Interpretation Versus Explanation

[CoreyD]

The first thing that will probably come to mind, when seeing this title, is "Interpretation is explanation! They mean the same thing."
That's okay. This thread is more about interpretations that go against explanations.

Here is an example:
(Daniel 2:31-45)

34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.​

35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.​

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.​

45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold - the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”​

Here, the angel explains, that the stone represents the kingdom of God, which he set up (stone = kingdom of God).
Persons interpret the stone to be something they believe it is (for example : stone = Messiah), and think that is perfectly okay.
It's a case of interpretation against explanation - human interpretation against Biblical explanations.
Is this acceptable, or rather, does it fit the description at 2 Peter 3:16


So, I am having this conversation with @tonychanyt on another thread, and decided to start this thread, since it's a different topic from the one on that thread.

What is your view, regarding the Bible giving its own explanation (interpretation)?

Technically, people interpret texts.

Do you think we can get a clear explanation from the Bible, on topics within it - topics such as these?

Sure. Scripture interprets scripture. That means that the inspired writers of Scripture interpreted some particular already written scriptural scriptural passages. Interpretation requires an active agent to read and interpret.

Thanks Tony.
This is in line with this definition:
An explanation or conceptualization by a critic of a work of literature, painting, music, or other art form; an exegesis.

The broad definition - an explanation or opinion of what something means - allows for an interpretation being given by the one who prouces the work.
So an explanation can quickly follow on the heels of a statement, so that the inspired writer gives the interpretation immediately. Thus requiring no interpretation otherwise.
For example:
Statement :- he [Jesus] said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” John 11:11
Explanation :- So then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died," John 11:14

Is this something you would agree with?
My main point really, is, if an explanation is found in expressions being made by a writer, or speaker, the writer has already given the interpretation. No other human interpretation is needed.
If the writer, is inspired by God, technically, we can say, God supplied the explanation or interpretation.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[tonychanyt]

Thus requiring no interpretation otherwise.

For a human being to make sense of a sentence, he must process it. That process is technically called interpretation. Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text.

 

[CoreyD]

For a human being to make sense of a sentence, he must process it. That process is technically called interpretation. Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text.

I know as a child, they taught us things like, "the cow jumped over the moon", and "Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall", ect.
Perhaps we really should have processed that, instead of just repeating it.

However, growing up, I read many novels, and never had to interpret what I read.
When it read, "He pulled the gun from his coat, and fired two shots, which hit James in the head, killing him instantly.", I understood it, and it required no processing to make sense of - what we call interpretation.

When Jesus said, Lazarus has died. The disciples understood. I do too.
What about you Tony... did you need to interpret it? Can you explain the process?

 

[tonychanyt]

When it read, "He pulled the gun from his coat, and fired two shots, which hit James in the head, killing him instantly.", I understood it, and it required no processing to make sense of - what we call interpretation.

The text "He pulled the gun from his coat" was written on paper. How did you represent this sentence in your brain to make sense of it? That process of going from text representation to brain representation is technically called interpretation.

 

[CoreyD]

The text "He pulled the gun from his coat" was written on paper. How did you represent this sentence in your brain to make sense of it? That process of going from text representation to brain representation is technically called interpretation.

That's not what I understand interpretation to be.

Luke 24:27

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted / explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

Was this interpretation the process of going from text representation to brain representation?
Do you have a reference supporting that definition? I'd like to see it please.

 

[tonychanyt]

That's not what I understand interpretation to be.

Sure. But that is the technical definition.

Was this interpretation the process of going from text representation to brain representation?

No, not necessarily. The Greek word was ambiguous.

Do you have a reference supporting that definition? I'd like to see it please.

See Interpretation (logic) - Wikipedia.

Good questions. Feel free to follow up. I will try to clarify.

 

[CoreyD]

Sure. But that is the technical definition.

Perhaps it's the technical definition for technical usages, but it's not the simple definition for simple understanding.
For example...
Rocket science is needed when dealing with rockets. it's not needed when dealing with children.
Everything has it's place.

No, not necessarily.

Thank you.

The Greek word was ambiguous.

I'm not sure how that applies here.
Perhaps you can explain.

The Greek word means, to explain thoroughly, by implication, to translate
Do you think translate applies in Luke 24:27, and how would that be translated in understanding to the English reader?

See Interpretation (logic) - Wikipedia.

Good questions. Feel free to follow up. I will try to clarify.

According to the Wiki article...

Many [not every or all] formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, and as such do not have any meaning until they are given some interpretation.

An interpretation often (but not always) provides a way to determine the truth values of sentences in a language.

Would you agree that article does not agree with your statements?

Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text.

If you disagree, please explain how it agrees.
Thanks.

 

[tonychanyt]

Perhaps it's the technical definition for technical usages, but it's not the simple definition for simple understanding.
For example...
Rocket science is needed when dealing with rockets. it's not needed when dealing with children.
Everything has it's place.

Right. But when I read (interpret) the Bible, I prefer precision.

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted / explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

The original Greek word had at least these two distinct meanings. The word was ambiguous.

The Greek word means, to explain thoroughly, by implication, to translate
Do you think translate applies in Luke 24:27, and how would that be translated in understanding to the English reader?

Jesus had an understanding of what he read from the OT. This understanding was represented in his brain as neural networks. He explained his understanding in a human language that served as a communication medium to his hearers.

