Exactly. That is why God said in His word that no man is to interpret scripture - that means not you, not me, not your priest, not my pastor, and not the pope - no man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
We are to use scripture as our standard.
|
Exactly. That is why God said in His word that no man is to interpret scripture - that means not you, not me, not your priest, not my pastor, and not the pope - no man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
We are to use scripture as our standard.
Who you callin' an observer? I'm a down-and-dirty participant in life in all its delightful chaos.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Well, sure, if you really can't tolerate it, then choose your objective standard, wrap it tightly around yourself and hunker down. It may protect you from confusion, or it may just suffocate you. It seems to work for some people, but I tried it fair and square and decided that a little confusion was a small price to pay to feel the wind on my face.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Thanks. You've provided a good example of how interpretation is done. You've even acknowledged that it's how you go about interpreting the Bible. But it IS YOU doing the interpreting, not the Bible "interpreting itself".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, that's fine to acknowledge spiritual help in arriving at a satisfactory interpretation, just stop with this silly idea that you aren't doing any interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There is no interpreting. It is reading what is there - nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Now if I had said, you take what someone else said, that would be an interpretation. Or if I said that you should read one document and extrapolate to fill in any gaps, that would be interpretation. But if I read that that the person believes X, and I respond by saying that he believes X - I have done no more than reflect accurately what was said.
If I was a painter and my boss said to paint the walls of the house blue, and I painted the walls of the house blue - there is no interpretation. If I decided to go and paint the trim white also, that would be an interpretation (I would have gone beyond what I was told and assumed what he meant).
And who provides this?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottR=CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance
My apologies. I should have accused you of saying that no man can interpret scripture, that scripture interprets itself, as I see it, a not much different and equally preposterous thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.
Oh, please! By your own definition, if you read the words and use them to arrive at an understanding of the writer's intent, you're interpreting. It's not a sin (is it?), so why the irrational denial that you're doing it? I really don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.Quote:
Now if I had said, you take what someone else said, that would be an interpretation.
That would be interpolation.Quote:
Or if I said that you should read one document and extrapolate to fill in any gaps, that would be interpretation.
That would be an accurate interpretation.Quote:
But if I read that that the person believes X, and I respond by saying that he believes X - I have done no more than reflect accurately what was said.
Yes, there is an accurate interpretation of what your boss said.Quote:
If I was a painter and my boss said to paint the walls of the house blue, and I painted the walls of the house blue - there is no interpretation.
That would be extrapolation based on assumption.Quote:
If I decided to go and paint the trim white also, that would be an interpretation (I would have gone beyond what I was told and assumed what he meant).
Yes the Old Testament “supports” the New Testament. But there hasn’t been a book written that can authenticate and interpret itself. We’ve proved that with this discussion. Obviously, If it did do these things we wouldn’t be arguing. The point of the matter is you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
What does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
See now that is interpreting what I said. When a person interprets, they take what is there, and massage it to fit a new profile of some sort. I said nothing of the sort. I said to take what he wrote - go right back to the source. If you do not go beyond what it written, there is no interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
If you call it that, then you are making up your own definitions.
Nonetheless, it is an interpretation.Quote:
That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.
True, but once again it is an interpretation.Quote:
That would be interpolation.
This is the root of the problem. You are not familiar with the boundaries of what constitutes an interpretation.Quote:
That would be an accurate interpretation.
If it were so essential, surely we would have been told that in scripture, rather than being commanded not to go beyond what is written. Did God err?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
We are not required to do the impossible. In order to understand the meaning of written words, we must interpret them according to the vocabulary and grammar of the language employed. Perhaps your interpretation of what "the Bible commands" is erroneous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Maybe I am starting to understand where you're coming from. You interpret the Bible to mean that you should not interpret it, therefore you must deny that's what you're doing.
