Is it a difference of understanding or interpretation???

II Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

Hebrews 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. NIV

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

So often, I hear people say "That's you interpretation of it!" or the like and it always makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, many have asked that if God is so omnipotent, why can't he write a book that EVERYONE can understand?

So what do you think? Interpretation or understanding? What's the big diff?

Why would a true prophesy be intentionally mysterious? If God really wants to communicate with us, then it should be done clearly. If truth needs interpretation, then it is likely that it is written by someone.

According to the second scripture I cited, it is clear when you do it and unclear when you don't!

NetDoc said:

So what do you think? Interpretation or understanding? What's the big diff?

Click to expand...

Good question. I thought I had an answer to it, but as I sat here and thought about it, I realized that I ddidn't really know the answer. I can see a clear difference between the two terms, but labelling them is another issue for me.

It would seem to me that misunderstanding the scriptures leads to misinterpretation, and therefore, error.

At the same time, though, it seems to be the other way around, too. A misinterpretation of a word or verse can lead to a misunderstanding, leading to error as well.

But I believe that there can only be one correct interpretation of the God's word. Christ founded one church and did not want it to be divided. So, there can only be one true understanding.
I'm more confused than when I started...:bonk:

Let's picture a circle a black line on white paper. Pick a point somewhere on the circle and label it "understanding", then approximately 180 degrees across from that point pick another and label it "interpretation". Now I read a verse of scripture any scripture, and it starts me think and I study it - in the process of that study I consider every possible interpretation I can think of or find elsewhere and arrive at a synthesis of all those interpretation. A small number of those interpretations I will toss but most I will work into a sythesis and arrive at an understanding.

Now I wish to communicate that understanding to others - in doing so I present an interpretation for others to put into their own process. As others communicate their interpretations to me I begin the process over until I arrive at a new understanding. Which I might offer to others as an interpretation.

Now do we want to consider what contitutes an authoritative interpretation?


Regards,
Scott

Interpretation and understanding go hand in hand.

One definition of to "understand" in my trusty Corel WordPerfect Dictionary is...to "interpret or view in a particular way".

As far as scripture is concerned...I think there's a difference between interpretation and true understanding of scripture.

Anyone can interpret scripture but not everyone is going to have an accurate understanding of what they're reading.

Scripture, in my opinion isn't intended to be processed solely with the mind. It's the Living Word of God...God speaks to us through His Word.

My interpretation can be incorrect.

But if I seek spiritual guidance when I read scripture which results in spiritual confirmation from God via the Holy Spirit...that in my opinion, is really understanding scripture.

I think everyone has the ability to understand the Word of God.

It's also important to weigh in that our minds are of this world...period. It's too easy to twist and bend scriptural meaning to suit our own fancy. Which is why...we should seek GOD every time we crack open our Bibles...seek HIM for spritual wisdom. We will never understand EVERYTHING...but when we ask Him to...HE DOES reveal bits and pieces to us here and there as HE sees fit.

We all interpret the Bible...but our interpretations mean very little unless we're understanding the Word in the manner that GOD intends for us to understand it.

And you can't do that at all unless you're trusting Him for guidance and instruction.

This is one of the reasons I reject Sola Scriptura in all its forms and adhere the ancient Christian Traditions. I take these verses as an explicit condemnation of the doctrine (well, explicit in the first, implicit in the second, and not really addressing it in the third).

2 Peter 3:16 tells us that the scriptures contain things hard to understand.
Keep in mind that this was being written for Christians.

So is the Bible unclear (hard to understand) in certain areas?
I think it's really difficult to argue otherwise.
Lurking into history will show that it was never intended to be "Me, my Bible, and God". This isn't to down size a personal relationship but rather to show the setting in which God usually dealt with his people (Family Setting). One could have their personal relationship, be led by the Holy Spirit, and even properly interpret the Scriptures. But as soon as things went south and people started deviating either on a personal level (Luther, Calvin, etc.) or as a group (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, etc.) they knew where to go to settle the matter. To the leaders of the Church like in Acts 15.

I am of the opinion that all the Western Hype of "down with the King" and "the buck stops here" has impacted peoples worldview and to be suspicious of the "man". It has huge consequences on Western civilization. Not all negative I might add.

So if you want a the clearest understanding one must go back to the family of God. "Which one is that?" One might ask. Well I'm quite sure my bias penetrates through everyones screen but at least it minimizes the questions and has you focus on a smaller area.

Peace be with you
~Victor

YmirGF said:

Good to see you again Pete. Nice to see you came up from snorkeling on Scubaboard.

In answer to your question.
I would say that yes there is a vast gulf between understanding and interpretation. Imho, true understanding, or gnosis, comes from within, but more importantly, true understanding comes from direct experience.

Interpretation is a thought processes. I do not mean to totally negate the thought process, but many simply do not think things through very well and prefer to leave the spiritual "heavy lifting" to others.

