Man's Interpretation

[InfidelRiot]

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?

 

[Pegg]

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

because some people reject Gods counsel. They dont like what they hear so they interpret it in a way that suits their own preconceived ideas.

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?

some of the scriptures are visions with symbolic meanings...its not all clear cut statements of fact.

 

[Me Myself]

Perception without interpretation = perception without understanding.

Not that I am saying the bible is anything but a complete mess of a lot of books pasted together with Scotch Tape

 

[InfidelRiot]

because some people reject Gods counsel. They dont like what they hear so they interpret it in a way that suits their own preconceived ideas.

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.

 

[Me Myself]

but to be more fair, perception = interpretation

perception Pronunciation: /pəˈsɛpʃ(&#601n/
Translate perception into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of perception
noun
[mass noun]
1the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses:
the normal limits to human perception
awareness of something through the senses:
the perception of pain
Psychology & Zoology the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
2the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted:
Hollywood’s perception of the tastes of the American public
[count noun]:
we need to challenge many popular perceptions of old age
intuitive understanding and insight:
‘He wouldn’t have accepted,’ said my mother with unusual perception


So it is conceptually imposible to percieve without interpreting at least in some level.

 

[Pegg]

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.

What did Jesus say?

matthew 7:21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens...

Jim Jones thought he was a righteous sort of christian... What about pedophiles who hide behind a christian cloak? Do you think Jesus might know who is who and who is boo?

 

[InfidelRiot]

 

[Shermana]

What did Jesus say?

matthew 7:21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens...

Jim Jones thought he was a righteous sort of christian... What about pedophiles who hide behind a christian cloak? Do you think Jesus might know who is who and who is boo?

You forgot about Matthew 7:22-23, that's one of my favorite verses!

"Away from me ye DOERS OF LAWLESSNESS".

Lawlessness = "against Mosaic Law" in this context.

Simple things like Jewish context of the Gospels get thrown out in favor of "orthodox" anti-Judaizing interpretations. It's not a matter of difficulty in interpretation as it is a matter of historical order and Trillion-dollar-organizations whose doctrines and foundations would be in jeopardy if people actually understood the writings correctly.

Jim Jones thought he was a righteous sort of christian... What about pedophiles who hide behind a christian cloak? Do you think Jesus might know who is who and who is boo?

People's Temple was not a 'Christian" organization, it was mostly a Communist, Atheistic "New Age" belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

As for the worst of the worst people who hide behind the "Christian cloak", according to most "Christian" doctrines, they're still saved because they believe in Jesus, they just have a "weakness in the flesh", "there there it's okay you're still saved because your works don't matter you can sin however badly you want just try not to get caught!"

 

[sojourner]

An imminent NT scholar once said, "The bible has not lasted because it is true. The bible has lasted because it fosters multiple interpretations."

There are any number of different, valid ways to understand God.

 

[Thief]

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?

A coin in your hand is the same, as when it is in mine.
What you do with it makes the difference.

It's not just scripture. ALL of what we perceive is dealt this way.
No two people see any one thing in the same way.

But that's why God created us in linear form.
Each to his own perspective.

Reality is the same for all.
But if every report of life was identical ....
we won't have much to talk about...would we?

 

[BSM1]

I believe everyone has to find their own truth, and we interpret the Bible and other religious scriptures to enhance our belief. I think the trouble begins when others try to force their truth on you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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 assume you meant "divinely authored", otherwise the question is simply incoherent.

I agree. God did not write the Bible. Good catch!

 

[outhouse]

An imminent NT scholar once said, "The bible has not lasted because it is true. The bible has lasted because it fosters multiple interpretations."

There are any number of different, valid ways to understand God.

Ill buy that.

I like this though

the bible is mythology, written in allegory, YOU DONT FIX IT

its not broken, it fixes you.



just because people have perverted its meaning doesnt mean the original intent lacks philisophical beauty in epic porportions. this collection of books no doubt has some of the best fiction in mythology ever written as well as haviang all types of meanings, metaphors, allegory, songs almost everything that can be written was written to help tame barbaric people.

its has beauty in the fact it is designed to train barbaric people to not be pieces of garbage, despite those who cant interpret it properly because they dont have the brains god gave a crowbar! figuratively speaking of course

I doubt any other book has helped so many dumb ignorant people, and given those that eat dirt, and live in poverty and filth, a light at the end of the tunnel.


its meaning is lost in rich educated cultures because we are above its help.

but it doesnt mean theres nothing left to learn, and there is no room for improvement, whether its in that book or not

 

[Awoon]

Anyone can write a book and say it was inspired by a God.

 

[waitasec]

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?

because the experience of god is subjective.

the problem is when one assumes their interpretation is the correct one and all others are false.
then they just look silly and sadly enough, also pose a threat to society as they believe they have a god given right to impose their beliefs on others who do not believe as they do.

i believe there is a word that describes people who behave in this manner:
arrogant.

