Interpretation... Or God's View

[shunyadragon]

Can you allow me to move this quote over to another thread which I think is more appropriate for this, where we can discuss the matter of authenticity? Since this thread deals with interpretation I was hoping, specifically for those who already use the Bible on the belief that it is God's word, but does not have any one interpretation.
In other words, it would be nice, I think, if we could focus on interpretation, on various scripture, rather than I having to be sidetracked with proving the Bible merits our trust.
Would that be okay with you?

If that was your goal you have began your thread in the wrong section. Have this thread moved so that it suites your agenda. As it is this thread is open to debate from different perspectives, and many will not agree with. Christianity DIR and define your purpose there. The thread that deals with interpretation in the 'Scriptural Debates' Section should not be 'open only to those that believe that it is God's word,' My advice is close the thread and go to the appropriate section
'
At present the above you only want those to respond to agree with the premises of your beliefs, therefore no scriptural debate.

 

[nPeace]

If that was your goal you have began your thread in the wrong section. Have this thread moved so that it suites your agenda. As it is this thread is open to debate from different perspectives, and many will not agree with. Christianity DIR and define your purpose there. The thread that deals with interpretation in the 'Scriptural Debates' Section should not be 'open only to those that believe that it is God's word,' My advice is close the thread and go to the appropriate section
'
At present the above you only want those to respond to agree with the premises of your beliefs, therefore no scriptural debate.

It does not have to be Christian.
They are many here who were Christian, and no longer are, but hold the Bible in some measure, to be truthful.
What you raised here however, specifically deals with whether we can trust the Bible...
I am not dealing with that here. I have a thread where I addressed that.
The thread is fine where it is.
Your responses not related to it just won't be considered. That's the part I was looking at.

 

[shunyadragon]

It does not have to be Christian.
They are many here who were Christian, and no longer are, but hold the Bible in some measure, to be truthful.
What you raised here however, specifically deals with whether we can trust the Bible...
I am not dealing with that here. I have a thread where I addressed that.
The thread is fine where it is.
Your responses not related to it just won't be considered. That's the part I was looking at.

Actually it is false, based on the expectations of your previous statement as 'believing it is the Word of God.' I would like a reference to anyone who has left Christianity for whatever reason and still considers it the 'Word of God.' I have no problem with holding the Bible in some measure, to be truthful,' but that is long long way from your previous statement of criteria for this thread, which is still in conflict with the section you posted in. As far as having spiritual value in the teachings of the Pentateuch as have some measure of truth,' this is okay, but it is set in the times of the culture and people of the time, and not reliable as a historical record, nor relevant today's world.

You are in the section; 'Scriptural Debates.'

 

[nPeace]

Actually it is false, based on the expectations of your previous statement as 'believing it is the Word of God.' I would like a reference to anyone who has left Christianity for whatever reason and still considers it the 'Word of God.' I have no problem with holding the Bible in some measure, to be truthful,' but that is long long way from your previous statement of criteria for this thread, which is still in conflict with the section you posted in. As far as having spiritual value in the teachings of the Pentateuch as have some measure of truth,' this is okay, but it is set in the times of the culture and people of the time, and not reliable as a historical record, nor relevant today's world.

You are in the section; 'Scriptural Debates.'

Holding the Bible in some measure to be truthful is okay.
Do you want to stay on this, or do you have something you want to say regarding interpretation, and not authenticity?

 

[MNoBody]

Yes. Romans 11:34.
As well as... 1 Corinthians 2:16 - For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

(Matthew 11:27) All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.

That's a great admission to listen to God's representatives - Jesus, and those who follow him, for they have come to know the Father - even fully.

Thanks for that.

not the slant I had in mind, since if God's mind had been revealed to all these people then why so divided....does god disagree with himself then....since these all protest that they "Know", its been revealed to them by the spirit....must have been different spirits, but they are still adamant .......I have observed this for near a half a century....and started at a non-denominational missionary school.....religious studies got me into the dictionaries which spoiled the whole thing, since, what on earth would one want to promote a fear based mysterium cult for.

 

[shunyadragon]

Holding the Bible in some measure to be truthful is okay.
Do you want to stay on this, or do you have something you want to say regarding interpretation, and not authenticity?

Well, as I previously stated your interpretation does not fit the known history, archaeology, and geologic history of the Middle East.

 

[blü 2]

I have often heard it said, when it comes to the Bible, "it's just a matter of interpretation." Is that true though?

I wouldn't say "just a matter", but it's certainly a matter of interpretation ─ that's always the case with any ancient document (here, set of documents).

