Does the Bible self-interpret?

[hagoth7]

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?

Because most of us (human beings) aren't self-aware enough or honest enough to acknowledge the distinction between what a text "says" and what we intrepret it to mean. Others who know that full well, won't admit it publicly because they don't want their flocks to doubt their preferred interpretations. However, if we're honest with ourselves and others, we'll admit that the meaning in such texts can pivot multiple directions, in broad swaths, depending on one's translation/interpretation.

However, it's simply easier to believe, that one's preferred interpretation is the only accurate/logical one. Path of least resistance. Perhaps all that other thinking/pondering/studying simply takes too much time and effort.

Hopefully, moving forward, many of us will learn to be patient with the occasional cognitive dissonance one initially encounters when digging into things a tad deeper.

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?

You mentioned Daniel. His writings are a good example. If Daniel's meaning was self-evident, (and the widely-differing array of interpretations demonstrates that it isn't anything of the kind) the Savior likely wouldn't have had to encourage, "whoso readeth, let him understand."

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

The spooky thing is that this verse makes no mention of gods being formed simultaneously.

[Jason]

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

I think that if you had no preconceived ideas of what was meant by "God", who was speaking in the verse, what it means to be a wittness and chosen, when the speaker was formed, and what "after me" means, that you couldn't make any sense at all of the verse.

So, without any preconceived ideas it's largely meaningless.

[hagoth7]

However, if we're honest with ourselves and others, we'll admit that the meaning in such texts can pivot multiple directions, in broad swaths, depending on one's translation/interpretation.

Sparked another thought.

The above suggests one of the key reasons we don't have the golden plates.

It makes sure there's no contention or confusion among the body of believers over the meaning and conjugation of several hundred reformed egyptian glyphs. It's God's way of simplifying the equation, and (hopefully) keeping us focused on things that matter more.

(Although I still would enjoy holding the plates in my hands some day.)

[Notquitewetyet]

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.

Thanks for the slam. Jerk.

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

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?"

I decided, when I was Catholic, that having heard enough about Protestantism by living in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, that it was false. Luther just was reading his Bible one day, all worried about not being good enough to get into heaven, and suddenly he had a new view of salvation that gave him peace. Why should I view his claims as any different than those by Felix Manalo? Although I'm certainly not supporting them, I think Muhammed or Rev. Moon have more going for them than Luther.

His doctrines have no way to show their authenticity. When I was in Catholic school, I always saw evidence of Catholicism being true due to the miracles of Lourdes and Fatima, and we were always shown cute little cartoons that supported this. Not much different than LDS seminaries I guess in teaching only the good of the faith. I never heard, growing up, a Protestant ever give evidence of his faith being true by a miracle or vision. Where would I go in Luther's writings to substantiate my claim? Nowhere, his entire life story is a great big history of a man setting up a religion without any visions, miracles, signs, or wonders; just an appeal to an old book he didn't write and which was certainly open to misunderstanding. His whole life is a testament to a man who was obsessed with scatology and with a decided lack of inspiration, unless it was from the father of lies.

Ok, the "great tome" was facetious. But that's "Von den Jueden und iren Luegen." You're back on ignore.

[cksalmon]

Hi NQWY--

Thanks for the slam. Jerk.

It's merely a cogent observation. It's hardly controversial. I would reiterate:

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.

What do you disagree with here? Is this not the way to interrogate the particular positions of persons who have written about particular issues? Can you suggest a better, less personally offensive, way?

There's no reason for you to take my comments personally, unless you are the sort of person who wishes to make unsubstantiated claims for which you have no documentary evidence. That you took my observation as a slam against you personally suggests that you might be that sort of person.

Ok, the "great tome" was facetious. But that's "Von den Jueden und iren Luegen." You're back on ignore.

You have now ignored me twice merely because I challenged your inaccurate statements. That suggests to me that you are either unable or merely unwilling (in this case, I suspect the former) to substantiate your statements if and when they are challenged.

I would point you to a board rule that relates directly to my challenge above: "If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it."

So, again, I'm issuing a requisite CFR.

Best.

cks

[Hoops22]

Thanks for the slam. Jerk.

Mr. Salmon is a lot of things, but Jerk is not one of them. I wish I had his patience. And I hear he is just a youngster as well. You owe him an apology.

[Billy]

I think that if you had no preconceived ideas of what was meant by "God", who was speaking in the verse, what it means to be a wittness and chosen, when the speaker was formed, and what "after me" means, that you couldn't make any sense at all of the verse.

So, without any preconceived ideas it's largely meaningless.

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

I agree with you, that YOU think that this verse is meaningless, even though it is in plain English, because it does not make sense with your theology.

[Beowulf]

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

QUOTE(Billy @ Jan 24 2009, 12:37 PM) *

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?

Me: This is a good question. I would presume that Billy THINKS that he himself is reading this without any preconceived ideas. Nevertheless, he is not. HIS preconceived notion (I presume) is that there is only one God. Period.

