Why does the bible need to be interpreted by others?

[2PhiloVoid]

ThinkForYourself

When I quote bible verses, I am often told that I am not interpreting them correctly. Yet anyone with a high school education (something I have), should be able to easily understand what is written.

That's interesting, because the New Testament Gospels and the book of Acts indicate in various places that the disciples of Jesus often were clueless as to what the Old Testament scriptures meant. But, they didn't have you there to help them, now did they?

This is what I don't understand:

Either the bible is the Word of God, written by Him or someone inspired by Him, or it's not.

So, 'writing' is something we can say is equivalent to 'inspiration'? Where in the Bible does it say that? (I seem to have missed it.)

If it's the Word of God, then surely God is capable of writing what he means, and doesn't need someone else to interpret it. In fact, I would think interpretation is blasphemy, implying that God can't write at a high school level.

Well then, I guess the disciples of Jesus were at fault for a lot of blaspheme. I'm surprised Judas was the only one lost from the original group.

If it is not the Word of God, then it is merely an anthology of stories written by men, and why would anyone think the supernatural claims in the bible are based on reality? Why would I consider these claims to hold more truth than all the other supernatural claims made by man, such as those regarding Mithra, Allah, the Dreamtime, etc.?

So, why does God's word need interpreting?

Apparently, it needs more than just interpreting, but illumination as well. (Which is really 'awful' when we think about it! How could God really expect the human beings He created to be required to use their brains in order to achieve significant insight into biblical truth? It's preposterous! It's not like He created human beings in His image or anything (and just what is 'His image' supposed to mean to us as a concept? Of course, you know, don't you? Which means I'm especially glad you're here to tell us so we don't have to keep making theological donuts.)

 

[oi_antz]

You seem quite confident that you yourself aren't one of the ignorant and unstable. That's a dangerous assumption, given that the beginning of wisdom is one's own awareness that one is very unwise.

Upon reflection of my conversation with ThinkForYourself, I see there is truth in this observation. I also see there is verry little grace and love in the manner of my speech with him. But I don't think the verse you provided is meant to say that scripture in general is difficult to understand. Jesus said "you diligently study the scriptures [...] but the scriptures point to me". This indicates that in His opinion the scriptures were clear and the failure was on the part of the reader. He also mentioned the same thing when He was asked to explain why He spoke in parables. With God, it seems, we are given the right to not listen to Him.

Now, having said that I ackowledge poor performance in this thread, I should explain that it is due to a really fundamental assumption I make, whereby I know of myself that reputation is the management of a superficial, false impression in other people's view of onesself. It is because I am fairly comfortable accepting that I have been wrong, that I view people with that same expectation. This leads me to make comments that are extremely confrontational, because I assume that the truth is more important than a sense of pride. My mistake in doing so, is to cause the person I am confronting to become uncomfortable. I don't think that is good most of the time, or beneficial to their acceptance of the truth.

So, now that I have thought that through and observed this fault, I ask for prayers that I will be midful and able to apply these improvements to my character in future. And if ThinkForYourslef can see what has caused me to appear so callous, and that I did not mean any harm by it, and find a sufficient capacity to forgive, and perceive some value in continuing a discussion, there is a subtlety that I have noticed on review which is probably worth resolving.

I suspect that is a false dichotomy. How can someone who has faith in God not be inspired by God?

If God isn't real, how can they be inspired by an imaginary being? Of course you can be inspired by the story of an imaginary being.

Here is a place where I failed to answer what was asked of me, probably because I was too eager to push my opinion. Yes, that when someone is inspired by a story about God, they are acting as I have described as having been inspired by God. God is their inspiration, in the same way that a muse is a songwriter's inspiration. It is, a mental image that we observe and describe.

Now, I don't know how this is meant to be different in the way that the OP has imagined the phrase "inspired by God" to mean, so that is something I will need to find out.

WRT this topic, I have recently had words with another poster, razzleflabben, who took an offensive position to a statement I made on another thread, about the bible and claims some Christians have made that it is the "word of God". I did PM her to see if she would explain it to me, but I was not able to get the understanding I require, so I have decided that I will begin a thread in a theology forum to find out why this claim is made. I am still preparing my understanding for the opening question, and I might get sufficient time to run that thread in a couple of weeks.

Hey, thank you chilehed for correcting me, and please pray for me.

@OP, other people are hoping you will converse with them, and I feel I have caused you to ignore them. Please forgive me enough to give them what they deserve.