Does the Bible self-interpret?

[urroner]

In the current Scholar thread going on, the following conversation occured:

Hoops: So you put scholars ahead of the Bible? Interesting.

NotQuiteWetYet: I just find it friggin' hilarious when these people cite DNA to prove the Book of Mormon is false. But do you want to know what is false Hoops? Young Earth Creationism. But I'm not going to derail this thread. And I put God ahead of everything, I don't bow to a bible.

Hoops: Then you are saying that Genesis is false. That's fine.

DCP: No, he seems to be saying that your interpretation of Genesis is false. That's different.

Hoops: I see no reason to take Gen as anything other than what it purports to be. It's testimony of itself is substantially supportive of taking it literally. No interpretation required.

Hoops last statement has left me scratching my head or maybe it my psoriasis. It seems to me that Hoops is saying that the Bible or maybe just the book of Genesis interprets itself. I have heard several Evangelicals say this or something very similar, but I have to ask myself if they really believe this.

If the Bible interprets itself, then why are there so many different interpretations of what it says? Why did they have to hold so many councils in the early days of Christianity to formally decree how to interpret the self-interpreting Bible and then they had to hold even more councils to interpret the decrees that interpret the self-interpreting Bible.

I have attended Bible studies with Evangelicals where they argued bitterly sometimes over the interpretation of simple statements in the Bible.

Peter even said that Paul wrote things that were very difficult to understand.

How easy are Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation to understand? I have read and listened, for many years, how mainstream Christians have interpreted Revelation and they are all over the map and some of them aren't even on the map.

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring, how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible? Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying? Is it a text/context problem?

[Notquitewetyet]

In the current Scholar thread going on, the following conversation occured:

Hoops last statement has left me scratching my head or maybe it my psoriasis. It seems to me that Hoops is saying that the Bible or maybe just the book of Genesis interprets itself. I have heard several Evangelicals say this or something very similar, but I have to ask myself if they really believe this.

If the Bible interprets itself, then why are there so many different interpretations of what it says? Why did they have to hold so many councils in the early days of Christianity to formally decree how to interpret the self-interpreting Bible and then they had to hold even more councils to interpret the decrees that interpret the self-interpreting Bible.

I have attended Bible studies with Evangelicals where they argued bitterly sometimes over the interpretation of simple statements in the Bible.

Peter even said that Paul wrote things that were very difficult to understand.

How easy are Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation to understand? I have read and listened, for many years, how mainstream Christians have interpreted Revelation and they are all over the map and some of them aren't even on the map.

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring, how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible? Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying? Is it a text/context problem?

This belief was invented in 1517 for obvious reasons. It was Luther's way to start a new church without any authority.

[Anijen]

This belief was invented in 1517 for obvious reasons. It was Luther's way to start a new church without any authority.

Luther never started a new church his followers did. He was however very much the guy who probably gets the credit for the starting the reformation.

[Notquitewetyet]

Luther never started a new church his followers did. He was however very much the guy who probably gets the credit for the starting the reformation.

Okay but still he didn't do much more than break down the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church only to replace it with the political tyranny and doctrinal anarchy of Protestantism.

[Anijen]

Okay but still he didn't do much more than break down the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church only to replace it with the political tyranny and doctrinal anarchy of Protestantism.

agreed

[Billy]

Okay but still he didn't do much more than break down the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church only to replace it with the political tyranny and doctrinal anarchy of Protestantism.

And I scratch my head and wonder why you want to be called Christian (a term long associated with both Catholics and Protestants) rather than Mormon

This belief was invented in 1517 for obvious reasons. It was Luther's way to start a new church without any authority.

And what authority do you have?

[Notquitewetyet]

And I scratch my head and wonder why you want to be called Christian (a term long associated with both Catholics and Protestants) rather than Mormon

I don't want to be associated with a dead branch or a dead tree. I'm not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just call me a Mormon believer.

And what authority do you have?

Do you see me saying to a congregation "Now here is what the Bible says" and starting up new churches?

[Billy]

I don't want to be associated with a dead branch or a dead tree.

Now you know how they feel.

Do you see me saying to a congregation "Now here is what the Bible says" and starting up new churches?

If you feel that a church saves you then the answer is no. But the problem is that a church is not what saves you.

[Notquitewetyet]

Now you know how they feel.

