The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes and no.

The Bible is NOT one book, but a collection of writings from thousands of years. As such, each book within it is written in a different way to point out one final Truth: God’s love for man.

We may interpret the books of the Bible using different methods and means. Some passages must be taken to mean some things, but many of them have multiple possible meanings.

For example, we MUST accept that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross. We do not have to accept that the boat on which he slept during the storm was of one design or another, only that it was a boat.
 
Ignatius said:
More to the point, can the conflicting interpretations of the Bible be both true and false at the same time?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you mean this. If you mean can two interpretations of the same verse both be true, usually not. Think about it this way; someone wrote that verse down, and when they did they had one particular thought in mind they were trying to convey. Without them here to ask, the best we can do is try to place their words in a proper context, culture, and setting and see what it tells us.

For example, you pick up the newspaper and read a story about a man who walked home from his base. If I told you that this was a story about a person in the military, it would have a different meaning to you than if I told you it was a story about a baseball game, because the word “base” would have a totally different context. This is why some people do interpret the same verse to mean different things. The one that springs to mind is the verse about no longer performing works. Some take this to mean you simply don’t have to perform any works; others frame it in the context of the words being aimed at Jews, thus it describes performing works of the (Jewish) law.

Another way you could mean this is, can a person get more than one meaning out of a particular set of verses? Sure they can. The parable of the Prodigal Son can mean God has a redeeming plan for us, but we must chose it. It can demonstrate God’s love, or God’s forgiveness. It can mean no matter how low we may go, we can always turn back to God. Someone else might find 100 other meanings in the same parable.

As a general rule, where conflict arises is when a verse gets isolated and picked apart in such a way that it puts it in conflict with what the rest of the scriptures teach. The Bible is meant to be in harmony, not discord, so you can’t have one verse over here saying X is good and another verse over there saying X is sinful. One of those two interpretations is not right.

Applying too much of a literalist sense to scripture when it isn’t necessarily meant also causes error. When we read about “the whole town was gathered at the door,” are we to take that as every single man, woman, and child bar none was at the door, or do we take it as a common hyperbole to mean a lot of people were there, so many it was as if the whole town showed up? Taking things too literally leads to outrageously silly doctrine. Jesus calling Himself “a door” for example, or admonishing people to not pray publicly like the Pharisees, to “go into the closet and close to door to pray.” Was Jesus really made of wood? Are we to pray in dark closets only?
 
This question is tricky to answer because the approach the Church takes to Holy Scripture differs from that taken by our separated brethren, and from most academic organizations.

Holy Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, and as such, it must be interpreted in a manner that is not at variance with the rest of the truth there revealed. Further, Catholic exegesis recognizes both a literal and a spiritual dimension to the content of Holy Scripture. One example would be the exodus journey. It is historical in the literal sense of the journey of the Chosen People to the promised land. But is has been spiritually interpreted in terms of the journey of the soul through this world to heaven.

There are some passages, but surprisingly few, less than 20 on most lists, whose interpretation is dogma. For example, this is my body means just that, not “represents” or some such nonsense. Beyond that, given conformity to the contents of the Deposit of Faith as set forth in the teachings of the Church (which themselves cannot contradict Holy Scripture), a Catholic exegete has much more freedom that would a Protestant governed by the saying, “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.”

More than one interpretation is possible except where dogma has been set down, but there can never be a valid interpretation that leads to a contradiction of the contents of the Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top