Hand Me Down My Bible

tommy2bad

Lets talk about the bible. Is it the inspired word of God or the inerrant word of God or something else? Coming from a catholic background I never learned verses of the bible. It wasn't that the bible wasn't used but it was used to tell a story or illustrate a point. Single verses or texts were not used the way I have since seen other faiths use them. Why?
Please don't turn this into a catholic v protestant thread, thats not what this is about, I get the reformation thing about going back to the source text, what I don't get is why this is said not to be interpretation while everything else is interpretation.
How do you read a text and then apply it to your circumstances without interpretation?
What tools do you use to help understand the text?
What else gives us guidance apart from the bible?
Lots of questions but really only one If the bible is the sole acceptable source of religious guidance how do you know that how you are reading and interpreting it is the right way?

kelly1

How to correctly interpret the bible? It's the age-old question isn't it?

Surely any correct interpretation must come from God and specifically via the Holy Spirit. Is that not a fair starting point?

EDIT: I suggest you delete the other duplicate thread.

tommy2bad

How do you know it the Holy Spirit?
What about reason and tradition. Should interpretations be reevaluated in the light of new translations.
More to the point how dose your view of what the bible is effect how you interpret it and what else you consider when interpreting.

tommy2bad

Can a mod remove this dupe please. Dongle trouble led me submit twice.

CMpunked

I take this approach when looking at bible verses. A lot of it can be applied to current day living and has done since the day it was written, how to carry yourself and that for example.
But some of it (imo) is meant to be viewed from the time frame/language that was used at the time of writing to get the full meaning of it. Some translations can lose their original meaning when the current situations of the day it was written in are forgotten about.

kelly1

tommy2bad wrote: »

How do you know it the Holy Spirit?
What about reason and tradition. Should interpretations be reevaluated in the light of new translations.
More to the point how dose your view of what the bible is effect how you interpret it and what else you consider when interpreting.

Please be clear about what you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss how to correctly interpret scripture and do you mean OT, NT or both? Do you want to restrict the discussion to the original greek or the numerous translations which have arisen from it?

Or do you want to discuss the accuracy or translations or the inerrancy of Scripture?

soterpisc

Just delete it yourselve

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoCagUKAhik

I haven't really anything to contribute, but this song. The thread reminded me.

lmaopml

Tommy, from a Catholic perspective the Old and New Testaments and the Gospels are read allowed every single day at Mass - you most likely have heard more than you think you have..lol.... The Lords prayer is said, and the whole mass is woven together with a tapestry of Scriptural quotations, prayers etc. - and we receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist and Communion - straight out of Scripture. They work their way through the Scriptures over a course of time.....

It's very difficult not to 'learn', hear and indeed memorise Sacred Scripture by going to mass....

As a Catholic we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church over the centuries and a Catholics interpretation.......Some doctrines and dogmas exist on certain parts so that they are universally understood in the faith - and for that matter there are other things that could be open to theological debate within the Church, and there are many great resources to study, and lots of debate too...

My parents home always had a copy of the bible.....and now mine does too It was an old custom to write down a family tree at the front of your family Bible when it got passed on through generations - you would often see very old copies still in use today in Catholic homes - I love having one, there is something about touching the pages as opposed to reading online that makes for a more tangible read, also mine has that old dusty book smell that I love, and some really beautiful pictures - ya won't get that off of a computer..lol....and turning pages beats scrolling too...

...but the internet has brought very literal translations alive, by comparing them to more dynamic ones and there are fabulous resources and tools for study, with commentaries that you can follow and everything.

tommy2bad

kelly1 wrote: »

Please be clear about what you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss how to correctly interpret scripture and do you mean OT, NT or both? Do you want to restrict the discussion to the original greek or the numerous translations which have arisen from it?

Or do you want to discuss the accuracy or translations or the inerrancy of Scripture?

No I don't want to discuss how to, I'm interested in how do you..
What makes you think you are correctly interpreting it, whether OT, NT or Acts, letters and Revelations. how do you resolve the original Greek with the various erroneous translations or can you, possibly even should you.

lmaopml;

It's very difficult not to 'learn', hear and indeed memorise Sacred Scripture by going to mass....

Indeed and sometimes be convinced of the worth of scripture. My own return to the faith was because while half listening to the parable about the workers who receive the same wage for different workloads. I was struck by the subtle psychology in the story and the genuine understanding of human nature. More impressive was the fact that the message was inherent in the story. Rather than preaching Jesus left you to learn it your self.

