patrick jane forums

Quote from: Lori Bolinger on January 10, 2019, 10:29:04 am

If there is only ONE God there can only be ONE interpretation that is correct, the key is all parties allowing the HS to interpret it for us, teaching us.

People "understand" things in different ways.
Some people find one thing more important, money e.g. , and others something else, e.g. fame...

In my opinion, as people are "different" they interpret things in different ways.
A lot of the sayings of Jesus in the New Testament have what I call a "poetic" value, just like some of the best music, so that different people can understand it in their own way.
A 5-year-old couldn't possibly understand religion as his parents could he?

That's besides that "words" aren't capable of describing the full truth.
If you take for example the description of a table, this can never become the table...

If you believe in a "Trinity", shouldn't you think that there would be 3 right interpretations?!?
Or am I trying to connect dots now that I shouldn't?

what it seems to me you are talking about is drawing from the word a truth that is relevant to the individual.  Of course this is true...but let's take the idea of money....One person who interprets it as we need more and more and more money is not interpreting the passage the same as the one who says we are to trust God for what He determines we need.  Which is right interpretation?  Where does scripture say that we need more and more and more money? 

Throughout the ages, men have used scripture to justify all kinds of evils.  For example, the KKK bases their beliefs on "scripture"...is that a correct interpretation?  When talking about interpretation, there can only be one valid understanding.  From the standpoint of what we can draw from a passage there can be many lessons.  For example the account of the Good Samaritan.  The man asks, who is my neighbor?  Now I may look at the account and see that the neighbor is even my enemy...you may look at the account and see that Love goes beyond a bandaid....both are right interpretations but different perspectives.  If however a third person interprets it as the religious leaders have a right to walk by someone in need, that is a wrong interpretation not just a different in perspective.

At least that is how I see it.