Man's Interpretation

[e.r.m.]

Ah yes, but you see, Christians (myself included, back in the day) have been known to insist that "Scripture clearly says" thus-and-so, and still be in disagreement. What's "explicitly written" in one Christian's estimation is not so explicitly written in another Christian's estimation.

Then there's the bible-version problem. Explicitly written in the "Authorized" King James bible is the mention of unicorns and dragons. Yet unicorns and dragons -- at least, taken at "explicitly written" face value -- don't appear to exist (unfortunately! ).

You have a good sense of humor.

First point, No not really. If a scripture clearly says, then it has to 'say' it. I regularly find people avoiding explicitly written scripture at all costs and falling back on non-explicitly written arguments. No one can defend Rev. 3:20 as a support to inviting Jesus into your heart because the text is overwhelmingly against it. No one can give an explicitly written scripture on baptism's purpose as an act of obedience or of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.

I've found most translations consistent with eachother. There's always the greek for reference.

 

[Me Myself]

You have a good sense of humor.

First point, No not really. If a scripture clearly says, then it has to 'say' it. I regularly find people avoiding explicitly written scripture at all costs and falling back on non-explicitly written arguments. No one can defend Rev. 3:20 as a support to inviting Jesus into your heart because the text is overwhelmingly against it. No one can give an explicitly written scripture on baptism's purpose as an act of obedience or of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.

I've found most translations consistent with eachother. There's always the greek for reference.

THe scripture explicitely contradicts itself all the time. If you go to the "what the word says" you`ll reach contradictions pretty soon and they way different people have dealt with this contradictions have made different forms of christianity.

A clear example :

"Those that are not against me are with me" Jesus says, but I think 2 pages or less afterwards he says "Those that are not with me are against me" .

"Why do you call me good? no one is good but god" Jesus says, but later he will say "Doesn`t the scriptures say "You are gods" " (refering to a scripture where god says humans are gods)

And this is only by Jesus`s words, there are plenty of more contradictory stuff if we start going interbooks.

Now I am sure you have "explanations" for those, but people ARE going to have different explanations than yours, and given the not at all obvious nature of this contradictions, the explanations WILL be different.

I am sorry, but the bible is higly contradictory and not at all "obvious" in the way it should be read, even after hard and serious study. Actually, the most obvious way to see it if you getliteral and study in depth, is that those are DIFFERENT books made by different PEOPLE who had different ideas of what good and bad is, even if they agreed with some or even most from one another.

 

[Astravalon]

You have a good sense of humor.

First point, No not really. If a scripture clearly says, then it has to 'say' it. I regularly find people avoiding explicitly written scripture at all costs and falling back on non-explicitly written arguments. No one can defend Rev. 3:20 as a support to inviting Jesus into your heart because the text is overwhelmingly against it. No one can give an explicitly written scripture on baptism's purpose as an act of obedience or of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.

I've found most translations consistent with eachother. There's always the greek for reference.

Here's a little experiment, based on years of online Christian debate:

Scripture clearly says that everyone will be saved.

(Counter-argument insisting that scripture clearly says not everyone will be saved in 3... 2... 1...)

 

[Shermana]

You have a good sense of humor.

First point, No not really. If a scripture clearly says, then it has to 'say' it. I regularly find people avoiding explicitly written scripture at all costs and falling back on non-explicitly written arguments. No one can defend Rev. 3:20 as a support to inviting Jesus into your heart because the text is overwhelmingly against it. No one can give an explicitly written scripture on baptism's purpose as an act of obedience or of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.

I've found most translations consistent with eachother. There's always the greek for reference.

Basically. Interpretation should NOT be that hard of an issue. The issue is that few people actually base their interpretations on what the text says as a whole and rely on at best, a few cherry picked verses that may or may not be translated correctly, (many versions deliberately distort the Greek to suit their doctrines or go by obviously interpolated manuscripts that suit them), the issue is not so much about how to interpret what it says but what they already believe based on what they were told. It's really one big story of Confirmation bias and refusal and unwillingness to examine the text in an objective, scholarly way. I believe that this whole thing about "Everyone interprets the Bible differently" is a big canard. It's not that they interpret it differently as much as they deliberately interpret it how they already want to and wouldn't change their minds even if it was convincingly demonstrated that they are reading it incorrectly or going by a dubious translationor contextual reading of their favorite passages.

