Interpreting The Bible...

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there any proof anywhere that the bible has infinite interpretations, and none are known to be sound (valid AND true) by natural methodology?

 

[Radagast]

Is there any proof anywhere that the bible has infinite interpretations, and none are known to be sound (valid AND true) by natural methodology?

I'm sorry, but no part of that sentence made sense to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok lets start with In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The jewish mystics, or those who practive "gemetria" or the mystical numerology of the bible, ... and well you only need to look here to see that there are many possible interpretations neuerologically. (If that makes sense, then potentially so do a whole load of other mystical numerologies / humor).


So I stumble upon a proof:


Proof: Numerology assigns a number to a letter, and a sum value to a word.

And number can be assigned to any letter.

Numbers are infinite.

Therefore numbers which can be assigned to letters are infinite.

Therefore, mystical numerology (as a subset of all interpretations) is potentially infinite.

Hence the bible has, or approaches, infinite interpretations.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that it's fair to say that the Bible can have a (near) infinite amount of valid and sound applications. This is because the Bible is meant to be applied to all of life and life has a (near) infinite amount of unique situations that need the Bible applied to them. But there are rules for good hermeneutics. It's easy to falsely interpret and falsely apply the Bible. If hermeneutical rules are broken then it can be demonstrated that the applications are false.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved to Exploring Christianity from Philosophy

 

[bling]

Ok lets start with In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The jewish mystics, or those who practive "gemetria" or the mystical numerology of the bible, ... and well you only need to look here to see that there are many possible interpretations neuerologically. (If that makes sense, then potentially so do a whole load of other mystical numerologies / humor).


So I stumble upon a proof:


Proof: Numerology assigns a number to a letter, and a sum value to a word.

And number can be assigned to any letter.

Numbers are infinite.

Therefore numbers which can be assigned to letters are infinite.

Therefore, mystical numerology (as a subset of all interpretations) is potentially infinite.

Hence the bible has, or approaches, infinite interpretations.

True Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help them understand. There is only one true interpretation and all the others are speculations.

 

[PureTruth7]

We cannot trust man's interpretations of the Bible. In fact, the Bible interprets itself perfectly.

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

So how do we properly read the Bible?

Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

So if there's something confusing about some passage or verse, read it in context and compare it with other verses/passages. Do NOT rely on your or anyone else's opinions/teachings of the Scriptures, not even the pastors or the Pope or whoever. Just pray for the Holy Spirit and ask Him for wisdom and understanding, and study the Scriptures. God bless.

 

[oi_antz]

Is there any proof anywhere that the bible has infinite interpretations, and none are known to be sound (valid AND true) by natural methodology?

I suspect that it is always a matter of opinion of the reader, as it always is with matters of faith. I can't think of an exception to that pattern right now.

For example, when Jesus said "not one stone will be left upon another", was that true or false? Someone might feel right to say it is false, because there are some stones that remain atop others. Someone who believes He was using exaggeration, will feel right to say that it is fulfilled prophecy because His prediction was of total destruction.

Others again could think it was an entirely spiritual description, referring to local political powers being crushed and destroyed, as was His prophecy in Matthew 21:43-44. If that is the way a person reads the scriptures, then death might be the only limit to the meaning that can be obtained.

It does not surprise me that there is always an opportunity to disbelieve. It just seems to be the way God wants it.

 

[Tree of Life]

True Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help them understand. There is only one true interpretation and all the others are speculations.

I'm not sure that this is the most helpful or even most orthodox position. What do you mean that there's only one true interpretation of the Bible?

The best position, it seems to me, is to say that we've got the text of the Bible and we've got applications of that text. When we're asking for the "meaning" of a particular text, we're asking how that text is to be applied. Because a text can be applied in many different ways to many different circumstances, one text can have many different "meanings". The more we apply the text the more deeply we discover the meaning of the text.

In light of this it's hard to see how the Bible only has "one true interpretation".

Now this is not to say that every application is valid. If one follows the rules of hermeneutics then the applications that they make are probably valid. If one breaks these rules then their applications are probably invalid.

But because meaning is application and every text has many applications, there is no "one true meaning" to any given text.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that it's fair to say that the Bible can have a (near) infinite amount of valid and sound applications. This is because the Bible is meant to be applied to all of life and life has a (near) infinite amount of unique situations that need the Bible applied to them. But there are rules for good hermeneutics. It's easy to falsely interpret and falsely apply the Bible. If hermeneutical rules are broken then it can be demonstrated that the applications are false.

I have heard that there are a few established ways, like via scripture, via tradition, via conscience etc. So whats the real deal?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We cannot trust man's interpretations of the Bible. In fact, the Bible interprets itself perfectly.

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

So how do we properly read the Bible?

Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

So if there's something confusing about some passage or verse, read it in context and compare it with other verses/passages. Do NOT rely on your or anyone else's opinions/teachings of the Scriptures, not even the pastors or the Pope or whoever. Just pray for the Holy Spirit and ask Him for wisdom and understanding, and study the Scriptures. God bless.

Sounds good but I am not bookish anough to have read the bible cover to cover.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was in a car once with a couple of catholics, and they were discussing levened and unlevened bread. I had just converted to christianity and we had been to an Orthodox service. I has a pocket NT, and itwas my "magic period" where whenever I wantted info is seemed I always opened on the right page. So I opened and read at random, and the very verses I read were about levened and unlevened bread.
How do I interpret that?

 

[oi_antz]

I was in a car once with a couple of catholics, and they were discussing levened and unlevened bread. I had just converted to christianity and we had been to an Orthodox service. I has a pocket NT, and itwas my "magic period" where whenever I wantted info is seemed I always opened on the right page. So I opened and read at random, and the very verses I read were about levened and unlevened bread.
How do I interpret that?

