[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

I read the Bible literally as it was intended to be read.

How do you know it was intended to be read literally throughout? When numerous parts conflict with each other, then there comes a question as to whether each part was meant to be interpreted the same way. One assumes they are meant to be interpreted the same way but since the bible is so subjective, it does not necessarily have to be interpreted literally.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Regardless, it matters what the Bible says, not what my interpretation of it is. If you read where an Author of a science book wrote, "The Earth has gravity." Then after reading this you came to me and said, "Did you know the Earth has gravity?" If I responded, "That's only your interpretation of the Authors words, I believe the author meant the Earth has no gravity whatsoever." Therefore, by our own interpretations we come to conflict.

The difference is though that the author writing the thing about gravity has support for what they say, and so it's not completely faith-based as it is with the bible.

Originally Posted by Michael.

It does not matter what your interpretation is, it matters what the original Author intended by it's context and many theologians and historians have gathered complex materials and studied these subject to find out what these passages mean.

How do you know what the original author intended it to be interpreted as? Theologians and historian scholars interpret it their ways but does that mean their way is what the author's way was? Not necessarily.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Therefore, you take the context, who it was written to, the gap in history, and find out what the AUTHOR INTENDED and NOT what your individual interpretation of something is.

The problem is that you can only determine what the passages mean to you. You cannot determine what the author's thoughts were without using your own interpretation. Thus, it is completely subjective. The same applies in sciences with regards to psychology. You can only objectively observe or measure behavior, you cannot objectively measure thoughts.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Another example, if my friend was working at a store and he messed up my order (or something) and I called him and idiot, perhaps if you were an onlooker you would assume I was being rude to him. However, my friend interprets the message differently, because he knows that I am simply messing around. Why is there a different in interpretation? Because he knows what the sender of the message intended.

He ASSUMES he knows what the sender intended based on his subjective interpretations. The best way he can truly know is to ask you (the sender) what you meant. Any other way is merely an attempt but will not allow him to know what you meant.

Originally Posted by Michael.

That's what important, not your own individual interpretation.

Huh? If I'm studying the bible, then my interpretation is not important? To me, it's pretty important because that's what my entire belief based on the bible will be centered around.

Originally Posted by Michael.

If you study hermeneutics you learn to read the Bible properly

You learn to read what the bible says but there's no "true interpretation" because you cannot ask the authors what they meant. Let's use your example: suppose I say you're a fool for dropping an egg on the floor. Using what you know of me through this thread, you won't know much. If we expand it to my previous account of YourNightmare, you may know a bit more but still not much. The point is, your interpretation may not be the same as what I intended it to be. Suppose I wrote down on paper "Michael., you're a fool" and suppose 1 person analyzed it. Now suppose 10 people analyzed it and if all 10 people in addition to the 1 person initially come to the same interpretation, does that mean their collective conclusion will state my intention when I wrote "Michael., you're a fool"? Not necessarily. The point of this is you cannot know what someone truly means through writing without consulting them and asking what they meant.

Originally Posted by Michael.

But considering I take the Bible literally and have read more on what the authors intended, I'd say it makes a substantial difference.

Did the authors write down and say explicity what they meant? Did they write "I/we meant..." or in similar terms? If they did no such thing, then all you have is your interpretation. You can base your interpretation or compare it to that of scholars but it's meaningless because you don't know if their interpreation is the correct one to begin with. You can take the bible literally but that doesn't mean you're correct no matter how much you compare it to the interpretation of others.

You may have more biblical, theological or historical knowledge and understanding regarding the bible and so you can have more in-depth intepretations, I have no disagreement with that. However, I disagree when you make the jump to say that since you have more knowledge and understanding, that your interpretation is correct because you do not know what the authors intended because they never told you or you never asked them and got an answer. Whether your interpretation has more weight than, say mine is irrelevant when it comes to deciding who is correct in their interpretation since you can have more details but you are just as likely to be wrong as I am.