How do we resolve many contrasting opinions in the Bible?

[cho_pilo]

The conflict between readers may be a result of interpretation of the texts in the Bible and the result of cultural and environmental influences. It is difficult, at best, to interpret the written word. Interpreting a law or theory in mathematics or other sciences is easier because it usually results in some measure or specified outcome (number). There is only one mathematical answer. Literature represents ideas that are subject to interpretation. Interpreting the written word is more difficult because there are times when the words mean different things to different people and it is not clear what the author intended. The dictionary is not much help because it may give half dozen definitions to the same word. When we attempt to understand text written 10, 100, or 1000 years ago, the situation is compounded due to word definitions changing over time. This becomes even more complex when texts are translated from one language to another.

 

[praxising]

**How do we resolve many contrasting opinions in the Bible? **

What makes you think we should? The important stuff is pretty straightforward: love one another, pray for your enemies, feed the hungry, treat others as you wish to be treated.

Contrasting opinions, discourse and dialogue is a foundation of human understanding and growth. What we need isn’t to resolve, but to respect.

IMO.

Which may be different than yours.

But, hey, I respect that.

 

[Geremia]

The conflict between readers may be a result of interpretation of the texts in the Bible and the result of cultural and environmental influences. It is difficult, at best, to interpret the written word. Interpreting a law or theory in mathematics or other sciences is easier because it usually results in some measure or specified outcome (number). There is only one mathematical answer.

Mathematics is indeed the most co-natural to man, it is also the most exact, and most certain science according to St. Thomas Aquinas. However, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, lect. 5, n. 335-337In II Meta., St. Thomas writes:

[Aristotle] says, first, that since different men use different methods in the search for truth, one must be trained in the method which the particular sciences must use to investigate their subject. And since it is not easy for a man to undertake two things at once (indeed, so long as he tries to do both he can succeed in neither), it is absurd for a man to try to acquire a science and at the same time to acquire the method proper to that science. This is why a man should learn logic before any of the other sciences, because logic considers the general method of procedure in all the other sciences. Moreover, the method appropriate to the particular sciences should be considered at the beginning of these sciences.

1. But the exactness of mathematics (175).
   He shows that the method which is absolutely the best should not be demanded in all the sciences. He says that the “exactness,” i.e., the careful and certain demonstrations, found in mathematics should not be demanded in the case of all things of which we have science, but only in the case of those things which have no matter; for things that have matter are subject to motion and change, and therefore in their case complete certitude cannot be had. For in the case of these things we do not look for what exists always and of necessity, but only for what exists in the majority of cases.

Now immaterial things are most certain by their very nature because they are unchangeable, although they are not certain to us because our intellectual power is weak, as was stated above (279). The separate substances are things of this kind. But while the things with which mathematics deals are abstracted from matter, they do not surpass our understanding; and therefore in their case most certain reasoning is demanded.

Again, because the whole of nature involves matter, this method of most certain reasoning does not belong to natural philosophy. However, he says “perhaps” because of the celestial bodies, since they do not have matter in the same sense that lower bodies do.

1. Now since this method of most certain reasoning is not the method proper to natural science, therefore in order to know which method is proper to that science we must investigate first what nature is; for in this way we will discover the things which natural philosophy studies. Further, we must investigate “whether it belongs to one science,” i.e., to natural philosophy, or to several sciences, to consider all causes and principles; for in this way we will be able to learn which method of demonstration is proper to natural philosophy. He deals with this method in Book II of the Physics, as is obvious to anyone who examines it carefully.

Also, St. Thomas says that “faith is more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues” “since it is about eternal things, which never change” ( IIª-IIae q. 4 a. 8Summa Theologica).

Literature represents ideas that are subject to interpretation. Interpreting the written word is more difficult because there are times when the words mean different things to different people and it is not clear what the author intended.

Read about whether the Sacred Scripture can be expounded in different senses.

The dictionary is not much help because it may give half dozen definitions to the same word. When we attempt to understand text written 10, 100, or 1000 years ago, the situation is compounded due to word definitions changing over time. This becomes even more complex when texts are translated from one language to another.

This is why the Magisterium (“teaching body”) of the Catholic Church is so important. If it were not for Christ’s Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, then it is up to the whims of the individual, as the Protestants and their thousands of dis-unified denominations believe with the sola scriptura (“Bible-only”) doctrine. Even if we had the original Biblical manuscripts, there would still be the question of who has the authority to interpret it truthfully.

 

[Link0126]

We listen to the Church. The same Church who determined the Bible.

 

[TimothyH]

We listen to the Church. The same Church who determined the Bible.

True.

When we interpret mathematical or other scientific data, we rely on the work that went before us. The mathematician does not need to spend time proving that 2+2=4, that the three angles of a triangle always add up to 360 degrees, or that we can reliably calculate the diameter of a circle using the formula C=(Pi) x (Diameter). We may want to understand the concepts but we do not attempt to prove them wrong because they have been repeatedly and reliably proven by others many times and so they are are generally accepted as true and not challenged. Mathematicians can move on to more advanced topics without having to reprove these basic mathematical formulae.

