Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicPolls & Surveys · 1 decade ago

Christians if we all have the same "Bible" or Word Of God then why do we all interpret it differently?

Now Catholics (Roman and Orthodox Catholic) as well as Protestants ( Fundamentalist / Evangelical "Born Again", and Liberal/Mainline Protestants) all have the same "bible" or better yet Word Of God if you don't mind me saying so but yet we all interepret scriptures differently such as the Creation myth, or the Adam and Eve myth as well as say the concept of Original Sin for instance. Why is it that we all share the same Word Of God yet we all interpret it differently? Why is it that Catholics both Roman and Orthodox don't take everything literally while Fundamentalist / Evangelical "Born Again" Protestants do? Now I have no idea how Mainline/Liberal Protestants interpret scriptures but you guys can chime in as well and explain how you interpret scriptures as well. Thanks. I quote the word bible as I'm not too fond of that word as it's not a book but more like a collection of books.

Update:

Alright I posted in the wrong category give me a break folks. It's an honest mistake.

22 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Not only because we are all individuals with different opinions, but because the Bible isn't so straight forward. there are alot of metaphors and stories that have different meanings for everybody, but we should all just GET ALONG.)

    But even in the same groups, people take the Bible and make it into what it means to themselves. I guess everyone needs a personal relationship with God.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Marcia
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Basically because many practice eisegesis rather than exegesis. Others just want validation and not truth. Some look for justification for what they want to practice. They gather teachers who will tickle their ears. With still others, it is a matter of: "I never would have seen it if I hadn't believed it [already]!" Many teach doctrines which find support, not in scripture but, rather, in paganism. Still other professed Christians match the description found in Jesus' illustration at Matthew 13:24-43. This illustration is profound and its meaning is even more profound. Most people do not realize that Jesus prophesied long ago that there would be counterfeit Christians in among the true Christians. Have you ever seen a counterfeit bill? Amazingly, it looks like the real thing. Close examination, however, reveals its counterfeit characteristics. So it is with true Christianity. It ought to match what is found in the Bible. The Bible is the touchstone of Christianity and true Christianity is a pillar and support of the truth found in the Bible even as the apostle Paul told Timothy. And true Christians would speak in agreement, even as the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation. How can Christians be poles apart in teachings and behavior, disagree with each other, form literally thousands of denominations and yet be true followers of Christ? It is impossible. When you look for an explanation for all these denominations, look to the people who are in them, not the Bible. If they do not match the teachings, doctrines and conduct in God's word, how can they possibly practice the Christianity they profess? Hannah J Paul

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The Bible started as an oral story telling and wasn't written down for many years. Over the years, interpretations changed and people disagree over wording and how to take the 'histories' in the Bible...real? myth? fiction? fable?

    Think of the story Cinderella, and how many book, movie, and oral story telling versions there are. And Cinderella is not more than a few centuries old! If Cinderella can be changed and interpreted in so many different ways in the age of books, videos and computers, think of how much an important set of documents like the Bible can be altered, interpreted, translated to fit the needs of various cultures and societies...look at how many versions of Jesus we see...Black, Middle Eastern, Jewish, Nordic??

    We may never know what the TRUE version is supposed to be, or the true interpretation. But it's sad to see all the animosity over what is really a decent message throughout...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    one of the first things that raise confusion is that we are reading translations ys plural. it has ben translated so many time that certain passages have lost the origanal meaning and intent. one of the biggest is anything in thed old testiment that deals with time. rather it was hour day year decade etc it was all derived from the same word. that actually means period of time. in first translation the word changed a little and once retranslted to english went under another change. of course you also referanced on if we should take it to be literal or figertive in nature and that has created many divides as well. what you havent brought up is that different denominations follow different cannons which leads to farther issues. in the end i dont have the answer on who is right your heart will have to guide you on tha one but i was raised in a nondenominational bible church, and had strong ties in the baptist community so thats where i stay (though i feel im more open minded then others)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Sage
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Because it applies to different people and is inspired by God to be taken as need be. It is for guidance, correction and reproof. You, yourself may read it today and get one meaning and a year later read it again and see it from another point of view. It is not just written black and white....it is for all time and applies throughout the ages to different cultures and situations. How could it not be interperted differently?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.

    John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

    Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

    Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

    First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

    Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

    Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

    Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

    And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

    The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

    So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

    Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

    When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

    And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The message unfolds fo believers, as the Holy Spirit teaches us what we need to know!

    It is like poetry. The meaning is at many levels, depening on how you see it, and what you have experienced in this life.

    The same words speak to the new Christian, and the bible scholar, at different levels!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Esther
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I think that some people want to intrepret it their way, not God's way. There are lots of things I myself sometimes don't fully understand, but I ask God to help me understand what is the right way. That is how I do it..

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Mo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The truth hurts

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    people usually interpret things to fit the way that THEY want it to sound like

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.