Interpretation, translation, application

[lighthousejohn]

I have read many posts on this site that causes me to wonder if some of us are missing something, the proper interpretation of scripture. I believe that the Bible is the wholly and holy inspired word of God. I further believe that the Holy Spirit placed the scriptures into the hearts of men.It is for this reason that I also believe that there is only one interpretation of scripture and that is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit intended.

Man has tried and continues to try to interpret the scriptures and the outcome often depends on whether or not he had an agenda to promote when he began his translation. I have seen many translations that were denominational and some that were for a particular church. Translation can be accomplished by any group of people that have a knowledge of Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. An examination of ancient texts reveals the sources for their translations.

God uses the Holy Spirit for the application of scripture to our daily lives. In so doing, He will reveal His truth to us as we are equipped to handle it. When I was a child, God applied a particular scripture to my life in a particular manner. Now as I have gotten older,the Holy Spirit applies the same scripture in a different deeper manner. The scripture did not change, I did and the Holy Spirit knew that as I matured in Christ, He could give me a deeper understanding of the same scripture He had used on me as a child.

We should not confuse interpretation with application. Jesus tells us in John 16:13 "13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." Let us all seek the truth from the Holy spirit and not lean on our own understanding or the traditions of denominational dogma.

 

[MahogonySnail]

There is freedom to take a scripture out of context or using its altered meaning for the purpose of proving another point. Jesus and Paul did it all the time by taking their literal meaning at the time and applying it to their present day situation. Christians have always done this, eg the king of tyre and satan, David and Christ, etc. Paul even did this with the writings of philosophers to prove his point about God and Christ (such as when Paul went to Athens).

 

[Nuhen]

There's a difference between taking Scripture out of context and applying it to all times (the latter of which is what Yeshua and Paul did).

 

[MahogonySnail]

And by doing so took it out of context and the author's original intent . The prophets didn't know they were writings about Jesus Christ , or about satan when they wrote about the king of Tyre . The reason why many pharisees missed Jesus being the Christ was because they held to a too rigid interpretation of scripture.

 

[Nuhen]

And by doing so took it out of context and the author's original intent .

The author is G-d, and His intent with Scripture has always been for it to be eternally existing and eternally applicable.

The prophets didn't know they were writings about Jesus Christ , or about satan when they wrote about the king of Tyre

Can you prove that?

 

[MahogonySnail]

The author is G-d, and His intent with Scripture has always been for it to be eternally existing and eternally applicable.

But in multiple contexts. That's why you're following it even though you aren't an Israelite living in the time of Moses.

Can you prove that?

a) There's no one called Jesus Christ in the old testament.

b) 1 Peter says the prophets did not fully understand the prophecies they were given:

1Pe 1:10 About which salvation the prophets sought out and searched out, prophesying concerning the grace for you;
1Pe 1:11 searching for what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ made clear within them, testifying beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 To them it was revealed that not to themselves, but to us, they ministered the things which are now reported to you by those who have preached the gospel to you in the Holy Spirit sent from Heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


c) When Christ came no one expected him to come in the way and form and from the place that He did. That he was the Christ was only determined by searching the prophecies in hindsight. And even then, although many Jews knew the scriptures inside out, even then they did not accept that he was the Christ.

 

[Nuhen]

a) There's no one called Jesus Christ in the old testament.

That doesn't prove the prophets didn't know they were talking about Satan when they mentioned the King of Tyre (which they weren't, btw) or Yeshua.

b) 1 Peter says the prophets did not fully understand the prophecies they were given:

1Pe 1:10 About which salvation the prophets sought out and searched out, prophesying concerning the grace for you;
1Pe 1:11 searching for what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ made clear within them, testifying beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 To them it was revealed that not to themselves, but to us, they ministered the things which are now reported to you by those who have preached the gospel to you in the Holy Spirit sent from Heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

I think you misinterpreted this verse. Read it again, including in other translations if necessary. It's not saying they didn't understand, it's saying that it was revealed that they were not ministering for themselves, but for us (the people who were to come after them).

c) When Christ came no one expected him to come in the way and form and from the place that He did. That he was the Christ was only determined by searching the prophecies in hindsight. And even then, although many Jews knew the scriptures inside out, even then they did not accept that he was the Christ.