The enquiring reader asks, with an open mind, the necessary questions about each document: what, when, where, who, why.

That's how we notice, for instance, that none of the writers ever personally met an historical Jesus; and the gnosticism of Paul and the author of John,; that Mark contains the first and only substantial purported biography of Jesus, incidentally giving the only version of Jesus to begin life as an ordinary Jew and become 'Son of God' by adoption on the model of David (Psalm 2:7) (Paul's and John's having preexisted in heaven as the demiurge, Matthew's and Luke's the product of divine insemination) ... and so on.

That's also how we notice that there are six accounts of the resurrection, none by an eyewitness, none independent, none contemporaneous (or indeed within two decades (Paul) or four decades (Mark) of the purported event, and each of the six contradicting the other five in substantial ways.

Which leads us to consider what we can work out was going on that caused all these different takes to be written, and to wonder if there was an historical Jesus at all, and if so, can anything likely to be factual be said about him?

 

[nPeace]

not the slant I had in mind, since if God's mind had been revealed to all these people then why so divided....does god disagree with himself then....since these all protest that they "Know", its been revealed to them by the spirit....must have been different spirits, but they are still adamant .......I have observed this for near a half a century....and started at a non-denominational missionary school.....religious studies got me into the dictionaries which spoiled the whole thing, since, what on earth would one want to promote a fear based mysterium cult for.

You just gave a good demonstration on what this thread aims to show, and at the same time, answered your own question.

See how you just pulled a scripture, with the thought that you could make a solid argument in support of your own viewpoint, and when it was shot down by other scriptures, instead of giving pause, you ran with the idea that your way of seeing it, is still correct, rather than listen to reason?

Notice, you said, "it's not what you had in mind", so you read one text, held on to it, as, "Yes. Here is a text that supports view A, and destroys view B".
However, other texts, in the same Bible, show that you cannot just read one text, and believe that it supports your view... Notice - supports your view.
In other word, your view or interpretation, should not be the important thing here... nor is it, but the Bible's viewpoint is.
One should therefore read the Bible, to get the Bible's viewpoint... and how does the Bible give it's own viewpoint? We just saw it demonstrated.
Other texts confirm what it says, or deny what is thought.
This is what is meant by the Bible interprets, or speaks for itself.

So what you had in mind was denied.

That's the purpose of this thread, to show that it is not a matter of interpretation, and the Bible is not the fault. Rather, the problem lies, with men's ideas, which they want to force on the Bible, causing confusion in the minds of people who recognize the value in the Bible, or those who are seeking truthful answers.

This will continue as long as God allows man to follow his own will.
However, the Bible says, that soon he will remove all who want to follow their own will, and not submit to his will.
(Matthew 7:21-23) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

Recall that the Scribes and Pharisees protested that they knew also, but where did Jesus say that will get them? Matthew. 23:13-15, 29-33

Protesting that one knows, and not listening to God's representatives is nothing new, according to the scriptural references in the OP. We saw the outcome of protesters.
There are two very, very good examples, I did not mention before. Numbers 16 and Numbers 12. God does not only use you they protested. Really?

The fact that there are people who protest to know... for their own will, does not annul, or make void the fact that God always chose human representatives, to convey his truths.

Are you here protesting that you know? Or are you asking with a view to searching for answers?

The short clear answer, as seen here, is that God's mind had been revealed to all these people.
The division exists because persons insist on their own will, rather than accept the will of God... according to the Bible.
It is important we understand who divides, and with what goal in mind.
2 Corinthians 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

 

[nPeace]

Well, as I previously stated your interpretation does not fit the known history, archaeology, and geologic history of the Middle East.

My interpretation?
I did not give any, so maybe you ought to specify what exactly you are talking about.
The known history, archaeology, and geologic history, is your interpretation, so you cannot use an interpretation to claim that someone misinterprets the Bible...especially if they have not even interpreted it.
The known history is recorded in the Bible, nonetheless. People claim otherwise. That's opinion.

 

[nPeace]

I wouldn't say "just a matter", but it's certainly a matter of interpretation ─ that's always the case with any ancient document (here, set of documents).

Please prove that that is always the case with ancient documents.

The enquiring reader asks, with an open mind, the necessary questions about each document: what, when, where, who, why.

That's how we notice, for instance, that none of the writers ever personally met an historical Jesus; and the gnosticism of Paul and the author of John,; that Mark contains the first and only substantial purported biography of Jesus, incidentally giving the only version of Jesus to begin life as an ordinary Jew and become 'Son of God' by adoption on the model of David (Psalm 2:7) (Paul's and John's having preexisted in heaven as the demiurge, Matthew's and Luke's the product of divine insemination) ... and so on.

