Biblical Interpretation

[Jim47]

Ro 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

 

[Protoevangel]

Ro 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

No worries Jim! No one is in danger of being excommunicated or loss of fellowship over our lively little discussion.

 

[Jim47]

No worries Jim! No one is in danger of being excommunicated or loss of fellowship over our lively little discussion.

Ya sure ?

 

[Kaitsu]

Ro 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

I don't really understand what you mean. Could you give me an interpretation (or preferably several - then I can choose which one I would like to "understand")

Keith

 

[Jim47]

I don't really understand what you mean. Could you give me an interpretation (or preferably several - then I can choose which one I would like to "understand")

Keith

Sorry friend, but Ya lost me. Several what

 

[Kaitsu]

And "understanding" without the correct interpretation is a false understanding. You see Keith, it's not either/or, it's both/and. You reject one, you loose both.

I see... so you cannot understand anything without an interpretation?

But I assure you I could offer you loads of interpretations that don't require any understanding at all, but their value will only reflect the level of understanding .

This reminds me of the thread in the Australian forum called something like "I win, I am the last one to post here" - I think it is the longest thread on the entire site

Keith

 

[KagomeShuko]

This reminds me of the thread in the Australian forum called something like "I win, I am the last one to post here" - I think it is the longest thread on the entire site

There are plenty of these threads over in the relaxation forum. . . I just don't get it. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[Protoevangel]

I see... so you cannot understand anything without an interpretation?

We can get into a discussion about epistemology if you like, I find the subject fascinating. But that is for another thread. I am beginning to have a feeling that is exactly where our discussion breaks down. If you are interested in learning the basics of epistemology, I do have a number of resources that I can suggest.

But I assure you I could offer you loads of interpretations that don't require any understanding at all, but their value will only reflect the level of understanding .

You are wrong in that they absolutely require understandings, as faulty and lacking as those understandings may be. In the same way, I could offer you numberless examples of "understandings" based on faulty interpretation. The concepts are not mutually exclusive; they are complimentary.

This reminds me of the thread in the Australian forum called something like "I win, I am the last one to post here" - I think it is the longest thread on the entire site

Keith

We have a loooong way to go to make this the longest thread. You have a lot of work to do to make that goal!

 

[filosofer]

I see... so you cannot understand anything without an interpretation?

But I assure you I could offer you loads of interpretations that don't require any understanding at all, but their value will only reflect the level of understanding .

One of the issues that is overlooked that in your challenges is determining which comes first: interpretation or understanding. Interpretation precedes understanding. Because we continually interpret, unconsciously, everything every day, we often lose sight of the fact that we have to interpret before we can understand. We have to know meanings of words, but even more, meanings of words in context.

Consider the "meaning" of the word ran in this sentence/phrase:

She ran

Do we "understand" what the sentence/phrase means? Not necessarily. We have to investigate further, that is, we have to interpret (using principles of hermeneutics) within the context of the paragraph or conversation.

She ran fast
She ran for office
She ran him down
She ran him down for an appointment
She ran him down with her car

We have to interpret the words individually and together (syntax, grammar, vocaubary, etc.) before we can understand.

 

[KagomeShuko]

She ran fast
She ran for office
She ran him down
She ran him down for an appointment
She ran him down with her car

You didn't even mention things like "She ran a machine." (okay, maybe "for office" works here). I thought about "She ran them out of town," but that would basically be the same as the last sentence, I guess.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[Protoevangel]

My "understanding" of that phrase is that she ran out of ammo!

We have to interpret the words individually and together (syntax, grammar, vocaubary, etc.) before we can understand.

Who cares about interpretation, I have understanding!

 

[filosofer]

She ran her nylons

------

Now that shows my age!

 

[Rod B]

She ran through the briars and she ran through the brambles
And she ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
She ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'er
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Sorry, but I do like Johnny Horton

 

[Kaitsu]

One of the issues that is overlooked that in your challenges is determining which comes first: interpretation or understanding. Interpretation precedes understanding. Because we continually interpret, unconsciously, everything every day, we often lose sight of the fact that we have to interpret before we can understand. We have to know meanings of words, but even more, meanings of words in context.

Consider the "meaning" of the word ran in this sentence/phrase:

She ran

Do we "understand" what the sentence/phrase means? Not necessarily. We have to investigate further, that is, we have to interpret (using principles of hermeneutics) within the context of the paragraph or conversation.

She ran fast
She ran for office
She ran him down
She ran him down for an appointment
She ran him down with her car

We have to interpret the words individually and together (syntax, grammar, vocaubary, etc.) before we can understand.

Your example demonstrates my point beautifully . My challenge is not based on needing both interpretation and understanding. Interpretation is totally unnecessary, and in the case ofthe bible, extremely misleading.

When you read "She ran", you agree that one cannot understand because it does not tell us anything specific. But you then immediately apply your interpretive skills and end up guessing a whole bunch pf possibilities, which, as I said, gives an endless stream of interpretations that requires absolutely no understanding at all. That is what leads to so many misunderstandings of the bible and our mass of denominational problems.

When one does not understand something from the bible we try to interpret it in any number of ways (or more likely, we start to search commentaries and websites to find out how others have done the interpreting) and then pick the one that suits the rest of our model best, regardless of whether it is true or not - and if we happen to be sufficiently charismatic in character we can even start our very own brand new denomination . This mass of denominational differences and arguments of websites clearly shows realms of different interpretations, which cannot possibly all be True because there is only one Truth. Therefore all but one (or all) of these interpretations are false - therefore it is clear that interpretation does not lead to understanding, it only leads to a personal acceptance and satisfaction, not Truth - I think that is abundantly clear.

If, on the other hand, we were to pause after reading "she ran" and confess "I don't understand what that means here", then we can search to see if there is further information that expands and clarifies the picture until the picture itself reveals its true meaning. There is no interpretation in that, the understanding is in the clear and unambiguous fullness of the message that is given us. Until the fullness is achieved there cannot be understanding, only interpretation - which is only necessary because the message is not complete.

One of the biggest obstacles to pure understanding is our fear of being seen publicly to be wrong. Before we even allow a message to enter our understanding we have to filter it through our own model of the subject in question to ensure it doesn't conflict with our existing position. If it does conflict then we evaluate whether it is useful to adopt it or better to reject it if it might embarrass us.

That is one reason why people on forums rarely actually admit to a change in beliefs. They will admit to a deeper understanding of the same belief, but rarely admit to a change in belief in public - i.e. admitting to having been wrong. But I guess that depends on how one would want to interpret "being wrong"



Keith

 

[Protoevangel]

We have to interpret the words individually and together (syntax, grammar, vocaubary, etc.) before we can understand.

If, on the other hand, we were to pause after reading "she ran" and confess "I don't understand what that means here", then we can search to see if there is further information that expands and clarifies the picture until the picture itself reveals its true meaning. There is no interpretation in that, the understanding is in the clear and unambiguous fullness of the message that is given us. Until the fullness is achieved there cannot be understanding, only interpretation - which is only necessary because the message is not complete.

I see where you are going with this now.

Still, the very process you describe: "search to see if there is further information that expands and clarifies the picture" is the very process of interpretation. Our problem here is lingustic, I would think. Interpretation is really nothing more than the act or process of explaining the meaning of something. This is exactly how you are describing understanding... searching (act or process) to find the meaning of something. But understainding is really a quality or condition of one's comprehension. There is the linguistic breakdown. I (and I assume filosofer and others) see 'interpretation' as an objective and 'understanding' as a subjective. I assume you see understanding as an objective and interpretation as a subjective. This is exactly why I find epistemology and linguistics so interdependent and amazingly interesting.

 

[filosofer]

Your example demonstrates my point beautifully . My challenge is not based on needing both interpretation and understanding. Interpretation is totally unnecessary, and in the case ofthe bible, extremely misleading.

You missed my point. You cannot have understanding without the interpretation first; interpretation is absolutely - and everyone does it every day. The problem is that most people throw out the interpretation they unconsciously do in daily life, and think there is some "super-mysterious religious interpretation". Reminds of the Greek grammarians of 100 years ago who thought the NT was written in "Holy Ghost Greek" - sounds nice, but wholly inaccurate.

When you read "She ran", you agree that one cannot understand because it does not tell us anything specific. But you then immediately apply your interpretive skills and end up guessing a whole bunch pf possibilities, which, as I said, gives an endless stream of interpretations that requires absolutely no understanding at all. That is what leads to so many misunderstandings of the bible and our mass of denominational problems.

I was in a hurry when I wrote that, so it appeared as if I were "guessing" and then you blaming that on interpretation. My point was that unless there is context, we can not necessarily interpret correctly - and so the list of possibilities are the understandings that "might" be made. Interpretive work means ferreting out the context, the details, the grammar, etc. so that a proper interrpretation leads to a right understanding. If the phrase "she ran" is made in a conversation between two people and they have been discussing her, the context of the conversation tells us the referent of "she". If, however, someone came up at that point, the first question would be "who are you talking about?" Without correct interpretation of the referrent, there can be an improper understanding of what took place.

When one does not understand something from the bible we try to interpret it in any number of ways (or more likely, we start to search commentaries and websites to find out how others have done the interpreting) and then pick the one that suits the rest of our model best, regardless of whether it is true or not - and if we happen to be sufficiently charismatic in character we can even start our very own brand new denomination . This mass of denominational differences and arguments of websites clearly shows realms of different interpretations, which cannot possibly all be True because there is only one Truth. Therefore all but one (or all) of these interpretations are false - therefore it is clear that interpretation does not lead to understanding, it only leads to a personal acceptance and satisfaction, not Truth - I think that is abundantly clear.

Well, if I have a conversation with my wife, I do not go to the neighbors to ask them what she means (unless she is mumbling about something and cannot speaking coherently)! That is NOT the way to go about interpreting the "text." Whoever approaches/starts the task of interpretation by consulting commentaries, websites etc. is NOT interpreting the text. Even more, such a person hasn't much of an idea about interpretation - and s/he does not follow that process in their daily lives. Why follow this rabbit trail when coming to the Biblical text?

If, on the other hand, we were to pause after reading "she ran" and confess "I don't understand what that means here", then we can search to see if there is further information that expands and clarifies the picture until the picture itself reveals its true meaning. There is no interpretation in that, the understanding is in the clear and unambiguous fullness of the message that is given us. Until the fullness is achieved there cannot be understanding, only interpretation - which is only necessary because the message is not complete.

You seem to be changing horses in mid stream - if there is no understanding, then the interpretive process needs to take place, but note: proper interpretation has to precede understanding. Lack of understanding is an indicator (not the only one) that interpretation has not beeen completed.

One of the biggest obstacles to pure understanding is our fear of being seen publicly to be wrong. Before we even allow a message to enter our understanding we have to filter it through our own model of the subject in question to ensure it doesn't conflict with our existing position. If it does conflict then we evaluate whether it is useful to adopt it or better to reject it if it might embarrass us.

That is one reason why people on forums rarely actually admit to a change in beliefs. They will admit to a deeper understanding of the same belief, but rarely admit to a change in belief in public - i.e. admitting to having been wrong. But I guess that depends on how one would want to interpret "being wrong"

Yeah, the problem is called SIN (in the form of pride), but this is a separate issue from proper interpretation. So I guess I don't see the need for further comment.

Peace, Keith

 

[Kaitsu]

Danhead and Filosofer,

Thanks for the posts. I would like to narrow the scope of this a little, but first a couple of comments:

Reminds of the Greek grammarians of 100 years ago who thought the NT was written in "Holy Ghost Greek" .

I hadn't heard of that before - I love it already

Well, if I have a conversation with my wife, I do not go to the neighbors to ask them what she means (unless she is mumbling about something and cannot speaking coherently)!

You have that problem as well? It happens to me mostly when i'm being asked to do the housework - totally incoherent as far as I can hear

I guess we could debate the meaning of interpretation and understanding for a long, long time, but I think it would be more useful if we restrict it to the topic of Interpreting the Bible, which is where my argument against interpreting originated.

I cannot remember now if I posted it earlier, but my understanding (or interpreting, if you prefer) of Luther is that man alone cannot understand the bible. He can choose to read it and meditate upon it, but it is God that provides understanding and enlightenment.

If you agree with that, and if it is true, why do we need to interpret it for ourselves and, in doing so, why do we all interpret it in so many different and opposing ways? Is it that God is messing us around, or is the block in our own minds, or is it that God doesn't provide all the answers "up-front" even thought we demand them and therefore make them up for ourselves?

I am deeply curious about how often people read the same texts from the same Christian perspective, and yet see such different meanings in them. Why is that if God is delivering the understanding?

Keith

 

[Jim47]

I cannot remember now if I posted it earlier, but my understanding (or interpreting, if you prefer) of Luther is that man alone cannot understand the bible. He can choose to read it and meditate upon it, but it is God that provides understanding and enlightenment.

I believe that would be a true statement. I still believe that "our sinful pride" is the number one problem we have in interpreting scripture, the following passage would also indicate that was the very problem that Isreal had.

Mt 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Mt 13:15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

If you agree with that, and if it is true, why do we need to interpret it for ourselves and, in doing so, why do we all interpret it in so many different and opposing ways? Is it that God is messing us around, or is the block in our own minds, or is it that God doesn't provide all the answers "up-front" even thought we demand them and therefore make them up for ourselves?

We should always try to learn and understand God's Word because He is Our Father, and we want to draw nearer to Him. Since all we have in this life is His Word and the gift of faith through The Holy Spirit, it is only natural that we want understand Him, but alas, I believe our minds are weak.

I am deeply curious about how often people read the same texts from the same Christian perspective, and yet see such different meanings in them. Why is that if God is delivering the understanding?

Keith

To be sure, I don't believe we will ever see an end to this, but we have comfort in His Words that He doesn't require us to fully understand, He requires us to believe in Him and in the gift that He offered up for our sins. I know there is a scripture that states this, but I can not recall it right now.

These scriptures tell us to beleive, they do not ask us to understand.

Act 16:31 They replied, "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household."

Rom 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.


This scripture warns what happens when we fail to believe, and I would guess that they failed to believe because they tried to reason with there own senses and couldn't.

Rom 11:20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

 

[Concordia]

I would hope the Holy Spirit helps me to understand the Scriptures. :o

 

[Kaitsu]

I believe that would be a true statement. I still believe that "our sinful pride" is the number one problem we have in interpreting scripture, the following passage would also indicate that was the very problem that Isreal had.

Mt 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Mt 13:15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

As you know, I still hold that interpreting Scripture is not necessary when we understand it from God, and I think you are right about pride as one factor getting in the way of this. It is because of this obstacle that we are driven to interpreting what should be clear in itself, because God does not allow it to be clear until we approach it in the right mode of humility and faith.

But as I read your post it occured to me that what you are voicing is actually the starting point of what turns out to be a process rather than a static situation.

I think the bible is quite clear in saying that man cannot control understanding of its message through worldly wisdom and intellect. Therefore it follows that the bible only opens up to us as we progress down the route that God is drawing us along. In other words, it is one of the means that God uses to work change within us. The more we want to follow God and his desires for us, the more we want to understand of him, the more we read the Scriptures, the more we come to understand, the more we want to follow God....and round we go again! But if we don't bother, or cease wanting, to seek more, we are not given more.

So perhaps not understanding everything in one "read" of the bible is one way that God dangles the carrot before a willing heart and leads it into the sheep pen.

.We should always try to learn and understand God's Word because He is Our Father, and we want to draw nearer to Him. Since all we have in this life is His Word and the gift of faith through The Holy Spirit, it is only natural that we want understand Him, but alas, I believe our minds are weak.

But if we agree that "it is God that provides understanding and enlightenment" then why should it matter that our minds are weak? Surely, if it is God's will that we understand the Word that he has given us, then he will not let the weakness of our own minds stand in his way. So I think that, although you are right in saying that we want to draw nearer to Him, God must also be leading us nearer to Him, too. I see this as a little like parents sitting on the floor encouraging their baby to take his first steps towards them - there is a learning process going on here all the time. I think this is what the bible means when it talks of starting with milk and then moving on to meat, for example:

"I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 1 Cor 3:2

PS I would also add prayer to the list of things we have in this life - I think that is one terribly underrated avenue open to us (or maybe that is also what you meant by the Spirit).

To be sure, I don't believe we will ever see an end to this, but we have comfort in His Words that He doesn't require us to fully understand, He requires us to believe in Him and in the gift that He offered up for our sins. I know there is a scripture that states this, but I can not recall it right now.

I agree with you that understanding is not required, i.e. as a precondition of salvation, otherwise I think the new world will be a pretty empty place . However, surely that is not to suggest that we needn't strive to understand more and more ever day of our lives. In order to know God we must know Christ, and in order to know Christ we need to read the bible constantly and pray constantly and put into practice what Jesus teaches us. If belief is real then the yearning for understanding is unquenchable...

Thanks for the inspirations, it is edifying to talk with you

PPS As Holy Week gets under way, I might not be able to get here very often as I work for the church and this is an incredibly busy week for me, so please don't think I am ignoring any responses you may make....

Keith