RainMaker said:
Interesting. Let me take your first point if I understand you correctly. You believe I endorse "scripture interprets scripture"? That's new to me, however I think I get the idea. So what is the alternative to that?
I don't know what exactly you endorse, you have played your cards pretty close to the vest thus far.
In regards to your second question; there are a number of alternatives, depending on one's view of scripture. The Catholic tradition (part of it at least, its a big tradition) holds that certain portions of the bible have one particular meaning because it has been agreed upon by church leaders who speak with divine authority on the matter. The orthodox attempt to stick to understandings which were contemporaneous with New testament times. The idea that a person needs nothing except scripture and a mind to understand God's will is a trait particular to protestantism.
In addition, the idea that scripture has it's own viewpoint is confusing since scripture is the object of study, not a being capable of having a point of view. What is usually meant by "scripture's viewpoint" is that the bible tells us how to read it (I find the evidence for this to be unconvincing) or that it tells us the general spirit with which we ought to approach it's study.
RainMaker said:
Secondly, I never said that there is only one interpretation of the verses in question. I merely asked what other way there was to interpret them. I, like you I presume, have a very open mind and am willing to listen to alternate interpretations.
The question is a little more complicated than this because, as I've been laying out, not every tradition holds that scripture is the sole source for understanding God and God's creation. This is pertinent since different traditions would disagree with the initial part of your posting of the three verses as making up the body of evidence on the subject.
For a full discussion (and because I am myself an American Protestant who doesn't believe something just because dead people say-so) I will take a look at the verses you brought up.
The latter parts of Mark 9 are a teaching by Jesus to his disciples regarding the quarrel they were having on the road to Capernaum (9:34) which was about which of the apostles was the greatest (so typical of humanity, it's sad). Jesus explains to them a fundamental truth, the desire to be greater than others makes you last of all, the servant of all, a bitter lesson. He goes on to explain that willing servitude has it's reward and that to offend a child that believes in Christ has a really bad consequence. This is all part of an inversion of strength and weakness, glory and servitude tteachinge disciples that God is just will protect his believers, even children. It is at this clear and understandable point that Jesus pulls out his greatest lesson (if thy hand offends thee, unquenchable fire and worms etc. etc.).
In context these verses are powerful and thought provoking. When Jesus says if thy hand offends thee, he uses the same word he uses to describe the crime that is committed on a believing-child. Now it is one's own hand that is offending the believer in God (one's self in this case) and Jesus goes into some detail about just how bad a consequence there is. What exactly does he mean by offend? It seems to be of the utmost importance since Jesus is saying it is better to be maimed blind and with no foot than to offend a believer (one's self in this case)
I don't honestly know what it means. I don't have my greek bible or lexicon with me so I won't venture an opinion. Offend is certainly being used in a different sense that I normally think of it in and I attribute this to changes in the english language since the translation of the KJV.
At any rate, I can say for certain that the lesson of these verses is not to describe the attributes of Hell.
Since this is becoming rather long, I will leave off the other two verses for other posters to discuss. I am confident that my discussion of Mark 9 has at least illuminated some of the myriad lesons that are going on in just a few short lines.
This is part of the suspiciousness that many liberals have for people asking "What other interpretations are there?". For my part, I will always choose to believe that there are more lessons in scripture, that "There is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word". I tend to think that I misunderstand God than the alternative.