According to the Wiki article...



Would you agree that article does not agree with your statements?

State my words that disagree with Wiki's words.

 

[CoreyD]

State my words that disagree with Wiki's words.

I did Tony. Look at the post again. I quoted Wiki. I quoted Tony.

 

[tonychanyt]

I did Tony. Look at the post again. I quoted Wiki. I quoted Tony.

What made you think that they contradict? I don't see it.

 

[CoreyD]

What made you think that they contradict? I don't see it.

You're supposed to explain how they agrees.

If you disagree, please explain how it agrees.

 

[tonychanyt]

You're supposed to explain how they agrees.

But I don't see any disagreement at all. I have no idea of any inkling of any disagreement. I have no idea what needed to be explained.

 

[CoreyD]

But I don't see any disagreement at all. I have no idea of any inkling of any disagreement. I have no idea what needed to be explained.

Yes, I understand that. So you are able to show me how they agree. Wouldn't you?
That's what I am asking you to do. You have both your statement

Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text.

...and the Wiki quotes.

Many [not every or all] formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, and as such do not have any meaning until they are given some interpretation.

An interpretation often (but not always) provides a way to determine the truth values of sentences in a language.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yes, I understand that. So you are able to show me how they agree. Wouldn't you?
That's what I am asking you to do. You have both your statement


...and the Wiki quotes.

These three quotations support one another.

 

[CoreyD]

These three quotations support one another.

How? Is the question.

 

[tonychanyt]

How? Is the question.

Every time you see the word "interpretation" in the Wiki quotes, insert what I said about interpretation right there in parentheses. After that, if you still have questions, ask me specifically. I prefer to answer only specific and precise questions.

 

[CoreyD]

Every time you see the word "interpretation" in the Wiki quotes, insert what I said about interpretation right there in parentheses.

You want me to change the Wiki article to your definition?
That would be dishonest Tony. Why would you ask me to do a thing like that? Jesus would not be pleased with me... Nor you,

If you make a statement, and someone asks you for a reference, as you often do of others, then it is expected that the person should find in the reference, a statement, clause, ect., supporting what you said.
That's what you would expect if you asked for a reference. Is it not?
That is not the case here.

You made two statement that are found nowhere in the article you referenced.
To the contrary, the articled does not support your definition, but contradicts it.

The article starts with "An interpretation is an assignment of meaning - meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify" - to....".

That is not "going from text representation to brain representation".
While every person's brain processes the text, and recognizes it, some people at times feel they need to put meaning to the text, even when the meaning may be clear. In other words, they want to give their interpretations, even when what was stated, was explained.
This often leads to misinterpretation.
They often fall into the category of those mentioned at 2 Peter 3:16

The statement "Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text." was contradicted by these statements in the Wiki article:

Many formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, and as such do not have any meaning until they are given some interpretation.

An interpretation often (but not always) provides a way to determine the truth values of sentences in a language.

Many formal languages, is not all formal languages, and the article specified mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science.
Often, but not always means, not at all times, is interpretation needed.
That is a direct contradiction to the claim that "Without interpretation, we cannot read and understand any text."

After that, if you still have questions, ask me specifically. I prefer to answer only specific and precise questions.

It's cool. I'm covered.
Thank you.

If an explanation is found in expressions being made by a writer, or speaker, the writer has already given the interpretation. No other human interpretation is needed.
If the writer, is inspired by God, technically, we can say, God supplied the explanation or interpretation.

Whatever thought process takes place in the mind of the reader, should be to honestly accept what has been explained. If they don't understand, they need to ask for further explanation.
If however, their thought process causes them to dream up an interpretation for what was said, that person has done the same thing Peter described at 2 Peter 3:16

An interpretation / explanation does not require an interpreter giving an interpretation.
One has already been given.
Who interprets the interpretation of the interpreter, and who interprets that interpretation, and who interprets... is just not logical.

 

[tonychanyt]

You want me to change the Wiki article to your definition?

No.

 

[Aaron112]

What are your thoughts on this?

No other human interpretation is needed.

Nor does God Authorize nor Permit (re-) Interpreting His Word.

What men call "interpretation" is over 99% of the time going the wrong direction for one thing - going away from instead of with Jesus.

Like the meaning of dreams , interpretation rests with God. Like the disciples, men today must have the Word Revealed to them by God, or they just do not understand !

 

[AFrazier]

I'm in agreement with the term "representation" rather than interpretation. Concepts are represented in text on a page. Our brains convert, rather than interpret, the written symbols, causing the concept to change from a textual representation to being represented as a mental image. Interpretation is to take something that is not understood and assign an understanding to it based upon the best evidence available to the interpreter. Alternately, it can be argued that something clearly understood can be further analyzed to discover additional meanings, essentially applying to it an ancillary interpretation based upon certain evidences available to the interpreter, though the "normal" reading according to hermeneutics should still be retained. But overall, the goal of interpretation is to provide understanding. If understanding has already been achieved via explanation, then explanation renders interpretation superfluous, except, as noted, in the case of trying to discover a greater principle or meaning in addition to the clearly stated meaning. In the case of scripture, if the scripture itself tells you what it means, the act of interpreting or redefining what has already been clearly explained is technically nothing more than presumptuousness, allowing, again, for greater spiritual awareness through principle study.