That's also how we notice that there are six accounts of the resurrection, none by an eyewitness, none independent, none contemporaneous (or indeed within two decades (Paul) or four decades (Mark) of the purported event, and each of the six contradicting the other five in substantial ways.

Which leads us to consider what we can work out was going on that caused all these different takes to be written, and to wonder if there was an historical Jesus at all, and if so, can anything likely to be factual be said about him?

This is all opinion sir. Scholars do not all agree on that, so you don't know. You only accept one opinion over others.

 

[shunyadragon]

My interpretation?

Yes your interpretation and it is one of many.

I have often heard it said, when it comes to the Bible, "it's just a matter of interpretation." Is that true though?
I would say, there are some things in the Bible, we cannot be dogmatic about, and just have to leave alone, where arguments are concerned,

The bold above is a selective interpretation

I did not give any, so maybe you ought to specify what exactly you are talking about.
The known history, archaeology, and geologic history, is your interpretation, so you cannot use an interpretation to claim that someone misinterprets the Bible...especially if they have not even interpreted it.
The known history is recorded in the Bible, nonetheless. People claim otherwise. That's opinion.

The archaeology, and geology are factual objective evidence and not opinion, and it documents that the Bible is not factual history. The Biblical record does not match the known Egyptian history. There is over 100,000 years and more of documented continuous occupation of of the Middle East without interruption. No flood possible except the documented flood of the Tigris Euphrates River floods.

Continuous direct evidence of human history and paleontological evidence is over 500,000 years.

 

[MNoBody]

You just gave a good demonstration on what this thread aims to show, and at the same time, answered your own question.

See how you just pulled a scripture, with the thought that you could make a solid argument in support of your own viewpoint, and when it was shot down by other scriptures, instead of giving pause, you ran with the idea that your way of seeing it, is still correct, rather than listen to reason?

Notice, you said, "it's not what you had in mind", so you read one text, held on to it, as, "Yes. Here is a text that supports view A, and destroys view B".
However, other texts, in the same Bible, show that you cannot just read one text, and believe that it supports your view... Notice - supports your view.
In other word, your view or interpretation, should not be the important thing here... nor is it, but the Bible's viewpoint is.
One should therefore read the Bible, to get the Bible's viewpoint... and how does the Bible give it's own viewpoint? We just saw it demonstrated.
Other texts confirm what it says, or deny what is thought.
This is what is meant by the Bible interprets, or speaks for itself.

So what you had in mind was denied.

That's the purpose of this thread, to show that it is not a matter of interpretation, and the Bible is not the fault. Rather, the problem lies, with men's ideas, which they want to force on the Bible, causing confusion in the minds of people who recognize the value in the Bible, or those who are seeking truthful answers.

This will continue as long as God allows man to follow his own will.
However, the Bible says, that soon he will remove all who want to follow their own will, and not submit to his will.
(Matthew 7:21-23) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

Recall that the Scribes and Pharisees protested that they knew also, but where did Jesus say that will get them? Matthew. 23:13-15, 29-33

Protesting that one knows, and not listening to God's representatives is nothing new, according to the scriptural references in the OP. We saw the outcome of protesters.
There are two very, very good examples, I did not mention before. Numbers 16 and Numbers 12. God does not only use you they protested. Really?

The fact that there are people who protest to know... for their own will, does not annul, or make void the fact that God always chose human representatives, to convey his truths.

Are you here protesting that you know? Or are you asking with a view to searching for answers?

The short clear answer, as seen here, is that God's mind had been revealed to all these people.
The division exists because persons insist on their own will, rather than accept the will of God... according to the Bible.
It is important we understand who divides, and with what goal in mind.
2 Corinthians 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

however the correction you assume you made is your interpretation and has no absolute authority...thus the conjecture is frivolous and the rambling specious, presumptive even.

 

[blü 2]

Please prove that that is always the case with ancient documents.

What alternative do you have except to ignore it? Once you pay it attention, you're applying yourself to what it means.

This is all opinion sir. Scholars do not all agree on that, so you don't know. You only accept one opinion over others.

I've done my best to form my own opinion, but you're right, I reach out to scholarship all the time for assistance.

The thing I'd like to emphasize, though, is that I have no preconception of what any ancient document ought to say. My interest is in understanding its words and its author's intention.

So, for example, were there only one version of Jesus in the NT I'd happily agree; instead there are at least five, and as I briefly noted, there are at least three utterly different models (Mark's ordinary Jew adopted, Paul's and John's pre-existing demiurge, Matthew's and Luke's divine insemination). I neither invent these things nor wish to; they're in the text and quite plainly so.

