Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Audie]

The real problem you have (that any theist has) is that in many cases you have absolutely no metric by which to discern who is interpreting correctly and who is not. All you have is the text, and if one person interprets it one way, and the other another way, then going back to the text isn't getting you anywhere... and there is literally nowhere else to turn. What are you going to do? Pray? That's a laugh.

Basically the same thing I said, or asked, and
that irrelevant news of the obvious was a lame
sort of "answer".

What is obvious is that there is no answer, its
all make believe.

 

[Wandering Monk]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

No wonder their are hundreds of Christian denominations. Everyone is inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is that true of all scriptures or of some?

I'm pretty sure the skeptics here know what this scripture means, "He will take vengeance in flaming fire on all those who disbelieve the saving gospel of Jesus", after all, they LOVE to talk about Hell far more than we Christians do!

This skeptic doesn't see hellfire in that particular verse. What he does see, however, is an assumption (for which no evidence has ever been provided) that the "natural man" (presumably, the one who uses his senses and his brain to discern things) misses out because he's not using that other thing -- his "spirit." Now, since this "spirit" is not senses and mind, I'd like to have some explanation of how -- after this "spirit" discerns things -- it places them in the mind whereupon they are available for the believer to understand.

 

[Audie]

Wouldnt his bible quote actually be a good explanation why there are many denomination? Wouldnt it explain the methodology they use that causes such division?

Who needs an explanation? Its obvious. Its impossible to
translate, so people make up what suits their personality.
I'd not honour that with a fine term like "methodology".

 

[Samael_Khan]

Whether you implicate it or not, it is obviously true
and nobody will really-really know what those old books
meant when they were written. Still less if any* of it
happens to be true.

*yeah, yeah, I know there is a place called Egypt

Indeed! There is a place called Egypt. And humans and birds exist.

But I get what you mean. You are referring to the narrative and supernatural claims. And you would be right in most cases. I would think that there are certain things, not supernatural, that are plausible, such as a man who claimed to be the messiah being crucified. But even if we knew exactly what was meant in the book, at the end of the day they are just claims from writers of various books. We would need to prove the fact of those claims using methods outside of the Bible.

 

[Thief]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

well gee

I never was much of a Pauline

 

[Audie]

Outside? Yeah, exactly as it should be. Inside is much more important issue.

To them, sure. Preachin' to the choir.
Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidian, the purple kool
aid people, inside it all seemed so believable.

Fortunately, those outside can look at the craziness
inside, and run for the exit.

Exactly as it should be.

 

[Thief]

and when it comes to understanding scripture.....
my plea of ignorance would be denied

God and heaven will be able to see......I got it

and making pretend that I didn't …….might earn for me
a really serious slap up side the head

 

[Samael_Khan]

Who needs an explanation? Its obvious. Its impossible to
translate, so people make up what suits their personality.
I'd not honour that with a fine term like "methodology".

You would be right. I would still consider what they use a methadology, or lack there of in many cases. Maybe even a poor methadology at best.

 

[Audie]

Indeed! There is a place called Egypt. And humans and birds exist.

But I get what you mean. You are referring to the narrative and supernatural claims. And you would be right in most cases. I would think that there are certain things, not supernatural, that are plausible, such as a man who claimed to be the messiah being crucified. But even if we knew exactly what was meant in the book, at the end of the day they are just claims from writers of various books. We would need to prove the fact of those claims using methods outside of the Bible.

Anywhere that proof /disproof can be applied, it
is not in favour of the bible stories.

 

[Audie]

You would be right. I would still consider what they use a methadology, or lack there of in many cases. Maybe even a poor methadology at best.

Well, semantics aside, nobody knows what it really
was supposed to mean, and the "method" is to make something
up, or, let someone else make it up and believe that.

 

[Thief]

how about?
Do unto others as you would have it done into you

as a method

 

[Samael_Khan]

Anywhere that proof /disproof can be applied, it
is not in favour of the bible stories.

The bible at best from what we have discovered at the moment is historical fiction. Much like Wilbur Smith books, especially the ones about Ancient Egypt.

 

[Thief]

and teaching in parables...…..?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, semantics aside, nobody knows what it really
was supposed to mean, and the "method" is to make something
up, or, let someone else make it up and believe that.

Yeah. I have looked into many different views of the Bible. It becomes especially confusing as interpreters switch between figurative and literal interpretation depending on what suits their theology. One also has the textual critical method of interpretation. Which approach is correct, nobody can objectively tell.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Depends what explanation is used and what one thinks it means.

Regards Tony

Well, just so long as YOU, personally, approve, right?

 

[Samael_Khan]

how about?
Do unto others as you would have it done into you

as a method

Well, not a method of interpreting the Bible texts though. For instance how does that method align with God saying that the Israelites must kill a nation, including women, children and animals?

 

[Thief]

Yeah. I have looked into many different views of the Bible. It becomes especially confusing as interpreters switch between figurative and literal interpretation depending on what suits their theology. One also has the textual critical method of interpretation. Which approach is correct, nobody can objectively tell.

if you become a better person...….tomorrow

would that be ….objective?

 

[Samael_Khan]

and teaching in parables...…..?

In many cases yes. But then how would that apply to the Epistles of Paul?

 

[Thief]

I think scripture is an arrow
aimed at a moving target

the target can see it coming