But when Isaiah wrote this, he was living in a milieu of multiple gods, some greater than others. He could not conceive of a Single Monolithic God, so how could he write what Billy thinks that he wrote? What Isaiah meant was that the God of Israel was not like the gods of surrounding countries, who overthrew earlier gods and could in turn be overthrown by later ones (cf. Zeus not really being the earliest god of the Greeks), but was Always God, and Always Would Be.

This is not the same as saying that there are no other gods around.

Could I get to this point without having any preconceived ideas? I don't know, and the question is probably meaningless, because the education and study (and spiritual promptings) that I have accumulated to date sets me up to accept the above explanation of what the verse means. In other words, my preconceptions have been built up over a period of 53 years... As has Billy's (however, given enough enlightenment on this board, perhaps some of his preconceptions can be fixed... ).

Beowulf

[cksalmon]

I think that if you had no preconceived ideas of what was meant by "God", who was speaking in the verse, what it means to be a wittness and chosen, when the speaker was formed, and what "after me" means, that you couldn't make any sense at all of the verse.

So, without any preconceived ideas it's largely meaningless.

Hi Jason--

Of course we bring preconceptions to the biblical texts. I would suggest that the preconception of what "God" means is one of them. I find it interesting that Blake Ostler, one of the leading lights in Mormon philosophy, being conversant with the various issues entailed by both parts of the passage here, believes that the first section is true while the second is false. Ostler's argument is logically derived, but Michael Heiser has fleshed out a similar argument biblically. (I should note that the two would not agree on the issue of the essential nature of secondary, "derived" gods.)

But, both Ostler and Heiser would affirm that there is no god beyond the revealed god of our universe. Heiser is Christianly orthodox at this point; Ostler appears to be Mormonly unorthodox, or at least, heterodox, at this point. What I find interesting is that Ostler (LDS), via logic, and Heiser (conservative Christian), via the Bible, both come to same conclusion: There exists no god beyond or above God.

(I'm referring here to Heiser's 2004 disseration on the Divine Council and Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought (vol. 1): The Attributes of God.)

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Mr. Salmon is a lot of things, but Jerk is not one of them. I wish I had his patience. And I hear he is just a youngster as well. You owe him an apology.

Hey Hoops--

Thank you, first.

But, I can definitely be a jerk, second.

Third, I'm old. Older than some here, at any rate.

NQWY does owe me a reference; I don't care if he apologizes or not.

Best.

cks

[mnn727]

The spooky thing is that this verse makes no mention of gods being formed simultaneously.

Well, in light of this verse................ you may be onto something

D&C 93: 29, 36

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

[jwhitlock]

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

The Bible, when viewed as a stand-alone piece of writing whose concepts and intent are self-evident, seems to go hand in hand with the belief that it is inerrant.

Since we know it isn't inerrant, we then know that it doesn't interpret itself, nor is it self-evident as to what its various passages really mean.

[Tarski]

wrong thread

[Hoops22]

Hey Hoops--

Thank you, first.

But, I can definitely be a jerk, second.

Third, I'm old. Older than some here, at any rate.

NQWY does owe me a reference; I don't care if he apologizes or not.

Best.

cks

Before you thank me, remember I wrote that you are a lot of things - I didn't enumerate what those things are.

[Billy]

Billy quotes

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

Beowulf states,

This is not the same as saying that there are no other gods around.

OK, I get it.

"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

This does not really mean what it says, rather it really means that there are many gods, right?

[Beowulf]

Great! You get it.

Or maybe not.

It means what ISAIAH thought it means, not what YOU think it means.

To repeat: Isaiah is here refuting the common thinking among the surrounding pagan nations in that time period that gods appear, get overthrown by other gods, who in turn may someday be overthrown themselves (Zeus did this in Greek mythology, Odin did it in Norse mythology, and it is probably existent in all the other mythological frameworks). Instead, he says, Israel's God was Always God, and Always Will Be. He did not overthrow another god, nor will another god overthrow Him someday.

This is not the same thing as saying that Other Gods do not exist.

Isaiah here does not come right out and say "there are many gods". But the statement is made in a milieu where the readers (IN HIS DAY) believe in many gods. You are reading into the text your own preconceptions...

Beowulf

[Billy]

It means what ISAIAH thought it means, not what YOU think it means.

Did you talk to Isaiah?

Isaiah here does not come right out and say "there are many gods". But the statement is made in a milieu where the readers (IN HIS DAY) believe in many gods.

Just like you do, your point is?

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

If God says that no God is formed before him and no God will be formed after him, is this a lie?

[Mudcat]

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?

I suppose I have heard similar statements. At least as I understand it the intent behind it, is to say that the Bible is interpreted within the context of itself. I suppose a simplistic way to put it, would be that each verse is a fish and the Bible is the sea where we fish... a guy told me that once and I am still thinking about whether I like the analogy or not. Kinda reminds me of the part in The Outlaw Josey Wales, where the old Indian guy talks about how there was a smart white guy who came a told the Chiefs to "Endeavor to persevere." ... but I'll go with the fish analogy for now and I apologize if you aren't familiar with Clint Eastwood movie I referenced.