No, I am just interpreting it differently than you do. You are forgetting that what you call "what scripture says" is actually your interpretation of words in a book. I'm sorry, but there is just no way to go from words on a page to meaning and understanding without going through the process of interpretation. But thanks for helping me understand, at least a little, why this unavoidable process is so vehemently denied by some "Bible believers".Quote:
Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.
Tj3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You know it’s really funny you should argue that scriptures interpret scripture. I suppose that you got your PE it was by reading an engineering book. Then I suppose when you went in to take your PE exam you told the proctor that you would write the test?
I would suggest that you spent at least 4 years, maybe five, in the presence of many teachers, all of which bore marks of authority. When you took the exam you didn’t interpreted the questions the way you wanted to interpret them, you interpreted them in the tradition of your field of science. You know as well as I do that once you’ve gotten licensed you’re still not free of higher authorities. Your computations are subject to peer review as well as code review. At which time you’re obligated to show how your algorithms produce the “traditionally” accepted answers.
The same holds true for the Scriptures.
Your entire argument of scripture interpreting scripture is specious. It’s evident in the fact that you ignore history, which could be recited by a school boy, that it was the Catholic Church that brought the bible intact, unchanged since the first century when they were in individual books to the third century when the Catholic Church canonized them, to our present age.
JoeT.
What you are suggesting would inhibit us from communicating with each other on here or in person even if we spoke the same language. If you keep following the path that you are on, you end up with post modernism which believes that we cannot know anything and that everyone can decide for themselves what everything means, and no one is ever wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Maybe you are already a post-modernist! You sound like it. So when the weatherman says that it is raining outside, why don't you interpret that to mean sunny and see what happens :DQuote:
Maybe I am starting to understand where you're coming from. You interpret the Bible to mean that you should not interpret it, therefore you must deny that's what you're doing.
Have you read the ten suggestions in Exodus 20 lately? :D
Here are your exact words (post #110):Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Understanding the intent of the writer is a mental process that occurs in the mind of the reader. The Bible (an inanimate material object) cannot understand itself. Understanding is a function of conscious, thinking beings. Do you want to revise your definition of interpretation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If you say that you always just interpret things the way that a higher authority wants you to, I would never want you working for me. The reason? In engineering, facts are important and it is important to get personal biases out of the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
When I study, I look at as many sources as I need to get a full picture of topic, so that what I am seeing is not me, the learner or researcher filling in the pieces (interpreting), but rather that I am validating what I believe, rather than just going which what I believe to be true.
A schoolboy indoctrinated in a Roman Catholic school perhaps.Quote:
Your entire argument of scripture interpreting scripture is specious. It’s evident in the fact that you ignore history, which could be recited by a school boy, that it was the Catholic Church that brought the bible intact,
Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.Quote:
unchanged since the first century when they were in individual books to the third century when the Catholic Church canonized them, to our present age.
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Like I said, I think that we have identified the root problem here. And that is that you have chosen to interpret the word "interpret" for yourself.
The Bible provides us with God's word and provides us with an understanding of what God wants us to know.Quote:
The Bible (an inanimate material object) cannot understand itself. Understanding is a function of conscious, thinking beings. Do you want to revise your definition of interpretation?
And if you if you were working for me I wouldn’t want you reinventing the Ohm meter every time you did a project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.Quote:
The reason? In engineering, facts are important and it is important to get personal biases out of the way.
So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.Quote:
When I study, I look at as many sources as I need to get a full picture of topic, so that what I am seeing is not me, the learner or researcher filling in the pieces (interpreting), but rather that I am validating what I believe, rather than just going which what I believe to be true.
?Quote:
Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.
JoeT
Exactly my point. Nor would I would you to re-interpret how an ohmmeter works, or how to read one or what an ohm is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Always, there is always someone who cannot handle it when things don't go their way and takes it out on those who disagree with them.Quote:
Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.
Never said that I didn't God is my authority and His word is my authority. That is been the point of this whole discussion. Some folk make the RCC their authority on doctrine, others turn to the Bible.Quote:
So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM. |