- Jul 11, 2023
- 933
- 203
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The first thing that will probably come to mind, when seeing this title, is "Interpretation is explanation! They mean the same thing."
That's okay. This thread is more about interpretations that go against explanations.
Here is an example:
(Daniel 2:31-45)
Here, the angel explains, that the stone represents the kingdom of God, which he set up (stone = kingdom of God).
Persons interpret the stone to be something they believe it is (for example : stone = Messiah), and think that is perfectly okay.
It's a case of interpretation against explanation - human interpretation against Biblical explanations.
Is this acceptable, or rather, does it fit the description at 2 Peter 3:16
So, I am having this conversation with @tonychanyt on another thread, and decided to start this thread, since it's a different topic from the one on that thread.
Thanks Tony.
This is in line with this definition:
An explanation or conceptualization by a critic of a work of literature, painting, music, or other art form; an exegesis.
The broad definition - an explanation or opinion of what something means - allows for an interpretation being given by the one who prouces the work.
So an explanation can quickly follow on the heels of a statement, so that the inspired writer gives the interpretation immediately. Thus requiring no interpretation otherwise.
For example:
Statement :- he [Jesus] said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” John 11:11
Explanation :- So then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died," John 11:14
Is this something you would agree with?
My main point really, is, if an explanation is found in expressions being made by a writer, or speaker, the writer has already given the interpretation. No other human interpretation is needed.
If the writer, is inspired by God, technically, we can say, God supplied the explanation or interpretation.
What are your thoughts on this?
That's okay. This thread is more about interpretations that go against explanations.
Here is an example:
(Daniel 2:31-45)
34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold - the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”
Here, the angel explains, that the stone represents the kingdom of God, which he set up (stone = kingdom of God).
Persons interpret the stone to be something they believe it is (for example : stone = Messiah), and think that is perfectly okay.
It's a case of interpretation against explanation - human interpretation against Biblical explanations.
Is this acceptable, or rather, does it fit the description at 2 Peter 3:16
So, I am having this conversation with @tonychanyt on another thread, and decided to start this thread, since it's a different topic from the one on that thread.
What is your view, regarding the Bible giving its own explanation (interpretation)?
tonychanyt said:Technically, people interpret texts.
Do you think we can get a clear explanation from the Bible, on topics within it - topics such as these?
tonychanyt said:Sure. Scripture interprets scripture. That means that the inspired writers of Scripture interpreted some particular already written scriptural scriptural passages. Interpretation requires an active agent to read and interpret.
Thanks Tony.
This is in line with this definition:
An explanation or conceptualization by a critic of a work of literature, painting, music, or other art form; an exegesis.
The broad definition - an explanation or opinion of what something means - allows for an interpretation being given by the one who prouces the work.
So an explanation can quickly follow on the heels of a statement, so that the inspired writer gives the interpretation immediately. Thus requiring no interpretation otherwise.
For example:
Statement :- he [Jesus] said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” John 11:11
Explanation :- So then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died," John 11:14
Is this something you would agree with?
My main point really, is, if an explanation is found in expressions being made by a writer, or speaker, the writer has already given the interpretation. No other human interpretation is needed.
If the writer, is inspired by God, technically, we can say, God supplied the explanation or interpretation.
What are your thoughts on this?