Powerful Warrior Angels.

[JAG ..]

You are confusing interpreting with understanding. If those who read or listened to your words gave themselves the freedom to interpret them any way that suits them, you would object. If you said, "please pick up some bread on your way home" to a sweetheart you live with, and they went to the store and literally lifted bread into the air, put it back down and walked out of the store without any bread, you would not accept that they INTERPRETED your words. They did, in fact, interpret them, but failed to understand them.

As you can see, this is not the case. There is understanding what the author had in his thoughts when he wrote it. That is called understanding. Interpreting is allowing yourself to change what was meant, perhaps. Sometimes the understanding is obscure for planned reasons and so both are involved.

No, that is understanding. As a text is obscure, interpretation involves considering the matters you mention above.

No, it is to apply one's mind to actually having the same understanding or thinking as the author.

As you can see, understanding has been left out of your consideration on the matter. Now, "they shall never perish" needs to be seen, as you said earlier, in the light of various other matters surrounding the text AND what is said elsewhere assuming Jesus was very consistent.

Depends upon other factors. It can be that they really understand the verse.

It stands for Judge Advocate General and yes, it is very much a branch of the military.

Best regards to you as well,
DM

Substituting the word understanding for interpretation creates
the same identical problem with John 10:28's "they shall never perish."

Why is that?

Because your understanding of, "they shall never perish" becomes your
interpretation of "they shall never perish."

You cannot possibly escape this. Unless you refuse to apply "they shall never perish"
to the issues surrounding it. You CAN do that. I mean you can simply quote John 10:28
and NEVER say what it means and NEVER give your "understanding" of the verse. Yes its
true, if you do THAT then you do not ever have to interpret John 10:28 ...

All you ever do is merely quote John 10:28 and when you are asked questions
about John 10:28 all you do is to simply quote John 10:28 AGAIN and again and again.

. . and you, having Free Will ..... CAN choose to do that.

BUT . . . 99.9% of Christendom is going to ignore you.
Why?
Because if all you do is merely quote John 10:28 you are refusing to "join the conversation."
That means, if you do nothing but quote it, you are refusing to discuss it as it relates to the
question: Can a true born again Christian lose his salvation? Yes or No?
There is no middle ground on this question.
A true born again Christian either:
(1) can
or
(2) cannot
lose his salvation.
And if you are going to discuss that question with others you have no choice but
to state your interpretation/understanding of John 10:28 -- that means you're gonna
have to tell 'em what you think "they shall never perish" means as it relates to the
question: Can a true born again Christian lose his salvation? Yes or No.

Of course, it is true that none of us have to enter the arena of argumentation.
We have Free Will, and we can choose to do the Bumper Sticker Thingy:
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

So?

So then we have such as this:

Tom: A true born again Christian CAN lose his salvation.
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

Bob: A true born again Christian can NOT lose his salvation.
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

Here, Tom and Bob can forever avoid argumentation and
interpretation/understanding.

Best

JAG

Regarding JAG, I meant that my screen name had nothing
to do with the military.


[]

PS
And all that up there doesn't even get into the question regarding
what John 10:28's "perish" means.
Does perish mean:
(1) eternal conscious torment in hell (the traditionalist view)
or does perish
(2) mean they die and stay dead forever (the conditionalist view)

(I mention this NOT because I want to discuss that subject, but only
to make the point that its utterly impossible NOT to interpret
textual language -- if you are wiling to discuss it -- you MUST
give your interpretation of the text and then present your
Biblical evidences to support your interpretation/understanding
of the Biblical text.

[][]

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Substituting the word understanding for interpretation creates
the same identical problem with John 10:28's "they shall never perish."

No, it doesn’t and I gave you an example. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Now a religious leader heard that and tried to INTERPRET avoiding what the obvious understanding would bring. He wanted to interpret which allows a man to AVOID understanding. Jesus explained the meaning to give understanding with the required life change. Those who allow themselves to interpret are allowing themselves the freedom to avoid the meaning.

Why is that?

Because your understanding of, "they shall never perish" becomes your
interpretation of "they shall never perish."

No, there is understanding which means having the same thoughts the author has and interpreting which means no particular meaning is correct.

You cannot possibly escape this.

Yes I can, but you don’t see the difference.

Unless you refuse to apply "they shall never perish"
to the issues surrounding it. You CAN do that. I mean you can simply quote John 10:28
and NEVER say what it means and NEVER give your "understanding" of the verse. Yes its
true, if you do THAT then you do not ever have to interpret John 10:28 ...

All you ever do is merely quote John 10:28 and when you are asked questions
about John 10:28 all you do is to simply quote John 10:28 AGAIN and again and again.

You forget that there are myriads of other verses on the subject that lead to understanding.

. . and you, having Free Will ..... CAN choose to do that.

BUT . . . 99.9% of Christendom is going to ignore you.
Why?

So? A whopping 99% of the Jews ignored Jesus and killed the prophets God sent. Is truth a popularity contest? Jesus said MANY will fall away from the faith. That fits.

Because if all you do is merely quote John 10:28 you are refusing to "join the conversation."
That means, if you do nothing but quote it, you are refusing to discuss it as it relates to the
question: Can a true born again Christian lose his salvation? Yes or No?
There is no middle ground on this question.
A true born again Christian either:
(1) can
or
(2) cannot
lose his salvation.
And if you are going to discuss that question with others you have no choice but
to state your interpretation/understanding of John 10:28 -- that means you're gonna
have to tell 'em what you think "they shall never perish" means as it relates to the
question: Can a true born again Christian lose his salvation? Yes or No.

Or you can look at the whole of what the Bible says on the subject.

Of course, it is true that none of us have to enter the arena of argumentation.
We have Free Will, and we can choose to do the Bumper Sticker Thingy:
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

So?

Never establishes that God actually said what is claimed.

So then we have such as this:

Tom: A true born again Christian CAN lose his salvation.
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

Bob: A true born again Christian can NOT lose his salvation.
"GOD SAID IT
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT."

Here, Tom and Bob can forever avoid argumentation and
interpretation/understanding.

Best

JAG

If that’s all the depth they have in their mental facilities, you are perfectly right.

Regarding JAG, I meant that my screen name had nothing
to do with the military.

OK thanks.

[]

PS
And all that up there doesn't even get into the question regarding
what John 10:28's "perish" means.
Does perish mean:
(1) eternal conscious torment in hell (the traditionalist view)
or does perish
(2) mean they die and stay dead forever (the conditionalist view)

(I mention this NOT because I want to discuss that subject, but only
to make the point that its utterly impossible NOT to interpret
textual language -- if you are wiling to discuss it -- you MUST
give your interpretation of the text and then present your
Biblical evidences to support your interpretation/understanding
of the Biblical text.

[][]

There are unclear passages that require some interpretation to arrive at understanding. There are some that require none at all as they are so clear and deciding to backpedal to an “interpretation” is to abandon the obvious meaning.

 

[JAG ..]

No, it doesn’t

Heh heh, you and I we live in totally different worlds.

God bless and best regards.

JAG

[]

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Heh heh, you and I we live in totally different worlds.

God bless and best regards.

JAG

[]

Appears to be the case. Have you had the experience of really knowing you understand something true? Not a hope what you think is true. Not the all too common stubborn clinging to a preferred idea. But the calm patient KNOWING what you understand on a matter is how God sees it. Knowing the truth is accompanied by a tolerance of untruth at times, a willingness to endure with patience those who understand less. In this matters, one is no longer interpreting but understanding. Jesus said if he keep (do) his teaching, we will KNOW the truth. He didn’t seem to think we’d always be stuck in merely trying to interpret words. We can know that we know the truth.