On a small side note, I like this very much:
"and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

To my stilted, skewed understanding, the author is not whistling Dixie. It is meant quite literally. It is my continued experience, that the inner self is very much like a star. The light is quite dazzling at times, if not blinding in intensity. You are welcome to interpret that however you wish. :biglaugh:

It is pretty to look at, wonderful to feel, and amazing to experience. It is my elitist view, that if one does not have the light within their mind, then their words are nothing more than idle speculations, and to be taken with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Imho, true understanding, or gnosis, comes from within, but more importantly, true understanding comes from direct experience.
It is my continued experience, that the inner self is very much like a star. The light is quite dazzling at times, if not blinding in intensity. You are welcome to interpret that however you wish. :biglaugh:

It is pretty to look at, wonderful to feel, and amazing to experience. It is my elitist view, that if one does not have the light within their mind, then their words are nothing more than idle speculations, and to be taken with a grain of salt.[/quote]

I personally agree wholeheartedly.

I could go further, but that is for another thread......

I hadn't thought of this when I initially started this thread, but a friend yesterday suggested that "Explanation without application is constipation!"

Ymir... your post brought yet another scripture to mind:

Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. NIV

No*s,

Sometimes I feel that having the moniker "solo scripturist" thrust on me is not only misleading, but unfair. Whereas you look to your church to explain the inexplicable, I look to the Counselor, the Holy Spirit of an everlasting God, for enlightenment. Only the Holy Spirit can enlighten the eyes of my heart. Selah!

NetDoc said:

No*s,

Sometimes I feel that having the moniker "solo scripturist" thrust on me is not only misleading, but unfair. Whereas you look to your church to explain the inexplicable, I look to the Counselor, the Holy Spirit of an everlasting God, for enlightenment. Only the Holy Spirit can enlighten the eyes of my heart. Selah!

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't say anything about your positions, so there's no need to say it's unfair . It was a general post, and I applied it to all forms of Sola Scriptura, so it couldn't be a personal comment, though yes, I would include the position I've seen you espouse in it, because the question always boils down to just Scripture and nothing beyond it has been treated as spiritually authoritative. If Scripture alone is authoritative in a discussion, then no matter how many supporting sources there are, it is still a sola position. It's a pretty broad term ranging from those who appeal to the Spirit to interpret the book to those who appeal the Spirit to help them understand it.

I didn't mean any offense, though, and it wasn't directed at you personally. Heck, it wasn't even argumentative; I simply stated a different interpretation that applied directly to the discussion (you know my argumentative posts tend to get far more windy).

NetDoc said:

II Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

Hebrews 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. NIV

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

So often, I hear people say "That's you interpretation of it!" or the like and it always makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, many have asked that if God is so omnipotent, why can't he write a book that EVERYONE can understand?

So what do you think? Interpretation or understanding? What's the big diff?

Click to expand...

Everyone can understand it. But not intelectually; it has to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. Only in the Spirit can the spiritual be understood.

No*s said:

I didn't mean any offense, though, and it wasn't directed at you personally. Heck, it wasn't even argumentative; I simply stated a different interpretation that applied directly to the discussion (you know my argumentative posts tend to get far more windy).

Click to expand...

I appreciate that No*s, but I have been labled that extensively since signing onto this forum.

I find the Spirit a perfectly legitimate method of discerning Spiritual truth, and apparently do did Jesus.

NetDoc said:

I find the Spirit a perfectly legitimate method of discerning Spiritual truth, and apparently do did Jesus.

Click to expand...

What Christian will object to this Pete?

Hi, I think the problem is not in the true word but in what we have that are only mans translations or attempts at translations. Here is an example in just English, I tell you ( , ) today you will be with me in paradise. Well the , is an add in from man. Here is the true reading, I tell you today (,) you will be with me in paradise. does this change in an add in that man has put in, does it make a differance? Well if someone is going to try and say the (,) should be afterI tell you (,) must think that the Messiyah went to paradise the day he died as the wise men want us to think and not as the scriptures say that he was three days in the earth as the scriptures say. It is easy to start to go with a little untruth that sounds good. You have a good one.

alexander garcia said:

Hi, I think the problem is not in the true word but in what we have that are only mans translations or attempts at translations. Here is an example in just English, I tell you ( , ) today you will be with me in paradise. Well the , is an add in from man. Here is the true reading, I tell you today (,) you will be with me in paradise. does this change in an add in that man has put in, does it make a differance? Well if someone is going to try and say the (,) should be afterI tell you (,) must think that the Messiyah went to paradise the day he died as the wise men want us to think and not as the scriptures say that he was three days in the earth as the scriptures say. It is easy to start to go with a little untruth that sounds good. You have a good one.

Click to expand...

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to $userinfo[alexander garcia] again.

alexander garcia said:

Hi, I think the problem is not in the true word but in what we have that are only mans translations or attempts at translations. Here is an example in just English, I tell you ( , ) today you will be with me in paradise. Well the , is an add in from man. Here is the true reading, I tell you today (,) you will be with me in paradise. does this change in an add in that man has put in, does it make a differance? Well if someone is going to try and say the (,) should be afterI tell you (,) must think that the Messiyah went to paradise the day he died as the wise men want us to think and not as the scriptures say that he was three days in the earth as the scriptures say. It is easy to start to go with a little untruth that sounds good. You have a good one.