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 its more of a problem of what we think about these fish. Some seem to like Red Snappers, some Tuna, some Flounder (like me )... you get the picture.

Seems most, want to say that one fish is tastier than another. In fact, some just quit talking about all the fish and only talk about one or two different kinds of fish. In fact, its a terrible analogy.. but some of these super preachers (not all mind you) seem to be hosting a fishing show about how to catch a particular kind of fish.....

Its a mistake, IMO. The Bible is a book full of all kinds of good fish that are beneficial to us for all kinds of different reasons.

Lewis said something I liked, but I don't remember the quote verbatim.

Something to the effect. "The Bible isn't God's Word. Christ is. The Bible along with good teachers, can lead us to Christ"

[Flyonthewall]

Did you talk to Isaiah?

Just like you do, your point is?

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

If God says that no God is formed before him and no God will be formed after him, is this a lie?

Trying to read this verse without any prior knowledge or pre-conceived notions, and reading the rest of the chapter, one can conclude that this is talking about Israel's God. Which does not say anything about other nations having their own God. Afterall, it does have this to say a couple of verses later:

"I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King."

[urroner]

Billy, I used the words "text" and "context" very purposefully in the opening thread. In the translation process, info is always lost, sometimes very little, sometimes a whole lot. If I translated "Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy was fuzzy, was he" into Spanish, the phrase wouldn't be very funny and quickly forgotten, while in English, it's rather humorous.

While going to high school, a group of us had the privilege of taking a class on Oriental religion and cultural studies. The teacher one day taught us a great teaching from Taoism, "Nothing is good" and he was absolutely true. He said this at the end of a class and then he had us debate this at the start of the next class. I led the argument that he was wrong, that there was at least one good thing and the whole class, except for the teacher agreed with me. The plain, common day sense reading of the text told me I was right and the teacher was wrong. I was shot down in flames and it only took him a few words to bring me down.

So Billy, do you or do you not agree that nothing is good?

I realize that I'm setting up a trap for you and I'm letting you know beforehand that I am, but sometimes when the text is changed because of translation and then the text is interpreted through the eyes of a different culture, the translated and interpreted text seems to say X while the original text actually said M.

So Billy, what say you, is nothing good?

[urroner]

I suppose I have heard similar statements. At least as I understand it the intent behind it, is to say that the Bible is interpreted within the context of itself. I suppose a simplistic way to put it, would be that each verse is a fish and the Bible is the sea where we fish... a guy told me that once and I am still thinking about whether I like the analogy or not. Kinda reminds me of the part in The Outlaw Josey Wales, where the old Indian guy talks about how there was a smart white guy who came a told the Chiefs to "Endeavor to persevere." ... but I'll go with the fish analogy for now and I apologize if you aren't familiar with Clint Eastwood movie I referenced.

I think its more of a problem of what we think about these fish. Some seem to like Red Snappers, some Tuna, some Flounder (like me )... you get the picture.

Seems most, want to say that one fish is tastier than another. In fact, some just quit talking about all the fish and only talk about one or two different kinds of fish. In fact, its a terrible analogy.. but some of these super preachers (not all mind you) seem to be hosting a fishing show about how to catch a particular kind of fish.....

Its a mistake, IMO. The Bible is a book full of all kinds of good fish that are beneficial to us for all kinds of different reasons.

Lewis said something I liked, but I don't remember the quote verbatim.

Something to the effect. "The Bible isn't God's Word. Christ is. The Bible along with good teachers, can lead us to Christ"

I like the fish thing. I like to go fishing. Not only are there good fish all over the place, but here in Florida, there are fish that are here, but weren't here originally and because of they are here, they are messing things up. Also, if the fish isn't prepared (interpreted) correctly, it can make somebody sick. I catch blowfish all the time, but I will never eat it. I enjoy not being poisoned accidentally.

I like your last statement where the Bible isn't God's Word, Christ is, but it seems that too many are attempting to make the Bible to be the Final Word and the Only Word and I have problems with that. It just seems to me that they are trying to make their interpretation of scripture to be the Word of God and then trying to make that Word of God to be infallible and not subject to any criticism. What happened to the humility and meekness?

Edited to correct grammar errors

[Anijen]

Did you talk to Isaiah?

Just like you do, your point is?

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

If God says that no God is formed before him and no God will be formed after him, is this a lie?

Well since the babe Jesus was formed inside Mary's womb, I would suggest it is not the interpretation you describe but beowulf's seems more plausible. Just saying.

[urroner]

In Avner Falk's book "A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews" comes this:

The Canaanites believed that, just as every son wishes to do to his domineering father, so Baal overthrew his father El and took over as their chief god.

[Billy]

Well since the babe Jesus was formed inside Mary's womb, I would suggest it is not the interpretation you describe but beowulf's seems more plausible. Just saying.

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

It is more plausible that the above sentence really means that there are many Gods?