You can see for yourself many cases in numerous threads where passages are used to defend points that have nothing to do with their context.

I believe that anyone reading the Bible with a Lexicon on hand (taking into account the Lexicon may as well have a few biased translations on words that define key doctrinal points) will come to the same interpretation if they read it all the way through and take the whole text into account. The reason why we have so many sects and interpretations is not because of interpreting the whole but because of using cherry picked selections to confirm their confirmation.

 

[e.r.m.]

Here's a little experiment, based on years of online Christian debate:

Scripture clearly says that everyone will be saved.

(Counter-argument insisting that scripture clearly says not everyone will be saved in 3... 2... 1...)

Do you have scripture references for these?

I have one for you. Whether you believe this or not, I am not asking.
Find me an explicitly written scripture that refers to baptism as an act of obedience, or Magdelene as committing sexual sin, or of Adam eating an apple.

 

[e.r.m.]

Basically. Interpretation should NOT be that hard of an issue. The issue is that few people actually base their interpretations on what the text says as a whole and rely on at best, a few cherry picked verses that may or may not be translated correctly, (many versions deliberately distort the Greek to suit their doctrines or go by obviously interpolated manuscripts that suit them), the issue is not so much about how to interpret what it says but what they already believe based on what they were told. It's really one big story of Confirmation bias and refusal and unwillingness to examine the text in an objective, scholarly way. I believe that this whole thing about "Everyone interprets the Bible differently" is a big canard. It's not that they interpret it differently as much as they deliberately interpret it how they already want to and wouldn't change their minds even if it was convincingly demonstrated that they are reading it incorrectly or going by a dubious translationor contextual reading of their favorite passages.

You can see for yourself many cases in numerous threads where passages are used to defend points that have nothing to do with their context.

I believe that anyone reading the Bible with a Lexicon on hand (taking into account the Lexicon may as well have a few biased translations on words that define key doctrinal points) will come to the same interpretation if they read it all the way through and take the whole text into account. The reason why we have so many sects and interpretations is not because of interpreting the whole but because of using cherry picked selections to confirm their confirmation.

but what they already believe based on what they were told. It's really one big story of Confirmation bias and refusal and unwillingness to examine the text in an objective, scholarly way. I believe that this whole thing about "Everyone interprets the Bible differently" is a big canard. It's not that they interpret it differently as much as they deliberately interpret it how they already want to and wouldn't change their minds even if it was convincingly demonstrated that they are reading it incorrectly or going by a dubious translationor contextual reading of their favorite passages.

---That's my definition of interpretation.

But I agree with your argument.

 

[e.r.m.]

THe scripture explicitely contradicts itself all the time. If you go to the "what the word says" you`ll reach contradictions pretty soon and they way different people have dealt with this contradictions have made different forms of christianity.

A clear example :

"Those that are not against me are with me" Jesus says, but I think 2 pages or less afterwards he says "Those that are not with me are against me" .

"Why do you call me good? no one is good but god" Jesus says, but later he will say "Doesn`t the scriptures say "You are gods" " (refering to a scripture where god says humans are gods)

And this is only by Jesus`s words, there are plenty of more contradictory stuff if we start going interbooks.

Now I am sure you have "explanations" for those, but people ARE going to have different explanations than yours, and given the not at all obvious nature of this contradictions, the explanations WILL be different.

I am sorry, but the bible is higly contradictory and not at all "obvious" in the way it should be read, even after hard and serious study. Actually, the most obvious way to see it if you getliteral and study in depth, is that those are DIFFERENT books made by different PEOPLE who had different ideas of what good and bad is, even if they agreed with some or even most from one another.

Neither of these two conflict. Denominations aren't split over these verses anyhow.

But when people propose that baptism is an act of obedience (using this one for simplicity's sake) there is no explicitly written scripture for it. People are divided over this.

