# Open to interpretation



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

I hear the term "open to interpretation" used an awful lot.

Can you think of a scripture that is open to interpretation??


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 13, 2011)

Nope.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 13, 2011)

*Re:*

To quote a T-shirt I see often, "Truth just is"!


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I hear the term "open to interpretation" used an awful lot.
> 
> Can you think of a scripture that is open to interpretation??



You must be trolling 

Can you name any scripture that every Christian religion OR person agrees on without any deviation?

People argue (or interpret differently) about: 

Method of Baptism (sprinkling, dunking)
Path to Salvation (works / no works)
Alcohol (grape juice vs. Merlot)
Denominations 
ECF
"Rapture"
etc.

Yes, I do believe there are verses that are interpreted differently by different people and religions based on what they "think" is correct.


----------



## huntmore (Apr 13, 2011)

dawg
I think Ronnie was asking should any part of scripture be open to interpretation, not is it. After all, if people didn't interpreate the Bible different we would all be part of the universal Church (Catholic).
The Bible we have today was already interpreted by God (so to speak)so it is finished and not open to interpretation.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 13, 2011)

huntmore said:


> dawg
> I think Ronnie was asking should any part of scripture be open to interpretation, not is it. After all, if people didn't interpreate the Bible different we would all be part of the universal Church (Catholic).
> The Bible we have today was already interpreted by God (so to speak)so it is finished and not open to interpretation.



ughhh...do I have to keep following you around cleaning up your mess?

universal Church.....is catholic--not Catholic.


----------



## huntmore (Apr 13, 2011)

I guess, hey my Garage is not clean, you up for it? I will spring for lunch. Big C


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 13, 2011)

If you see a bucket of stink, keep mixing it up and it will get to smelling worse and worse.

A simple question and I thought a relative one when so many on here are not.

God did not inspire the bible to be interpreted in many differant ways. 

God said it and that settles it even if I am wrong.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I hear the term "open to interpretation" used an awful lot.
> 
> Can you think of a scripture that is open to interpretation??



Scripture is not opened to interpretation out of its greater context. That context is the will of God... and not the will of individuals and denominations.

2Peter 1: 4 By means of these He has bestowed on us His precious exceedingly great promises, so that throught them you many escape by flight from moral decay (rottenness and corruption) that is in the world because of covetousness( lust and greed), and become sharers (partakers) of the divine nature.My interpretation here is that the above is the context.

2Peter 1:20 Yet first you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of any personal or private or special interpretation.

My interpretation of this is that ideas such that we are to be "Saved" so we can have a home in "Heaven or the Kingdom to come" for example is a personal interpretation because it is not in comformity to Peter 1:4 which is the correct context from which we are to undertand scripture.


Peter seems ( my interpretation) to be saying that the way to understanding scripture is not  through people logic as in solving how this goes into that and leads on to this and the other thing,--- but rather how things fit from the perspective of God's will and God's logic (context).

2Peter1:21

For no prophecy ever originated because of some man willed it,[ to do so--it never came from human impulse] but men spoke from God who were borne along ( moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, don't use a wrench designed to diagnose a GMC truck to diagnose a Farrari. Or don't play base ball with a hockey stick and don't stick handle with a bat.


....................................................

Now you might ask why I indicated my interpretations above? This would be just. In answer I will say that I have no doubt what-so-ever in the words of God. I have doubt in my faculties to recieve them...and my interpretations are indicated that others might shed more light where my heart has not business to see. After all at best I am a "sharer of the devine" as Peter says and at worse I am a heap of sin, blind and in sinful error.... ( moral decay) as Peter says....


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> You must be trolling
> 
> Can you name any scripture that every Christian religion OR person agrees on without any deviation?
> 
> ...



Just because people interpret differently doesn't mean a scripture is open to interpretation.
Why not just read each scripture and take it as inspired, as written.
If there's a scripture that speaks of sprinkling, then no interpretation is needed.
I guess it's also important to say that no one scripture stands along on it's own.  All scripture belong to, and are attached to each other.
I just don't see why interpretation is needed.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Just because people interpret differently doesn't mean a scripture is open to interpretation...



I agree


----------



## Jeffriesw (Apr 13, 2011)

Then what in the world would we do for fun around here?

