The Bible: Interpretation?

[Guest]

It has been argued the Bible can be understood without interpretation. It is my contention that this position is both false and dangerous. (i) The claim is false because language must be interpreted by both the sender and receiver of messages. (ii) The claim is dangerous because it places a person's interpretation on the same authoritative level as God's Word.

(i) Interpretation of Language is Necessary

Consider the following idioms.

• You blew my mind.[/*:m:26rah8nh]
• You are walking on egg shells.[/*:m:26rah8nh]
• You are the apple of my eye.[/*:m:26rah8nh]

The native speaker of English will rarely have trouble understanding the figurative meaning of these above expressions. This is because the native speaker has been explicitly taught the meaning or has discovered the meaning through interacting with other speakers of English. Contrast this with the person learning English as a second language. They are often only familiar with the literal meaning of the word, and so they stumble over idiomatic expressions. Thus, the native English speaker and the English as a second language learner both come away with very different meanings from these expressions. Why is this? It is because both are interpreting the expressions. If no interpretation of language was necessary, then both the native speaker and second language learner would reach the same meaning from the expressions.

Therefore, I propose the following syllogism.

Premise: Language must be interpreted.
Premise: The Bible is written with language.
Inference: Therefore, the Bible must be interpreted.

(ii) That is What God's Word Says

The Bible must be interpreted, so recognizing this we must consider the role of authority in claims about "what the Bible says."

The Bible is considered to be God's word within many Christian circles. This creates a special authority for the Bible on matters spiritual, and even more for some Christian groups. This means things which the Bible claims should be adhered to by the Christian. When a person equates their interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself through the claim, "That's what the Bible says," then they are attempting -- intentional or not -- to assign the authority of the Bible to their claim. This is dangerous because people can be wrong in their interpretations, but when their interpretations carry the weight of the Bible's authority they are often unwilling to listen to others who disagree with their interpretation. This can lead to bad situations. David Koresh comes to my mind.

(iii) Conclusion

So, it is my contention that understanding the Bible without interpretation is both false and dangerous. The Christian must recognize they interpret the Bible, and their interpretation can be wrong. I say can because the fallibility of the person does not necessarily mean their interpretation will be wrong. And second, the Christian must never -- intentionally or not -- equate their interpretation of the Bible with God's word. It is best to state, "This is what I understand the Bible to be saying, and these are my reasons for believing my interpretation is correct."

 

[JudaicChristian]

And what if the scholar gives the wrong interpretation? The scholars of today know a lot more than those of yester years. :yes

 

[animal]

It was written by God. Why do we need to worry with interpretation? I don't believe He intended for it to be that difficult.

What's true and/or useful is true and/or useful and what's not is metaphor.

 

[Guest]

And what if the scholar gives the wrong interpretation? The scholars of today know a lot more than those of yester years.

Then the scholar is wrong.

 

[Guest]

It was written by God. Why do we need to worry with interpretation? I don't believe He intended for it to be that difficult.

God chose to use language. Language, by its nature, must be interpreted. You cannot derive meaning from language without interpretation. That is, you cannot understand the language in the Bible with interpreting it.

Interpretation is not difficult, all the time. You are reading my message and interpreting it at this very moment. You are deriving meaning from the words and the relationship between the words. However, what happens if I use the wrong word for an idea? Or you and I have a different idea what the word means? Then it causes problems with the interpretation, and miscommunication results.

If interpretation was unnecessary, then miscommunications would never happen. If interpretation was unnecessary, then everyone would agree on what Bible the says.

 

[Adullam]

Do you use the living bible translation?

 

[Guest]

Do you use the living bible translation?

Nope.

 

[JudaicChristian]

It was written by God. Why do we need to worry with interpretation? I don't believe He intended for it to be that difficult.

God chose to use language. Language, by its nature, must be interpreted. You cannot derive meaning from language without interpretation. That is, you cannot understand the language in the Bible with interpreting it.

Interpretation is not difficult, all the time. You are reading my message and interpreting it at this very moment. You are deriving meaning from the words and the relationship between the words. However, what happens if I use the wrong word for an idea? Or you and I have a different idea what the word means? Then it causes problems with the interpretation, and miscommunication results.

If interpretation was unnecessary, then miscommunications would never happen. If interpretation was unnecessary, then everyone would agree on what Bible the says.

Translations are necessary, and when a word can not be translated, then we have to use interpretations. And if a person is not careful, then their interpretation will be in error.

 

[Guest]

Translations are necessary, and when a word can not be translated, then we have to use interpretations. And if a person is not careful, then their interpretation will be in error.

Excellent point. I am curious what those who believe the "no interpretation is necessary" would say to this.

 

[animal]

It was written by God. Why do we need to worry with interpretation? I don't believe He intended for it to be that difficult.

God chose to use language. Language, by its nature, must be interpreted. You cannot derive meaning from language without interpretation. That is, you cannot understand the language in the Bible with interpreting it.

Interpretation is not difficult, all the time. You are reading my message and interpreting it at this very moment. You are deriving meaning from the words and the relationship between the words. However, what happens if I use the wrong word for an idea? Or you and I have a different idea what the word means? Then it causes problems with the interpretation, and miscommunication results.

If interpretation was unnecessary, then miscommunications would never happen. If interpretation was unnecessary, then everyone would agree on what Bible the says.

God wouldn't have written a bible that could be intepreted in two very different ways by two people no matter the translation, time, culture of the interpreters, etc. He knew we would be using an english translation right now and he would not have made it difficult for us to interpret his word. It should be as crystal clear as the paragraphs you just wrote to me.

 

[Guest]

God wouldn't have written a bible that could be intepreted in two very different ways by two people no matter the translation, time, culture of the interpreters, etc. He knew we would be using an english translation right now and he would not have made it difficult for us to interpret his word. It should be as crystal clear as the paragraphs you just wrote to me.

Do you understand the Bible perfectly?

 

[animal]

Sorry to respond to your question with a question but would I be able to call myself a believer of his word if I didn't?

 

[Rocksolid]

In more godly times, no minister could be taken too seriously if he had not learned biblical Hebrew and Greek. Now, a minister is only expected to tickle the ears.

 

[Guest]

would I be able to call myself a believer of his word if I didn't?

I anticipate your answer to this question is no. I anticipate the reasoning to support this answer is that any deficiency in understanding would mean you believe something which is not His word. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the word perfectly to consider oneself a believer in His word. Thus, if you call yourself a believer in His word, you either (a) understand it perfectly or (b) are a liar. Do I follow the reasoning correctly?

 

[Guest]

In more godly times, no minister could be taken too seriously if he had not learned biblical Hebrew and Greek. Now, a minister is only expected to tickle the ears.

This is a real danger for those who claim to not interpret the Bible. They often read their own ideas into the Scriptures without any awareness they are doing so. Contrast this with those who seek to understand their biases and seek a more objective framework to work with to protect them from reading in their own biases.