Reverse Interpretation of the Bible (church, agnostic, scriptures, faith)

[kmkemp]

I'm not sure if there is an official term for this, but let us consider some things that we can hopefully agree on:

1) The Bible has been interpreted differently and there have been radical shifts ever since we first had the scriptures. Also, when I refer to radical shifts, I am not talking about different schools of thought, but the mainstream (most popular) position.
2) The Bible has stayed relatively the same (let's not make this a debate about word perfection please)

From this, we can attribute the changes in position to literacy, the canon's availability to the masses and I'm sure a host of other causes. But man has been mostly literate and the Bible has been available to all for hundreds of years now and even in that short amount of time, there have been radical shifts. How do you explain these?

My theory is that there is a certain thing inside all of us that wants to find new truth. We want to see something in the scriptures that others have not seen before. Surely we have all felt this intellectual monster before. I call it pride. We want something for ourselves that is not seen by others. I suggest this is why some people take such a hard unorthodox stance on issues even though the mainstream thought is pretty well established. You take pride in "taking the word as the word and not adding or taking away from it". You are quick to point the finger at those that accept the orthodox positions as "not coming from our own knowledge but reading the Bible through cultural eyes". I don't think that's the case. I think it is the case that what I read in the Bible happens to match the mostly mainstream views because we have had ample time to refine our interpretations and are, for the most part, able to come to a consensus. Do you guys think that this "reverse interpretation" exists? Why or why not? If so, how dangerous do you think it is?

[doppelgänger]

Sure, I can see that. But it applies to the first person who interpreted it too. They were just as full of pride at the meanings they extracted. Ultimately, it comes down to the simple fact that we'll see in a text our own reflection, because that is what we are looking for in the first place and it's what we are capable of seeing.

Hence, "Theology" and Process.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

My theory is that there is a certain thing inside all of us that wants to find new truth. We want to see something in the scriptures that others have not seen before.

Not necessarily. History has seen millions of people blindly following whatever interpretation of the Scripture that has been espoused by their Church.

[kmkemp]

I am talking about the Christians who actually open their Bible, of course. I think this applies to anyone at this website really, but not so much for your average church goer.

[sojourner]

I think the "thing inside us" is our insatiable desire to know God. When we find something that resonates with us and reveals a little more of God to us very clearly, we want others to know that truth that we have found. Because, we are, after all, communal creatures. God only works if there are people to share God.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

I am talking about the Christians who actually open their Bible, of course. I think this applies to anyone at this website really, but not so much for your average church goer.

A lot of Christians open their Bible and still blindly follow what is told to them. It is much easier than objecting and getting slapped down by someone who thinks they have the ultimate answer.

If a lot of people felt strongly about interpreting things themselves, the Reformation wouldn't have been such a big event because it would have been commonplace.

[kmkemp]

Nah, the Reformation happened because a vast majority of Christians did not have access to the scriptures. Then there was complacency in that the ones that could read didn't. Then there was some illiteracy. Then there was trust in their leaders. Then there were "extra" books that were used to show that works were emphasized over faith. Luther was not alone in his position. He was only the most outspoken and the one who was brave enough to stand up for it.

[doppelgänger]

Also, if the "mainstream" authoritative interpretation lacks meaning for an individual, then insisting it must be true because it works for most other people is hardly a solution anyway. I walked away from thinking about Christianity in any sort of 'orthodox' way because it seemed foolish, contradictory, idolatrous and divisive to me. If I hadn't come back to it afresh after several years and found what it meant to me for myself, I would have no use for the Bible or Christianity at all.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Also, if the "mainstream" authoritative interpretation lacks meaning for an individual, then insisting it must be true because it works for most other people is hardly a solution anyway. I walked away from thinking about Christianity in any sort of 'orthodox' way because it seemed foolish, contradictory, idolatrous and divisive to me. If I hadn't come back to it afresh after several years and found what it meant to me for myself, I would have no use for the Bible or Christianity at all.

And yet you seem to be an introspective, intelligent person. Just think of all the people out there who have less mental agility and either go along with the masses or walk away never to come back?

I think that scenario is far more common that an incessant search for a new interpretation.