 

[Me Myself]

Neither of these two conflict. Denominations aren't split over these verses anyhow.

Of course they are, there are christians who say Jesus was not God, others that sayhe was others that say he was Archangel Michael.

All of them have scriptural basis.

 

[Shermana]

All of them have scriptural basis.

See the "Did Jesus say he was God" where me, Dirty Penguin, and a few others rip the "Scriptural basis" for the Trinity (and its identical sister Modalism) to shreds. Practically every single Trinity defense is there and gets mauled.

All the scriptural basis for the Trinity is based on misinterpretation, distortion of grammar, removal of Anatolian Jewish concepts like Philo's "Logos Theology", and the infamous Anarthrous Theon/Theos issue ("God" vs "a god") and you will see that the so-called "Scriptural basis" is nothing but church sanctioned dishonesty. At some point, you have to actually go over what the 'scriptural basis" is and decide whether it's valid or just historically been improperly used. Same goes for most other doctrines. To say that there's "Scriptural basis" for any kind of doctrine is the BEGINNING of the argument, not the end. One cannot just conclude that "Everyone has their scriptural basis", because the reasons for the divisions on how to interpret have....reasons. And those reasons are based on the notion that one side is right and one is wrong. And there is in fact a method to determine who has historically been distorting the meaning of the text just as we'd examine any other piece of literature.

I think the problem begins when the Scripture is examined in another class of literature than we'd look at any other. Would we have arguments about how to read Plato's Republic or Homer's Odyessey? Not really. Why is the Greek there so much more difficult to extract? Clearly there is confirmation bias, agenda, and outright dishonesty involved, and that in itself is the basis for the conflict of how to interpret.

 

[Astravalon]

Do you have scripture references for these?

Below are a few gems, taken from here.

Titus 2:11~For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.

I Tim 4:10~It is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

I John 4:14 ~And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

Col 1:19-22 ~For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

I Cor 15:22,28~For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order... "And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." ​

I have one for you. Whether you believe this or not, I am not asking. Find me an explicitly written scripture that refers to baptism as an act of obedience, or Magdelene as committing sexual sin, or of Adam eating an apple.

You may want to ask Christians who actually believe those things as they'll be better able to pinpoint where they see Scripture explicitly stating them.

Any takers?

 

[Shermana]

Below are a few gems, taken from here.

Titus 2:11~For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.

I Tim 4:10~It is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

I John 4:14 ~And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

Col 1:19-22 ~For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

I Cor 15:22,28~For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order... "And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." ​

You may want to ask Christians who actually believe those things as they'll be better able to pinpoint where they see Scripture explicitly stating them.

Any takers?

Titus and Timothy are Pseudipigraphic and shouldn't belong in the Canon. Hence another problem: Interpretations being based on Spurious works. As for 1 John 4:14, the concept of "Savior of the world" is well fleshed out if you read the rest of 1 John and it's VERY exclusive to those who obey the commandments, not Universalist whatsoever. Colossians may be spurious (the case isn't as strong) but interpretation of how to read that is an issue.

 

[jasonwill2]

Not subjective, nor interpretation, but explicitly written text.

For example Revelation 3:20 is often referred to when teaching the unsaved that they could be saved by "inviting him in."
But
Revelation 3:14-16, 19
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. [15] I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! [16] So, because you are lukewarm---neither hot nor cold---I am about to spit you out of my mouth. [19] Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

is written to the church to repent of their lukewarmness. He didn't tell the church how to get saved. He didn't once refer to getting saved.

Teaching the lost to invite him in for salvation, was not the 'original' intent of Rev. 3:20 and so 'this verse' does not support the teaching of "inviting Jesus into your heart" for salvation.

I'm sorry, I don't know what to say...

There is NO PERCEPTION without interpretation.

NONE.


Without interpretation reading would be imposible for crying out loud! Language would be imposible .

Interpretation is an inalienable part of your understanding of scriptures.

...Except that this is exactly why.