That's because Yeshua did NOT fulfill all the prophecies while he was on earth. There are still unfulfilled prophecies that he will fulfill on his second coming, but the concept of a second coming was not something the people of the time understood. They thought the Deliverer, the Messiah, would fulfill ALL the prophecies while on earth.

 

[MahogonySnail]

That doesn't prove the prophets didn't know they were talking about Satan when they mentioned the King of Tyre (which they weren't, btw) or Yeshua.

If they knew who they were talking about they would have put footnotes or brackets. They were merely communicating the message they were given from God. And that message was not in detail - as is the nature of prophecy.

I think you misinterpreted this verse. Read it again, including in other translations if necessary. It's not saying they didn't understand, it's saying that it was revealed that they were not ministering for themselves, but for us (the people who were to come after them).

Every biblical resouce I have read about this says it implies the prophets did not fully understand. This fits perfectly with what Paul said about seeing and knowing in part (1 Corinthians).

That's because Yeshua did NOT fulfill all the prophecies while he was on earth. There are still unfulfilled prophecies that he will fulfill on his second coming, but the concept of a second coming was not something the people of the time understood. They thought the Deliverer, the Messiah, would fulfill ALL the prophecies while on earth.

They also expected the Messiah to come with an army and overthrow the then occupying Romans. They also expected him to come from Bethlehem. The reason why they missed Him is because the scripture doesn't really talk about him in great detail. The old testament is filled with obscure and veiled meanings, that speak of someone, "God's servant", but don't describe the exact nature of this servant. In many ways it can apply to both Saul, David and Christ, all at the same time. If you lived in the time of the old testament you'd probably think it referred to David.

 

[MahogonySnail]

The Jews have (or had) a saying:

"that they prophesied, and knew not what they prophesied of; "

T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 119. 2.


Christ Himself said the prophets didnt see:

Mat 13:17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them.

 

[Nuhen]

If they knew who they were talking about they would have put footnotes or brackets.

Unless G-d didn't want them to put footnotes or brackets.

Every biblical resouce I have read about this says it implies the prophets did not fully understand. This fits perfectly with what Paul said about seeing and knowing in part (1 Corinthians).

Then stop reading the biblical resources and just read the verse.

They also expected the Messiah to come with an army and overthrow the then occupying Romans. They also expected him to come from Bethlehem. The reason why they missed Him is because the scripture doesn't really talk about him in great detail. The old testament is filled with obscure and veiled meanings, that speak of someone, "God's servant", but don't describe the exact nature of this servant. In many ways it can apply to both Saul, David and Christ, all at the same time. If you lived in the time of the old testament you'd probably think it referred to David.

1) That's because one of the prophecies is that he will come with an army from heaven and defeat the ruler of the world at the time, the antichrist and his armies. Again, since there's no concept of the messiah coming twice in Judaism, this was seen as a modern prophecy. If Yeshua is the Messiah, he would overthrow the Romans with an army from heaven.

2) He did come from Bethlehem.

3) You're right, because David DID fulfill a lot of Messianic prophecies.

 

[Nuhen]

The Jews have (or had) a saying:

"that they prophesied, and knew not what they prophesied of; "

T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 119. 2.


Christ Himself said the prophets didnt see:

Mat 13:17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them.

1) I'm going to go with "had" on that one, since I've not ever heard it.

2) He said MANY prophets, not THE prophets. "Many" means SOME, not ALL.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Unless G-d didn't want them to put footnotes or brackets.

IF so, because God didn't want the full meaning revealed at the time.

Then stop reading the biblical resources and just read the verse.

Of course, self-interpretation will always give reliable results, rather than consulting the writings of experts .