Thanks Thinkingaboutit, I'v no idea how to embed video. Or several other things on this board, sorry for the messy thread.

kelly1

tommy2bad wrote: »

No I don't want to discuss how to, I'm interested in how do you..
What makes you think you are correctly interpreting it, whether OT, NT or Acts, letters and Revelations.

As I said earlier, ultimately the correct interpretation has to come from God. And interpretation isn't set in stone, it's an on-going enterprise. I don't believe I have the authority to interpret Scripture but I do believe this authority lies with the CC whose founding Fathers were its authors.

tommy2bad wrote: »

how do you resolve the original Greek with the various erroneous translations or can you, possibly even should you.

This is a different question altogether.

tommy2bad

I don't believe I have the authority to interpret Scripture but I do believe this authority lies with the CC whose founding Fathers were its authors.

Kelly1, I'm parsing you here so correct me if I'm wrong. You don't interpret, you accept the interpretation that the CC offers you? Not a criticism but thats a bit like saying I don't think I let others do it for me.

This is a different question altogether.

Actualy it's another question, care to answer?

kelly1

tommy2bad wrote: »

Kelly1, I'm parsing you here so correct me if I'm wrong. You don't interpret, you accept the interpretation that the CC offers you? Not a criticism but thats a bit like saying I don't think I let others do it for me.

Most of scripture is fairly straight-forward, it's clearly understood. But when Jesus says "This is my Body (Mt 26:26)" or "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will built my Church", how are we to know the correct interpretation? You can argue both ways and go around in endless circles. That's why I say the true interpretation must come from God.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actualy it's another question, care to answer?

I'd prefer to deal with one question at a time, if that's ok with you?

tommy2bad

how are we to know the correct interpretation?

Thats part of my question, your answer seems to be let the RCC decide. I'm interested at why you reached this conclusion. What process you went through to get their, if it too personal a question, thats OK, I'l accept that.
Yeah one question at a time if fine.
Night now, back to this tomorrow. thanks for the replies.

kelly1

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats part of my question, your answer seems to be let the RCC decide. I'm interested at why you reached this conclusion. What process you went through to get their, if it too personal a question, thats OK, I'l accept that.

I'll answer that by saying that I believe that God is a loving, provident God. Without any means to find the true interpretation of scripture, we're like mice in a maze with no map to find the exit. I don't believe God plays games with us. Clearly we have many different interpretations of scripture, all of which can't be correct, and God would of course have foreseen this problem. So I believe He gave the authority to interpret Scripture the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I think it's vital that we know the meaning of phrases like "This is my Body". If this is symbolic, no big deal. But if the bread used in the Mass literally becomes the Body of Christ, really and truly present upon the altar, that's an amazing gift to the world!

tommy2bad

I think it's vital that we know the meaning of phrases like "This is my Body". If this is symbolic, no big deal. But if the bread used in the Mass literally becomes the Body of Christ, really and truly present upon the altar, that's an amazing gift to the world!

Ok thats a good example.
So to establish the truth of this statement we must first agree what it means. My method would be to ask why would it mean anything but the obvious metaphor it looks like? Then examine the argument for and against and the possible motives of the proponents of each side. If it no biggy, I'l go with tradition, if it matters a great deal I'll make up my own mind, using my power of reason. I should have said at the start that I describe my self as a Christian from an RC background, not as a Roman Catholic or catholic.
So I'm open to persuasion. The point of this thread is to inquire as to the value of the bible and how it's used by different denominations to achieve what would seem to me to be the same end. The thinking behind the view as it were.

kelly1

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ok thats a good example.
So to establish the truth of this statement we must first agree what it means.

Isn't that the problem in a nut-shell? How do we establish the true meaning of the text? The same question arises in the 2nd half of John 6.

PDN

The first step to interpreting the Bible is what we call exegesis. This basically involves asking what the text was intended to mean by its author, and how it would have been understood by its first hearers.

Then we move on to hermeneutics. This is how we are to interpret the Bible as it relates to our situation and culture today.

A golden rule to follow is that we must understand what the Bible meant there and then (exegesis) before we can understand it here and now (hermeneutics).

In order to do exegesis properly, we have to get rid as much as possible of every bias. It's no good beginning by trying to find the interpretation that best suits our agenda or our denomination. Then, as they say in CSI, we follow the evidence!

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

The first step to interpreting the Bible is what we call exegesis. This basically involves asking what the text was intended to mean by its author, and how it would have been understood by its first hearers.

Then we move on to hermeneutics. This is how we are to interpret the Bible as it relates to our situation and culture today.

A golden rule to follow is that we must understand what the Bible meant there and then (exegesis) before we can understand it here and now (hermeneutics).

