Oh, I see. We’ve all got to play by your rules and admit that anything can mean anything before we can have a discussion. What’s the point of all this nonsense?
The bible can be interpreted. That is not my opinion, it is a fact that has been substantiated throughout history. Bob does a poor job of it because he uses his imagination too much. That part is my opinion, but I bet most other Christians would agree.
Oh, just a subjective assessment, I see. I was thinking it was an informed opinion. Sorry for holding you to an unrealistic standard like that. 
How would you know? See, there’s just this little niggling possibility that you’re ignorant as to what Tent meant by that. Myself, I was kinda surprised you didn’t question him about that before you casted, seeing as we know tentative is pretty smart, has a lot of depth and a long history of worthy postings.
But then maybe it’s also your opinion that understanding shouldn’t get in the way of forming opinions. If that’s the case, then it’s easier to see where you’re coming from.
Whew, are you sure? His state of ‘out there-ness’ was proclaimed by you, after all…
Ned- Bob’s interpretation of the Bible is being defended by someone who doesn’t think there’s any such thing as a valid interpretation, and the man himself called you a Pharisee and stormed off. You aren’t going to get any closer to a win-condition than that on an internet discussion- I learned years ago that when the “There’s no such thing as truth” crowd is your only standing opposition, and when the skeptic can only retory “That’s not very Christian of you” for holding up your side of the debate, it’s time to toast your victory.
If you want, though, I bet you and I have some differences of opinion on Biblical interpretation. 
Ned,
There is a great deal of interpretation in everyone’s world. After all, we have to make sense of it all don’t we? So perhaps one could consider interpretation in a context. You see, our differences hinge on an “interpretation” that reality and truth are “out there”. That they are an external “thing”, a separateness from self just waiting to be discovered. This is the tacit position that both you and Ucc have been putting forward. If this were reality, then there just might be a “correct” interpretation. But there is no way to know that other than constant referral to the circular argument that because a lot of people believe it, it is somehow, “proof” of it’s correctness. At least half of the world doesn’t buy it, I don’t buy it either.
I asked a question of you in another medium and received no answer, so I’ll ask it here: You’re a scientist, and I’ll assume that whether an expert or not (I’m certainly not), you have followed particle physics research some. At this point, science can point to no “thingness” Whether the universe is expressed as energy or particle is quantum probabilities in a space time continuum. What they have discovered is that the universe is made up of relationships. Perhaps there is a primordial “thing”, but we haven’t found it yet. In short, what we sense of the universe is a constant flow of transitional states of being. This would include rocks, human bodies, and our precious ego. Given the very best inquiries we have to date, it would seem that external thingness is an illusion. A rock may be in a slow state of excitation, but it is no more permanent than a billionth of a second hadron at the highest state of excitatation we can produce. An external reality and the idea of truth is an illusion. This doesn’t mean that we don’t exist in a world of things, but that our “interpretation” of thingness is a
construct - itself illusory.
One may make any supposition one likes. (we all do) but to posit an external reality flies in the face of the very best forms of inquiry we have developed. Of course, one can always fall back on the “God done it” argument, but then we are back to opinion, and as you know, opinions are like ********, everyone has one.
Ucc,
Dismissal is a poor argument, but it is one I’ve watched you use numerous times. Go ahead and claim victory. Does that make you feel better?
Yes, but hold the mayo - I’m allergic.
The problem with the argument for the hermeneutic circle being an insurmountable problem is that it isn’t as long as you don’t think about it. Now, that sounds like a dismissal, but really it isn’t at all. Post-modernism is quite clear that the hermeneutic circle is a problem from a logical perspective. After all, how do we understand individual parts of a text? By looking at the whole. How do we understand the whole? By looking at the individual parts. From a logical perspective, that’s a horrific tautology. But we intuitively overcome this problem everyday simply by living life. At least if we accept that we are living in a hermeneutic reality (which you are endorsing here). I think a lot of this problem lies in the post-Christian nature of post-modernism, where it seeks ultimates in a godless world and failing to find them asserts that nothing has any meaning. But we can have meaning, and we do assert meaning in a variety of ways every second we exist. So I think the most reasonable course in a dilemma like this is to assert that we are limited beings with finite knowledge and that logic is a product of ourselves, as limited, fallible beings. When logic runs up against a wall that “proves” that something we do everyday unconsciously without any problems, all it tells me is that logic is flawed in this case (even if I don’t fully understand how).