1) That's because one of the prophecies is that he will come with an army from heaven and defeat the ruler of the world at the time, the antichrist and his armies. Again, since there's no concept of the messiah coming twice in Judaism, this was seen as a modern prophecy. If Yeshua is the Messiah, he would overthrow the Romans with an army from heaven.

And we know that's never going to literally happen, because it is all metaphorical and symbolic. And as history proves, it never did happen.

2) He did come from Bethlehem.

No he was born there but didn't come from there. Mary's water broke while they were on a trip for some census remember. His hometown was Nazareth.

3) You're right, because David DID fulfill a lot of Messianic prophecies.

And there lies the confusion. The same prophecy applied in multiple contexts. David or Christ? Which one?

1) I'm going to go with "had" on that one, since I've not ever heard it.

16th centuary or prior.

2) He said MANY prophets, not THE prophets. "Many" means SOME, not ALL.

Still it proves that even prophets and righteous men weren't in the right place and right time to fully understand what would occur.

 

[Nuhen]

IF so, because God didn't want the full meaning revealed at the time.

To the people, maybe not, but that still doesn't mean the prophets didn't know it.

Of course, self-interpretation will always give reliable results, rather than consulting the writings of experts .

The only difference between relying on your own self-interpretation and relying on an expert is that you are relying on THEIR self-interpretation.

And we know that's never going to literally happen, because it is all metaphorical and symbolic. And as history proves, it never did happen.

Well, G-d did bring down the Romans, but not with the Messiah. As far as that not ever happening, I actually believe it will at the end of time.

No he was born there but didn't come from there. Mary's water broke while they were on a trip for some census remember. His hometown was Nazareth.

But he was born in Bethlehem. That's what the prophecy the people believed in said. They didn't believe he would come FROM Bethlehem, but that he would be born there.

And there lies the confusion. The same prophecy applied in multiple contexts. David or Christ? Which one?

Well, David wasn't perfect and very few prophecies were actually fulfilled by him, so by the time he died the people knew he wasn't the Messiah.

Still it proves that even prophets and righteous men weren't in the right place and right time to fully understand what would occur.

But it doesn't say that the prophets didn't fully understand, which is what you tried to say.

 

[MahogonySnail]

To the people, maybe not, but that still doesn't mean the prophets didn't know it.

They saw and knew in part. They weren't all knowing beings or experts in prophetic interpretation, they were God's mouthpieces.

The only difference between relying on your own self-interpretation and relying on an expert is that you are relying on THEIR self-interpretation.

As the word "expert" implies, as formed by decades of study and their consultation of theological and historical resources.

Well, G-d did bring down the Romans, but not with the Messiah. As far as that not ever happening, I actually believe it will at the end of time.

umm..the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore.

But he was born in Bethlehem. That's what the prophecy the people believed in said. They didn't believe he would come FROM Bethlehem, but that he would be born there.

The text doesn't actually say he would be born in bethlehem, but that his family would originate from there, being David's place of origin. In fact even his disciples assumed he came from Nazareth:

Joh 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
and the Gospels are quite happy to promote the view that he came from Nazareth.

Well, David wasn't perfect and very few prophecies were actually fulfilled by him, so by the time he died the people knew he wasn't the Messiah.

So we've had a change in context over time.

But it doesn't say that the prophets didn't fully understand, which is what you tried to say.

It doesn't, but it's implied.Prophets are not fortune tellers with crystal balls who can see every detail. It's sort of saying, that until now, that everything has occurred and the apostles are privaledged to be part of it first hand, even the prophets would have wished and desired to see and experience the things you see and experience. ....that implies that the prophets did not.

 

[Nuhen]

They saw and knew in part. They weren't all knowing beings or experts in prophetic interpretation, they were God's mouthpieces.

Unless G-d gave them more information for their own understanding.

As the word "expert" implies, as formed by decades of study and their consultation of theological and historical resources.

Which is meaningless without the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. Besides, expert or not, they are just men who are given to their own bias and agenda. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

umm..the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore.

