2Peter1:20 and personal interpretation of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter suupah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

suupah

Guest
2Peter1:20 NAB
Click to expand...
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation
Click to expand...
Code: 
                                              2Peter1:20 NIV
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
Click to expand...
Big difference between these two translations. Can anyone tell me which one is more true to the original?

With translational differences like these it is easy to see why Protestants and Catholics have a hard time seeing each others doctrines as true to the biblical texts.
 
really they both could be saying the same thing. i don’t see a big difference in the wording, but i am coming from a different point of view than you are.
 
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Click to expand...
Passage 2 Peter 1:20:
20But (A)know this first of all, that (B)no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
Click to expand...
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. (DRA)
Click to expand...
Passage 2 Peter 1:20:
20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Click to expand...
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Click to expand...
Passage 2 Peter 1:20:
Click to expand...
20knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
Click to expand...
American Standard Version (ASV)
Click to expand...
Passage 2 Peter 1:20:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
Click to expand...
looks like the majority would side with the view that it is speaking about the prophets themselves and that their prophecies do come from private revelation. it’s interesting though because i would think that is exactly what prophecy is.
 
bengal_fan said:
really they both could be saying the same thing. i don’t see a big difference in the wording, but i am coming from a different point of view than you are.
Click to expand...
The former implies that we are not to personally interpret the scripture since it is not a matter of personal interpretation.

The latter implies merely that the prophecy of scripture is directly from the holy spirit and not the interpretation of the revelation by the prophet. This has no bearing on our personal interpretation at all.
 
bengal_fan said:
looks like the majority would side with the view that it is speaking about the prophets themselves and that their prophecies do come from private revelation. it’s interesting though because i would think that is exactly what prophecy is.
Click to expand...
  • Duuay-rheims commentarty on 2peter1:20 20* “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
I see the catholic use of this text as a pretext out of context. Read the book of Daniel. First God gave a dream to the king. The king forgot what the dream was, but wanted an interpretation of it. None of the wise men could do this. Later God revealed the dream and its understanding to Daniel. The whole point of the passage in Peter is to point out that revealtion, prophecy comes from God – it does not originate in the minds of the prophets alone. Even us protestants beleive that the bible must be interpreted within the context of our faith tradition. We do not see this text as comdeming “private interpretation” from its context. We see it as simply saying that special revelation comes from God alone, and is not dependent on the prophet himself, otherwise I am sure Isaiah would not have chosen to walk around nude for three years.

👍
 
The NIV uses dynamic equivilence/sense for sense at times, and when that is done it can often reflect the bias of the translating team or translator. The Greek word used is "idias’ which is the feminine singular genitive from the lexical form of “idios.” It means “of one’s own.”

I don’t like dynamic equivilence very much myself.
 
Duuay-rheims commentarty on 2peter1:20 20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit,
Click to expand...
sorry but it does not “show plainly”. the literal reading (reading the words in order) would indicate that prophecy does not come from private revelation. no prophecy… is made… by private revelation. it does not say no prophecy is interpreted through private revelation. it says “made by”.
 
suupah said:
The former implies that we are not to personally interpret the scripture since it is not a matter of personal interpretation.

The latter implies merely that the prophecy of scripture is directly from the holy spirit and not the interpretation of the revelation by the prophet. This has no bearing on our personal interpretation at all.
Click to expand...
that is because you are starting with the presupposition of what the verse is supposed to say. it could also be interpreted as no prophecy is of the matter (meaning is the same as) private revelation. this would mean that prophecy does not come from any private revelation. this verse is meant to go against gnostic beliefs i would think who say they received private “prophecies”.
 
I have read from several Catholic apologetics that 2Peter1:20 does refer to the prophets and prophecy of scripture, and how it did not originate within them, but from God.
 
Lev23 said:
I have read from several Catholic apologetics that 2Peter1:20 does refer to the prophets and prophecy of scripture, and how it did not originate within them, but from God.
Click to expand...
and that would make more sense with what some gnostics were claiming in the early church. they were claiming secret knowledge revealed only to them. this was an attack on that belief.
 
suupah said:
Big difference between these two translations. Can anyone tell me which one is more true to the original?

With translational differences like these it is easy to see why Protestants and Catholics have a hard time seeing each others doctrines as true to the biblical texts.
Click to expand...
Young’s literal translation has it thus:

“this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition.”

Hope this helps clarify

James
 
Lev23 said:
I have read from several Catholic apologetics that 2Peter1:20 does refer to the prophets and prophecy of scripture, and how it did not originate within them, but from God.
Click to expand...
That seems logical. After all, Catholics are allowed to interpret the scripture. They simply aren’t allowed to interpret it in ways that oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.
 
I think a better passage that indicates private interpretation can be a problem would be 2Peter 3:15-16
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
 
Lev23 said:
I have read from several Catholic apologetics that 2Peter1:20 does refer to the prophets and prophecy of scripture, and how it did not originate within them, but from God.
Click to expand...
So is using 2P1:20 as an apologetics verse against personal interpretation of the bible is misusing the text?
 
but this one wouldn’t be. although one could argue that if one is “learned” and “stable” then they are allowed to interpret scripture.
Ilroy said:
2Peter 3:15-16
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Click to expand...
 
According to this Greek, each word in Greek is literally translated as:
this first ones-knowing at-all prophecy of-scripture its-own explanation noThis would indicate that the NIV has added that the text is not of the “prophet’s interpretation,” whereas the Greek suggests Scripture should not be interpreted privately…i.e. it should be interpreted in the light of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church and the faith. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top