Rules such as these which have been generally accepted and stand unchallenged are often referred to as “Laws” as in “The laws of physics” or “The law of gravity”.

The same is true of Theology. The great doctors fo the Church have come before us and proven the theologicial laws by which we live and worship. The efficacy of the sacramants have been proven by the saints. The idea of the Trinity has been challenged over and over and stands the test - we can try to understand it but we do not question it and theologians can trust it as the basis upon which they build more advanced topics (if it can be said that there are more advanced topics than the Trinity!). It gets to the point where we call those who, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, still persist in challenging such widely accepted laws of theology as the Trinity, cults.

GK Chesterton called it the “Democracy of the Dead.” The dead who have gone before us still speak, still have a voice in the faith of us of us who live today. Their actions and teachings, especially those of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, are proofs that we can trust what the Church says so we don’t have to go around proving that Jesus was God, that the sacraments are real, and that 2+2=4.

-Tim-

 

[Ignatius]

The conflict between readers may be a result of interpretation of the texts in the Bible and the result of cultural and environmental influences. It is difficult, at best, to interpret the written word. Interpreting a law or theory in mathematics or other sciences is easier because it usually results in some measure or specified outcome (number). There is only one mathematical answer. Literature represents ideas that are subject to interpretation. Interpreting the written word is more difficult because there are times when the words mean different things to different people and it is not clear what the author intended. The dictionary is not much help because it may give half dozen definitions to the same word. When we attempt to understand text written 10, 100, or 1000 years ago, the situation is compounded due to word definitions changing over time. This becomes even more complex when texts are translated from one language to another.

That’s whyt Jesus left His Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, so that we would have one source to determine the correct interpretation.

 

[fhansen]

The conflict between readers may be a result of interpretation of the texts in the Bible and the result of cultural and environmental influences. It is difficult, at best, to interpret the written word. Interpreting a law or theory in mathematics or other sciences is easier because it usually results in some measure or specified outcome (number). There is only one mathematical answer. Literature represents ideas that are subject to interpretation. Interpreting the written word is more difficult because there are times when the words mean different things to different people and it is not clear what the author intended. The dictionary is not much help because it may give half dozen definitions to the same word. When we attempt to understand text written 10, 100, or 1000 years ago, the situation is compounded due to word definitions changing over time. This becomes even more complex when texts are translated from one language to another.

Yep, you’re right. Sola Scriptura is an utterly unworkable doctrine. This doesn’t mean at all that bible study or criticism is unprofitable-it just means that one could never base their faith on scripture alone.

 

[Crumpy]

Well, it depends on which part of the Bible you’re talking about.

This is a vast subject.

If you’re talking about Old v. New Testament, the Church recognizes that there is a progression of some ideas including replacement of the old ones.

This is laid out in “The Jewish People and Their Scripture in the Christian Bible” which is available in the document library on the www.ewtn.com website (download for free).

If you’re talking about Old v. Old testament writing, or even NT v NT writing, we may be looking at different traditions which have been compiled into the canon of scripture.
e.g. why are the Ten Commandments different in Exodus and Deuteronomy? If both are the inspired word of God, a covenant no less, why are the words different? Indeed.

Two versions of creation in Genesis. Two interwoven accounts of Noah’s flood in Genesis.
Adam is punished or cursed to work the earth for a living, but even in the next generation, his son Abel is a keeper of animals. To begin with, where did that even come from? How do we account for it? Do we “remember” the Sabbath or “observe” the Sabbath? Big difference.

Three VARYING “synoptic” gospels. The resurrection: the women run away in fear OR they hasten in joy to tell the men.

The Holy Father discusses whether the “last supper” was a Passover meal or not, in his vol 2 of Jesus of Nazareth, and he does not “decree” on it although he says that he thinks it was a Passover meal. Nor does he think it was on a Thursday night, probably Tuesday.

All of these are off the “top of my head” resulting from recent reading. There’s lot more.
e.g. things which do not seem to be historically accurate.

There is some discussion of this in Vol 6 of Letter and Spirit, a journal from Scott Hahn’s St. Paul Center for biblical theology, along with some direct advice on “orthodox” Catholic Bible interpretation.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Claiming that any one text of the Bible has only one meaning is limiting the power of God, and ends up putting Him in a box. Meanings will change depending on time and circumstance. This is why the concept of a fourfold understanding of the Scripture was developed. While it is a formal presentation of the idea, it is not exhaustive. We also have to allow for a personal level. Lectio Divina deals with looking at the Bible in personal ways. As incomplete as I have stated the fourfold understanding is, so is allowing personal understanding to stand as the primary method of understanding. It is the beginning of wisdom, but only that. The Bible then calls on us to share with our brothers and sisters to develop the fuller understanding.

One way of doing that is to accept the teachings of the Magisterium. For Protestants, the Magisterium is subsumed under the concept of the priesthood of all believers. It makes for more work for Protestants, and not all are willing to put their hands to that plow.

As Praxising said, the central ideas are straightforward, limited only by our willingness to accept them. John 6:66 tells us that people hearing the truth from Jesus’ own lips still rejected it. The Parable of the Sower tells us that most of the time, the message may be rejected. I would add, for a season. The parable only tells of one planting, not the continued tending to the field.