Did you gain a useful understanding from it at the time? When you read like this, you give your god the chance to speak to you. I would even say you can do this without reading, and just by listening to what the spirit says.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The historically Protestant take is that the only truly infallible rule is Scripture itself, Scripture alone is the norma normans, or translated "the norming norm". That's the original meaning of the Protestant Sola Scriptura. What that means, for one thing, is that there is no such thing as an infallible interpretation. All interpretation, even right interpretation, is fallible because fallible people are doing the interpreting. This is largely a position against the Roman Catholic position that the Magisterium--the teaching authority of the Church in communion with the Pope in Rome--is not itself infallible; and thus the authority of the councils and popes are not, and never have been, infallible.

Because there is no such thing as an infallible interpretation, the Church must always and continually go back to the Scriptures to have its teaching normed by it. In Lutheran circles we also talk about the norma normata (the normed norm); specifically this refers to the Ecumenical Creeds and Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord. Lutherans typically differ in their approach of the BoC between what is known as a "quia" (Latin for "because") meaning that the Confessions are true because they agree with Scripture; and conversely also the "quatenus" (Latin for "insofar as") meaning the Confessions are true insofar as they agree with Scripture.

In either case the Confessions--which provide the official understanding of the Christian religion from a Lutheran perspective--are only valuable in Lutheranism because of their reliance upon Scripture. The Confessions are not themselves infallible--because, again, only Scripture is infallible--but they are nonetheless regarded as true, either because or insofar as they agree with Scripture.

Even the correct interpretation of Scripture--and I argue there indeed is true and false interpretation of Scripture--is not itself infallible; because, again, only Scripture itself is infallible.

It's also worth noting that while I'm using the word "infallible" and for many that also means "inerrant", I would argue there is a delicate but important distinction to be made between the two.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was in a car once with a couple of catholics, and they were discussing levened and unlevened bread. I had just converted to christianity and we had been to an Orthodox service. I has a pocket NT, and itwas my "magic period" where whenever I wantted info is seemed I always opened on the right page. So I opened and read at random, and the very verses I read were about levened and unlevened bread.
How do I interpret that?

The conversation probably had to do with the fact that in the West we use unleavened bread for the Sacrament, but in the East they use leavened.

I don't know what you mean by "How do I interpret that?" I'm not sure what it is you want interpreting--that you opened up a Bible to a place talking about bread with yeast and bread without yeast? That's all that "leaven" is--yeast.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cearbhall]

True Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help them understand. There is only one true interpretation and all the others are speculations.

And every Christian thinks that he or she is a True Christian, and there's no objective, all-knowing third party to help us out, so we're back to square one.

 

[oi_antz]

And every Christian thinks that he or she is a True Christian, and there's no objective, all-knowing third party to help us out, so we're back to square one.

I am addressing op so we don't argue, because that isn't allowed here. Cearbhall makes an assumption that since one or two people both claim to listen to The Holy Spirit, yet they disagree, therefore The Holy Spirit doesn't exist. I am not versed in the names of fallacies but I do recognise a logical error. When this happens it is one of us choosing our preference over His. Then we dismiss His voice and justify ourselves. Then for our sense of identity we preach our preference in God's name. This is why God commanded we should not take His name in vain. It makes confusion a very easy exercise. But it is usually visible when people aren't comfortable with God and the truth they claim in His name. When people think this justifies their confusion and that confusion justifies their lack of understanding, then it is visible that they prefer not to understand. But it is a choice we make, like always, for whatever satisfies us the most. And of course a Christian struggles with sin, because sin is natural. As Jesus said, that God is the vine dresser, who prunes us to produce fruit, and if we don't produce fruit, He will cut us off. It makes sense to me that since pruning can sometimes require new growth, that we are deliberately exposed to new temptations and we will fail, but if we desire to fruit, we will learn from that failure.

So when this person suggests that God is disproven on the basis of His tolerance of a Christian's sin, it is apparent that they have a different view of who God is than who He is known to be. I don't know of any biblical evidence that His primary interest is to stop His people from making any mistakes. There is so much evidence to the opposite effect, and in fact the entire narrative of the bible is about the opposite, that is mercy and patience and love.

 

[Cearbhall]

I am addressing op so we don't argue, because that isn't allowed here. Cearbhall makes an assumption that since one or two people both claim to listen to The Holy Spirit, yet they disagree, therefore The Holy Spirit doesn't exist. I am not versed in the names of fallacies but I do recognise a logical error.

So do I, which is why I never would have said such a thing.

 

[aiki]

Is there any proof anywhere that the bible has infinite interpretations, and none are known to be sound (valid AND true) by natural methodology?

The Bible does not have infinite interpretations. Interpretation, is, essentially, simply saying what the writer has said in your own words. It is not imposing your own meaning upon what the writer has written but drawing out the meaning intended by the writer. Admittedly, it is easier to do this with some biblical passages than with others, but there are always hermeneutical constraints limiting the construction one can put upon what is written in Scripture. Consequently, there cannot be an infinite number of legitimate meanings/interpretations given to a particular verse or passage of the Bible.

Selah.

 

[Dragons87]

Lately I've begun to interpret the Bible based on these two (what I call) arch-principles from Paul:

"The Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."

"All Scripture is...useful to teach us what is true and to make us realise what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."

The Holy Spirit is meant to guide our interpretations. And Paul has distilled, through his study and experience, what sort of outcomes the Holy Spirit wants. How I read the Bible should therefore result in those outcomes. Ergo, if I am faced with two opposing interpretations, I will choose the one that most closely reflects those two arch-principles. I don't think I can go far wrong from there.