Cook Ding’s genius wasn’t to think the ox didn’t exist, but rather to simply treat the ox as an ox and deal with it as such. He viewed the ox both as a totality, as well as a collection of individual parts (that could be cleaved) and he navigated the line between those two aspects of the ox without pausing to consider which was which because such a distinction is moot.
Here is some food for thought:
You’ll note Buddha did not say this to everybody nor should it be taken to apply to everyone. It applies to the Buddha’s students, those who had learned what the Buddha gave them with “an opened hand”. I think that Ned and Ucci are arguing along the lines that previous teachers in the Christian tradition have taught the Bible with an opened hand, and that if one uses that knowledge and is anxious to learn, they can deepen their understand of what the Bible means. That is what being a lamp unto one’s self consists of.
Now, it is certainly possible that the ancient teachers Ned and Ucci revere are wrong, and they have admitted as much elsewhere. But they’ve made their bet and are being a lamp unto themselves while walking a path these teachers have lain out, as the Buddha instructed his students to do. Now, it can be argued that they are seeking an external refuge in the Bible, and I would agree with that sentiment. However, Bob is doing the same (he isn’t writing his own Bible) so I don’t think such a criticism can be levied here when contrasting Ucci and Ned’s approach(es) with that of Bob.
Hi Xunz,
Yes. See directly, act directly, in a deferential noncoercive way. There is no need for supposition to navigate our way. To name is to understand, and in a processual universe, all knowing is contigent and mutually entailing.
I use what would be considered a standard historical approach to evaluating them or any other ancient text. I think it is very important to understand the historical culture to determine the context of the writing. Also I think it is important to understand what genre of writing they are. For example, the Gospels are not histories in the modern sense, they are ancient biographies. I think a huge problem in today’s postmodern culture is that many people try and impose their views and interpretations on the author rather than trying to understand and interpret based on the author and his culture.
For example, I mentioned that Luke is claiming to report historical events, which I believe he does. But as part of the process of reporting these events he is also including the teachings or sayings of Jesus which need to be understood in the context of first century rabbinical teaching methods. These included parables, discourses, hyperbole, etc. Each of these need to be evaluated based on what type of teaching they are. Some of these methods are teaching methods that are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus used hyperbole frequently as a teaching method. Just one example, in Mark (9:43) Jesus says, “If your hand causes you to sin cut it off.” Do I literally believe Jesus said this? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus literally meant we should cut off our hands to prevent us from sinning? No, he is using hyperbole as a teaching method.
If the Book doesn’t make specific claims to be reporting history, I am open to it being a story to reveal a truth that God wishes to teach but not a historical event. For instance, I’m not convinced that the book of Job is reporting an actual person and an actual event. It could be, but I don’t see the typical historical references that are in the other Books that are clearly claiming to report historical events (which includes by far most of the Bible).
Whole books have been written on this subject. I’m not even scratching the surface. It’s difficult to cover such a involved subject in this format.
Show-Me
Can you go into a little more detail here? I agree with you, but I agree with you because that “seems right” and “I don’t think Jesus would command a thing like that”. Do you have something a little more solid you’re basing the claims of hyperbole on, or is it that kind of thing as well?
Xunz,
Precisely. The question asked in the original OP was open, but closed the moment there was an objection simply because Bob had a different perspective than either Ned or Ucc. That was what brought me into this. Essentially, the objections returned the discussion back to the “litmus test” of what is a Christian? Interpretation of anything is open, but establishing a “benchmark” from which to compare interpretations is exactly what happened. The message was that “We can discuss interpretations as long as you agree with traditional consensus explanations.” At that point, it became a determined attack on open interpretation in an attempt to silence Bob through coercion.
Indeed, Some of us are “out there”, but it may not be the people who have expressed dissent in the way this thread was twisted from open question to coerced agenda.
Are subjective assessments and informed opinions mutually exclusive in your world?
I have many years of cheese danish observation experience.
If I’d wanted you or tent to explain further, I would have asked.