 

[nPeace]

Yes your interpretation and it is one of many.



The bold above is a selective interpretation

How is that an interpretation? Please explain.

The archaeology, and geology are factual objective evidence and not opinion, and it documents that the Bible is not factual history. The Biblical record does not match the known Egyptian history. There is over 100,000 years and more of documented continuous occupation of of the Middle East without interruption. No flood possible except the documented flood of the Tigris Euphrates River floods.

Continuous direct evidence of human history and paleontological evidence is over 500,000 years.

Repeat. These are interpretation, and therefore opinion.
I also am not getting into a debate about things irrelevant to the thread.
If you want to argue about these matters, feel free to create a thread for that.

 

[nPeace]

however the correction you assume you made is your interpretation and has no absolute authority...thus the conjecture is frivolous and the rambling specious, presumptive even.

It looks more like you are the one rambling, and making frivolous statements - baseless assertions even, with nothing specific, or encouraging response.

 

[nPeace]

What alternative do you have except to ignore it? Once you pay it attention, you're applying yourself to what it means.

No proof. Okay. That was obvious.

I've done my best to form my own opinion, but you're right, I reach out to scholarship all the time for assistance.

The thing I'd like to emphasize, though, is that I have no preconception of what any ancient document ought to say. My interest is in understanding its words and its author's intention.

So, for example, were there only one version of Jesus in the NT I'd happily agree; instead there are at least five, and as I briefly noted, there are at least three utterly different models (Mark's ordinary Jew adopted, Paul's and John's pre-existing demiurge, Matthew's and Luke's divine insemination). I neither invent these things nor wish to; they're in the text and quite plainly so.

These are opinions you want to accept.
If they really were plainly seen, then all diligent scholars would see. That's not the case.
Now I hope you don't start the march about "dishonest scholars".
You don't want to go there, and this thread is not about that.

 

[blü 2]

No proof. Okay. That was obvious.


These are opinions you want to accept.
If they really were plainly seen, then all diligent scholars would see. That's not the case.
Now I hope you don't start the march about "dishonest scholars".
You don't want to go there, and this thread is not about that.

Well, let's have a quick look at the text.

First Mark. Jesus needs to be baptized and only when his sins are washed off him does God adopt him as his son on the model of David becoming God's son in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33). We never learn the name of his parents, nor was his mother alleged to be a virgin, nor was his birth attended by angelic annunciations or wonders ─ when he starts performing miracles, his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:19-21, and are astonished (Mark 3:31+). Oh, and unlike the Jesus of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John, he's not of the line of David (Mark 12:35-37).

Isaiah 7:14 is plainly not about Jesus, but equally plainly the author of Matthew had read Isaiah in the Septuagint and thought that it was . That was why he felt the need to re-write Mark to make Jesus born of a virgin (because 'almah young woman in Isaiah is translated παρθένος parthenos 'virgin' in the LXX). In 2020 we can see that this would necessarily mean Jesus, as the literal son of God, had God's Y-chromosome, which is an interesting idea. So also says the author of Luke (and he specifically says Mary was a virgin, whereas in Matthew it's simply the obvious inference). This desire to consider certain passages of the Tanakh to be appropriate messianic prophecies also explains the invention of the unhistorical census when "all the world should be taxed" to get Jesus born in Bethlehem to 'fulfill' Micah 5:2; and the equally unhistorical "massacre of the innocents" the purpose of which is to have Joseph and Mary flee into Egypt so that that Jesus can 'come out of Egypt' and so 'fulfill' Hosea 11.1. (The same enthusiasm leads the author of Matthew to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem astride BOTH a donkey AND a foal (Matthew 21:2-5) so as to 'fulfill' Zechariah 9.9. And so on.)

Thirdly we have Jesus as the Gnostic demiurge, the angel or spirit that resides in heaven with God and who does what God, being pure spirit, would never do, namely make the material universe. The words 'gnostic' and 'demiurge' δημιουργός dēmiourgos lit. 'craftsman' aren't found but for Paul and for the author of John, Jesus pre-exists in heaven with God (Philippians 2:5-8 , John 6:38, John 8:58 and more) and created the material world (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3).

Three entirely different models.

 

[shunyadragon]

How is that an interpretation? Please explain.

You assert that selectively certain parts of the Bible should not be interpreted literally. I believe that others have brought up this problem,

Repeat. These are interpretation, and therefore opinion.
I also am not getting into a debate about things irrelevant to the thread.
If you want to argue about these matters, feel free to create a thread for that.

