Question For Non-catholics

[socalscout]

Please answer this question. Not with another question or another topic.

There are two people in a room each with a KJV Bible and they read the same verse from Scripture but each has a different interpretation.

Which one is right?

This is what I am curoius about. I really want to know who is right. I don't care if there are 30,000 Protestant churches or just 3. I want to know which one is right. In a one mile radius of my house there is the Assembly of Christ, Christ Community, Baptist, St. Gabriels(my parish), Holy Spirit(I think that is the name) and 1st Lutheran.

Excluding St. Gabriels, who would be the authority on Scripture? If you got all the pastors together and quote the same verses in Scripture who is correct?

To a thinking person this is a red flag. Either I am a simpleton or a genuis but this would raise serious questions. Why would they not be in union if this is the path that Christ has chosen for his Church? Have any of you thought about it?

[dUSt]

I have asked this very same question to many Protestants I've dialogued with, and have yet to receive an answer that makes sense to me.

I too am curious to know how this is explained.

Some of the answers that I have received in the past are:

"Whoever is guided by the Holy Spirit is correct."

"Whoever uses scripture in a way that doesn't contradict the rest of scripture is correct."

"The Holy Spirit allows us to interpret things differently as long as our basic beliefs are the same."

"They both are correct."

You've pinpointed the exact question that rattles in my brain every time I try to rationalize Protestantism.

[Jake Huether]

I have asked this very same question to many Protestants I've dialogued with, and have yet to receive an answer that makes sense to me.

I too am curious to know how this is explained.

Some of the answers that I have received in the past are:

"Whoever is guided by the Holy Spirit is correct."

"Whoever uses scripture in a way that doesn't contradict the rest of scripture is correct."

"The Holy Spirit allows us to interpret things differently as long as our basic beliefs are the same."

"They both are correct."

You've pinpointed the exact question that rattles in my brain every time I try to rationalize Protestantism.

ditto...

Interesting topic. Let's keep it at the top.

[Sojourner]

I have over the years struggled with answering this question ... long before I ever started thinking about Catholicism. I could never come up with a good answer myself, but I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say.

[Laudate_Dominum]

One common claim that many conservative, classic protestant types make is to assert the perspecuity of Scripture with regards to truths which are "essential" for salvation. The way this goes is that any literate joe off the street can pick up a bible and understand clearly the essential truths necessary for salvation. Protestants who hold to this tend to have strong tendencies of anti-historicism and anti-intellectualism making them pretty difficult to talk to on any reasonable level. What about all the different denominations and the fragmentation of protestantism? They would say that the different groups only differ in secondary matters not 'fundamental' or essential doctrines. That's funny since from the beginning protestants have disagreed on essential doctrines. Luther considered the Anabaptists and others (Zwingli) "damned" for some of their "bible based" doctrines, he came to this convinction through the clear testimony of Scripture. Who was correct? It seems pretty essential to salvation to me. What about the doctrines of justification, regeneration, sanctification, free-will, salvation, election, Atonement, predestination, perseverence, eternal security, original sin, the Eucharist, or Baptismal regeneration? These are pretty essential doctrines that protestants have never agreed upon. Or most ironically, the perspicuity of Scripture! Why don't the "Bible believers" agree on that? Is it not an essential doctrine? That sounds like a pretty confused religion that Christ established. And don't forget there are some pretty deviant "bible-only" christians out there. The whole history of protestantism is a testament against this lame theory, although I guess since they can conveniently be anti-historical it doesn't matter too much.

Edited January 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[NewReformation]

Depends on which person agrees with me!

Seriously, a proper interpretation depends on a few things:

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

A careful reading of the entire passage of scripture

An understanding of the time period in which this scripture was written

The ability to use a Strong's Concordance properly(you'd be surprised how easy it is to mess this one up)

There is more to be added to this list at a time when I haven't just woke up, but I'll work on it later...

[socalscout]

Depends on which person agrees with me!

Seriously, a proper interpretation depends on a few things:

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

A careful reading of the entire passage of scripture

An understanding of the time period in which this scripture was written

The ability to use a Strong's Concordance properly(you'd be surprised how easy it is to mess this one up)

There is more to be added to this list at a time when I haven't just woke up, but I'll work on it later...