You obviously place a higher value on my posts than I do of yours.
Ned,
I’m disappointed but not particularly surprised. It is obvious now that your only interest is discussion with those who already agree with you, and dismissal of those who don’t. I guess you have taken Ucc’s advice and claimed victory. I hope it all works out well for you. The participants in this forum now understand what you mean by the term “discussion”.
Ok, I’ll take your word for it!
Well, I think that might be more interesting for me than the previous discussion. Actually the original purpose of the thread was to have a discussion about HOW we interpret the bible, not WHETHER we should interpret the bible.
SO, here’s a few random thoughts to start us off…
(1) I think the protestant approach to personal interpretation is completely justified biblically, and the NT letters are clearly meant to be read and understood by a congregation, not interpreted by clergy. Thus, I support the reformation.
Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
(2) I think the church has lost the idea that the NT letters are generally addressed to groups of people, rather than individuals. Therefore, biblical interpretation MUST be done in the context of a local church. Separating theological understanding from community is simply wrong.
(3) The role of spiritual authority has been overused. As one example, I’ll say that I completely reject the Catholic doctrine on the immaculate conception. My rationale for doing so is that it is (a) a modern revelation (1854), and (b) unsupported by the bible, and (c) completely uneccessery except to justify a co-redemptrix role for Mary, which also falls under (a) and (b). Anyway, we don’t have to discuss Mary, I’m just pointing out that I do NOT accept the authority of the Magisterium.
(4) The role of spiritual authority has been underused. We live in an age when Christians can read the bible and invent new doctrines like “the rapture” that have no previous history in church thinking and almost no biblical justification.
Ok, you can see from these 4 points that I’m stuck in some limbo between (a) absolutely loving the protestant reformation and the revitalization of personal bible reading, versus (b) playing free and loose with the bible (by Catholics and protestants alike). Basically, I’m left in a position that the only people I really trust are the church fathers. My feeling is that biblical interpretation must be personal, must occur in the framework of a community, and must maintain authority from the church fathers.
Alright, where would you disagree or agree??
I haven’t dismissed anything you’ve said. I’m being dismissive to Ingenium because he hasn’t said anything in this thread except the odd snide remark.
This is nonsense. I explained to Felix that I started the thread hoping for a discussion about the process of biblical interpretation AMONG Christians who take the bible to be divinely inspired. As it turned out, only Felix and Bob showed up to the party.
So, the discussion side-tracked naturally into areas where we disagreed, and became a “what is a Christian” discussion, but this was never the intention. Tent needs to read the whole thread before claiming that this is some sort of bait and switch thread to annoy Bob.
By the way, before everyone starts getting pissy about me ignoring them again…I’m off for the weekend to a water park with the kids…Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Hey, no problem. I was just being snide because you were being an arrogant a**.
But I can hate the sin and still love the sinner. 
Uccisore,
While Jesus’s interpretation of the Law was radical to the Jews of his day, his method and style of teaching were not unique. In addition to parables, discourses, and hyperbole that I mentioned earlier, another common teaching method that you will also recognize from the Gospels, was the answering of a question with a question. These were all common first century rabbinical teaching methods.
The Talmid is where we get most of our knowledge of how the Jewish Rabbi’s thought and taught. The Jewish Talmud was compiled starting in the 2nd century AD. The Mishnah was one of two parts of the Talmud that was redacted by Rabbi Judah the Prince in 170 A.D. in Israel. It is a concise formulation of Jewish law and ethics written in Hebrew containing Biblical, Oral and Rabbinic laws. Following is a commentary by Rabbi Avraham, son of Maimonides from a famous essay on the Mishnah, categorizes the midrashim in the following way:
[i]The drashot of the Sages can be divided into five categories:
There are four types of stories told by the Sages:
These stories could be one of three types:
One should also be aware that a drasha may be a combination of any of these types of drashot or stories.[/i]
Anyone reading the Talmud will immediately recognize the similarities in teaching styles to Jesus in the Gospels.
Oh! Missed your response until now, Ned.
