I'm glad you mentioned this. In the NT, the word "interpretation" virtually always means from one language to another. And in the NT, such usages are always literal:
Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Joh 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
Ac 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Ac 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
And so forth.
As a professional in languages who has often interpreted (spoken as opposed to translation in modern terminology, which is written), when interpreting from one language to another, the interpreter is obliged to transfer the meaning of the original speaker as closely as he can. An interpreter who adds his own words soon gets fired.
True story: the widow of a missionary to Japan wanted to keep her husband's work alive without being the preacher herself. She found a young man still in language school to be the preacher, and she "interpreted" his messages. That is, she did until he actually learned Japanese well enough and found out she was not interpreting but preaching her own message. He quit as her flunky immediately--fired her, in other words.
There was recently a case in Milwaukee of a woman who claimed she knew sign language, and was hired to interpret. As it turned out, she knew no sign language and was making up her own signs. She was immediately fired.
We don't have the liberty of adding our own thoughts to Scripture. It is vital that we take what the Word of God says, and get as close to the original meaning as we can.
Basics of Bible Interpretation
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by rlvaughn, Jul 16, 2018.
Page 2 of 6
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As for "God-guided versus humanly-inspired", that depends on your understanding of the nature of language. Vern Poythress has an excellent theology of language, In the Beginning Was the Word, in which he points out that the Trinity communicates within the three persons, giving us a basis for human communication.
Now, if you say that somehow you have a meaning of the Biblical text that is not based on the actual syntax and semantics, you have wrong interpretation, no matter how much you insist that the Holy Spirit is guiding you. In other words, if you come up with some interpretation that no one else can see, that is a wrong interpretation. The Holy Spirit guides through syntax and semantics. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And I responded that your verse had nothing to prove your assertion.
That is what the "No" is for. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And no, I won't forget Poythress. It's a really great book for the subject we are on. I recommend that you read it--it would help you greatly in understanding the nature of language.
And I did not get at all from your posts that you were working on the "overuse of literal interpretation." You simply mentioned it along with a parallel phrase on the overuse of metaphorical interpretation.
And what verse are you talking about anyway? Please be more clear.
Unlike you in this case, God communicates clearly. Here is an awesome quote from The Gospel Developed, by W. B. Johnson (1846): "For if God is pleased to make a communication to us in human language, we will be able so to understand it as to know what is required at our hands, or the communication would be of no avail." (From Polity, ed. by Mark Dever, p. 230). -
This is the “bristling” verse.
I believe you are bringing the term LITERAL into the meaning or interpretation of the verse when it is not needed.
Rob -
The verse is saying "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own pronouncement." If I say that "cow" means "horse" and nobody else sees it that way, and the grammar and syntax of the language doesn't support my interpretation, then I am relying on a false "my only" understanding. And the reason for "cow" not meaning "horse" is that a literal "cow" is not a horse. A literal "cow" is a cow. :) -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Unclear? I just thought you would remember your own verse. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I am not talking about your cow = unicorn silliness. I am referring to your belittling something you apparently you should have understood better, you being a reverend and all. -
Is it just me or did Mark make a humerus allusion to ἴδιος by using the word "idotic" which comes from ἴδιος?
I thought it was funny. Tom, did you miss the joke, or am I imagining things? -
Covenanter Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
No, we didn't miss the joke, but while you are dodging the unicorn's horn, beware of the kick from its hind legs. -
knowing this first,
that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,I don't see this as a passage that describes how we interpret Scripture, rather as where Scripture draws its authority.
for prophecy never came by the will of man,
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20–21
Rob -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
It's clearly a logical progression: God gave the Scripture, the prophecy, so don't interpret it on your own, but discern what God meant. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Page 2 of 6