Inspired, but not understood!?

[Jaguar]

Can someone explain how the Church chose some writings as inspired and worthy of the canon, but is unable to translate it’s meanings? In other words, if a certain part is not understood, how can it be called, inspired by God?

It’s late and I’m not sure I’m being clear. Sorry!

 

[stephe1987]

What is not able to be understood/translated? The Church has not declared official meanings for every single verse in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t inspired. There are lots of Bible study courses and groups to help you out, or you can post your questions about specific verses on this forum.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I read a comment by an author once (sorry - I can’t recall his name at the moment) where he admitted :

“It is not the passages from sacred scripture I do not understand which give me the most difficulty, but rather those passages which I do understand.”

 

[thistle]

Can someone explain how the Church chose some writings as inspired and worthy of the canon, but is unable to translate it’s meanings? In other words, if a certain part is not understood, how can it be called, inspired by God?

It’s late and I’m not sure I’m being clear. Sorry!

I’m with the other poster on this. I have no clue what you are trying to say. Specifically what has been misunderstood? Give us a chapter or verse!

 

[Spirithound]

Can someone explain how the Church chose some writings as inspired and worthy of the canon, but is unable to translate it’s meanings? In other words, if a certain part is not understood, how can it be called, inspired by God?

I see no necessary connection between being understood and being inspired. The canon was closed in the 4th century, while the Church is developing doctrine to this day. We can say that each development is something that was not understood before.

 

[TimothyH]

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose what was inspired. What was inspired came to us by the will of God working through his Holy Church. The Church - that is to say a group of men at some council in the late fourth century - did not do this on their own. The canon of scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure that the Church is “Unable to translate its meanings” with regards to any particular part of the Bible. As another has stated, the absence of some magesterial teaching about any particular part of the Bible does not imply an inability to interpret it.

Modern man tends to be very analytical, tends to take the Bible verse by verse, passage by passage and book by book. But this is not the way the Church fathers read the Bible. They read it spiritually, letting the Holy Spirit guide them. This is what makes Popes John Paul II, Bennedict XVI and many of the other Popes such great leaders. They look at scripture as a whole and interpret each passage in the context of the whole and in the context of Christ.

Like some of the others, I’m wondering if there are some specific passages which it is thought the Church unable to understand.

-Tim-

 

[NeedImprovement]

Sacred Scripture , particularly when we invoke the Holy Spirit before reading it can also, on occasion, tend to speak to each of us individually … personally. It can be seen in (most Christian) bible study groups (like those mentioned by stephe1987) - where each member of the group gives an interpretation of the same passage, but which is not precisely the same interpretation; all of which, may , nevertheless be a good interpretation of the truth.

It can prove difficult to formulate or reduce such particular interpretations into one sole interpretation.

In the Gospels, there were times when Jesus’ own disciples did not understand what he was saying to them directly.

As hinted in post # 3 , it isn’t the understanding of sacred scripture which requires the most effort ; it’s the subsequent application of it in one’s everyday life.

I would also share the interest of the other members here as to which passages of scripture the Church doesn’t “understand”.

 

[puzzleannie]

Can someone explain how the Church chose some writings as inspired and worthy of the canon, but is unable to translate it’s meanings? In other words, if a certain part is not understood, how can it be called, inspired by God?

It’s late and I’m not sure I’m being clear. Sorry!

who does not understand? just because you or I don’t understand a particular passage does not mean the Church has not at some point taught on it, explained it, or interpreted it.

 

[Jaguar]

who does not understand? just because you or I don’t understand a particular passage does not mean the Church has not at some point taught on it, explained it, or interpreted it.

I’m not comparing you or I to the Church. Nor am I doubting the Church in any way.

Sorry, it’s taken me a while to get back to this. It was a busy Easter.

It was late and I was exhausted the other night, thus I wasn’t clear. The thought & question I asked was not well thought out. I’m sorry.

One thing I don’t understand is why a decent portion of some books in the Old Testament, seem to be a needless. There are even military stats included. Why weren’t these parts removed?

Also, a Catholic Study Bible (can’t remember which), has footnote’s in regards to helping with passage interpretations. These footnotes mostly include more than one meaning for a certain passage. It appears that little is certain about much. Some footnote’s read: "This could mean …, or this …!

Sorry, I have no specifics or examples at this time. But I just wonder why there can be so many interp. possibilities about so many passages. This seems to even lead to credence, in regards to the many Protestant interpretations.

 

[Mintaka]

Well, for one thing – if every verse of the Bible only had one interpretation, I would only have to pay attention to general statements and proverbs as advice about my life. Whereas it’s often the stories about people doing bad stuff that seem to apply directly to me.

Ordinary great human literature has a lot of different applications and interpretations. Every time you come back to a great book or poem, you will probably find something new in it.

So when God sends His people messages, is it really surprising to find Him putting more than one layer of meaning in it? Why shouldn’t a story have a plain historical meaning, and various morals to be drawn from it, and various poetic meanings to be found in its images and symbols? Why wouldn’t He put in pointers toward His coming as Jesus Christ at the same time He’s talking about trees and kings?

You think of this as a bug, but it’s a valuable feature. The Bible is a book you can never squeeze all the meaning from.

 

[Spirithound]

One thing I don’t understand is why a decent portion of some books in the Old Testament, seem to be a needless. There are even military stats included. Why weren’t these parts removed?

Also, a Catholic Study Bible (can’t remember which), has footnote’s in regards to helping with passage interpretations. These footnotes mostly include more than one meaning for a certain passage. It appears that little is certain about much. Some footnote’s read: "This could mean …, or this …!

Sorry, I have no specifics or examples at this time. But I just wonder why there can be so many interp. possibilities about so many passages. This seems to even lead to credence, in regards to the many Protestant interpretations.

Inspired Scripture need not be inspiring.

Ultimately, you’re not going to get any straight answers from anybody on this question, because we don’t know why God wanted certain books to be in the Bible. We do know that all Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. In another way, we can see that the first dozen or so books are Israel’s history, and that was clearly important to the Israelites. It tells the story of their history, which is their salvation history, and by extension, our salvation history. I don’t know why some of the battle stories got in, but I’m sure we’ll all find out eventually.