Ain't the economy bad enough without putting Dawg2 out work?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

When two people disagree on what a particular passage means who is the authority that gets to decide which is right and which has it wrong?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When two people disagree on what a particular passage means who is the authority that gets to decide which is right and which has it wrong?



The passage.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

Swamp Runner said:


> Then what in the world would we do for fun around here?
> 
> Ain't the economy bad enough without putting Dawg2 out work?



We'll all be back to sweeping floors.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The passage.



Right. How's that worked out so far?


----------



## georgia_home (Apr 13, 2011)

I ain't no super religious person, but I think the problem comes around from one reason, regardless of your specific faith:

God said what he said.

Men "want" or "try" to interpret. Personal, political, monetary, or any combination of reasons are the reason.

Centuries of evidence of men abusing religion for personal gain are there.

The problem is man, and the games he plays.

As usual, all this is IMHO!!! Don't mean to offend anyone!


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Right. How's that worked out so far?



It works out fine for me more than you'd think.
There are times when I, like everyone else, get off stride.

The key is to 'stop trying to figure things out'.
It just says what it says.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It works out fine for me more than you'd think.
> There are times when I, like everyone else, get off stride.
> 
> The key is to 'stop trying to figure things out'.
> It just says what it says.



I think where you end up is exactly where you started. Two people reading the same scriptures, drawing different conclusions, both using the very same scriptures to support their differing conclusions.

The fact that there are contradictory scriptures only adds to the confusion.


----------



## pbradley (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It works out fine for me more than you'd think.
> There are times when I, like everyone else, get off stride.
> 
> The key is to 'stop trying to figure things out'.
> It just says what it says.





"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I reckon that covers it for me.


A fella on the radio the other day said, " Let the Bible say what it wants to say." That's what I'm going with.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 13, 2011)

Sometimes the word is confusing and hard to understand. 

True there are many opinions on many scriptures, we have seen that on this forum. It's good to discuss all these scriptures and get everyone's slant of what they mean.

In the end the only important thing is "what did God mean" when he inspired the word to be written.

If only God has the all answers then God is the only translator, we have to depend on him and I fear that is not what WE are doing. 

We often have to much confidence in ourselves. Thats where prayer and meditation comes in. 

Over the years I have learned that God has a lot more answers than I do questions. The problem was and is,I really didn't depend on God for those answers.

God will open our hearts and our minds if we only trust Him and only Him.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think where you end up is exactly where you started. Two people reading the same scriptures, drawing different conclusions, both using the very same scriptures to support their differing conclusions.
> 
> The fact that there are contradictory scriptures only adds to the confusion.



So, give us contradictory scriptures and I'll show you how to live with both of them.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> So, give us contradictory scriptures and I'll show you how to live with both of them.



Just take your pick from the theological disagreements on these forums with each side mustering scriptures that back up their case. An example that comes to mind is the question of whether OT law still applies. Jesus said in Matthew that it did, other scriptures indicate it has been superceded and no longer applies. Now I don't have a dog in that fight but suppose I was a new convert to Christianity and trying to figure that out. It's kind of an important question in light of Old Testament scriptures that prescribe death for witches, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. The answer you get to the question is going to vary depending on who you ask even though both answers that are odds with each other will have scriptural support. Now you can provide whatever you think is the answer and that's fine but you aren't authoritative in giving the answer any more than someone who comes up with a different scriptural based answer. This is what is meant when it is said that scripture is open to interpretation.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

thedeacon said:


> In the end the only important thing is "what did God mean" when he inspired the word to be written.



Pretty tough to figure out when the original words haven't been preserved. Kind of makes you wonder if the original inspiration might have been incorrectly transcribed so God had to inspire later scribes to make changes correcting the mistakes of the first. Or maybe what they changed was his inspired words.

I'm also curious to know how the inspired word of God can be identified and separated out from your standard works of fallible men. Were the men who made the decisions on which Christian writings would be included in the bible and which would be rejected also being guided by God? How would you know?

Seems a rather haphazard way for an all powerful creator to deliver a message to humanity, through the fallible minds and hands of men.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The fact that there are contradictory scriptures only adds to the confusion.



Still waiting on two contradictory scriptures. 

