God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them...

Interpreting the Bible is a mug's game, imo. You can only read what is written, and make assumptions about what is meant, without any reliable data to back up those assumptions.
 
Zinga said:
I find the suggestion valid & acceptable, otherwise, there would be no need for Sunday school or to attend Mass to have the Bible interpreted ...
Click to expand...

True. Sunday school and Mass have their place. I have no problem with either so long as their interpretation is not presented as if it were the only possible conclusion that could be drawn. I just think that too often religious teachings tend to be a bit one sided.
 
Quirkybird said:
Interpreting the Bible is a mug's game, imo. You can only read what is written, and make assumptions about what is meant, without any reliable data to back up those assumptions.
Click to expand...

That's fine. You're not alone in that view. That's why I suggested in my previous post that those who have a problem with the scripture should simply put it down and follow their heart instead. As my late Father-in-law put it, faith in God lie not in the words of man, but is born unto you and contained in your heart.....
 
Namaste Jesus said:
True. Sunday school and Mass have their place. I have no problem with either so long as their interpretation is not presented as if it were the only possible conclusion that could be drawn. I just think that too often religious teachings tend to be a bit one sided.
Click to expand...

True, it also depends on who is teaching them/their criteria as well as how a person choose to interpret the lesson(s) ...
As we now see, Pope Francis has his own approach far different than those who preceded him ...
I'm hoping he will live long enough to make a greater impact ... :D
Gotta keep the faith as well as acknowledge areas in need of vast improvement ...
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Informed opinion? I've got to go with QB on this one. When it comes to by-pass surgery the opinion of your Cardiologist certainly outweighs that of your plumber, just as the opinion of the pilot matters more when landing the plane than the drunk in the seat next to you, but when it comes to the Bible, one opinion is as good as the next.
Click to expand...
If this was true, we don't need professors of English literature since we all can read (providing one can read English) what's written in Shakespeare... I think it's too hasty to dismiss the opinions of those who are experienced in the field (ex. those who have degrees in theology or religious studies) as just as good as the next.

I for one make a distinction between the opinions of people who invest their time and energy in seriously studying the Bible and the opinions of people, say, who read the Bible only for 30 min. only on Sundays.

Tad
 
Namaste Jesus said:
That's fine. You're not alone in that view. That's why I suggested in my previous post that those who have a problem with the scripture should simply put it down and follow their heart instead. As my late Father-in-law put it, faith in God lie not in the words of man, but is born unto you and contained in your heart.....
Click to expand...

It didn't work for me, but if it works for others, no problem.:)
 
Quirkybird said:
The Bible has been translated into most languages so providing you can read in your own language it isn't hard to read.
Click to expand...
The problem's not with the book.

Quirkybird said:
You seem to be saying you have some superior knowledge of the book.
Click to expand...
To make an informed assessment, yes. Same with any book. I've had people tell me Shakespeare is boring, and poetry is pointless, but they tend to possess no great expertise on the matter, just a faith in the own infallible opinion.

They say Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is one of the great 'unread bestsellers'. Well, I bought it, and I've read it, cover to cover. Did I understand it? Not really. I got his very general point, but I'm sure someone with a background in the field would see way more in the text than I did.
 
Quirkybird said:
Interpreting the Bible is a mug's game, imo. You can only read what is written, and make assumptions about what is meant, without any reliable data to back up those assumptions.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. So, for example, there is abundant evidence of the use of "image of God" terminology being used throughout the levant.

Assumptions will remain assumptions, but not all assumptions are created equal.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
That is simply not true. So, for example, there is abundant evidence of the use of "image of God" terminology being used throughout the levant.

Assumptions will remain assumptions, but not all assumptions are created equal.
Click to expand...


I am not sure what you mean?
 
Tadashi said:
If this was true, we don't need professors of English literature since we all can read (providing one can read English) what's written in Shakespeare... I think it's too hasty to dismiss the opinions of those who are experienced in the field (ex. those who have degrees in theology or religious studies) as just as good as the next.

I for one make a distinction between the opinions of people who invest their time and energy in seriously studying the Bible and the opinions of people, say, who read the Bible only for 30 min. only on Sundays.

