Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What constitutes a "valid" interpretation of the Bible? [View all]
In Christianity, there are varying views.
One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.
In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.
Know what the Bible is and what it isn't. The Bible is the story of God's relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/index.cfm
And in that vein,
Granted that the expression of faith, such as it is found in the sacred Scripture acknowledged by all, has had to renew itself continually in order to meet new situations, which explains the "rereadings" of many of the biblical texts, the interpretation of the Bible should likewise involve an aspect of creativity; it ought also to confront new questions so as to respond to them out of the Bible.
Granted that tensions can exist in the relationship between various texts of sacred Scripture, interpretation must necessarily show a certain pluralism. No single interpretation can exhaust the meaning of the whole, which is a symphony of many voices. Thus, the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to dominate at the expense of others.
Granted that tensions can exist in the relationship between various texts of sacred Scripture, interpretation must necessarily show a certain pluralism. No single interpretation can exhaust the meaning of the whole, which is a symphony of many voices. Thus, the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to dominate at the expense of others.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp3.htm
And also:
At Catholic Answers, we get questions all the time like, "What is the Catholic position on this Scripture passage?" Many people seem to have the idea that the Catholic Church has an official interpretation of every passage of Scripture. It isnt true.
First, Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings, depending on whether it foreshadows something in the New Testament, something at the end of time, or what moral lesson it may teach. Since the literal sense and the subdivisions of the spiritual sense can each be ambiguous (that is, they can carry more than one meaning by the authors design), the multiplicity of meanings would guarantee that a commentary on the meaning of Scripture would run into the millions of propositions.
First, Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings, depending on whether it foreshadows something in the New Testament, something at the end of time, or what moral lesson it may teach. Since the literal sense and the subdivisions of the spiritual sense can each be ambiguous (that is, they can carry more than one meaning by the authors design), the multiplicity of meanings would guarantee that a commentary on the meaning of Scripture would run into the millions of propositions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-limits-of-scripture-interpretation
The Pope does, of course, make certain pronouncements, speaking ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
108 replies, 8000 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We may argue about intent, but nobody argues that the parts we don't like are metaphorical
marylandblue
Dec 2018
#97
You've often accused atheists of being literalists, despite their protestations
marylandblue
Dec 2018
#90
He's playing a game that believers who fancy themselves quite intelligent often do.
trotsky
Dec 2018
#68
Or perhaps I did and they aren't the be-all, end-all "silence everyone who disagrees with me"...
trotsky
Dec 2018
#59
An interesting theory. You certainly do like to think of your fellow human beings as stupid.
trotsky
Dec 2018
#63
If a creator requires its creations to follow its instructions, but does not give them the capacity
LongtimeAZDem
Dec 2018
#76
Which is why I expressed it as a conditional accepting the premise, so as not to leave open the
LongtimeAZDem
Dec 2018
#80
That is interesting as I had not really heard what the RCC says about biblical interpretation.
gtar100
Dec 2018
#12
The modern church needs excuses on why it's no longer a good idea to murder disobedient children
Major Nikon
Dec 2018
#23
What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many ver
keithbvadu2
Dec 2018
#53