[ordinaryguy]

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.

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?

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.

You have changed your definition of the word in mid-discussion.

[N0help4u]

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

[ordinaryguy]

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 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.

I don't see where he is changing anything

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.

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.

[Tj3]

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?

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

[JoeT777]

Okay, to make it easy to understand, let's look at an example from the secular world, just to show that what we are talking about is nothing out of the ordinary.

If one was asked to find out accurately what an historic figure, let’s say Winston Churchill, believed or taught about certain events in history, how would you go about it?

Well, there are a few options:
- Talk to the person, but in the case of Churchill, he is dead, so that is not an option.
- Talk to people who may have interviewed or known him very well. Again, few if any people who fall into that category would still be available, so we need to discount that also.
- Read what people who have done similar studies say about what he thought. This is a real option, but it is important to realize that any writings like this will have biases, but their thoughts may provide some pointers.
- Read what he actually wrote. Even if you read what others have to say about the topic, to verify the accuracy of what they say, you will want to go back and verify this from the source.

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.

Further, unlike other topics, we have an additional promise from God that comes into effect when those who have received Jesus as Saviour study His word.

John 16:13-15
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
NKJV

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.

Scripture cannot interpret scripture, as the above illustrates; nor, can scripture authenticate itself; nor is Scripture a church as Tertullian illustrates below:

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

[Tj3]

Scripture cannot interpret scripture, as the above illustrates;

Deny as you wish - God commands that men not interpret scripture.

nor, can scripture authenticate itself;

Are you saying that scripture is not the word of God? I thought that amongst those who profess Christ, that would be a given.

nor is Scripture a church

Strawman argument. No one said that it was.

[Wondergirl]

Scripture cannot interpret scripture

Of course it can, and does. You yourself have used it in that way.

[ordinaryguy]

God commands that men not interpret scripture.

Unless God's command was delivered to you verbally, this is your interpretation of scripture.

[ordinaryguy]

Scripture cannot interpret scripture

Of course it can, and does.

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"?

[N0help4u]

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

I think we all need to take a step back and define "interpretation."

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.

[Tj3]

Unless God's command was delivered to you verbally, this is your interpretation of scripture.

Really? So you would believe the verbal word of God, but not the written word of God?

How did you you come to that interpretation?

[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"?

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.

If the truth is not adequate to defend your position, then is your position worth defending?

[Tj3]

Yes, YOU can interpret scripture without referring to any other source, but YOU are still doing the interpreting.

Who said anyhthing about not referring to another source? There are 66 books in the Bible.

[JoeT777]

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.

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.

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

[N0help4u]

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.

[ScottRC]

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.

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.

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.

[JoeT777]

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.

Don't know, and don't care to know, because it's your point that scripture interprets scripture; not Mr Thompson, not mine

JoeT