Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[Free]

And yet it remains to be seen that throughout Christian history, very godly men, humble and prayerful, having been well grounded in Scripture (more grounded than any of us), each believing they were being led by the Holy Spirit, have still come to different conclusions and interpretations.

The problem is that interpreting Scripture is difficult, for many reasons, and all of us bring preconceived ideas based on past experiences and teaching to the table when we read Scripture. To read Scripture is to interpret it by reading it through our own lenses, lenses that allow us to see only as in a "mirror dimly" and I am convinced that we can only "know in part."

 

[jasoncran]

good point and especailly when it comes to end time prophecies.

 

[chestertonrules]

And yet it remains to be seen that throughout Christian history, very godly men, humble and prayerful, having been well grounded in Scripture (more grounded than any of us), each believing they were being led by the Holy Spirit, have still come to different conclusions and interpretations.

The problem is that interpreting Scripture is difficult, for many reasons, and all of us bring preconceived ideas based on past experiences and teaching to the table when we read Scripture. To read Scripture is to interpret it by reading it through our own lenses, lenses that allow us to see only as in a "mirror dimly" and I am convinced that we can only "know in part."

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Isn't this why Jesus built a Church rather than write a book?

 

[glorydaz]

And yet it remains to be seen that throughout Christian history, very godly men, humble and prayerful, having been well grounded in Scripture (more grounded than any of us), each believing they were being led by the Holy Spirit, have still come to different conclusions and interpretations.

The problem is that interpreting Scripture is difficult, for many reasons, and all of us bring preconceived ideas based on past experiences and teaching to the table when we read Scripture. To read Scripture is to interpret it by reading it through our own lenses, lenses that allow us to see only as in a "mirror dimly" and I am convinced that we can only "know in part."

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Isn't this why Jesus built a Church rather than write a book?

The church is the body of Christ...we are a priesthood of believers. We go directly to our High Priest, Jesus Christ. We are led and guided by the Holy Spirit within. We find the "fulness of Truth" through Christ...not a building made with hands but a spiritual building comprised of individual members. If we have to filter truth through men it will only come out tainted. This is why we have so much division in the body today....looking to men instead of to Christ.

 

[logical bob]

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Is that infallibly as in protecting priests who rape children?

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Is that infallibly as in protecting priests who rape children?

There are Pastors that do the same thing. That's why we can not seek truth from any man, but only from the Word of God...coming directly to the throne of God.

 

[Free]

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Agreed.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Well, since there is no Church that can lead infallibly, at least no Church has done so thus far, it has be possible only through the Holy Spirit and some will argue this since "all things are possible," or, it will not be possible due to man's free will until Christ's return.

Isn't this why Jesus built a Church rather than write a book?

This question questions the inspiration of Scripture. Do you agree that the authors of the canonical books were inspired by God what to write, although to them they were just recording events, writing letters, etc.?

 

[Free]

The church is the body of Christ...we are a priesthood of believers. We go directly to our High Priest, Jesus Christ. We are led and guided by the Holy Spirit within. We find the "fulness of Truth" through Christ...not a building made with hands but a spiritual building comprised of individual members. If we have to filter truth through men it will only come out tainted. This is why we have so much division in the body today....looking to men instead of to Christ.

There are Pastors that do the same thing. That's why we can not seek truth from any man, but only from the Word of God...coming directly to the throne of God.

There are a couple of problems with these statements:

1. Since the Church is the body of Christ and each person has gifts from God for use within the Church, then those who have been appointed by God to be teachers should be able to be trusted. You want to deny one of the very methods God has given to believers to find the truth.

2. To "not seek the truth from any man, but only from the Word of God...coming directly to the throne of God," will result, and indeed very much has resulted, in a myriad of differing, conflicting doctrines.

 

[glorydaz]

The church is the body of Christ...we are a priesthood of believers. We go directly to our High Priest, Jesus Christ. We are led and guided by the Holy Spirit within. We find the "fulness of Truth" through Christ...not a building made with hands but a spiritual building comprised of individual members. If we have to filter truth through men it will only come out tainted. This is why we have so much division in the body today....looking to men instead of to Christ.

There are Pastors that do the same thing. That's why we can not seek truth from any man, but only from the Word of God...coming directly to the throne of God.

There are a couple of problems with these statements:

1. Since the Church is the body of Christ and each person has gifts from God for use within the Church, then those who have been appointed by God to be teachers should be able to be trusted. You want to deny one of the very methods God has given to believers to find the truth.

2. To "not seek the truth from any man, but only from the Word of God...coming directly to the throne of God," will result, and indeed very much has resulted, in a myriad of differing, conflicting doctrines.

We are told specifically to test and try every spirit...that includes those who are "teachers".
We do that by discerning if they teach in agreement with the Word of God.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but all to often we do listen to those who agree with us and maynot be necessarily correct in doctrine.

 

[glorydaz]

yes, but all to often we do listen to those who agree with us and maynot be necessarily correct in doctrine.

Well...we shouldn't, should we? We are always to hold everything up against the Scripture, and never take anything as truth unless we find agreement with the Word.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but all to often we do listen to those who agree with us and maynot be necessarily correct in doctrine.