I don’t think the Protestant approach can be justified biblically in any coherent way, because they are relying on the authority of clergy to define what ‘biblically’ means in the first place. There’s no personal or congregational answer to “Why is The Book of Acts considered Scripture?”, for example. Personal interpretation must necessarily include the option for personal rejection, which means a congregation or individual that decided including the Gospel of John in the Bible to be a big mistake would be justified in tearing it out in the same way as other congregations would be justified in interpreting differently from one another. Obviously, altering or ignoring parts of the Bible cannot be justified biblically, but that only serves as a magnified example to show that interpreting it in no way can be.
Also, I think there’s a false dichotomy here- You and I both agree that the Scriptures mean something, so clergy can correctly interpret and teach it to the uneducated laity, and the laity can educate themselves to understand the clergy’s interpretation.
More specifically, biblical interpretation MUST be done in the context of a local, 1st century, Middle Eastern church. Agreed here.
No disagreements with you there. There’s no need for the immaculate conception to justify the role of Mary- her being the Mother of God, and the hymns of praise that have been around for 1800 years are more than enough. I agree about rejecting the Magisterium.
Agreed. But I’m curious how you interpret this in light of your first point. If I took you correctly in point one, a congregation or indivudal who did this would be doing no less than their Christian duty as long as they were sincere.
That’s crucial. The right sect should be quoting them constantly, I would think.
I think your third clause contradicts your first, unless by ‘interpretation’ you mean the interpretive act itself, and not the actual conclusions of it. If you mean only that the individual is responsible for doing what he must to bring his understanding of the Scriptures in line with the Church Fathers, then I agree.
I agree with the second part of your sentence but disagree with the first. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired certain clergy to form the canon. But that doesn’t mean that ALL clergy are inspired by the Holy Spirit or that ANY personal interpretation of the bible is of less value than an institutional interpretation. If we agree that the canon is divinely inspired, we may still disagree over the issue of personal interpretation versus clerical instruction within that canon.
True, but if we move beyond that issue, we can certainly have a personal or institutional answer to, “Did miracles actually happen in the book of Acts?” or “how does one do Christian evangelism?”.
I agree with you on this one issue, and if someone decided to alter the canon I would question their Christianity (and that includes the revisions made at The Council of Trent). But it doesn’t necessarily follow from this, that personal interpretation (within certain agreed parameters) is completely invalid.
I’m all for education, but I’m not convinced of the rationale for today’s clergy having greater likelihood of a correct interpretation of the canon. On what basis? It seems to me that clergy as as prone to error as the laity. Do you believe in a succession of apostleship through individual institutions? It would seem that this is the only way to justify placing trust in certain institutional clergy. If you’re talking about some sort of personal submission to a particular cleric that you know, rather than the clergy of a particular institution, I’d be more likely to agree.
Ha, ha, very funny. You knew I’d balk at that. I don’t doubt the value of biblical interpretation by your chosen church. I’m just not convinced that they have the potential to be correct on every issue. For most of the major issues it probably doesn’t matter since they’re not up for debate in the majority of churches I’d call Christian. But for the secondary issues, I don’t have a great deal of confidence in any institutional interpretation. I can see some institutions who do well on some issue but poorly on others.
Okey, dokey then, we’re clearly not overly Marian around here!
True, that’s why I say I’m left in limbo. I am confident in the value of personal interpretation inspired by the reformation, but I’m also convinced of the value of spiritual authority. In fact, if one examines the views of major protestants (I’m thinking of Luther and Wesley mainly) they are much more accepting of spiritual authority than protestants today. So, I look at US evangelical protestants as a weird hybrid of protestantism and consumerism. They are much more “me” oriented in their biblical interpretation than were previous generations of protestants who valued spiritual authority. My opinion is that some balance between the 2 is required. And I’d argue that even hard-core spiritual authority people still have personal interpretations even though they don’t call them such. One only has to look at the Catholic church, which really isn’t a single church at all, but a collection of different sub-sects and orders.
Again, that’s a big difference between modern protestants and previous generations. One rarely hears about church fathers in protestant churches today.
I’m saying that personal interpretation is a valid approach BUT where personal interpretation clearly disagrees with church fathers the personal interpretation must be rejected. Thus, the church fathers view should always be dominant. However, the church fathers did not address every issue of theology or Christian living so there is some room for personal interpretation disciplined by interpretation of historical views.