problem with this?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And you believe that (perhaps) because some anonymous author of 2 Timothy wrote something that, given 2 Tim. 3:15, arguably meant something far more limited. You take an anonymous comment and use it to validate anonymous comments - many of which were penned afterwards.

Do you seriously not see a problem with this?

Please give an example to clarify.

But you do realize that, it is irrelevant to our discussion that, who are the Authors of Bible, and whether it is indeed inspired by God or not.
In Another word, This is the subject of the Thread: There is a Book that is Authored by some people, called Bible, Quran, etc.. What is the Proper way to interpret the Message that these Authors wanted to give.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But you do realize that, it is irrelevant to our discussion ...

Whether text is inspired by an inerrant God or penned by a fallible human has no bearing on how you interpret it? Really?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Whether text is inspired by an inerrant God or penned by a fallible human has no bearing on how you interpret it? Really?

Yes, really! the point of interpretation is to "Know" what the Authors "meant and believed".
Whether these texts are inspired by God or not, is an individual perception.
And surely, the correct interpretation is the key, to have the correct perception. So, I am saying the first step, is to make sure, we are interpreting the Text correctly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, really! the point of interpretation is to "Know" what the Authors "meant and believed".

That is delusional.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is delusional.

That is your opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is your opinion.

And a well reasoned one.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Yes, really! the point of interpretation is to "Know" what the Authors "meant and believed".
Whether these texts are inspired by God or not, is an individual perception.
And surely, the correct interpretation is the key, to have the correct perception. So, I am saying the first step, is to make sure, we are interpreting the Text correctly.

That is delusional.

That is your opinion.

And a well reasoned one.

@ Jay - Save your breath. As I complained to Investigate in an earlier response, his original post was inquiring as to whether a method could be derived that would allow one to tell whether scripture should be interpreted literally or symbolically. That was a rouse. He already has his own method, and as you have probably already discovered he will ask you for scriptural examples to defend your point. But when you provide them he will ignore them and say you have misinterpreted the scripture.

Your points are ignored and his circular logic continues. (Yawn...)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And a well reasoned one.

What's the reason?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some may find today's My Jewish Learning article on Jewish Pseudepigraphy worth reading. Others will have no clue as to its relevancy.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Some may find today's My Jewish Learning article on Jewish Pseudepigraphy worth reading. Others will have no clue as to its relevancy.

Makes sense to me. I just finished reading, "Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", by Bart Ehrman.

 

[sojourner]

Well, if the scriptures are inspired by God, it makes sense there should be a consistant way of interpreting them, otherwise if the Books of God cannot be understood clearly and consistantly, then the god of these Books is confusing His own people, when the matter of fact is, He claimes His Perpose was to guide, but not to confuse.

Why should that be the case? Human beings are the only creatures endowed with God's Spirit, and are the only creatures that image God -- and there's no consistent way of interpreting us that's above confusion at times, since we are purposefully diverse and multifaceted. Since the scriptural texts are the product of human beings, it only stands to reason that they reflect the humanity that wrote them. "Guidance" is a far different matter than "leading by the nose." Brute beasts are led by the nose. Human beings are given clues and nudges.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why should that be the case? Human beings are the only creatures endowed with God's Spirit, and are the only creatures that image God -- and there's no consistent way of interpreting us that's above confusion at times, since we are purposefully diverse and multifaceted. Since the scriptural texts are the product of human beings, it only stands to reason that they reflect the humanity that wrote them. "Guidance" is a far different matter than "leading by the nose." Brute beasts are led by the nose. Human beings are given clues and nudges.

I said "IF" the scriptures are inspired by God, the should be a consistant way.....

Are you suggesting if Scriptures are inspired by God, then God was not consistant?

 

[Avoice]

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.

My only advice would be to take the whole thing in context. Bible at least NT tends to say when it is a parable. Where it does not one may need to do some research into the Greek through Strong's Concordance or whatever. Taking some Bible verses out of context is down right dangerous, spiritually.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My only advice would be to take the whole thing in context. Bible at least NT tends to say when it is a parable. Where it does not one may need to do some research into the Greek through Strong's Concordance or whatever. Taking some Bible verses out of context is down right dangerous, spiritually.

Generally I agree.
But for example consider the story of lazarus, which I had already discussed that with a few people, such as here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/145787-hebrews-9-27-vs-lazarus-die-6.html

or the meaning of "resurrection", which I discussed here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/145807-raising-dead-resurrection.html

Do you think it is clear how to interprete these?

 

[Avoice]

Generally I agree.
But for example consider the story of lazarus, which I had already discussed that with a few people, such as here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/145787-hebrews-9-27-vs-lazarus-die-6.html

or the meaning of "resurrection", which I discussed here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/145807-raising-dead-resurrection.html

Do you think it is clear how to interprete these?

Both testaments have examples of Resurrection. I believe the interpretation is quite clear. However, I will look at your discussions more closely.

 

[CG Didymus]

...the meaning of "resurrection"...

1Corinthians 15:12-20 says:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead...

The resurrection of the dead and of Jesus is absolutely literal to most Christians. As crazy as it might seem, it is what they believe. What is the Baha'i interpretation of these verses?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The resurrection of the dead and of Jesus is absolutely literal to most Christians. As crazy as it might seem, it is what they believe. What is the Baha'i interpretation of these verses?

In Bible There are Two times when it is said Jesus was raised.
One is when He recieve His revelation, which is expressed as a "dove"

In this sense, He was in the state of "Inactive". Once he raised to preach the Word of God, after the dove came on Him, the scripture says, "Jesus was raised"
Meaning He was raised from the state of "Inactive" to state of "active"

The second time that Scriptures says Jesus was raised, is after His Crusifixtion. Which I have already explained, it was the Desciple of Jesus, who symbolically were the Body of Christ, raised to preach the Word of God.