Tad
Click to expand...
Hi Tad, Perhaps it didn't convey, but I was making the assumption that the reader already had a grasp of what ever language dialect they were reading the Bible in. If that's not the case of course, the individual would indeed need to learn the meanings and nuances of that text before attempting any interpretations.

I do believe however, that the Bible is meant to mean something different to each individual and while certain scholars may have a better grasp of the text than others, at the end of the day their interpretation is still just their opinion and therefore no better than anyone else's.

That said, I have no problem with religious scholars giving others their interpretation of various Biblical passages. I would even be so bold as to say that, in some instances these interpretations warrant more consideration than others. Where I draw the line however, is when these individuals present their interpretation as the only possible conclusion. Or that Christian scripture is the only possible truth.

In my experience, the problem with those who have studied the Bible intently is that in most cases it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided.
 
NJ, perhaps your statement didn't come out the way you had intended... or maybe it's just me, because, to some extent, everyone reads in his own way. It sounded to me as if you appreciate the talent/skill of a cardiologist or a pilot, but not a Biblical scholar or a theologian. I still think a layman's grasp is not on the same level of that of an expert in the field. I do however say that the level of knowledge is not what makes one godly, so if you're trying to say theologians (or even pastors) are not necessarily closer to God than less knowledgeable common folks, I'd agree.

But I'm talking here strictly about how to read/interpret the Bible. As a novice who's started studying the Bible only a little over a year ago, I am painfully aware of the strenuous road ahead of me... the more I learn, the more I find out how much I don't know... So, when someone casually says, "I read the Bible and I know what's written in it very well"... my honest response is, "ohhh REALLY...", "You mean you read the Bible once or twice and you think you know it well?"... I'm sorry, but that just sounds arrogant to me. (I'm not talking about you here.) That's like someone saying "I lived in Japan for three months, so I know Japanese culture very well"... when I hear something like that, I just chuckle and roll my eyes in my mind... :rolleyes:

Namaste Jesus said:
at the end of the day their interpretation is still just their opinion and therefore no better than anyone else's
Click to expand...
I think this is where you and I part ways. Yes, it's ultimately their opinions, and I'm not saying they have the definite answer. First of all, they often disagree with each other. But their opinions are formed by their deep digging and dedication to the issue. When they're challenged, they can defend their positions with solid knowledge. I for one think informed/educated opinions are far better than the other. Like, I don't take the criticism against Christianity of 'just any' skeptics seriously, unless they're well versed in the Bible, like Bart Ehrman (I've read it somewhere that he has memorized the entire NT) or Bishop Spong who devoted his entire life to the religion (one of his books actually made me feel he sounded more an atheist than a believer). To me, not all opinions weigh the same.

I wonder if you make the above statement of yours in regards to any other fields of expertise or just to theology? Take a foreign novel or a poem where comprehending the time, cultural background and reading between the lines are hugely important, which would you choose, a translation by a seasoned translator of 30 years or a translation by a young college student studying the language?

Namaste Jesus said:
In my experience, the problem with those who have studied the Bible intently is that in most cases it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided.
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience.

Tad
 
I'm thinking this topic is in need of an example of a passage that could be interpreted in more then one way, and where knowledge of other texts, the language and culture of the writer point to some truth.
 
Hi Tad, I get your point and I even agree with some of it. I just think that the Bible falls well outside the realm of traditional literature and that it's interpretation is extremely subjective and differs one individual to the next.

Theology too falls outside the realm of other fields of expertise as it's not an exact science and it too is rather subjective. That's not to say that the words of the theologists should not be considered. Far from it. At the same time though it shouldn't be considered the final word. Only God has that honor.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I'm thinking this topic is in need of an example of a passage that could be interpreted in more then one way, and where knowledge of other texts, the language and culture of the writer point to some truth.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this might suffice as a modest example …

