Is There One True Religion, One True Path to God?

Any clue how many interpretations of the bible there are??

Sure anyone can interpret it any way they like. It iisn't patently nonsense. It is common sense. If...IF...you are interpreting it for yourself.

We've got umpteen 'versions' of the Bible...some say the KJV is the only one and true version....no...that would actually be KING JAMES's version. He hired his scholars and had it written for his agenda...as is the NKJV or the Revised Standard Version or the NRSV, or the Llamsa, or the Message, or any other version....they all had their agenda....just as the gospel writers did....each in turn read the first writer...and said....um...no....this is my version of the story.

But as for us...and our interpretation (no matter which version you use....when I am looking I like to keep two parallel bibles open...and can look at 7 versions at a time) But each of us has our life experiences, our current situations...the miles we've walked in our shoes.... and as we read a passage, our previous knowledge and experience will shine a light on that passage and we will interpret its meaning for US in that moment... 10 years...5 years...a month or even a moment later... we may see it differently with new knowledge and new experiences... the book is a living breathing entity...and our understanding, our interpretation is for us.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
That's very true. That's why I hate quoting scripture. Taken out of context, as you say, Biblical passages can be interpreted to mean nearly anything.

Personally, I don't put a lot of stock in the details, just the overall story. I've always thought that no one can fully understand the Bible until they've read the whole thing anyway, but even then, opinions vary. Even among informed scholars.
Click to expand...
One of the things that marks the wisdom of the Church is an approach to the Mysteries founded on reason, logic and sound common sense.

We hold, for example, that the view of any individual 'authority' is not necessarily correct. Therefore, we proceed by the process of collegiality.

For instance, if the Fathers (the acknowledged authority of all orthodox Christian traditions) are in accord in affirming a particular point, then you can 'take that to the bank', as they say. It's not necessarily a dogma, it might not even be taught as a doctrine, but it does not contradict 'the overall story', therefore it's a 'safe' and 'sound' premise.

If there is no such agreement, then the particular point is remains 'open', and without certainty. It's the moral responsibility of the Church to point that out, and point out that a faith founded on such matters is necessarily a risky venture, to found one's faith on uncertain and illusory foundations runs the risk of a faith founded on an illusion.

Take the authors of the Gospels. Tradition holds that the Four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' is not a dogma of the Church. It's safe to accept there were four sources of the Canonical books, and we attribute those sources to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It's also sound to accept they drew on pre-existing oral and/or written traditions.

If the Fathers are in accord in refuting a particular point, then it's equally the case that you can 'take that to the bank' too. It might well be what some choose to think, but it's most probably wrong. The Fathers go to great lengths to reason their faith and beliefs reasonably, rationally and logically, both theologically and philosophically.

The claim that reincarnation was taught, or is even consistent with the message of Christ, lacks reason, rationality and logic, when examined in the light of 'the overall story'. If you understand how Christ sees the human person, then it becomes evident the idea is incompatible with what Christ Himself believed.

One is of course free to claim whatever takes one's fancy, but no-one is obliged to place any reliance or faith in such claims, based on nothing more than the opinion that anyone is free to interpret a text any way they like.

For some, truth matters, and should be defended.
 
You make a good point Thomas. I just tend to base truth on personal experience rather than on the perceptions of others, but that's just me....
 
wil said:
Any clue how many interpretations of the bible there are??
Click to expand...
Oh, just look around. QB says its clear God is an utter bastard. NJ says anyone can interpret any text to mean anything that takes their fancy. You have yourself declared it's all fireside tales from a bunch of dubious characters with doubtful motives ...

What is evident is that people cherry-pick to suit themselves, and interpret the text in ways that often fly in the face of reason and logic — which they studiously choose to ignore.

My experience tells me that's the ego in 'self-affirmation' mode.

Castles built on sand.
 
wil said:
We've got umpteen 'versions' of the Bible...some say the KJV is the only one and true version....no...that would actually be KING JAMES's version.
Click to expand...
How can a translation of a translation be the one true version?

A rabbi, who is very familiar with the Hebrew original of what Christians call the Old Testament, told me that King James was the best English translation, as literature. But as an accurate translation, it's the worst.
 
LincolnSpector said:
How can a translation of a translation be the one true version?

A rabbi, who is very familiar with the Hebrew original of what Christians call the Old Testament, told me that King James was the best English translation, as literature. But as an accurate translation, it's the worst.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an old rabbi tale to me
 
LincolnSpector said:
How can a translation of a translation be the one true version?

A rabbi, who is very familiar with the Hebrew original of what Christians call the Old Testament, told me that King James was the best English translation, as literature. But as an accurate translation, it's the worst.
Click to expand...

Actually, due to meaning drift, it is quite possible that a translation is closer in meaning to the original meaning of the text, than the original text is

Imagine an original text that contains the word 'dorf,' which at the time of first usage meant 'dorf' and in translation is rendered 'flib' the meaning of which is 'dorf.' Now as time passes the usage of the word 'dorf' comes to mean the opposite 'indorf' much as 'anon' has come to do in English. However, 'flib' has not undergone meaning drift and remains meaning 'dorf' thus the translation is closer to the meaning of the original text, than the original text is to modern ears

And of course the original meaning of 'dorf' can only be established by interpretation of text, which is of course exactly how translation occurs. Furthermore, every text stands in need of interpretation, even by the author, be it in the original language or in translation.