In order to do exegesis properly, we have to get rid as much as possible of every bias. It's no good beginning by trying to find the interpretation that best suits our agenda or our denomination. Then, as they say in CSI, we follow the evidence!

Worth saying twice. Coming back to this later.

Isn't that the problem in a nut-shell?

Well yes but not what I'm asking. How do you decide without it becoming circular reasoning. I suppose it a matter of choosing to believe (A) then following that rabbit down the hole 'till you reach (Z)

Now PDN, working with our example "this is my Body". To whom was this addressed, the people at the last supper or all of humanity through all time?
Are we back to picking a rabbit?

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Now PDN, working with our example "this is my Body". To whom was this addressed, the people at the last supper or all of humanity through all time?
Are we back to picking a rabbit?

In exegesis we concentrate on the immediate hearers or readers, so we leave 'all of humanity through all time' on one side for now.

The words of Jesus were addressed to His disciples, so we have to ask how they would have interpreted His words.

However, we also need to ask how the first readers of the Gospels would have understood it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all seem to assume that their readers will understand it without any added explanations. So we should look for a meaning that would be readily understood by Jews, by Romans, and by a Greek guy who was interested in the faith.

CMpunked

Would it be right in saying that the people of the time understood sacrifice and something being broken in the name of something else?
IE a lamb being slain in an effort to attain approval.

So maybe when jesus took the bread and broke it into parts and separated it between the disciples speaking the words, "this is my body", they understood that he was going to be sacrificed for them in the same way that the bread had been broken so they could share in the supper.

tommy2bad

However, we also need to ask how the first readers of the Gospels would have understood it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all seem to assume that their readers will understand it without any added explanations. So we should look for a meaning that would be readily understood by Jews, by Romans, and by a Greek guy who was interested in the faith.

So it's a metaphor then? and if so how did we get to it being literal?

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

So it's a metaphor then? and if so how did we get to it being literal?

If we get into that, then this is going to become a Protestant/Catholic thing and our discussion about interpreting the Bible will be at an end.

Newsite

tommy2bad wrote: »

So it's a metaphor then? and if so how did we get to it being literal?

PDN wrote: »

If we get into that, then this is going to become a Protestant/Catholic thing and our discussion about interpreting the Bible will be at an end.

Heheh, careful Tommy

Put it to everyone this way.

Sitting at a table, his followers. Partaking in a meal with the One they had been following - literally as well as metaphorically. He had referred to Himself as 'the door'. But they weren't looking for actual keys. Or hinges. Also, 'no one comes to the Father except by Me'. Did the men sitting with him think that he had literally, actually turned into the bread they were about to eat? Or, did they implicitly understand that this was a symbol of the Spirit that was in them - and that believing in Him was the fullest expression of this?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

If we get into that, then this is going to become a Protestant/Catholic thing and our discussion about interpreting the Bible will be at an end.

Well it is a catholic/protestant thing but to avoid the usual shouting match is the trick.
Lets just examine the process rather than arguing about the point it's self.
Also can I ask how much importance an attitude to the bible has in the process or is it more a set of assumptions about what the bible is?

kelly1

Isn't it important to look to other passage of Scripture to corroborate our theory?

So you could look to John 6:53-57 or 1 Cor 11:29 for example.

tommy2bad

So you could look to John 6:53-57 or 1 Cor 11:29 for example.

Yes when you start from a position and then find similar sounding bits to back it up.
Being contrary here but for the sake of discussion, I say 1 Cor 11:29 is just saying that anyone who lives and breaths without recognizing the church of Christ is bringing condemnation on themselves. Doesn't have to have anything to do with Luke 22:19.
What do I have to do to believe that the two passages are referencing the same thing?

tommy2bad

Newsite wrote: »

Sitting at a table, his followers. Partaking in a meal with the One they had been following - literally as well as metaphorically. He had referred to Himself as 'the door'. But they weren't looking for actual keys. Or hinges. Also, 'no one comes to the Father except by Me'. Did the men sitting with him think that he had literally, actually turned into the bread they were about to eat? Or, did they implicitly understand that this was a symbol of the Spirit that was in them - and that believing in Him was the fullest expression of this?

Yes, reading the passage thats what I would take from it. Whats interesting is how you go from their to..... Dose it require a leap of faith?
Accepting that any faith, takes a leap of faith to start with, how many more are needed to fill in the blanks. Do you see where I coming from?
If we start with the concept of scripture as X we get Y faith, If its B then we get Z. How do we decide what scripture is, rather than whats scripture?