First, two renderings of Genesis 41:43.
  • NKJV And he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, “Bow the knee!” So he set him over all the land of Egypt.
  • NJPS He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command, and they cried before him, "Abrek!" Thus he placed him over all the land of Egypt.
Now this from the Plaut Commentary, from an introductory section titled Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Literature by William W. Hallo.
On the level of exegesis, or exposition of the text, the comparative approach may serve to illuminate a word, form, or phrase which has proved a philological crux to all other approaches. Thus, for example, when Joseph in introduced to the Egyptians as Pharaoh's vizier, it is to the accompaniment of a shout "Abrek" (41:43) which has puzzled commentators ever since. Modern scholars have tended to see in it an Egyptian word meaning "Attention!" or a Coptic word meaning "incline." But the Greek translation prepared in Egypt by Jews who might have been expected to recognize such forms understood the word differently (as "herald"). Other ancient versions came up with Hebrew or even Latin etymologies which defy both literary and linguistic considerations. Such counsels of desperation led to discord among the tannaitic rabbis, as Rashi reports ad lot. But it is now known that Akkadian abarakku means "chief steward of a private or royal household" and that this title was widely attested wherever and whenever cuneiform was used, and beyond that as a loanword in Phoenician. This almost certainly solves our textual problem. It also raises new questions.

Though now open to rational explanation without resort to emendations, popular etymology, or midrashic exegesis, the single word does not stand alone but in context. Thus we move to the level of hermeneutics, the interpretation and evaluation of the biblical context.

The presence of an Assyrian title (if this is conceded) in the midst of the Joseph stories raises significant questions about their date of composition and their source or sources of inspiration. ...
Click to expand...
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Hi Tad, I get your point and I even agree with some of it. I just think that the Bible falls well outside the realm of traditional literature and that it's interpretation is extremely subjective and differs one individual to the next.

Theology too falls outside the realm of other fields of expertise as it's not an exact science and it too is rather subjective. That's not to say that the words of the theologists should not be considered. Far from it. At the same time though it shouldn't be considered the final word. Only God has that honor.
Click to expand...
Hi NJ,

I think I may be finally beginning to see why we have such different opinions on Biblical scholars and theologians... To me, the Bible doesn't really fall outside the realm of traditional literature since my view is that it's wholly human-written just like any other ancient literature, The Iliad or The Gallic Wars... God is not the author of the Bible, God didn't have anything to do with the writing of it. It is my view and could be a heretic one since many Christians still believe that God instructed humans to write it. I don't believe that at all. Well, let me rephrase it more carefully (or else God's wrath will be upon me through Thomas :eek:)...

I believe there have been people who were very in tune with the Holy Spirit and heard God's messages and received visions and their experiences are recorded in the Bible... In this sense, it is God-inspired, it is holy, but God had no direct hand in the writing itself. So, the method we should use to analyze is, to me, no different from the aforementioned literature. Just like the opinions of the experts' who studied and understand the cultural background of the ancient time where Homer and Hirtius lived become much more valuable compared to the people who only read it without that knowledge, Biblical scholars and theologians' opinions are very important to me. I try to watch as many debates by them as I can, so I felt, your very low opinion of them sort of indirectly reduced my effort to something insignificant.

Of course no theologians' word should be considered the final. I don't think any right-minded theologian would ever declare such a thing.

Tad
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Perhaps this might suffice as a modest example …



First, two renderings of Genesis 41:43.
  • NKJV And he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, “Bow the knee!” So he set him over all the land of Egypt.
  • NJPS He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command, and they cried before him, "Abrek!" Thus he placed him over all the land of Egypt.
Now this from the Plaut Commentary, from an introductory section titled Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Literature by William W. Hallo.
Click to expand...

Hi Jay (may I call you that?), my first time talking to you, I believe...

I've barely scratched the surface of the Old Testament... I think I'm gonna learn a lot from you.

Nice to meet you :)

Tad
 
Tadashi said:
Hi Jay (may I call you that?), my first time talking to you, I believe...

I've barely scratched the surface of the Old Testament... I think I'm gonna learn a lot from you.

Nice to meet you :)

Tad
Click to expand...
Thank you, Tad.

Perhaps the first thing you might learn is that, as a Jew, I find the term 'Old Testament' demeaning and repugnant. The more appropriate term is Tanakh.

Thanks.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Thank you, Tad.

Perhaps the first thing you might learn is that, as a Jew, I find the term 'Old Testament' demeaning and repugnant. The more appropriate term is Tanakh.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that info, Jay. This was news to me as well. I would be interested in knowing a bit more about why you find those terms demeaning and repugnant. If you would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top