When you come back then just assume that both, in my example, have met your criteria.

Who is right?

[phatcatholic]

pham,

check out the sola scriptura entry in the reference section. i feel like the whole doctrine is well refuted there. the articles i have collected show how sola scriptura is:

--logically impossible

--anti-biblical

--historically impossible

--against tradition/testimony of the Early Church Fathers

--does not work in practice

--no grounds for perspicuity

--catholic church determined the canon

--dubious historical development of SS

hopefully, you will find there all the info u need.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[NewReformation]

Hmmmm...Well, let's draw on a true-to-life example that I am first-hand familiar with.

Among Independent, Fundamental Baptists, there is a tendency to hold the belief that women should never wear pantaloons. Their proof verse for this is, I believe, Deuteronomy 22:5, where scripture states(I'm paraphrasing here because my Bible is in my car, and it's too cold to run out there): A woman shall not wear clothing that pertains to a man and a man shall not wear clothing that pertains to a woman.

Now, IFB's tend to be ignorant of this, but way back then, men and women's garments were very similar except for variations in ornamentation. Pretty much the same difference between men's and women's pantaloons. And back then, men and women both wore dresses(okay, okay, they were *robes*). The cultures surrounding the Hebrews practiced fertility rituals which consisted of men and women dressing in ceremonial garments of the opposite sex(transvestitism). It is most likely that this is what that particular passage is referring to. The favorite illustration of IFB's which they think proves their point that pantaloons are men's apparel is this:

When you go to a public place and need to use the restroom, on the restroom doors you will see symbols denoting either 'Men' or 'Women.' The symbol on the men's restroom is a stick man who is obviously wearing pantaloons(that or he's naked, I can't tell, the figure is all white). The symbol on the women's restroom is a woman wearing a dress. Therefore, since even the world recognizes that pant's are men's apparel and dresses are ladies apparel, women should only wear dresses.

Now, this conclusion which is drawn by the IFB's is highly erronious(sp?) and comes from a lack of understanding of the culture of that time period, and an apparent lack of understanding of this time period. But hey, we can't blame them, they just follow what their pastor says.

[socalscout]

Hmmmm...Well, let's draw on a true-to-life example that I am first-hand familiar with.

Among Independent, Fundamental Baptists, there is a tendency to hold the belief that women should never wear pantaloons. Their proof verse for this is, I believe, Deuteronomy 22:5, where scripture states(I'm paraphrasing here because my Bible is in my car, and it's too cold to run out there): A woman shall not wear clothing that pertains to a man and a man shall not wear clothing that pertains to a woman.

Now, IFB's tend to be ignorant of this, but way back then, men and women's garments were very similar except for variations in ornamentation. Pretty much the same difference between men's and women's pantaloons. And back then, men and women both wore dresses(okay, okay, they were *robes*). The cultures surrounding the Hebrews practiced fertility rituals which consisted of men and women dressing in ceremonial garments of the opposite sex(transvestitism). It is most likely that this is what that particular passage is referring to. The favorite illustration of IFB's which they think proves their point that pantaloons are men's apparel is this:

When you go to a public place and need to use the restroom, on the restroom doors you will see symbols denoting either 'Men' or 'Women.' The symbol on the men's restroom is a stick man who is obviously wearing pantaloons(that or he's naked, I can't tell, the figure is all white). The symbol on the women's restroom is a woman wearing a dress. Therefore, since even the world recognizes that pant's are men's apparel and dresses are ladies apparel, women should only wear dresses.

Now, this conclusion which is drawn by the IFB's is highly erronious(sp?) and comes from a lack of understanding of the culture of that time period, and an apparent lack of understanding of this time period. But hey, we can't blame them, they just follow what their pastor says.

That may be a good example using history but let us refer to the New Testament.

How about Revelations? Who is right about that book?

[Aloysius]

That may be a good example using history but let us refer to the New Testament.

How about Revelations? Who is right about that book?

just to play devils advocate... what if they said "no one, for no one will know until it actually happens"

let's take Romans.... lol who's right about Romans?

[socalscout]

just to play devils advocate... what if they said "no one, for no one will know until it actually happens"

let's take Romans.... lol  who's right about Romans?