 

[Shermana]

the problem is when one assumes their interpretation is the correct one and all others are false.

I think there has to be some basis that one must agree on when it comes to interpretation, I don't believe that there are multiple ways to glean it, at least as the author intended it. I think its completely reasonable for one to think that they have the meaning that was the intended message....and whether they are right or not is up for debate. I believe the arrogance is when a person is not willing to address the critiques and concerns of others, or ascribes to a position that is simply held by the majority (i.e. Church pastors telling flock what to believe, flock not questioning), and that applies to every end of the "Christian" spectrum from right to left and in between, but I do believe there is an answer as to what was the intended message, and I don't think it was ever intended to be "up to interpretation", I think the author meant something to be taken a certain way, and when it comes to the Bible, we must examine it through the perspective of who wrote it to get that answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because some people reject Gods counsel. They dont like what they hear so they interpret it in a way that suits their own preconceived ideas.



some of the scriptures are visions with symbolic meanings...its not all clear cut statements of fact.

So... aside from those difficult symbolic passages you mention, when two Christians disagree on interpretation of the Bible, at least one of them is necessarily engaging in intellectual dishonesty?

An imminent NT scholar once said, "The bible has not lasted because it is true. The bible has lasted because it fosters multiple interpretations."

There are any number of different, valid ways to understand God.

Is it really "understanding God", though? My take on this is that the Bible acts like an echo chamber in this respect: you can find support for all sorts of ideas in it, many of them contradictory. I don't think this speaks to the validity of any particular interpretation any more that the Rohrshach test speaks to the "validity" of seeing either a rabbit or a butterfly in the same ink blot.

... except, of course, that it speaks to the idea that the material doesn't have some fundamental truth behind it. IMO, when a person talks about their "understanding of God", more often than not, what they're really talking about is their own ideas of perfection and virtue. IOW, they're looking inward even though the exercise purports to look outward.

 

[waitasec]

I think there has to be some basis that one must agree on when it comes to interpretation, I don't believe that there are multiple ways to glean it, at least as the author intended it. I think its completely reasonable for one to think that they have the meaning that was the intended message....and whether they are right or not is up for debate. I believe the arrogance is when a person is not willing to address the critiques and concerns of others, or ascribes to a position that is simply held by the majority (i.e. Church pastors telling flock what to believe, flock not questioning), and that applies to every end of the "Christian" spectrum from right to left and in between, but I do believe there is an answer as to what was the intended message, and I don't think it was ever intended to be "up to interpretation", I think the author meant something to be taken a certain way, and when it comes to the Bible, we must examine it through the perspective of who wrote it to get that answer.

yeah, i don't see how interpreting the original intent can be possible being that the nature of these ancient writings, one would have to peel back layer after layer after layer of interpretations
how one measures the value of ancient books is a personal matter and that is fine ....until one is so enamored by their interpretation as THE interpretation
it's just the same old song and dance routine of "i'm right and you're wrong"

can't we all just get along?

 

[Darkness]

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?

Because poststructuralism happens to be a fact of existence.

 

[Shermana]

yeah, i don't see how interpreting the original intent can be possible being that the nature of these ancient writings, one would have to peel back layer after layer after layer of interpretations
how one measures the value of ancient books is a personal matter and that is fine ....until one is so enamored by their interpretation as THE interpretation
it's just the same old song and dance routine of "i'm right and you're wrong"

can't we all just get along?

We do have a basic idea nonetheless. The Jewish gospels...are Jewish (and most likely from the Nazarene sect perspective). Attempting to read them outside of a Nazarene Jewish perspective you'd think would be some3thing everyone could agree to, no? But no, we cannot all get along, we haven't been getting along for 2000 years. People want to read into them something completely different to fit their church doctrines than what it's historical context is, hence we have the divisions because there rests a trillion dollar establishment that has its roots from the initial Roman orthodox establishment. So long as there remains critical doctrinal differences that arise from these pretender-to-the-throne "interpretations", how can anyone really get along except to hopefully agree to disagree?

Eventually we have to lay some ideas of what a 'wrong" interpretation is, otherwise there'd be no need for a "Religious debate" forum, would there?

For a telltale example of a blatantly wrong, blatantly DISHONESTLY wrong interpretation that demonstrates how the mainstream "Church" will in fact change the Greek to suit their confirmation anti-Judaizer bias, look at the NIV translation of Mark 7:14 and the translations that imitate it. Compare to the KJV and Douay Rheims, and examine that they change the present tense into past tense to get it to say that Jesus undid the Dietary Laws instead of merely saying that the Stomach "purges all foods" to say that "Thus he made all foods clean". (It's in fact in present tense). Yet another topic that deserves its own thread.