Interpretation Versus Explanation

AFrazier said:

If understanding has already been achieved via explanation, then explanation renders interpretation superfluous

Click to expand...

Define interpretation.

tonychanyt said:

Define interpretation.

Click to expand...

It is the act of explaining the meaning of something. Ergo, to interpret something that has already been explained (i.e. interpreted) is superfluous, unless it is to expand upon a deeper principle of understanding not already explained (interpreted).

Don’t get hung up on semantics. I’ve read other posts you’ve made. I don’t take you as an unintelligent person.

AFrazier said:

It is the act of explaining the meaning of something. Ergo, to interpret something that has already been explained (i.e. interpreted) is superfluous, unless it is to expand upon a deeper principle of understanding not already explained (interpreted).

Click to expand...

What is the input to interpretation? What is the output?

tonychanyt said:

What is the input to interpretation? What is the output?

Click to expand...

The input is the thing or statement that needs explaining. The output is the explanation. Is there a point? What proposition are you wanting to prove, exactly?

AFrazier said:

The input is the thing or statement that needs explaining.

Click to expand...

Right.

According to your definition, interpretation begins with the text itself, before one can explain it.

CoreyD said:

Is that an interpretation?

Click to expand...

Is what an interpretation? Please be specific.

CoreyD said:

Is that - the above quoted text by @tonychanyt beginning with Right, and ending with it - an interpretation?

Click to expand...

Good question.
Yes, that is my interpretation of the text to form my own mental representation/understanding. That is how I can understand any text. See Technically, what is interpretation?. Without my interpretation and processing of the text, I cannot understand anything.

tonychanyt said:

to form my own mental representation/understanding.

Click to expand...

According to Scripture, any such interpretation by a man/men/ is very sinful and not permitted.

Explanations might be permitted as long as it is not attempting to interpret God's Word,
and they might even go without being punished, like when letting a child explain their own writing or reading or picture.

God clearly says no private (of man or of men) interpretation of His Word is ever permitted by God.

It is also never needed, ever.

tonychanyt said:

Right.

According to your definition, interpretation begins with the text itself, before one can explain it.

Click to expand...

Not if the text explains itself. If an interpretation begins with text that is self explanatory, then explaining what has already been explained is a wasted effort; i.e. superfluous. There’s no need to interpret what has already been explained.

unknown source recorded last year
"Then follows the warning concerning those whose example is evil, who by their attitude make themselves enemies of the cross, ‘whose end is destruction (perdition)’ (Phil. 3:17-19). It is not conceivable that believers who had reached so high a standard as these Philippians should need to be exhorted not to follow the ungodly pagans among whom their lot was cast. The warning is uttered about the example of Christians, whose God is their belly, who glory in their shame, who mind earthly things,

who by their self-indulgence antagonize all that the ‘cross’ stands for, in contrast with those whose conversation is in heaven. We observe that in Hebrews 10, the loss of a ‘reward’ is in view; in Philippians 3, the loss of the ‘prize’ is in view. Further light upon the intention of the apostle in Hebrews 10, may be gathered from the use of apoleia in Matthew 26:8, where it is used in a non-doctrinal sense: ‘But when His disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this WASTE?’. In 1 Corinthians we have those who are ‘perfect’ (1 Cor. 2:6) placed over against those who were ‘babes’, who were fed with ‘milk’ and not with ‘meat’, just as we have in Hebrews 5. In Hebrews 6, the apostle introduces the figure of husbandry, even as he does in 1 Corinthians 3:9 and says: ‘That which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is NIGH UNTO cursing; whose end is to be burned’. (Heb. 6:8), and these thus figured lacked those things that ‘accompany salvation’ not salvation itself. So in 1 Corinthians 3: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire’ (1 Cor. 3:15). Again observe, the alternative to suffering loss, is receiving a REWARD (1 Cor. 3:14). The alternatives in Hebrews are ‘going on unto perfection’ or ‘drawing back unto perdition’ and we must not so interpret ‘perdition’ as to leave in the mind that the alternatives are ‘going on unto salvation’ or ‘drawing back to eternal punishment’. The former word ‘perfection’, with its associated meanings, influences the application of the latter word ‘perdition’ with its associated warnings. We have seen the scope of this epistle set out in the structure and have some idea of the meaning of the alternatives set before the reader. We must now return to the opening chapter to learn what encouragements are offered and what warnings given to accomplish the twofold purpose of these exhortations."

AFrazier said:

There’s no need to interpret what has already been explained.

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 3:3
Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

CoreyD said:

Self explanatory text would be, for example, text like...

Jesus wept - John 11:35
Or, John 4:3-10

3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. 4 But He needed to go through Samaria.​

​

5 So He came to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.​

​

7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.​

​

9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.​

​

10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”​

Would that be correct?

Click to expand...

Jesus wept is certainly self-explanatory. The English translation in that case, however, is weak. The impression given by the translation is some tears. But the Greek uses a word that means a weeping more like a heart broken loss. It’s still, nevertheless, self-explanatory.

The other passage is loaded with self-explanatory comments. The only thing left unexplained is “living water.” There no explanation in that specific passage to say what, exactly, living water is. It requires interpretation and/or explanation.

AFrazier said:

what, exactly, living water is. It requires interpretation and/or explanation.

Click to expand...

When any man's mind is all in darkness, will any explanation even ever possibly help ? No.
Unless God Grants it and removes the veil, they remain in darkness, no matter what they see or hear or listen to or read (on a forum, or a book) .

Jesus looked at the internet, and did not weep - He got righteously (perfectly) angry. He will soon be sent back to execute God's righteous wrath and vengeance.
-------------- OR

Jesus looked at the internet, and He wept with many tears, deeply grieved at the loss of billions of souls.