 |
First you said that "Interpretation means to understand the original intent." Now you say that interpretation means to "bend it to fit your beliefs". Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You have changed your definition of the word in mid-discussion.Quote:
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.
He is making the distinction, not saying that that is what it is but saying there is a distinction which Scottrc and them do not seem to understand. I don't see where he is changing anything but that he is pointing out that they are
I don't have a dog in the fight between the Protestants and the Catholics. According to Tj3, that lays me wide open to the charge of (Gasp! ) "post modernism". I don't know what post-modernism is. He may be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
OK, look at it this way: The phrase "to understand the original intent" in the first quote is synonymous with the phrase "read what is said and take it at face value" in the second. Yet in the first statement, this correct understanding is said to be interpretation, while in the second, it is said not to be interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Conversely, the phrase "bend it to fit your beliefs" in the second statement surely means to misunderstand the original intent. So in the first statement, it is accurate understanding that is defined as interpretation, while in the second, it is erroneous understanding that is so identified.
If this contradiction in meaning between these two statements is still invisible to you, I am ready to accept that there is nothing more I can say that will open your eyes to it.
If your position cannot be defended without dishonesty in how you treat what another person said, then you have undermined the credibility of your own position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I don't have a dog in the fight between protestants and RCC either. I am neither. I stand on what the Bible has to say, not on what any denomination requires as part of their doctrinal stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Scripture cannot interpret scripture, as the above illustrates; nor, can scripture authenticate itself; nor is Scripture a church as Tertullian illustrates below:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast (John 21:20) to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? (John 19:26) Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? (Matthew 17:1-8) Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because by three witnesses must every word be established. After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, to expound all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:27) No doubt He had once said, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot hear them now; but even then He added, When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. (John 16:12-13) He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 22
JoeT
Deny as you wish - God commands that men not interpret scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Are you saying that scripture is not the word of God? I thought that amongst those who profess Christ, that would be a given.Quote:
nor, can scripture authenticate itself;
Strawman argument. No one said that it was.Quote:
nor is Scripture a church
Of course it can, and does. You yourself have used it in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Unless God's command was delivered to you verbally, this is your interpretation of scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Tj3's latest definition of "interpret" is to "bend it to fit your beliefs". But apparently you have a different definition in mind. What is your definition of the word "interpret", as used in the statement "scripture can interpret scripture"?Quote:
Originally Posted by T777
Try getting a Thompson Chain Reference and put aside all church teachings and just do a topic study on things and you will see that scripture does interpret and support itself.
What are people who never heard of Catholicism or lived before Catholicism and believe in God suppose to do if all they have is the Bible and have to figure it out? Are they doomed to understanding the Bible because they don't have this 'higher power' connection from the Pope??
I REALLY REALLY don't see how God in his infinite wisdom meant for some denomination to come 325 yrs after Christ and say they have some totally new meaning to what the Bible actually says.
If this post is directed to me, you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting, as the Catholics are, that the RCC's interpretation of scripture is better than yours. I am insisting that there is no interpretation without a human mind involved, and therefore the notion that any written source can "interpret itself" is nonsense. Yes, YOU can interpret scripture without referring to any other source, but YOU are still doing the interpreting.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I think we all need to take a step back and define "interpretation."Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Much of the Bible is easily understood. The OT stories, for instance, tell us about God's people who messed up their lives in various ways and thus caused lots of trouble for others, but, when they repented, God forgave. The OT wisdom literature can be read for its clarity and common sense. Many of the passages/stories in the Gospels are forthright and teach us how to live ("The Good Samaritan" and the Beatitudes, for instance).
When we come across something we don't understand or it may seem to have various meanings, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church has always done this for its members. Martin Luther put forth the amazing idea that anyone can read the Bible and allow it to interpret itself (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them). That's why he used the new invention of the printing press to get the Bible printed in the German language so the German people could read the Bible for themselves. He had translated part of the Bible into German by using Erasmus's second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament. (Later, with others, Luther translated the entire Bible into German.)
Gnmagazine.org discusses this type of interpretation, how "Scripture interprets Scripture" --
"The Bible itself tells us that we are to understand it as a unit; all Scripture is inspired and a divine guide for human conduct. By putting together all the scriptures on a given subject, we allow the Bible to interpret itself and give us a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life.
Viewing every passage in a different context renders the Bible little more than a conflicting, contradictory collection of human writings rather than a divine revelation. Paul's instruction in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows us the correct way to interpret the Bible: All of it is God's inspired revelation."
Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, had a "Golden Rule of Interpretation":
When the plain sense of Scripture
makes common sense,
seek no other sense;
Therefore, take every word
at its primary, ordinary,
usual, literal meaning
Unless the facts
of the immediate context,
studied in the light
Of related passages and
axiomatic and fundamental truths
indicate clearly otherwise.
Really? So you would believe the verbal word of God, but not the written word of God?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
How did you you come to that interpretation?
I never said that was my intertpretation - how much longer are you going to continue to repeat that mis-representation? You have been corrected on this previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
If the truth is not adequate to defend your position, then is your position worth defending?
Who said anyhthing about not referring to another source? There are 66 books in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
N0help: If, as you say, “Scripture is to interprets Scripture”, why would the first thing be to read a Thompson Chain Reference? This doesn’t make sense. What I “interpret” you to be saying is that I have to read what Mr. Thompson says before I can “self interpret” the Scriptures. That’s dumb as snake oil. Or are you saying that a pseudo-pope, i.e. Thompson, has a better interpretation than the real Pope? Let me point out that the Pope doesn’t sit down and write out a treatise on “how to interpret the Bible” for every single line such as Thompson. He confines his infallible opinion only to those things that have become a matter of faith at the time, always based on Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. So, as an example, being a Catholic doesn’t mean that I can or can’t believe in the literal interpretation in a 6-day creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The RCC didn’t come into being 325 years after Christ. It came into being when Christ ascended to Heaven [Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.] This is known through Apostolic Tradition and to us through teaching Magisterium of the Church. The early Catholic Church was a bit busy with martyrdom to worry about Synods and Councils prior to 325 AD.
Consequently, we don’t find our faith or our Catholic understanding of Scripture to be “better” than others because most Christian faith entails some elements of God’s truth, but not necessarily the “fullness of faith” found in the RCC - if it did contain the same fullness then it would be the same faith.
Ordinaryguy’s comments: everything we read is interpreted for understanding of the content and measured against our life’s experiences; this would also include the Scriptures. Such “interpretation” is part of our intellectual reasoning. It’s pure human nature. Surly you’re not suggesting that we sleep on the Bible and learn by osmoses? Or are you suggesting that we should learn by word of mouth through our Bishops? Or should we abandon our faith and just follow you?
JoeT
Okay what does Mr Thompson add that is not already in the scriptures?
If he added it then I would also question it before I accept it as 100% infallible.
But it is a good reference for finding and studying related scriptures.
Ummm... this kind of begs the question how did Christians understand their faith for the hundreds of years before there was a Bible to "say" anything... and simply avoids the history that shows there was considerable debate for 500+ years as to what books should even be CONSIDERED the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.
Don't know, and don't care to know, because it's your point that scripture interprets scripture; not Mr Thompson, not mineQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
JoeT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 PM. |