So subsequently, that a text is translated is not a problem
 
voiceofwood said:
Actually, due to meaning drift, it is quite possible that a translation is closer in meaning to the original meaning of the text, than the original text is

Imagine an original text that contains the word 'dorf,' which at the time of first usage meant 'dorf' and in translation is rendered 'flib' the meaning of which is 'dorf.' Now as time passes the usage of the word 'dorf' comes to mean the opposite 'indorf' much as 'anon' has come to do in English. However, 'flib' has not undergone meaning drift and remains meaning 'dorf' thus the translation is closer to the meaning of the original text, than the original text is to modern ears

And of course the original meaning of 'dorf' can only be established by interpretation of text, which is of course exactly how translation occurs. Furthermore, every text stands in need of interpretation, even by the author, be it in the original language or in translation.

So subsequently, that a text is translated is not a problem
Click to expand...

I'm sure that this rabbi, and pretty much anyone who seriously studies Torah, understands the difference between modern and Biblical Hebrew.
 
Thomas said:
For instance, if the Fathers (the acknowledged authority of all orthodox Christian traditions) are in accord in affirming a particular point, then you can 'take that to the bank', as they say.
Click to expand...

How do you define "orthodox Christian traditions?" Greek and Russian Orthodox? Is the Catholic Church Orthodox. Or, since you didn't capitalize orthodox, should we assume you mean the dictionary definition, "pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc." (Orthodox) | Define Orthodox) at Dictionary.com

Either way, orthodox views have often been wrong. "The sun does not evolve around the Earth. The universe is more than 6,000 years old. Men are inherently superior to women. White people are superior to non-white people." All of these were universally accepted, orthodox beliefs not that long ago.

If people don't challenge orthodox beliefs, we believe a pack of false assumptions and don't progress.

One more thing about these Fathers: Did anyone ask the opinions of the Mothers?
 
LincolnSpector said:
How do you define "orthodox Christian traditions?"
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Fathers, which is the Patristic Era generally, and who are common to all the subsequent particular denominations.

LincolnSpector said:
The sun does not evolve around the Earth. The universe is more than 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...
And the Fathers never asserted either point.

I think you're speaking in general terms, whereas I was referring to the early Christian tradition particularly. Or perhaps to modern American movements such as 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'. They are the dogmas of right wing think-tanks, not the Fathers.

But you're right, and that reinforces my point. Theology continually examines the tradition.

LincolnSpector said:
If people don't challenge orthodox beliefs, we believe a pack of false assumptions and don't progress.
Click to expand...
Oh my, it's rather over-stepping the mark to assume an idea is false because it is orthodox! I know some here think 'truth' and 'knowledge' has a shelf-life, but really ...

LincolnSpector said:
One more thing about these Fathers: Did anyone ask the opinions of the Mothers?
Click to expand...
A good point, and one I make often. But it doesn't alter the premise, does it?
 
Thomas said:
Oh my, it's rather over-stepping the mark to assume an idea is false because it is orthodox! I know some here think 'truth' and 'knowledge' has a shelf-life, but really ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

I'm not saying that something is false because it is orthodox. I'm saying that if you don't question what others say, you have no way of knowing if it's false.
 
LincolnSpector said:
How can a translation of a translation be the one true version?

A rabbi, who is very familiar with the Hebrew original of what Christians call the Old Testament, told me that King James was the best English translation, as literature. But as an accurate translation, it's the worst.
Click to expand...


it can't, and that is the statement I was making....evidently badly.
 
I had a friend, who was becoming a Buddhist monk...his ordination was scheduled, but then there were issues, I don't know exactly what happened but they lost the place.

So I called got the ok, and offered our church. Another hitch in the getalong and there was trouble with the fellow doing the ceremony. He called and said they'd have to cancel he didn't know how it was going to happen. I knew he had travel plans after that and if this didn't happen it would be a while before it could...so I told him we'd hold the date, and see what worked out. Well it worked out that the non governmental Tibetan Buddhist rep to the UN got wind and said he could come down to perform the ceremony....it went on time, it was beautiful and one of my favorite parts was his talk...and it was so much a talk, discussion with my friend, asking responding...and one thing that was said.

Don't trust the Buddha, don't trust the Dharma, don't trust your teacher, don't trust me...examine everything, continue to exam everything...for it isn't the esoteric, the theoretic, the belief must work on earth in your life... (paraphrased)
 
wil said:
Don't trust the Buddha, don't trust the Dharma, don't trust your teacher, don't trust me...examine everything, continue to exam everything...for it isn't the esoteric, the theoretic, the belief must work on earth in your life... (paraphrased)
Click to expand...
OK ... but context is everything!

The Tradition also says place your trust in the Buddha, in the Dharma, in the Sangha (the teacher). Lack of trust is a sign of 'the beginner's mind'.

I'm not disputing. I'm rather saying these statements can be interpreted wrongly if not received in the proper context.
 
I'm sorry Wil, but this kind of glib comment from you is typical.

It's also a misquote.

I knew last night you'd pop that one at me, and I had written a long discussion of it last night, but I dropped it. It's one of your favourites.

But please read this on koans

Koans are used as part of a structured developmental process. They are used in a student/master relationship. The teacher uses the koan, when he sees the time is right, and is looking for a particular response. Not the words, it's something deeper than that. There is a progression of koans, and they are a powerful psychodynamic device.

What happens in the West?

Some muppet 'collects' them, and writes a book, offering them as keys to spiritual insight. Consumer spirituality. Consumers buy the book, and read them, and take them literally, and think they've cracked it.

But they're not on the path. They're not in the process. The koan becomes like a trading card. Something to trump the conversation at the dinner table.

Next thing, the koan's being bandied about by everyone. It's all slick and über-cool sounding sayings ... but no substance ...

And, as I pointed out, it's unbalanced.

And you ignore that, and reinforce the unbalance.

I mean, think:
You're told not to trust.
By whom?
And why do you trust them?

You see ... you've turned the koan, which is something rather special, into a self-serving and — in the context — a vacuous soundbite, to trump me in an argument.

My reverence and honour of Traditions other than my own won't let me do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top