Man's Interpretation

[paarsurrey]

Human understanding, I think, is called interpretation; whatever view one holds of a religion or science is called interpretation.

So, interpretation has to be diverse as humans are; on one has to find truth in them for one.

 

[waitasec]

Human understanding, I think, is called interpretation; whatever view one holds of a religion or science is called interpretation.

So, interpretation has to be diverse as humans are; on one has to find truth in them for one.

then why question others truths?

 

[paarsurrey]

then why question others truths?

In search of truth and sharing truth with others; no compulsion however.

 

[kylixguru]

Yet those who interpret scripture in a different way also believe in god and his message. It is not a matter of denouncing god. It is a matter of accepting him, but interpreting scripture differently.

My question remains.

God refers to Himself as a refiner of silver and a purifier of gold.
All of the spirits of men are like the mountain and God is a miner.
Some of us who have the qualities of these precious metals will pass the test.
The vast majority of others won't pass the test and shall be considered dross.

We all sort ourselves into some category of element based upon how we interpret God's Word. If we "get it" and understand it the way God intended, then we will be able to pass through the refining and purifying "gauntlet".

 

[dawny0826]

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?

I once took a very literal approach to the bible and in time, my Christian views became far more liberal. But, I'm of the opinion that one has to be more liberal to truly fall in line with the teachings of Christ, because in order to truly love your neighbor, you have to embrace people, forgive people and do some of the tough things that the bible may instruct that you can't do. I think we have to use common sense when reading the bible, as the books within the bible were written during different historical time periods and cultures.

I choose to let the Holy Spirit guide me as opposed to to stressing over biblical scripture. I have no qualms over loving my neighbor and embracing people in love, as this is what I've been instructed to do. I've found peace in taking a more simplistic approach to the bible and viewing the "Word" as living. The Word of God in my opinion, is not exclusive to what's written in a book.

I view God as being so much greater.

 

[waitasec]

God refers to Himself as a refiner of silver and a purifier of gold.

says who?

 

[kylixguru]

says who?

Sorry, here are some references:

Zechariah 13:9
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

Malachi 3:3
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
​

 

[InfidelRiot]

Sorry, here are some references:

Zechariah 13:9
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

Malachi 3:3
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
​

It seems to me, as a lover of the English language, that the writer is making a metaphor rather than a literal analysis.

 

[NIX]

People either interpret things for themselves, or they let others do it for them. Not a single 'mentally processed' thing or idea bypasses the interpretive process of a man.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Not a single 'mentally processed' thing or idea bypasses the interpretive process of a man.

I had to reread this a few times to understand what you were attempting to state, but I disagree with it. Religious man has a rich and long history of mentally processing what he hears, reads, or sees in such a way that the interpretive process does not enter the equation. In fact, if he is told exactly what he wants to hear, if he is shown what he wants to see, or if he reads exactly what he already accepts as a core belief, then he does not doubt or question or mentally process in any way to think critically and grow intellectually as an individual.

 

[NIX]

I had to reread this a few times to understand what you were attempting to state, but I disagree with it. Religious man has a rich and long history of mentally processing what he hears, reads, or sees in such a way that the interpretive process does not enter the equation. In fact, if he is told exactly what he wants to hear, if he is shown what he wants to see, or if he reads exactly what he already accepts as a core belief, then he does not doubt or question or mentally process in any way to think critically and grow intellectually as an individual.

But that IS his process of interpretation. I never said that I thought it was a good process.

 

[NIX]

To further clarify. We literally interpret every single thing that surrounds us- in order that we might make any kind of sense of anything at all. We do this through our senses, our language, our personal experience, and the influence and authority of others we come in contact with.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Of course, but how do we determine the interpretation is correct if there are several interpretations of the same text, event, etc. That is why eye witness accounts are unreliable.

 

[NIX]

Of course, but how do we determine the interpretation is correct if there are several interpretations of the same text, event, etc. That is why eye witness accounts are unreliable.

When people argue one 'interpretation' over another, what they are really arguing is one interpreter over another. What interpretation exists (first) without an interpreter?

 

[InfidelRiot]

When people argue one 'interpretation' over another, what they are really arguing is one interpreter over another. What interpretation exists without an interpreter?

The original question still remains.

 

[NIX]

The original question still remains.

But it is not the same question. My first question might be, "Who is qualified to offer- or ratify/recognize - an acceptable interpretation?"

 

[InfidelRiot]

But it is not the same question. My first question might be, "Who is qualified to offer- or ratify/recognize - an acceptable interpretation?"

One for everyone to accept? No one, if it is baseless of factual proof.

 

[NIX]

One for everyone to accept? No one, if it is baseless of factual proof.

I'm highly doubtful that everyone will ever look to the very same interpreter. In any regard. People gravitate to their own leaders and authorities. And those who pick up their own staff will either walk alone, or find others following behind them.

 

[Shermana]

Of course, but how do we determine the interpretation is correct if there are several interpretations of the same text, event, etc. That is why eye witness accounts are unreliable.

Consistency is a good start. Start by going with the lens that you best think represents what the original intention of the work was, and then look for clues that the translators are distorting it to suit a theological agenda when it starts reading outside of the flow and general theme of the original material. Vague I know but that's the best way I can put it. That's also how you look out for interpolations.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Consistency is a good start. Start by going with the lens that you best think represents what the original intention of the work was, and then look for clues that the translators are distorting it to suit a theological agenda when it starts reading outside of the flow and general theme of the original material. Vague I know but that's the best way I can put it.

I am not certain consistency is a good point on interpretation. It is like stating: if the majority of people like coca-cola, it must be better than pepsi. It is a matter of taste, not reality.