??? Where did I say it does? I'm not an idiot.

It doesn't, but it's implied.Prophets are not fortune tellers with crystal balls who can see every detail. It's sort of saying, that until now, that everything has occurred and the apostles are privaledged to be part of it first hand, even the prophets would have wished and desired to see and experience the things you see and experience. ....that implies that the prophets did not.

That may be the implication, but what it SAYS is entirely different. Implications are valid when you don't know what it's saying, but when it clearly says one thing but implies something different, the implication becomes invalid.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Unless G-d gave them more information for their own understanding.

Is there any evidence for this view? Granted, they were prophets and had greater spiritual insight than most. Still, they were human, and could only see what God revealed to them, and even then it was clouded in mystery. Why do you think the angel told Daniel to seal up the prophecy until the end? So that it would not be revealed. So it may be said , that in general the scriptures do not contain as much detail as what was given to the prophets eg Daniel or to us in the new testament. Still, not every prophet had such a vivid encounter with God as Daniel and others did.

Which is meaningless without the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. Besides, expert or not, they are just men who are given to their own bias and agenda. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

No offense, but a person who has studied these things for decades and knows greek and hebrew inside out and the benefit of access to knowledge and learning and peers should have a better idea than the average teenager I would think . That they have the Holy Spirit and follow Christ is a bonus and seals their credibility and truthfulness.

??? Where did I say it does? I'm not an idiot.

you said:

"As far as that not ever happening, I actually believe it will at the end of time. "

But he was born in Bethlehem. That's what the prophecy the people believed in said. They didn't believe he would come FROM Bethlehem, but that he would be born there.

Strictly speaking it says his family would originate from there i.e. his ancestors. Would you care to look at the Hebrew? Micah 5:2.

That may be the implication, but what it SAYS is entirely different. Implications are valid when you don't know what it's saying, but when it clearly says one thing but implies something different, the implication becomes invalid.

We still have the fact that the old testament scriptures, including the prophets, don't clearly spell out the coming of the Messiah, when, how or from where. Take Micah 5:2 for example. It talks about a "ruler of Israel". But we view Christ as more than that - the ruler of the world. So I don't agree with your view that it "clearly says" anything. Only in hindsight, and the fact that both you and I have been taught or read or perhaps even assumed that Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus Christ. David was born in Bethlehem too remember.

 

[Nuhen]

Is there any evidence for this view? Granted, they were prophets and had greater spiritual insight than most. Still, they were human, and could only see what God revealed to them, and even then it was clouded in mystery. Why do you think the angel told Daniel to seal up the prophecy until the end? So that it would not be revealed. So it may be said , that in general the scriptures do not contain as much detail as what was given to the prophets eg Daniel or to us in the new testament. Still, not every prophet had such a vivid encounter with God as Daniel and others did.

Can you prove that? Even in your example of Daniel, it seems to imply that he knew more than was being revealed to us.

No offense, but a person who has studied these things for decades and knows greek and hebrew inside out and the benefit of access to knowledge and learning and peers should have a better idea than the average teenager I would think . That they have the Holy Spirit and follow Christ is a bonus and seals their credibility and truthfulness.

Buuuut, they are still sinful, fallen men who have their own biases and agendas.

you said:

"As far as that not ever happening, I actually believe it will at the end of time. "

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about Yeshua returning with an army from heaven to throw down the ruler of the time, i.e. the antichrist and his armies.

Strictly speaking it says his family would originate from there i.e. his ancestors. Would you care to look at the Hebrew? Micah 5:2.

Actually, you're partially right. It doesn't say he'd originate from there, but that he'd "come forth" from there, which could mean ancestors, birth, or actually coming from Bethlehem like he came from Nazareth.

We still have the fact that the old testament scriptures, including the prophets, don't clearly spell out the coming of the Messiah, when, how or from where. Take Micah 5:2 for example. It talks about a "ruler of Israel". But we view Christ as more than that - the ruler of the world. So I don't agree with your view that it "clearly says" anything. Only in hindsight, and the fact that both you and I have been taught or read or perhaps even assumed that Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus Christ. David was born in Bethlehem too remember.