Click to expand...

To me the whole point of that passage is NOT WHEN Christ goes to heaven but that he is telling the thief he will be with him in Paradise. Assuring the thief that they will be together in paradise because of the thief's belief in Jesus is the important part....not where a comma might be placed.

NetDoc said:

I appreciate that No*s, but I have been labled that extensively since signing onto this forum.

I find the Spirit a perfectly legitimate method of discerning Spiritual truth, and apparently do did Jesus.

Click to expand...

NP. It's a broad term, and it can (and will) be used to include virtually any method of interpretation that rejects the authority of Tradition.

That said, I don't object to the use of the Spirit, obviously. I pray prior to the interpretation of Scripture, and I feel that this is a very important detail (the Fathers can be prooftexted as well). I cannot, however, reduce that to me, the Bible, and the Spirit. That would still be just as private as the concept of myself and God is a private religion, or a story kept in the family is private. According to 2 Pet. 3.16, their twisting of Scripture results from their being "untaught" and "unstable." This would concur with my experience, where the Spirit seems to tell me and several other people all different things.

These verses (the third in a different way) all played a fairly large role in my spiritual development, causing me to rethink the logical relativism I had embraced.

I apologize again if I caused any offense. Believe me, it was inadvertant.

alexander garcia said:

Hi, I think the problem is not in the true word but in what we have that are only mans translations or attempts at translations. Here is an example in just English, I tell you ( , ) today you will be with me in paradise. Well the , is an add in from man. Here is the true reading, I tell you today (,) you will be with me in paradise. does this change in an add in that man has put in, does it make a differance? Well if someone is going to try and say the (,) should be afterI tell you (,) must think that the Messiyah went to paradise the day he died as the wise men want us to think and not as the scriptures say that he was three days in the earth as the scriptures say. It is easy to start to go with a little untruth that sounds good. You have a good one.

Click to expand...

It also didn't have any punctuation, spaces, or caps. So would you advocate a translation of ITELLYOUTODAYYOUWILLBEWITHMEINPARADISE? That would be a fairly literal reading, and it wouldn't infringe nearly as much.

Heck, it gets better. The word "I" never appears, because Christ said (omitting the accents, since they are also later additions) ΑΜΗΝΛΕΓΩΣΟΙΣΗΜΕΡΟΝΜΕΤΕΜΟΘΕΣΗΙΕΝΤΩΙΠΑΡΑΔΕΙΣΩΙ. On a word-for-word translation, that would be "AMENSAYYOUTODAYWITHMEWILLBEINPARADISE." Even there I fudged, because "will" isn't part of the future tense for the verb; Greek didn't use helper verbs for the future.

What's worse, this is a translation of what Jesus probably said in Aramaic, so since Paradise originally meant "garden," maybe we should translate that as well. I bet Luke added a few things in translation, but we don't have that.

It doesn't make much sense that way does it? We have to add things to make it make sense in our language. These include subjects, because the subject is mandatory in English but could be omitted in Greek. We have to add helper verbs, because English has become too analytical and has no real future tense (or perfect or any progressive tense). We use commas and periods; Greek at that time didn't.

The question isn't whether a comma should be added, because it is too interpretive, but where should it be added? You advocate that it be added after the adverb, but semeron, "today," occurs after the implied oti, a particle that roughly correlates to our "that" (I say to you that today...). In fact, semeron would be redundant in this context and actually make it unclear. Of course he's speaking to the thief on the cross "today." Any time you use the present tense, that is implied. Even the proposed problem of Christ's presence on earth isn't much of a problem from several theological vantage points (perhaps His spirit goes there, perhaps He is fully God, and thus, omnipresent, etc.).

As a result, I would strongly suggest that you give reasons beyond "Well the , is an add in from man." You should also watch your grammar when you do it. Bad grammar in one's own language detracts from one's authority when commenting on an ancient language which is no longer spoken in the form in question.

alexander garcia said:

Hi, I think the problem is not in the true word but in what we have that are only mans translations or attempts at translations. Here is an example in just English, I tell you ( , ) today you will be with me in paradise. Well the , is an add in from man. Here is the true reading, I tell you today (,) you will be with me in paradise. does this change in an add in that man has put in, does it make a differance? Well if someone is going to try and say the (,) should be afterI tell you (,) must think that the Messiyah went to paradise the day he died as the wise men want us to think and not as the scriptures say that he was three days in the earth as the scriptures say. It is easy to start to go with a little untruth that sounds good. You have a good one.

Click to expand...

nice one i agree , the man who was put to death next to Jesus did not go to paradise that day , but Jesus knew that in the future the earth would be a paradise and the man would live in that future paradise, because Jesus would ressurect him.............into a paradise earth
Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."—Luke 23:39-43 NWT. as you say this is more like the correct translation . and its best to get it right.