And no, you example above doesn't work...as I'm not sure what passage in Matthew you are referring to.



atlashunter said:


> Pretty tough to figure out when the original words haven't been preserved. Kind of makes you wonder if the original inspiration might have been incorrectly transcribed so God had to inspire later scribes to make changes correcting the mistakes of the first. Or maybe what they changed was his inspired words.
> 
> I'm also curious to know how the inspired word of God can be identified and separated out from your standard works of fallible men. Were the men who made the decisions on which Christian writings would be included in the bible and which would be rejected also being guided by God? How would you know?
> 
> Seems a rather haphazard way for an all powerful creator to deliver a message to humanity, through the fallible minds and hands of men.



Really?  That is the best you can do?  

When comparing what we have today and the oldest manuscripts we have, they are something like 99.97% the same.

How can you argue that God has not preserved His Word?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Still waiting on two contradictory scriptures.
> 
> And no, you example above doesn't work...as I'm not sure what passage in Matthew you are referring to.



Matthew 5 17-20




rjcruiser said:


> Really?  That is the best you can do?
> 
> When comparing what we have today and the oldest manuscripts we have, they are something like 99.97% the same.
> 
> How can you argue that God has not preserved His Word?



The oldest manuscripts we have are copies of still earlier manuscripts and we know that changes were being made, sometimes intentional, sometimes not, from the beginning of the church.

If the words had been preserved, there wouldn't be more differences in the manuscripts we have than there are words in the new testament.

There are verses and entire stories in the KJV bible that didn't show up in the gospels until many centuries after they were first written. So which is the inspired word? The addition to the original? Or the original without the later addition? Or both?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Matthew 5 17-20



Nothing in those verses for anyone to become confused over today.
But they do need to go ahead and read the rest of Jesus' Good News.  Jesus will go on to do exactly what He said in verse 17.  He'll fulfill the old law.  And the scriptures very simply point that out.
No need for interpretation.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The oldest manuscripts we have are copies of still earlier manuscripts and we know that changes were being made, sometimes intentional, sometimes not, from the beginning of the church.
> 
> If the words had been preserved, there wouldn't be more differences in the manuscripts we have than there are words in the new testament.
> 
> There are verses and entire stories in the KJV bible that didn't show up in the gospels until many centuries after they were first written. So which is the inspired word? The addition to the original? Or the original without the later addition? Or both?



Now see, you've stopped targeting scripture and begun targeting manuscripts.  If you're having trouble coming up with an appropriate interpretation of the scripture you're certainly not going to do any better with the manuscripts.

Stick with the scripture.  Trust that God has provided you and I what we need.
Focus on becoming that new and better person, not the manuscripts.

The scripures are to lead us to Jesus Christ.
They were never intended to be that thing that we disect and find the "hidden" meaning or "secret" world in.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Nothing in those verses for anyone to become confused over today.
> But they do need to go ahead and read the rest of Jesus' Good News.  Jesus will go on to do exactly what He said in verse 17.  He'll fulfill the old law.  And the scriptures very simply point that out.
> No need for interpretation.



The point Ronnie is a Christian who focuses on this passage and verse 18 in particular may very well conclude that the Law is still in full effect and must be followed to the letter. That would include the command to kill witches.

A Christian who focuses on Paul's writing might draw a very different conclusion.

Both sides can point to scriptures which support their view. Neither can resolve the disagreement in an authoritative way.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Now see, you've stopped targeting scripture and begun targeting manuscripts.  If you're having trouble coming up with an appropriate interpretation of the scripture you're certainly not going to do any better with the manuscripts.
> 
> Stick with the scripture.  Trust that God has provided you and I what we need.
> Focus on becoming that new and better person, not the manuscripts.
> ...



If there are conflicts, additions, deletions, and changes between the manuscripts from which scriptures are taken how can you trust those scriptures? You would have to know which words in the manuscripts were inspired and which were not in order to determine if they should be considered divinely inspired scripture.

Again to the original point making these determinations is all wide open to interpretation.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point Ronnie is a Christian who focuses on this passage and verse 18 in particular may very well conclude that the Law is still in full effect and must be followed to the letter. That would include the command to kill witches.
> 
> A Christian who focuses on Paul's writing might draw a very different conclusion.
> 
> Both sides can point to scriptures which support their view. Neither can resolve the disagreement in an authoritative way.



Neither side will have any problems understanding if both sides will finish reading and learning the source document, the Gospel.

None of the level headed Christians I'm personally acquainted with would try to prove or disprove the fulfillment of the old law from Matthew 5.
Any person who doesn't know that, shouldn't be trying to interpret.

Study has to flow chronologically.


----------



## huntmore (Apr 13, 2011)

I think Jesus said that if you can follow the law of the old testament be his guest and do so. Trouble is you will have to follow every letter of the law. No one can do that that is why he had to die for us on the cross. 
Us Catholics believe that "the New Testament lies hidden in the old and The Old Testament in unvieled in the New"
Here is another one
 " All sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all devine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ"


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Neither side will have any problems understanding if both sides will finish reading and learning the source document, the Gospel.
> 
> None of the level headed Christians I'm personally acquainted with would try to prove or disprove the fulfillment of the old law from Matthew 5.
> Any person who doesn't know that, shouldn't be trying to interpret.
> ...



I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying the old law no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the law?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

huntmore said:


> I think Jesus said that if you can follow the law of the old testament be his guest and do so.



I'm not sure what scripture you get that from but I don't think it is from the passage in Matthew 5 we are discussing.

Verses 19 and 20

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 


Doesn't sound optional to me. But again, the fact that two people can read the same scriptures and draw different conclusions, take away different meanings, or place more or less emphasis on different passages proves the point. If folks didn't understand the bible in different ways you fellas wouldn't have much to talk about on these forums.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying the old law no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the law?



What does the scriptures say?

Does the scripture say that the old law that God, through Moses, gave to Israel no longer applies to us who were never Jews?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 14, 2011)

atlas....Context is King


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> atlas....Context is King



Sure, but not everyone agrees on context. The fact that these things can be and have been debated since the beginning of the church only proves my point.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 14, 2011)

One of the serious problems with being able to grasp the meaning or intent of a verse or short passage is loss of context. If anyone is committed to a better understanding, they need to read the broader setting as well as gaining a strong familiarity with the entire Bible.

To extract verses 17 thru 20 from Matthew, Chapter 5 is to miss a great deal of detail that helps in understanding. Chopping up the Sermon on the Mount, as it has come to be known, is near sacrilege.

Nevertheless, since we are already there, let's examine what we have to this point. For clarity, I will use the NLT.

Teaching about the Law
17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 20 “But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Jesus, the Son of God, tells us that the law has a purpose. Some assume that purpose is to give us a bunch of rules to live by that, if followed, will result in acceptance by God. But the Bible says repeatedly that no one can keep all those rules successfully and that failing in just one aspect, we fail to meet the entire requirement of the law, holiness. That poses a huge problem for every one of us. If the law demands holiness and we can't begin to meet that criteria, what is the purpose of the law? 

Simply put, the purpose is to show us our need for someone to satisfy the demands of the law for us. The law has no power to bring about righteousness or holiness in our lives. It only has the power to condemn and it is important for us to know that, apart from having someone else satisfy the law, we face the condemnation for our failure to meet the requirements of the law ourselves. Verse 17 is quite clear that Jesus claims to be the one who can satisfy the demands of the law. 

First, He fulfilled the law, never transgressing one aspect. In this, He was innocent of breaking the law and not subject to be punished for any cause. 

Secondly, He, then, voluntarily chose to accept the punishment that the law demanded, for all mankind. 

So, the law's demand for perfection was met and the law's demand for punishment was met, all in Christ.

Because God loves us and because it was His plan to redeem us from our sin from the Beginning, God accepted the substitution Jesus offered. Because He also loved His Son, Christ was resurrected physically three days after His crucifiction, glorified and ascended to heaven forty days later.

Now, I have expanded on the verses you brought up, but until the whole picture is seen, it is pointless to pull out four verses, 17 thru 20, and expect to grasp why Jesus said what He said.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 14, 2011)

*Re:*

Amen, GTParts, and Amen again! Thanks for a great post!

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

gtparts you just brought the point home better than I could have on my own. Thank you.

You used a different translation (for clarity) from the KJV and then focused on the wording of the new translation that isn't found in the KJV (the word purpose) to build your case.

Verse 18 of the KJV reads as follows.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Have heaven and earth passed? Has "all" been fulfilled? The KJV translation could very easily be taken to mean that until "all" has been fulfilled including the passing of heaven and earth, the law is in full force and effect. It hinges on what is meant by all doesn't it? And different Christians, different theologians may very well have different views on what is meant when he says all, different interpretations.

But just by switching to a different translation as you did the passage can take on a very different meaning  (assuming of course that the reader shares your understanding of what it says) resulting ultimately in a very different theology ie Christians must follow all of the OT Law or not.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 14, 2011)

Verses 18 and 19 settle the issue, at least for me. God did not make a bunch of arbitrary rules just to trip us up. He knew we could do a superb job of tripping on our own..... and that is part of the problem anyway, trying to do anything of value on our own.

The reality is that the law remains a God-given guide to right living. It is a worthwhile endeavor to live as much as possible by adhering to the law. The simple caveat is that some injunctions were given to specific people, at specific times, for specific purposes and do not have broad application. Where there appears to be conflict between the life Jesus calls us to and injunctions found outside of Christ's teachings, there is always a reason. Most frequently that reason is simply that the injunction was never intended for you or me, but someone else. 

And here is the heart of knowing which is something you are to observe and which is not....... beyond Scripture, the Holy Spirit gives insight, Godly wisdom, to those He indwells. Without Him actively working in your life, you might as well flip a coin or do eenie-meenie-miney-moe.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> The reality is that the law remains a God-given guide to right living. It is a worthwhile endeavor to live as much as possible by adhering to the law. The simple caveat is that some injunctions were given to specific people, at specific times, for specific purposes and do not have broad application. Where there appears to be conflict between the life Jesus calls us to and injunctions found outside of Christ's teachings, there is always a reason. Most frequently that reason is simply that the injunction was never intended for you or me, but someone else.



To which others might respond "not one jot or tittle" and that is wasn't given as a set of guidelines but as a set of commandments. Again, you're simply offering your interpretation, your take on what is written. Nothing wrong with that, in fact what other option could you possibly have? But everyone else is going to do the exact same thing and often times reach different conclusions which is exactly what we see in Christianity.




gtparts said:


> And here is the heart of knowing which is something you are to observe and which is not....... beyond Scripture, the Holy Spirit gives insight, Godly wisdom, to those He indwells. Without Him actively working in your life, you might as well flip a coin or do eenie-meenie-miney-moe.



Given the broad range of differing Christian doctrines it appears the guidance of the holy spirit provides no more insight than the flip of a coin.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To which others might respond "not one jot or tittle" and that is wasn't given as a set of guidelines but as a set of commandments. Again, you're simply offering your interpretation, your take on what is written. Nothing wrong with that, in fact what other option could you possibly have? But everyone else is going to do the exact same thing and often times reach different conclusions which is exactly what we see in Christianity.



Have you considered that what is beneficial in a spiritual sense for one may not be the same for another? If we are individuals (and we are), Scripture allows for those differences. If we have different spiritual gifts, talents, and personal skills and preferences it would explain why we have different callings. We are to do according to His calling. Paul spoke often about placing an undue burden on others. Christians have much in common, but God regards us as individuals and His Word preaches unity, not because we are the same, but because we are different. I am good with that. I only question the thoughts and actions of others when they are clearly not conforming to the the mind of Christ, yet claiming to be operating under His lordship. 





atlashunter said:


> Given the broad range of differing Christian doctrines it appears the guidance of the holy spirit provides no more insight than the flip of a coin.



It is more often a matter of not having or heeding the Holy Spirit that causes such diversity or disagreement. Christians, as humans, sometimes allow themselves to become emotionally invested in ideas, causes, and actions that are counter to His desire for them. God, as the Holy Spirit, and His Word are trustworthy. Man's thinking and actions are frequently anything but trustworthy.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

It sounds like you are saying different interpretations is acceptable within certain boundaries. I also take it that one could not be accused of not conforming to the mind of Christ by following the letter of old testament law.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It sounds like you are saying different interpretations is acceptable within certain boundaries. I also take it that one could not be accused of not conforming to the mind of Christ by following the letter of old testament law.



You kinda remind me of someone else on this forum.
Do you just enjoy disagreeing?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm happy to find agreement where it can be found and I'm also fine with civil disagreement where it can't be.


----------



## huntmore (Apr 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When two people disagree on what a particular passage means who is the authority that gets to decide which is right and which has it wrong?



The Church


----------



## huntmore (Apr 14, 2011)

Well there ya go Ronnie T !!!! atlas as far as I can tell has only voiced/typed his oppinion and asked questions. Then because he doesn't lay down for you he is then accused of just wanting to argue. I bet if you seriously looked back in your life you have at least questioned the same stuff as he has at one point or another.
I guess we need to have a crusader moderator and after a fella has told his side he gets the boot/ or head chopped off. I though it was just us Catholics who went on crusades and killed people that didn't beleave what we told them right off the bat. I guess I need to break out my sword and white cloak with the cross on it.


----------



## farmasis (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It sounds like you are saying different interpretations is acceptable within certain boundaries.


There are some doctrines we should all be in agreement with. Some are not that important and others we do not have complete knowledge of, and those differences are acceptable.

 <SUP id=en-NKJV-28278 class=versenum>*1*</SUP> Receive one who is weak in the faith, _but_ not to disputes over doubtful things. <SUP id=en-NKJV-28279 class=versenum>*2*</SUP> For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats _only_ vegetables. <SUP id=en-NKJV-28280 class=versenum>*3*</SUP> Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. <SUP id=en-NKJV-28281 class=versenum>*4*</SUP> Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
<SUP id=en-NKJV-28282 class=versenum>*5*</SUP> One person esteems _one_ day above another; another esteems every day _alike._ Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. <SUP id=en-NKJV-28283 class=versenum>*6*</SUP> He who observes the day, observes _it_ to the Lord;<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP> and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe _it._ He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. (Romans 14)



> I also take it that one could not be accused of not conforming to the mind of Christ by following the letter of old testament law.


 
I believe you may have too many nots in there, so excuse me if I 'interpreted' this incorrectly.

The Pharisees knew the law and followed it as close as any could, but they definately did not have the mind of Christ. That is why Jesus said that you would have to have the righteousness exceeding them to enter heaven...if your intent was to obey the law to enter heaven. Jesus gave us another means of justification, and it takes the mind of Christ to have it.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Apr 15, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I hear the term "open to interpretation" used an awful lot.
> 
> Can you think of a scripture that is open to interpretation??



Umm, all of them?

The bible is a book that was written by men, it's been translated into several different versions, mostly by those who stood to profit one way or another from that particular translation.

It's a good story book, but it wasn't printed in one version on the printing presses in heaven and Fed-Ex'ed to everyone on earth.

The stories of the bible were compiled by many different people years, even centuries after the events supposedly happened.  Have you ever played "telephone"? Why would you think that the bible is any different?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

farmasis said:


> I believe you may have too many nots in there, so excuse me if I 'interpreted' this incorrectly.
> 
> The Pharisees knew the law and followed it as close as any could, but they definately did not have the mind of Christ. That is why Jesus said that you would have to have the righteousness exceeding them to enter heaven...if your intent was to obey the law to enter heaven. Jesus gave us another means of justification, and it takes the mind of Christ to have it.



Sometimes my wording isn't the best but I double checked and I got the right number of nots in there. Maybe it would reduce the confusion to replace "could not" with "couldn't".

I follow what you are saying. I'm not saying that if one were to follow the law they couldn't in some other way not be of the same mindset as Christ. What I'm saying is that if Jesus instructed to follow every jot and tittle of the law, one could not be accused of not having the mind set of Christ for doing just that.

In other words, if someone kills a witch or stones an adulterer because they are following the law of Moses, if you can't fault them for following the law that even Jesus said must be followed, then that's kosher?


----------



## huntmore (Apr 15, 2011)

Atlas have you read the Bible (whole thing) or are you just taking parts out that you want to discuss/argue?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2011)

huntmore said:


> Atlas have you read the Bible (whole thing) or are you just taking parts out that you want to discuss/argue?



I haven't read it cover to cover but I'm pretty familiar with it. Grew up in church, home bible studies, used to believe and study on my own, etc. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all pastors so I was steeped in it. I'm still studying and learning, from secular sources now, because I find it interesting.


----------