Billy- I know all about the "Christian" nomenclature debate. I grew up Catholic in the Bible Belt, and I rarely met a Baptist or Church of Christer who considered Catholics Christian. Then, in high school, I went to a traditionalist Catholic parish which viewed Protestants as heretics and only used "Christian" as a term for Catholics. Now, as an unaffiliated Mormon believer, I have no desire to be called by anything save the name that saves and exalts on that glorious day.

If you feel that a church saves you then the answer is no. But the problem is that a church is not what saves you.

Billy-- I have no authority. And I'm not out there claiming I do like all your apostate priestcrafter "ministers".

[Billy]

Now, as an unaffiliated Mormon believer

So you are a non Mormon, who believes in Mormonism?

. . .like all your apostate priestcrafter "ministers".

And who are these "apostate priestcrafter "ministers"?

[Notquitewetyet]

So you are a non Mormon, who believes in Mormonism?

Something like that.

But it looks like we derailed the thread. Why don't you give your view of how the Bible clearly interprets itself and give us an example using say a common evangelical belief like Once Saved Always Saved or the Rapture.

And who are these "apostate priestcrafter "ministers"?

These guys.

And these guys.

And these guys.

And these guys.

And these guys.

And these guys.

And these guys.

[erichard]

...

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring, how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible? Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying? Is it a text/context problem?

Hi urroner,

Possibly the problem is that people do not eat right. Thus, their thinking is not right, and they also get psoriasis and other deficiency problems. One should consider eating raw for a season to cure this.

It also may help if people read the scriptures themselves, and not second hand studies of the scriptures by others.

The Prophet Joseph said,

There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle.

--Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146

Richard

[Hoops22]

Hoops last statement has left me scratching my head or maybe it my psoriasis.

I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. Though I have my suspicions.

It seems to me that Hoops is saying that the Bible or maybe just the book of Genesis interprets itself.

That's not what I wrote at all.

I have heard several Evangelicals say this or something very similar, but I have to ask myself if they really believe this.

Since you can't even seem to get the statement correct, it's no wonder you don't get it.

If the Bible interprets itself,

I didn't write that.

then why are there so many different interpretations of what it says?

There's not.

Why did they have to hold so many councils in the early days of Christianity to formally decree

What? You don't believe in continuing revelation? That's surprising.

how to interpret the self-interpreting Bible

You see how when you start out wrong you end up wrong? Kinda like doctrine.

and then they had to hold even more councils to interpret the decrees that interpret the self-interpreting Bible.

I have attended Bible studies with Evangelicals where they argued bitterly sometimes over the interpretation of simple statements in the Bible.

I suspect your personal Anti-ev bias has clouded your perceptions.

Peter even said that Paul wrote things that were very difficult to understand.

So? There's lots of things that are difficult. But the lds approach seems to be that if it's difficult, it must have been mistranslated - etc.

How easy are Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation to understand?

Not terribly.

I have read and listened, for many years, how mainstream Christians have interpreted Revelation and they are all over the map and some of them aren't even on the map.

Okay. It's quite a leap from the plain language of Genesis - a historical account - to Revelations.

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring,

And, how do these substantially impact essential doctrine.

how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible?

I didn't say that. And the Bible is not ALWAYS easy to understand. Which is a far cry from "The Bible is ALWAYS difficult to understand."

Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying?

No, that's not the problem at all.

Is it a text/context problem?

No, it's a bias problem. When one assume the Bible is myth, or mistranslated, or missing plain and precious things, it's easy to be dismissive of it. For me, I'd rather someone have some evidence - ANY evidence - that its mistranslations impact essential doctrine or that there are plain and precious things missing.

[mnn727]

It's testimony of itself

Seems to deny what the Bible itself claims through both Jesus and Paul:

Matt. 18: 16

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Cor. 13: 1

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

[Flyonthewall]

The Bible does not interpret the Bible. People interpret what the Bible says. People also, put two or more biblical passages together, that may or may not be related, and claim it backs up their interpretation, then exclaim: "See! the Bibile interprets the bible!"(unspoken: as long as you accept my interpretation of biblical interpretation).

If the Bible interprets the bible, then things like "salvaiton" and "works", wouldn't have so many different ways of being interpreted...and I am well aware that everyone that has a different understanding of these and other concepts feel their interpretatin is correct and backed up scripturally.

We each look to the bible and come up with a different interpretation, and the Bible itself contradicts itself on various concepts, which adds to the confusion.

[Billy]

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring, how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible? Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying? Is it a text/context problem?