Well...we shouldn't, should we? We are always to hold everything up against the Scripture, and never take anything as truth unless we find agreement with the Word.

ah but we are most lazy creatures. i have found that i have deviated from what the lord has shown me all too much.

 

[glorydaz]

yes, but all to often we do listen to those who agree with us and maynot be necessarily correct in doctrine.

Well...we shouldn't, should we? We are always to hold everything up against the Scripture, and never take anything as truth unless we find agreement with the Word.

ah but we are most lazy creatures. i have found that i have deviated from what the lord has shown me all too much.

The more time we spend in the Word, the more of it will be hid in our hearts during the upcoming days of tribulation. I get hungrier with each passing day.

 

[JamesG]

.
What is very evident so far is that there isn’t even agreement as to the underlying cause of interpretive division. Many ideas have been presented.

The liberal/conservative idea wherein the liberals believe only what they think hasn’t been corrupted by man and the conservatives believe only what agrees with there own preconceptions. Why should we believe that we are any different than either of these two kinds of people?

The idea that it is everyone else that is not sticking to Biblical teachings. Sorry Jason, but that is how what you said sounded to me. I’m sure that it was not your intention.

The idea that interpreting the Bible is difficult and we all bring our own preconceived ideas into the interpretation, and that basically God gave us a Bible that we can only partially understand at best. Why would God do that to two thousand years worth of believers most of whom never had a clue as to how we are supposed to interpret the Bible?

The idea that division is caused by looking unto men instead of the Bible or to Jesus Christ. But how is that different from an individual looking unto himself when he believes in his own personal interpretations?

The idea that we must test the spirits and test them against the Scripture. How do we know what we are testing when we ourselves claim to be under the same thing that they are claiming to be under and are doing the same thing against us?


The idea that Jesus built a Church rather than write a book, and that it is the Church that is the infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Even though I am a Protestant, I always appreciate the Catholic viewpoint because it is a logical viewpoint. The Bible must be interpreted and therefore there must be an authoritative interpreter. And being a Protestant who is frequently put into the position defending the Catholic viewpoint against obvious Protestant straw men, I wish to understand the Catholic position adequately in order to point out those straw men more effectively. And I am gratified that we have two able Catholic representatives on this forum to help us in that regard. If one is going to argue against any viewpoint, then one at least should understand adequately what one is arguing against. Of course, there is no defense against those who are prejudiced against the Catholic Church.

I would first like to answer a question that was brought up. Doesn’t the idea of an authoritative interpreter put into question the inspiration of Scripture? Not necessarily. It does not if the interpreter acknowledges that the Scripture is inspired and further acknowledges that the interpretations are from the same Spirit who inspired Scripture. This does not, of course, answer the question of whether or not the authoritative interpreter does in fact have the authority to acknowledge either. That would require a more complex answer, including whether or not interpretation is actually valid in relation to Scripture in the first place.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that the prophets revealed the reality in the Old Testament era and the Son revealed the reality in the New Testament era. As what the prophets revealed was written down by the Old Testament writers, so also what the Son revealed was written down by the New Testament writers. Doesn’t this imply that though Jesus didn’t write anything physically, he did in fact write through the New Testament writers?

Since those who are doing the interpreting are just as human as the rest of us, why should we believe in their interpretations any more than any other? Sure there is a long history of interpretations, but the interpreters do not always agree even in that environment. I do believe that Protestants tend to lose something when they do not even consider what others before them have believed. Especially Reversionist type denominations that simply say that the Church before them has been degraded and therefore of no present value. That is kind of like those who do not understand history are most apt to repeat it. Nevertheless, why should the historic idea be evidence that the Catholic interpretations are of any more value than any other.

How does the Catholic idea differ from the idea of the Gnostics who believed in a separate class of believers that had the knowledge and who were to proclaim that knowledge to others? And the “educated class†is not limited to the Catholic Church. The Protestant Churches have the same situation.

And I have always wanted to ask a Catholic this question. Given the fact that there are many Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible per se, but are extrapolations from certain ideas that are found in the Bible, something that is true also in the Protestant denominations; doesn’t the existence of an authoritative interpreter that has produced these extrapolations presuppose that revelation continues to the present day, that it did not stop at the New Testament writings?

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Is that infallibly as in protecting priests who rape children?

132 priests over 50 years out of nearly 2 million total in that time. Even 1/12 of the apostles were imposters. This is a red herring that you apparently think lets you avoid the issue, but it won't.

The Church teaches the truth. All Catholics, and all men, are sinners.

These two points are not contradictions.

 

[JamesG]

.
chestertonrules

132 out of 2 million. Now there's a statistic that would certainly be evidence that the matter is more media hype than anything else. And now they're trying to implicate the present Pope in the matter. The media loves this stuff and they're glad to cross denominational lines in their effort to implicate all of Christianity together whenever they can. Like the Baker and Swaggert and that Ted somebody that got caught with a gay man recently. Church leaders are human, but some of this stuff gets blown way out of proportion so that if they knew who a nobody like me was, they would probably try to implicate me too. Where did you get that statistic? Is it written down anywhere? This is the kind of thing where the Catholics and their separated brethren, of whom I am one, really need to stick together.