:D

Whatever works I really did not want to quote Scripture but find out the logic for having two separate opinions about the same verses.

Edited January 26, 2004 by socalscout

[Dave]

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

But Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. And the Aramaic was later translated into Greek. So what good would having a working knowledge of the English language do anyone if the Bible wasn't originally written in English or if Jesus and the apostles didn't speak it?

[Jake Huether]

Bump.

C'mon Non-Catholic friends. What say you??

[Bruce S]

I'm with YOUR position on the End Times.

It is going to happen, that is sure, the WORD said so.

But worry about when, looking for "signs" is FORBIDDEN.

Worry about your own "End Times" ... THAT is most definately predictable.

[Jake Huether]

I'm with YOUR position on the End Times.

It is going to happen, that is sure, the WORD said so.

But worry about when, looking for "signs" is FORBIDDEN.

Worry about your own "End Times" ... THAT is most definately predictable.

:scratch:

[Bruce S]

There are two people in a room each with a KJV Bible and they read the same verse from Scripture but each has a different interpretation.

Which one is right?

Jewish thinking cap on here, you really CAN learn from those Rabbi's, even the ones that reject Christ.

They think that NO ONE IS RIGHT, EVER. The "Word" is there, but every passage has FOUR levels of understanding, yes FOUR.

1: The obvious one.

2: The linked to other themes one.

3: The allusion that it might make.

4: The truth that is REALLY there.

Level four is where you want to go, and all four levels are there, by design, by God to make you THINK, ponder, wonder, research, and debate.

God WANTS you to struggle, he wants YOU to get into His word.

As you THINK "you understand" you find out MORE questions, then you come to a new understanding, then you find out there is MORE....

Ah, that is something we all could use more of.

After all, the very name that GOD gave Jacob after his wresting match at Peniel was IS-Ra-EL.

Meaning... "One who struggles/fights/wrestles with God"

God loves the struggle, otherwise He would have picked a different name for HIS PEOPLE, all of HIS people.

Which one is "Right?" God knows, we never really will. We just do the best we can.

Edited January 27, 2004 by Bruce S

[cmotherofpirl]

Bruce all Scripture has many layers, that is why private interpretation is a failure.

[Bruce S]

Bruce all Scripture has many layers, that is why private interpretation is a failure.

Ah. My point exactly.

Where that ultimately lead, and DID LEAD, was in the Catholic Church forbidding individuals from even reading the Bible, THEY WOULD DO IT FOR YOU.

Private "interpretation" is just OPINION. Everyone, including YOUR denomination, interprets, it is GOOD, but it is just that, a best guess interpretation, and to prove that, it is VOTED on after massive squabbles.

Majority vote wins.

Now, tell me that is how God wants things? We VOTE on what he said? Nah...

We dig in ... everyone, church, theologians, individuals, get out Greek Lexicons, concordance's, commentaries.

THAT is what God wants, total immersion in HIS WORD, and a struggle to comprehend it.

It is the STRUGGLE He loves. If you sit on your behind with the CCC giving you every answer, you don't immerse, you submerse.

[Aloysius]

you contradict yourself... aren't even the uneducated simpletons sposedta be able to understand God's message? the little children? but you say only the Bible Scholars can... well we have a solution that doesn't rely so much on human intellect, we say that the Church, yes through votes or whatever kind of disfunctional family squabble we get into, will always do God's will in interpretting scripture because He protects it.

the Church forbade its members from reading ERRONEOUS TRANSLATIONS of the Bible circulating around the time of the reformers... they mighta caught a "faith alone" where ML added the alone... or somethin like that, and been screwed up and schismatic. we wanted our ppl to read the true Holy Bible, and the only way for that was to just go to mass because the printing press was not makin the correct translations.

it's amazing that YOU, BRUCE S, after 2000 years of us doin it that way, have finally discovered that God doesn't want us to do it that way, He wants us to get out Greek Lexicons which were never available to the faithful before, He wants us to get all the commentaries of ppl who are also only scholars...

yeah, if you call us Pharisees, i'll call you greek, cause you think human knowledge is the best way, the way God wants, for us to interpret His Message to us. yeah... the light of human reason is but a lil flashlight, and it's batteries are the Holy Spirit, and it's recharge center is the Church. :cool: