"I'm not interpreting it; that's what it says."

[cantata]

The more observant among you may have noticed that people like to quote the Bible now and again on Christian Forums. Sometimes they do so to support a point; sometimes they just seem to be spitting in the wind. However, of course, whenever they do quote the Bible, they interpret it in a certain way, and either implicitly or explicitly expect others to interpret it in the same way.

Now of course this frequently leads to disagreements about the correct interpretation of a text. Someone might say that such-and-such a text has to be understood in its historical context, while someone else might claim that it contains some eternal truth which transcends temporal differences. Well, actually, I've never heard anyone say it quite like that. Usually they say "WELL THAT'S JUST WHAT IT SAYS" if someone disagrees with their "literalist" interpretation.

Anyway, what I want to get at in this thread is that even what you might regard as a literalist interpretation is still an interpretation. It rests on certain fundamental assumptions about the text and its nature. I have heard people say that everyone else is interpreting the text, but they are just reading it; they are just saying what it says. Yet such a claim, as I say, rests on various assumptions: that the words found in their copy of the Bible are accurate and representative translations of the original text; that those words refer or apply to this range of persons rather than that range of persons; and indeed, that God herself had a hand in writing those words.

These are just a few of the assumptions involved in one kind of interpretation of Biblical text. But every reading of everything - the Bible, Shakespeare, Vogue, a Wagner score, the Beano - inevitably involves interpretation. So no, I'm afraid that however literally you want to take the Bible, you are still interpreting it, and you therefore cannot legitimately bow out of debate on the grounds that your way of reading it is the best way, without having a serious discussion about why.

 

[TheManeki]

Thank you for posting this; you're echoing one of my pet peeves.

I often wonder if the people who do claim "I'm not interpreting it; that's what it says" do so out of ignorance, or as an attempt to quash any debate before it reveals the lack of substance behind their stance.

 

[Meshavrischika]

My daughter and I were talking while watching a show last night on juries and the law... I said the law was like the bible... there was no "one right" interpretation... that it was an individual thing and thus juries might make a decision that was not in keeping with what I thought was right, but might perfectly follow the law in their interpretation... Whether people want to admit it or not, free will and being an individual is what is in our nature... and thus the things we think will not always conform 100% of the time to everyone else (heck, if it did we'd still be using sticks and stones as tools).

 

[Verv]

... And so what?

We all have to interpret something and miraculously when you look at the thousands of sects of Christianity the majority of them really meet up well on most points.

Have a 10 minute conversation with an Orthodox Christian, a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Methodist, an Anglican, a Baptist, etc. and you will find that they believe in generally the same things though the disagreements come over very specific details that were not spoken of extensively in the Bible.

Most sects differ significantly on views of hell, heaven, purgatory; the role of Mary; the nature of the Trinity; the rites of Baptism and Communion; the relationship of faith with acts; Saints; celibacy, etc.

Really, 90% of Christians agree about 90% of doctrine.

We appear as many different faces and of course certain sects do things better than others and worse than others... But I can tell you that if you get us together the worship is just as good.

Pentecostals feel the Holy Spirit by raising their hands to the sky and perhaps hopping, swaying, singing, reciting verses together, firy speeches...

Whereas the Orthodox cross themselves frequently and chant vigorously, Russian Orthodox women wearing head coverings, lighting candles and kissing the hands of icons, etc.

It is just two different ways to express the Faith and to gather oneself in the Holy Spirit.

Let's put it simply: the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in the Nicene Creed and are not far off from each other..

"Interpretation" of the Bible can be varying but really... Similar if not the same conclusions are came to.

 

[cantata]

Well, I regard it as important because Christians here clearly attempt to support radically divergent positions, and each does so with quotations from scripture.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Do you think it is improper then to use scripture to support your position? or just improper to say "my interpretation is the ONLY interpretation"?

 

[keith99]

Do you think it is improper then to use scripture to support your position? or just improper to say "my interpretation is the ONLY interpretation"?

I'd say what cantata is calling improper is implicit interpretation. If it were explicit I'd have no problem with it, and I strongly suspect neither would cantata.

It is also the implicit claim that their interpertation is as sacred as the text itself.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Heard that one? But burried in there somewhere is their interpertation, which they are in fact putting on the same level as the word of God.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I'd say what cantata is calling improper is implicit interpretation. If it were explicit I'd have no problem with it, and I strongly suspect neither would cantata.

It is also the implicit claim that their interpertation is as sacred as the text itself.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Heard that one? But burried in there somewhere is their interpertation, which they are in fact putting on the same level as the word of God.

kewl

i understand what you guys are saying now

 

[Autumnleaf]

It seems like the people who like to bring up the many interpretations argument tend to oppose what the Bible says in black, or red, and white. It seems to be the case every time.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I have found those who insist on a literal interpretation of the bible are the first to reject the actual literal interpretation…in the end they are saying the only literal interpretation (and thus the only correct one) is my personal one

 

[The Nihilist]

My daughter and I were talking while watching a show last night on juries and the law... I said the law was like the bible... there was no "one right" interpretation... that it was an individual thing and thus juries might make a decision that was not in keeping with what I thought was right, but might perfectly follow the law in their interpretation... Whether people want to admit it or not, free will and being an individual is what is in our nature... and thus the things we think will not always conform 100% of the time to everyone else (heck, if it did we'd still be using sticks and stones as tools).

What? No, not at all. There is often only one right interpretation, and when there's not, that's why God invented the Supreme Court.

 

[ebia]

"I'm not interpreting it.."

Much of the time that's true. They aren't interpreting it. They have already decided something completely independently of the text and are then posting it in an attempt to stiffle any discent.

 

[Meshavrischika]

What? No, not at all. There is often only one right interpretation, and when there's not, that's why God invented the Supreme Court.

hehehe...
is the sky blue? depends on understanding, interpretation and where you're at in that exact moment. So it is with the law and the bible.

 

[quatona]

It seems like the people who like to bring up the many interpretations argument tend to oppose what the Bible says in black, or red, and white. It seems to be the case every time.

I think you are not really paying attention.
Just for the record: I occasionally bring upt the many interpretations argument, and I have no problems with finding a lot of interpretations that make bible quotes agreeable.
The OP brings up the argument, and she explicitly mentions that this is a problem with *every* book - and I haven´t seen her exluding books she finds agreeable from it.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think you are not really paying attention.
Just for the record: I occasionally bring upt the many interpretations argument, and I have no problems with finding a lot of interpretations that make bible quotes agreeable.
The OP brings up the argument, and she explicitly mentions that this is a problem with *every* book - and I haven´t seen her exluding books she finds agreeable from it.

I have both the Catholic and King James version which seem to take a hard line against things like divorce and homosexuality. Inevitably some divorced or homosexual Bible scholar wants to question interpretations. Its obvious people want to cater to their sin. I understand it but don't agree with it.

 

[quatona]

I have both the Catholic and King James version which seem to take a hard line against things like divorce and homosexuality. Inevitably some divorced or homosexual Bible scholar wants to question interpretations. Its obvious people want to cater to their sin. I understand it but don't agree with it.

It seems like you have moved the goalposts. In your previous post you talked about people who bring the argument up because they disagree with every interpretation. Now you talk about people who agree with a certain interpretation of the bible, which doesn´t happen to be yours, though.

 

[Meshavrischika]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to quatona again.

 

[Mling]

Hmm...a few weeks ago, I almost got banned from an online game I play, in large part because the woman who runs the game and I are from two different cultures, and we talked past each other a lot. We both got very offended by what we believed the other was saying.

Read an interesting description of a party, about a year ago. It ended with the woman telling the story saying how interesting she finds subcultural differences. One of her friends had flirted with another one of her friends in a way that, among their crowd, would be considered perfectly acceptable and very amusing. Some other people at the party had been on the verge of calling the police.

Apparently, no symbol has any particular meaning on its own. Rather, people assign their own meanings to symbols based on their past experiences. And, apparently, written words and even actions are symbols, which are subject to this same inevitable interpretation.

 

[Autumnleaf]

It seems like you have moved the goalposts. In your previous post you talked about people who bring the argument up because they disagree with every interpretation. Now you talk about people who agree with a certain interpretation of the bible, which doesn´t happen to be yours, though.

When you decide to post what interpretation you believe in let me know. Until then I will probably suspect you are moving the goal post yourself for your own agendas.

 

[keith99]

I have both the Catholic and King James version which seem to take a hard line against things like divorce and homosexuality. Inevitably some divorced or homosexual Bible scholar wants to question interpretations. Its obvious people want to cater to their sin. I understand it but don't agree with it.

You make a good point. There are those who tryu to redefine what is fairly clear. But homosexual acts are one case where one sees both sides of this issue. The story of Sodom (the most cited it seems) does not point to homosexuality per se, rather inhospitality. Other verses often cited refer to temple prostitution. Still some verses remain that do point to homosexual acts per se.

But nowhere is homosexuality or homosexual acts made out to be the sin of sins as many seem to treat it. In fact those who single out homosexuality are really doing exactly the same things that you say (correctly) that homosexuals are doing, trying to minimize their own sins.