JamesG

 

[MMarc]

Sadly truth is one of the most relative thing there is.

Truth should not be a doctrine, Christianity has made it so for the last 2000 years and hence the divisions of many denominations, and many ministries today.

Let's make truth a person shall we, let's call truth Jesus.

That if we sincerely believe in Jesus, then even if we don't have all the interpretations then at least we have Jesus.

 

[chestertonrules]

.
chestertonrules

132 out of 2 million. Now there's a statistic that would certainly be evidence that the matter is more media hype than anything else. And now they're trying to implicate the present Pope in the matter. The media loves this stuff and they're glad to cross denominational lines in their effort to implicate all of Christianity together whenever they can. Like the Baker and Swaggert and that Ted somebody that got caught with a gay man recently. Church leaders are human, but some of this stuff gets blown way out of proportion so that if they knew who a nobody like me was, they would probably try to implicate me too. Where did you get that statistic? Is it written down anywhere? This is the kind of thing where the Catholics and their separated brethren, of whom I am one, really need to stick together.

JamesG

I agree. There is admission in the Catholic Church that many people were hurt due to the sins and incompetence of the Church. However, the media is ignoring most of the facts.

Our separated protestant brethren should remember how biased the media can be and recognize that the Catholic Church is their primary target due to it's principled stand on abortion, marriage, and artificial birth control.

 

[logical bob]

Jesus wants us to be one and he wants us to have the fullness of Truth.

Is this possible without a Church that leads infallibly?

Is that infallibly as in protecting priests who rape children?

132 priests over 50 years out of nearly 2 million total in that time. Even 1/12 of the apostles were imposters. This is a red herring that you apparently think lets you avoid the issue, but it won't.

The Church teaches the truth. All Catholics, and all men, are sinners.

These two points are not contradictions.

Joseph Ratzinger is alleged to have avoided reporting child rape to the proper authorites, moved the rapists to new posts where they would have new opportunities and sought to ensure the silence of their victims. If this is true then he, personally, is an accessory after the fact to child rape.

If the same situation happened in a secular organisation that the chief executive of that organisation would certainly be prosecuted, as would key decision makers like Ratzinger.

I won't comment on your figure of 132 priests. The 132 priests aren't the issue. The issue is with the one man who now claims to be able to infallibly interpret the word of God for all mankind. He has demonstrated personal moral failings which make this claim laughable. Nobody who is personally complicit in the rape of children has any claim to moral or spiritual authority of any kind. How much biblical interpretation do you need to realise that raping children in wrong?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

 

[Biblereader]

The Holy Spirit is the only one who can, and will, correctly interpret the KJV bible to you.
Other than that, the bible is misinterpreted by men and women all the time.

Make sure you're born again, and then, grow in knowledge of the bible, and yield yourself to the Holy Spirit, who will teach you all things.

You have no need of man to teach you, if you're born again. The bible says so.

Proverbs 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

False bibles, false teachers and preachers abound now.
They add to God’s word, they also take away from God’s word.

Who is decieved by them?

The simple.
The bible says so:
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Their bible perversions came after the KJV bible, which was made understandable, to all who have the Holy Spirit within them, and available to men and women.
The people who made other versions, are the ones causing divisions, and offences, but, with their smooth words, they will sway the simple, to believe otherwise.

With their flatteries, they will seek to gain advantage of you: Flattery is excessive and insincere praise intended to gain advantage. It is self serving and it is forbidden.
What else does God say against this?
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
What is an appropriate response to flattery? Should you immediately not trust that person? When you admire the qualities of a person, what sort of phrases can you use that will keep them from thinking that you are a “self-serving flatterer�

Listen to Solomon’s words on this subject:A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin. …a flattering mouth worketh ruin.†Proverbs 26:28 KJV (men and women, please do not doubt this truth for one moment!).
People will flatter you, sometimes, to get you “into their camp†of lies. As you may have experienced, you have lots of friends, as long as you
don’t point out the errors in their bibles.

So, the topics covered here, briefly, are: idolatry, because people who have changed God’s word, believe they are smarter than God, and believe they
will make a person better able to understand the bible, than the Holy Spirit! What BLASPHEMY!
The other topics, which I used to illustrate one way a person is duped into accepting a perverted version of the bible:
flattery, which is a tool, used by decietful people, in order to take advantage of you.
Flattery is abhorred by God, because it is a LIE. Liars will burn in the lake of fire. Read Revelation to confirm that.

The other topic is the danger of being simple minded : to be unlearned in the Word of God, is to set traps for yourself, and to blindfold YOURSELF.
There are, as you well know, sisters in Christ, tons of people who will take advantage of a simple minded, unlearned Christian.

I say all this because I love people, and hate sin. The deceitfulness of sin, the wreck and ruin of a life, that sin does to people.
Please, pray, read your KJV bible, and do not keep company with those who cause division in the body of Christ.