[Tj3]

Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer.... but for those of us who live our lives as Christians, CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance.

I'm sure that you understand that for those of us who are Christians, we believe that knowing what God wants for us to do in this life is pretty darn important... and without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.

But thanks again for your opinion.

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.

We are to use scripture as our standard.

[ordinaryguy]

Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer....

Who you callin' an observer? I'm a down-and-dirty participant in life in all its delightful chaos.

without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.

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.

[ordinaryguy]

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that
they have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.

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".

Thus since all scripture is inspired by God, we who have received Jesus as Saviour can effectively be guided into understanding the truth by the author, further helping to ensure accuracy of our understanding.

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.

[Tj3]

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".

There is no interpreting. It is reading what is there - nothing more, nothing less.

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).

[Wondergirl]

Originally Posted by ScottR=CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance

And who provides this?

[ordinaryguy]

Note you accused me of saying that the written language can have no interpretation at all.

That is much different than what I said. Please, in the future provide the quote if you are going to respond to something that I said. Gross mis-representations do not move forward our understanding nor the credibility of your position.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.

Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.

[ordinaryguy]

There is no interpreting. It is reading what is there - nothing more, nothing less.

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.

Now if I had said, you take what someone else said, that would be an interpretation.

That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.

Or if I said that you should read one document and extrapolate to fill in any gaps, that would be interpretation.

That would be interpolation.

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.

That would be an accurate interpretation.

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.

Yes, there is an accurate interpretation of what your boss said.

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).

That would be extrapolation based on assumption.

[JoeT777]

But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?

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.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.

What does that mean?

[Tj3]

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.

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.

If you call it that, then you are making up your own definitions.

That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.

Nonetheless, it is an interpretation.

That would be interpolation.

True, but once again it is an interpretation.

That would be an accurate interpretation.

This is the root of the problem. You are not familiar with the boundaries of what constitutes an interpretation.

[Tj3]

The point of the matter is you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.
JoeT

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?

[ordinaryguy]

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.

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.

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.

Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.

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".

[JoeT777]

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.


Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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 wrong

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.

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 :D

Have you read the ten suggestions in Exodus 20 lately? :D

[ordinaryguy]

This is the root of the problem. You are not familiar with the boundaries of what constitutes an interpretation.

Here are your exact words (post #110):

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

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?

[Tj3]

Tj3:
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.

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.

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.

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,

A schoolboy indoctrinated in a Roman Catholic school perhaps.

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.

Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.

[Tj3]

Here are your exact words (post #110):

Understanding the intent of the writer is a mental process that occurs in the mind of the reader.

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.

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 (an inanimate material object) cannot understand itself. Understanding is a function of conscious, thinking beings. Do you want to revise your definition of interpretation?

The Bible provides us with God's word and provides us with an understanding of what God wants us to know.

[JoeT777]

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.

And if you if you were working for me I wouldn’t want you reinventing the Ohm meter every time you did a project.

The reason? In engineering, facts are important and it is important to get personal biases out of the way.

Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.

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.

So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.

Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.

?

JoeT

[Tj3]

And if you if you were working for me I wouldn’t want you reinventing the Ohm meter every time you did a project.

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.

Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.

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.

So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.

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.