I think a big problem is that people often try to fit the Bible to their pre-existing theology. For example, lets see how many interpretations there are to this one verse.

Isa 43:10 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

How many God's are before God?

How many God's are there after God

[erichard]

The Bible does not interpret the Bible. People interpret what the Bible says. ...

My friend just told me that the work of Bullinger is the best effort he knows of that uses the Bible to define the Bible:

http://www.companion-bible.com/

It is not online at this site. One would have to download pdf files to use it.

Richard

[Jason]

I think a big problem is that people often try to fit the Bible to their pre-existing theology. For example, lets see how many interpretations there are to this one verse.

Isa 43:10 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

How many God's are before God?

How many God's are there after God

Is he talking about real, diefic "Gods", or false idol gods, or some other type of spiritual being identified as "gods" as Satan is sometimes identified as? What is the meaning of "God" in this verse?

[cksalmon]

So, with all the different interpretations of the scriptures occurring, how can people say that the Bible interprets itself or that it's easy to understand the Bible? Could the problem be that the Bible is interpreting itself and that nobody can understand what it's saying? Is it a text/context problem?

Hi urroner--

I'm not entirely clear what you mean by the Bible interpreting itself, though I have a general idea of your point, I think.

I wouldn't argue that the Bible is "easy to understand," especially some particular verses, passages, perhaps even books. But, I would also avoid the radical skepticism that holds that it is impossible to understand the Bible--I would especially reject a view holding that, without an infallible external authority, the Bible cannot be interpreted and understood.

I do believe that some difficult passages can be better understood in light of other less difficult passages. That's because I believe, unlike many LDS I've encountered, that the Bible is a unified document, rather than a collection of disparate, often contradictory, viewpoints.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

This belief was invented in 1517 for obvious reasons. It was Luther's way to start a new church without any authority.

Hi NQWY--

It appears obvious that you've never actually read Luther's works. Had you done so, I feel confident you would not be able to make such an impossibly wrongheaded statement about his desires and his view of authority.

Best.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

Hi NQWY--

It appears obvious that you've never actually read Luther's works. Had you done so, I feel confident you would not be able to make such an impossibly wrongheaded statement about his desires and his view of authority.

Best.

cks

How am I to judge a man but by the fruits of his works? And yes, I've read a great tome that he wrote about Jews. It was very good reading.

[Billy]

Is he talking about real, diefic "Gods", or false idol gods, or some other type of spiritual being identified as "gods" as Satan is sometimes identified as? What is the meaning of "God" in this verse?

You seem to be trying to change the meaning of the verse to fit your theology.

Isa 43:10 . . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

If you read this without any preconceived ideas, what does it say?

[Billy]

Billy states,

So you are a non Mormon, who believes in Mormonism?

Notquitewetyet replies,

Something like that.

So you are not mainstream Christian and believe things that place you outside salvation according to mainstream Christianity, and you are not LDS and have not received saving ordinances of the LDS church, therefore you are sunk no matter which one is true. I don't get it.

[cksalmon]

How am I to judge a man but by the fruits of his works? And yes, I've read a great tome that he wrote about Jews. It was very good reading.

Hi NQWY--

People who actually care about truth--responsible thinkers--judge a dead man's beliefs and convictions about a particular subject by reading what he has written (or otherwise had recorded [in our digital age]) about a particular subject.

CFR. Where would you go to in Luther's extant writings to substantiate your claim?

This belief was invented in 1517 for obvious reasons. It was Luther's way to start a new church without any authority.

You're attempting to poison the well with your reference to Luther's anti-semitism. I've never defended it and have actually denounced it on this very forum. At any rate, it is beside the point, here, and indicates a manifest lack of logical rigor in interacting with the thoughts and writings of historical figures.

It would be like my bringing up a past LDS leader's anti-black statements in order to avoid defending a completely unrelated statement I made about him. That's just irresponsible polemics. Not a serious response.

Again, I denounce Luther's later anti-semitism. But, it is completely beside the point with regard to your ahistorical claim.

And, again, CFR.

Best.

cks

PS. And what was the name of the "great tome?"

[Notquitewetyet]

So you are not mainstream Christian and believe things that place you outside salvation according to mainstream Christianity, and you are not LDS and have not received saving ordinances of the LDS church, therefore you are sunk no matter which one is true. I don't get it.

I've not yet fully decided which path I should go, if the mainstream has the saving ordinances, but these dudes have a lot up that I agree with.