Could God have designed the Bible to only have one interpretation?

It is funny, but sad if you don't realize it. There is one meaning however, it is yours and if you share it, it is ours.

 

Nice try but even as a child, I didn't have to be told that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were fictitious. It was just obvious. Whereas as a child I knew God existed and even if I was told he was fictitious I wouldn't have believed it.

 

Does that include Jesus who was so sure of his interpretation that he died for it?

Jesus was forceful in his teaching and ofttimes corrected others understanding of the Scriptures. Are we not to follow the example of the Christ?

 

If you think the Amish have the correct interpretation on this matter, perhaps you could show it to me from the Scriptures?

 

I didn't believe in the tooth fariry either.

(Matthew 18:2-6) So, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst and said: “Truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU turn around and become as young children, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens; and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me [also]. But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial for him to have hung around his neck a millstone such as is turned by an ass and to be sunk in the wide, open sea.

 

There is but one meaning and it is God's.

 

But who are you to tell anyone what it is?

 

He is a man of God, Chod. ;D

Gods helper, or rather, since his God needs none, more an apostle of...epistles.

No-one is allowed to know the meaning of Gods word, but God, who wrote it for...God! To know the meaning of God is to be God, a thing strictly forbidden to the priestly caste for the crisis of identity thereby committed.

Gods readers shalt lose themselves, and find themsleves, in God. No more! No less! The keepers of...the press. : D

 

I notice that waterbrother stands in opposition to everyone on this page. The measure you give is the measure you receive. It seems his failure to give credit where credit is due, has earned him none.

 

In the words of some genuinely nice people, we know a thing by it's fruit.

 

We read the signs of the weather and think that a storm is gathering but do not recognize that gathering storm is always an invitation from god, not a threat. In the eyes of love, everything is love or the call for it.

 

Jesus was God. Although I follow Him as my leader, I am not God.

I sat through a Sunday school class once where the teacher said we were supposed to go out and tell all our interacially married neighbors that they were living in sin. Do you agree with his interpretation of the Bible?

What part of this don't you get that I am saying? Some parts of the Bible are clear and can be clearly interpreted. Other parts are not clear.

I would like to hear your one and only interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:13-16. Do you have women in your church? Do you allow them to cut their hair, or make them wear a covering? Which is the right interpretation?

 

One of the reasons why I agree with one true interpretations is the unshakable commitment of early Christians. If their understandings were not on solids ground, then I don't think they could have faced death simply for refusing to argue against what they have committed to. Just like Stephen and talking to the priests. Even though he knew he was facing death for trying to explain something to them and try to give them a good thing, they still raised their hands to him to kill him. Even if one doesn't believe in Christianity, I think it can be appreciated that Stephen wasn't doing anything wrong or at least not wrong enough to warrant murder.

I always admired Stephen for his unwavering faith even when facing ones that were hot with anger. And if you really think about it, people can't really sound so sure of themselves to the point of death unless they are carrying something in them that is greater than their fear of death.

I don't think that's possible if the interpretations in the mind are uncertain and if there is no true interpretation there can be no certainty to begin with -- Unless they would probably turn around and say to themselves, "What are you crazy? I'm outta here" before things get too dangerous. lol.

Stephens faith and commitment was so strong that it is said that his face turned into that of an angel and some believe this to mean this was a foreshadowing of what Stephen would one day become.

 

Who are you to say otherwise?

In fact, I've never said that I am. I have always said that peolpe should check to see if what I say is what the the Bible says and to not take my word for it. (Acts 17:11-12)

In this thread I am only trying to ague the there is only one correct interpretation and not to tell what it is.

 

Yeah, right. Stay in Jerusalem until till the Romans come and either kill you or carry off you as a slave. Personally I would take it as a sign from God to flee to the mountains.

 

Neither one of is God and neither was Jesus. Jesus was God's son, which is all he ever said he was. In any case Jesus was our example which we can look to to see how we should act.

Can you show me where the Bible says any such thing?

What part of this don't you get what I'm saying?
I never said that all of the Bible is immediately understandable by all but that the more your understanding is correct, the more you will understand and that if you have an understanding that is incorrect there are parts of the Bible that seem impossible to understand.

Perhaps if you read it in context you would not haveing so much trouble try reading all of the context; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and tell me is it really talking about hair length or is it talking about the headship principle? (1 Corinthians 11:3-6)

 

Good Point.

I believe that Bible points out that we will soon all get a chance to show if we have such faith in the face of death.

 

So the Truth is now up for a vote or a it's popularity contest?

 

God is infinite. In John 1:1, we are told the word was God. What is the interpretation of that? If there is only one interpretation, it must be readily apparent and inarguable. I believe the Bible is infinite in the same way God is infinite. Human minds cannot grasp infinity, in the same way they cannot grasp everything that the Bible means.

You are suggesting that I read and study an area surrounding the passage I want to understand in order to understand it. So technically, I would have to read and understand the area surrounding that area in order to understand the context of the area I am studying. This goes on until we arrive at the conclusion that we must understand the whole Bible before we can understand one bit of it. This is lunacy. We can never understand and interpret the whole Bible unless God were to reveal it to us, and that would probably kill us. You will never get the whole world to agree on one interpretation of the Bible. The Bible has infinite meaning in the same way God is infinite and humanity cannot comprehend infinity.


There are some things the Bible is very clear on, for instance when it says very clearly in the Old and New Testaments "Thou shalt not steal." On the other hand, when it says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" I don't believe humans are going to understand that conclusively until after the second coming.

You seem to be suggesting that if we study hard enough, we can know the one interpretation of the whole Bible and then go around telling people what that is. I will never agree with that.

 

Truth is not up for a vote. It's up for sale.