It is very relevant that you are proposing a literal interpretation of the Bible, except where you want to interpret it differently. Repeat and repeat as many times as necessary this is physical objective verifiable archaeological and geological evidence. Again, this is the place to challenge your interpretation of the Bible.

You can post a thread in Christian DIR and specify your limits. Only those that agree with you will post patting themselves on the back.

 

[nPeace]

Well, let's have a quick look at the text.

First Mark. Jesus needs to be baptized and only when his sins are washed off him does God adopt him as his son on the model of David becoming God's son in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33).

First, there is no scripture that says Jesus had sins to be washed off. Where did you ever get that from?
Second, what point are you making, regarding these scriptures? I don't understand if you are trying to point out anything in particular.

We never learn the name of his parents, nor was his mother alleged to be a virgin, nor was his birth attended by angelic annunciations or wonders ─ when he starts performing miracles, his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:19-21, and are astonished (Mark 3:31+).

What do you mean we never learned the name of Jesus's parents. Didn't you read the Bible?
Yes, his brothers were not exercising faith in him. They did not believe he was the Messiah. Why do you see that as a problem?

Oh, and unlike the Jesus of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John, he's not of the line of David (Mark 12:35-37).

??? What am I hearing!!! Why do you say that?

Isaiah 7:14 is plainly not about Jesus, but equally plainly the author of Matthew had read Isaiah in the Septuagint and thought that it was . That was why he felt the need to re-write Mark to make Jesus born of a virgin (because 'almah young woman in Isaiah is translated παρθένος parthenos 'virgin' in the LXX). In 2020 we can see that this would necessarily mean Jesus, as the literal son of God, had God's Y-chromosome, which is an interesting idea. So also says the author of Luke (and he specifically says Mary was a virgin, whereas in Matthew it's simply the obvious inference). This desire to consider certain passages of the Tanakh to be appropriate messianic prophecies also explains the invention of the unhistorical census when "all the world should be taxed" to get Jesus born in Bethlehem to 'fulfill' Micah 5:2; and the equally unhistorical "massacre of the innocents" the purpose of which is to have Joseph and Mary flee into Egypt so that that Jesus can 'come out of Egypt' and so 'fulfill' Hosea 11.1. (The same enthusiasm leads the author of Matthew to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem astride BOTH a donkey AND a foal (Matthew 21:2-5) so as to 'fulfill' Zechariah 9.9. And so on.)

So you are saying the writer of Matthew did notknow waht he was talking about, and was not inspired to write what he did.
... among other things. !!!?
Please tell me how you plan on proving this, and then explain to me how / why you think this thread is a good place to argue about these...

Thirdly we have Jesus as the Gnostic demiurge, the angel or spirit that resides in heaven with God and who does what God, being pure spirit, would never do, namely make the material universe. The words 'gnostic' and 'demiurge' δημιουργός dēmiourgos lit. 'craftsman' aren't found but for Paul and for the author of John, Jesus pre-exists in heaven with God (Philippians 2:5-8 , John 6:38, John 8:58 and more) and created the material world (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3).

Um. Okay.
Are you finished?
If not, enjoy your stay, and have fun. Don't mind my silence.

Three entirely different models.

From your perspective, yes... I understand.
I found them quite inreresting, actually.
What I see though are the arguments of one who does not believe what is written in the Bible to be truthful, or authentic, and that has no relation at all to the thread, It is quite related though to a thread which considers the question, "Can the Bible be trusted?" "Why trust the Bible?" or something along those lines.
Would you agree?

 

[nPeace]

You assert that selectively certain parts of the Bible should not be interpreted literally. I believe that others have brought up this problem,

You appear to be referring to something I said outside this thread.
I am not aware of ever saying that certain parts of the Bible should not be interpreted literally...
I don't normally use that kind of language. It sounds like something you would say.

However... I have said that some parts of the Bible are figurative, while other parts are literal. The Bible speaks for itself, on what is literal, and what is figurative.
In that way, the Bible interprets itself. We don't.

It is very relevant that you are proposing a literal interpretation of the Bible, except where you want to interpret it differently. Repeat and repeat as many times as necessary this is physical objective verifiable archaeological and geological evidence. Again, this is the place to challenge your interpretation of the Bible.

If you are here to discuss interpretation, please be specific about what you are saying.
Repeating that physical objective verifiable archaeological and geological evidence What? Sounds like you are just repeating by rote what you want to believe, and is irrelevant.
I am not going to repeat and repeat over and over again, as we are not in a "say it again" competition.

You can post a thread in Christian DIR and specify your limits. Only those that agree with you will post patting themselves on the back.

We passed this already. I won't repeat myself.