 

[Astravalon]

Titus and Timothy are Pseudipigraphic and shouldn't belong in the Canon. Hence another problem: Interpretations being based on Spurious works. As for 1 John 4:14, the concept of "Savior of the world" is well fleshed out if you read the rest of 1 John and it's VERY exclusive to those who obey the commandments, not Universalist whatsoever. Colossians may be spurious (the case isn't as strong) but interpretation of how to read that is an issue.

All this simply proves the point that Christians don't agree on what "the bible clearly says". Rationalizations will always get tossed in there, sooner or later.

 

[e.r.m.]

I'm sorry, I don't know what to say...



...Except that this is exactly why.

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to state our definitions of interpretation. I go by a practical definition. I don't think people go by dictionary definitions. I see interpretation as people transforming whatever text they're reading into a form their thinking patterns and believe systems can accomodate, thereby discarding the original meaning and inserting their own. This is why seeking the original intent is superior than interpreting it for oneself.

In 2 Peter 1:20. The greek renders 'own interpretation', which it denounces, as:
G S F διος,a \{id'-ee-os} 1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self
πλυσις,n \{ep-il'-oo-sis} 1) a loosening, unloosing 2) metaph. interpretation

Pretty much the same as english. Prophets did not add 'their own' interpretation to the scriptures. This is how the scriptures are to be handled. Original Intent.

 

[jasonwill2]

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to state our definitions of interpretation. I go by a practical definition. I don't think people go by dictionary definitions. I see interpretation as people transforming whatever text they're reading into a form their thinking patterns and believe systems can accomodate, thereby discarding the original meaning and inserting their own. This is why seeking the original intent is superior than interpreting it for oneself.

In 2 Peter 1:20. The greek renders 'own interpretation', which it denounces, as:
G S F διος,a \{id'-ee-os} 1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self
πλυσις,n \{ep-il'-oo-sis} 1) a loosening, unloosing 2) metaph. interpretation

Pretty much the same as english. Prophets did not add 'their own' interpretation to the scriptures. This is how the scriptures are to be handled. Original Intent.

We wre going by the dictionary definition, to perceive the holy texts correctly is impossible as you are a flawed human. It's a strawman argument if you want to say that only an infallible holy word makes sense to follow, because you can't perceive the words without the possibility of corruption.

 

[e.r.m.]

We wre going by the dictionary definition, to perceive the holy texts correctly is impossible as you are a flawed human. It's a strawman argument if you want to say that only an infallible holy word makes sense to follow, because you can't perceive the words without the possibility of corruption.

Says who? The prophets in 2 Peter 1:20-21 accomplished this, so it's possible.
The possibility of corruption exists, that's not a guarantee. It is doable.

 

[Super Universe]

If biblical scripture means what it means, why is man divided on its interpretation?

If the bible is divinely inspired and god meant exactly what he meant, then why is it that man has to interpret what god meant?

The same reason that Scott Peterson's (convicted of murdering his pregnant wife) parents think he's innocent. People sometimes believe what they want to believe regardless of any evidence.

 

[jasonwill2]

Says who? The prophets in 2 Peter 1:20-21 accomplished this, so it's possible.
The possibility of corruption exists, that's not a guarantee. It is doable.

I can't believe you don't see it, you CANT perceive, you can't literally see the physical ink letters on the paper without corrupting it when the photons hit your eyeballs and the data is transformed to your brain. because you are a fallible human.

 

[Me Myself]

Says who? The prophets in 2 Peter 1:20-21 accomplished this, so it's possible.

This doesn`t mean everyone can do it.

If not everyone can do it, a lot of people are without chance to understand it.

Still, it`s not like a voice in the sky shouts "Nooooo, you got it wrong!" when you are wrong. When you are wrong, you beleive you are right.

It`s the nature of things. The ones who understand it correctly can even be persuaded by those who got it wrong and thought that got it right and so on and so forth.

Simply put, it`s a mess.

 

[e.r.m.]

I can't believe you don't see it, you CANT perceive, you can't literally see the physical ink letters on the paper without corrupting it when the photons hit your eyeballs and the data is transformed to your brain. because you are a fallible human.

Ahaha!

How did the prophets manage it?