I was talking specifically about Matthew 13:17.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Can you prove that? Even in your example of Daniel, it seems to imply that he knew more than was being revealed to us.

No other prophet, as far as I remember, recalls such a vivid encounter with an angel who spells out to them in such detail the events, that they can't eat for a while and feel physically sick. I guess thats why we have major and minor prophets .

Buuuut, they are still sinful, fallen men who have their own biases and agendas.

whoa, if they're christian, they are not sinful or fallen, they are regenerated and Holy Ghost filled men of God.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about Yeshua returning with an army from heaven to throw down the ruler of the time, i.e. the antichrist and his armies.

So what scripture clearly identifies as being Romans, you have applied to this modern day. Yet another example of taking something out of context and reapplying it to something else. That's all I was getting at in my second post. I think the OP believes in a "one interpretation only" approach.

I was talking specifically about Matthew 13:17.

The theologian John Gill says:

have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. To see Christ in the flesh, and have a clearer insight into the knowledge of the mysteries of grace, were things very desirable to men of the highest class in church and state, and of the best characters, such as Abraham, Joh_8:56. Jacob, Gen_49:18. David, Psa_14:7. Solomon, and the church in his time, Son_8:1. Isaiah, and the saints with him, Isa_25:9 with many others. These indeed had a sight of Christ, but a very distant one; they saw him afar off in the promises and prophecies of him; and not very clearly, but through dark types and cloudy sacrifices; whereas the disciples saw him in person, heard him preach, took in the evidence of his miracles, and felt the power of his doctrines, and spiritually and savingly understood them. A way of speaking, somewhat like this, stands in the Talmud (p);
"Many have watched to expound in Mercavah (the beginning of Ezekiel's prophecy), ולא ראו אותה מימיהם, "and have not seen it all their days".''
(p) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 24. 2.


They had the general idea but they didn't have the details.

 

[Nuhen]

No other prophet, as far as I remember, recalls such a vivid encounter with an angel who spells out to them in such detail the events, that they can't eat for a while and feel physically sick. I guess thats why we have major and minor prophets .

What happened to "using the excuse that 'the bible doesn't say it' can be used to prove anything"?

Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

whoa, if they're christian, they are not sinful or fallen, they are regenerated and Holy Ghost filled men of God.

That may be true, but they still sin, which means they're sinful. They still have a sin nature, so they're still fallen.

So what scripture clearly identifies as being Romans, you have applied to this modern day. Yet another example of taking something out of context and reapplying it to something else.

Scripture doesn't say that the Messiah will defeat the Romans, that's the problem.

The theologian John Gill says:

have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. To see Christ in the flesh, and have a clearer insight into the knowledge of the mysteries of grace, were things very desirable to men of the highest class in church and state, and of the best characters, such as Abraham, Joh_8:56. Jacob, Gen_49:18. David, Psa_14:7. Solomon, and the church in his time, Son_8:1. Isaiah, and the saints with him, Isa_25:9 with many others. These indeed had a sight of Christ, but a very distant one; they saw him afar off in the promises and prophecies of him; and not very clearly, but through dark types and cloudy sacrifices; whereas the disciples saw him in person, heard him preach, took in the evidence of his miracles, and felt the power of his doctrines, and spiritually and savingly understood them. A way of speaking, somewhat like this, stands in the Talmud (p);
"Many have watched to expound in Mercavah (the beginning of Ezekiel's prophecy), ולא ראו אותה מימיהם, "and have not seen it all their days".''
(p) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 24. 2.


They had the general idea but they didn't have the details.[/quote]

Two questions about the bolded:

1) What is "Son 8:1" abbreviating? I thought Song of Solomon at first, but that's not it.
2) There was no church in the time of Solomon. -1 point in credibility

 

[MahogonySnail]

What happened to "using the excuse that 'the bible doesn't say it' can be used to prove anything"?

Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then your best proof is not sound biblical exegesis but rather, hope or wishful thinking.

That may be true, but they still sin, which means they're sinful. They still have a sin nature, so they're still fallen.

Having a sin nature does not mean they're fallen. It means they have the ability to fall.

Scripture doesn't say that the Messiah will defeat the Romans, that's the problem.

The best interpretations of Revelation point to the Roman Empire.

Two questions about the bolded:

1) What is "Son 8:1" abbreviating? I thought Song of Solomon at first, but that's not it.
2) There was no church in the time of Solomon. -1 point in credibility

Yep it's song of solomon. Reading Gills interpretation of that verse might help:

Son 8:1 O that thou wert as my brother,.... Or, "who will give thee as a brother to me?" (q) an usual form of wishing, Deu_5:29, Psa_14:7. The church here not only requests that Christ would be like a brother to her, but appear to be really one, and to act the part of one towards her; with whom she might as freely converse as brother and sister may. Several Jewish (r) writers own, that the King Messiah is intended here; and in such a relation Christ does stand to his church and people, by virtue of his incarnation, Heb_2:11; hence many of the ancients take this to be a wish of the Jewish church, for the coming of Christ in the flesh; and also through their adoption, he and they having one Father, Joh_20:17; and by being of a like nature, disposition, and practice, Mat_12:50; as well as on the score of love and friendship, Pro_18:24; and this relation Christ fills up, by the intimacy and familiarity he uses them with; by his compassion on them, and sympathy with them, in all their afflictions; by the help, aid, and relief, he gives them; by his condescension to their weaknesses, and by his great love and affection for them. As a further description of him as a brother, it is added,
that sucked the breasts of my mother; which may denote the truth and reality of Christ's incarnation, being a sucking infant: and the near relation of Christ to his people, being a brother by the mother's side, reckoned the nearest, and their affection to each other the strongest: by her "mother" may be meant Jerusalem above, the mother of us all; and, by her "breasts", the ordinances, of which Christ, as man, partook when on earth, and now may be said to suck, as formed in the hearts of his people;
when I should find thee without; or, "in the street" (s); in public ordinances, where Christ is to be found; or outside of Judea, in the Gentile world, where, after his coming in the flesh, his Gospel was preached, the ordinances administered, and he was there to be found; or in the most public place and manner, where she should not be ashamed to own him, his truths and ordinances, before men;
I would kiss thee; not only with a kiss of approbation, Pro_24:16; but of love and affection, of faith and confidence, of homage and subjection, of worship and adoration; see Psa_2:12; this is an usage with relations and friends, brothers and sisters, at meeting; hence Heunischius refers this to the time when the saints shall meet Christ in the clouds, who will be admitted to the nearest embraces of him, with unspeakable pleasure, and enjoy him to all eternity;
yea, I should not be despised; for taking such freedom with Christ, her brother. Or, "they would not despise me" (t); neither men nor angels, for such an action, and still less God, the Father, Son, and Spirit; which she might conclude from the relation between them, it being no more unseemly than for a sister to use such freedom with an own brother, even in the street; and from the reception she had reason to believe she should meet with from Christ: who would not turn away his face from her, when she offered to kiss him, which would occasion shame and blushing. The whole expresses her boldness in professing Christ, without fear or shame, in the most public manner.
(q)מי יתנך "quis det te?" Pagninus, Montanus, Marckius. (r) Targum in loc. Zohar in Gen. fol. 104. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 73. 3. Caphtor Uperah, fol. 5. 2. (s)בחוץ "in platen", Montanus, Brightman, Marckius; "in publico", Cocceius, Michaelis. (t)לא יבזי לי "non contemnent, vel contemnerent me", Montanus, Brightman, Marckius.





re: churches. you're splitting hairs. "the church in his time" means "the assembly" equivalent in Solomon's time. The guy lived in the 16 to 1700's so give him some slack.