Bible Interpretation - Part 2

@Setanta,

That was the reason I first quoted Paul. The law was impossible for imperfect humans to follow. It existed solely to provide identification for the messiah. Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus kept the law in its entirety.

The provisions of the law are still relevant, even though we are no longer bound to stone adulterers or sacrifice goats. For one thing, they provide insight into the personality of Jehovah.

That is why Jesus, when questioned about the law, replied in Matthew 22, vs 37: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”"

1 Reply

@neologist,

So why did Jesus interfere in the stoning of the aldulteress?

1 Reply

@Chai,

Chai wrote:

Forgive me if this is not as coherent as I'd like, it's been one of those days.

Saw the thread Bible Interpretation - just scanned a few pages, I think my question is much more basic.

Backgound (this is not what is in question, it's just to give one an idea of where I going with my post)- My personal belief: The bible, meaning the old testament, is not to be taken literally. It was written down eventually from spoken stories, whose purpose was to teach moral lessons.
Not to say there are not certain historic events that ended up in the Old Testament - but from a spiritual standpoint, the lessons learned could have been written today and ended up in the relegious or self help sections of the barnes and noble. That is to say, the old testament is as inspired by God as anything written at any other time, including today.

The new testament, that's a little tricker to express, or I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone who can quote page and verse.
I'm no bible scholar, and my intention is not to sound like I am.
I'm not even discussing whether Jesus was the son of God.

What I'm aiming at are the parables told by Jesus and their interpretation, along with the parables of the old testament.

Whew.
Ok, here's my problem.

When for instance, speaking to a Fundamentalist Christian, I am told the entire bible is to be taken literally.
However, when I've presented/asked how this can be so as there have been various versions of the bible accepted by Christians throughout the ages, I'm told the changes came about because of interpretations.

So - I'm thinking (interpreting) that it's is all right that a version of the bible that is accepted today by various relegions, that did not exist not all that long ago, because someone interpreted it differently than what an earlier reader did.
In other words the bible being accepted as being literal today, is not the bible that was accepted as being literal at other times.
Doesn't that go against the very meaning of taking something literally?

Related to that, you can go into your local barnes and noble and find books and books (and books and books) about the bible, old and new, mostly I suppose, explaining, interpreting what was being said, what was supposed to be taken literally.
I have said this before, I'm sure winning no friends on the fundamentalist side, but I'll say it again. The bible is a fine book, but frankly, no better than other books of the time, or today.
It's a few hundred pages, and in the time I've spent scanning the relegion forum more has been said ABOUT the bible than how many words are in the bible.
Again, if the bible is the literal truth, why all the interpretation?

From my personal experience, insulting to some or not, is, christians who are really big on the whole new testament thing do more twisting of words than anything else.
Why I have chosen not to come to this forum recently is mostly because when I see views expressed other than from a christian, there is a response from the christian factor that becomes so convuluted I can't even follow it. Always with the caveat of course of something to the effect of "now I'm just speaking for myself" or "a REAL christian doesn't...."

I'm not looking for a debate, if one developes, I'd be interested in following it, but not necessarily participating. My input is small and simple, I can't quote from the good book, I'm not saying the bible is true or false.
Just asking how anything can be called the literal truth, but subject to interpretation.

If my knowledge of such is called into question, fine, I'm no authority, I'm also no fool.

MORE bullshit about the (sic) bible?? Really!
WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Well, disregarding the fact that some manuscripts do not include the first 11 verses of John Chapter 8, it is often included because it corresponds with Jesus' quality of mercy as compared with the hardheartedness of the Jewish leaders.

Did he actually do so? I don't know. It seems reasonable that he might have but I don't refer to it often.

0 Replies

@Chai,

Chai wrote:

Again, if the bible is the literal truth, why all the interpretation?

One has only to read Genesis 2:4, where the first 6 creative days are lumped into one, to understand that much of the bible is not to be taken literally.

As to why it sometimes seems so difficult to understand, remember that the bible is not a scientific treatise. It is written so even the least sophisticated of us can understand why we have war and crime and sickness and death and what God will do about it. If you are looking for esoteric, you are in the wrong place.

This is why Jesus said in Matthew 7:25
"I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes."

Bible Interpretation - Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know