Are there "wrong" interpretations of religious books? (Bible, Koran, Pentatuch)

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

Hi everyone! I'd like to discuss the topic of interpreting religious books like the Bible.

 

But, before i begin, i ask that responses be serious and stay on topic. I am not here to call out religions or judge others on their beliefs.

 

Everyone has their opinion when it comes to religion. However, one of the most argued points is about interpretation. It can be as simple as polygamy vs monogamy or as complicated as how far one must go to protect their faith.

 

Naturally, there are many interpretations that have yielded different results throughout history. However, a common saying about all those is "that was his interpretation" or his opinion. To that extent, people go under the impression that he is neither right nor wrong, but his opinion.

 

However, in my opinion, there must be someone who is "wrong". Who are these people? I believe they are those who go as far as genocide or isolationism of a race because of their "interpretation" or a religious book.

 

so id like to ask you all this: is there a point where someone's interpretation is "wrong" or no longer just an opinion? Or does the idea of opinion transcend right and wrong because it is a subjective idea?

[Bobsplosion]

Interpretation is subjective. To one person the blue curtains represent the character's inner turmoil and sadness. To others the curtains are blue.

 

Neither is "wrong."

[Ascent_]

When we talk about interpretation, we are talking about what someone understands given their experiences. Everyone has different experiences, so everyones opinion differs. The most important thing to note is that experiences, and therefore opinions, are dynamic. Problems occur when someones interpretation is SO rooted in one experience that they can turn a blind eye to all other opinions (not dynamic). I'd like to call this ignorance. I find it hard to call something "wrong" because of the relativity of the term. There is always a reason someone does something, whether it is dying or killing for their faith. I think what we face with many extremist groups is ignorance. This group mentality is contagious and very evident in recruitment. 

 

As defined, opinions don't need to be based on anything. This question can really boil down to whether the person reading your question believes in true evil, or the simple idea that we are all just animals. If they believe in evil, then interpretations can be wrong. If you're like me and see humans as the result of their human development, then anything can be justified.

[Heated Bread]

Some random thoughts:

 

If any interpretation is valid, then the text is effectively rendered meaningless. 

 

IMO, the right interpretation is whatever the original author(s) intended.  The trouble is that uncovering that intent is basically impossible. 

 

Some people argue that the correct way to interpret scriptures is to have the guidance of whatever divine being is supposed to have inspired/written/whatever those scriptures, but you'll still get hundreds of different interpretations from different people all claiming to have channeled that guidance. 

 

You can worship whatever you want in any way that you want.  That's your personal business and you have every right to it.  BUT, the moment you start trying to impose your interpretations and beliefs onto other people, you open yourself up to debate and criticism, since many of those interpretations and beliefs are going to have implications and impacts on people's lives.  So be prepared for that.  It's normal.  It happens within religions/sects and it happens in interactions with people outside of those religions/sects.

 

The trouble with all of this is that those disagreements can lead to actual conflict (aka "holy wars").  This isn't something that just happened during the crusades.  It's still going on in certain places of the world today.

 

If one is going to attempt at least some semblance of rationality, some interpretations are going to be so absurd that they have to be thrown out.

 

Arguing over interpretations is misguided IMO.  At some point, I think people owe it to their selves to admit that there's no way to know any of the stuff that they are claiming to know.

[t0night]

If any interpretation is valid, then the text is effectively rendered meaningless. 

 

IMO, the right interpretation is whatever the original author(s) intended.  The trouble is that uncovering that intent is basically impossible. 

i know he can't/won't read this but anyway it's an interesting starting point

 

if any interpretation is valid, then meaning is constructed at the level of the individual, it is multiplied, not destroyed.

 

is "any" interpretation valid? i would say that depends on what you mean by valid. instructive? responding to and describing essential truth(s) of human nature? reflective of authorial intent? useful to our lives? "true"?

[Ascent_]

Some random thoughts:

 

If any interpretation is valid, then the text is effectively rendered meaningless. 

 

IMO, the right interpretation is whatever the original author(s) intended.  The trouble is that uncovering that intent is basically impossible. 

 

 

To your first statement I would argue that just because every interpretation is valid, the text is not meaningless. The idea that people can converse/debate/argue about their interpretations leaves a lot of people to change how they feel about a text. If everyone acts on their interpretations (practicing religions, other stuff), then everyone's response is a result of the text (giving it meaning). A problem with labeling the right interpretation as the author's interpretation is that as you said it is impossible to find this correct interpretation. Another problem is, say a news site publishes an article condemning a company. If a reader reads the article and agrees with what the company did given the evidence that was provided, are they wrong? Again, I would have to argue that an interpretation is based on a person's cumulative experiences. These are out of the hands of the writer, so nobody has a place to deem a valid understanding. You cannot label something as right if there is no wrong. Everything is just.... valid to me.

[Heated Bread]

Everything is just.... valid to me.

 

If every interpretation is valid, then you're going to have to accept contradictory interpretations as being equally valid.  Holding every subjective interpretation as equally valid effectively renders the text objectively meaningless.  The trouble is that you're not dealing with art, you're dealing with religion.  While art is meant to be left open to interpretation for the enrichment/pleasure of viewers, religion deals in absolutes that people base their lives around.

[Python.]

You know when you're in Language Arts and you're determining what the author MAY have meant?

What the narration is, the tone, the symbolism, etc. It's all up to the reader

[Ascent_]

If every interpretation is valid, then you're going to have to accept contradictory interpretations as being equally valid.  Holding every subjective interpretation as equally valid effectively renders the text objectively meaningless.  The trouble is that you're not dealing with art, you're dealing with religion.  While art is meant to be left open to interpretation for the enrichment/pleasure of viewers, religion deals in absolutes that people base their lives around.

 

Holding every subjective interpretation as equally valid does not render the text objectively meaningless. When someone creates an opinion, they are using the facts that they have observed to make sense of an idea. If every interpretation is considered along with a persons reasons for it, then there can be a collective objective meaning. Objective just means that it is non-opinionated. The more people you can find, the more objective the meaning is. I don't really think objective is the word tbh as it implies factual evidence, of which we don't usually consider with religious documents. What we consider as support for these texts is either first hand observations of a phenomenon, or another persons observations. Both of these are subjective,

 

When religions deal with absolutes, they are usually very small or a part of a bigger religion. Any widespread text will have a mixture of reactions from a multitude of people. Using the art example, we have people that think a piece of art is great, people who hate it, and people that don't care. Considering people that like it, we have people that think the most prominent and powerful feature of the work is the palette, etc. . There are never enough absolute clauses to deal with all absolutes, so readers often have to interpret them (i.e is gay marriage against the bibles teachings?).

 

I may be rambling a bit, but this is definitely a thought provoking discussion.

[Heated Bread]

Holding every subjective interpretation as equally valid does not render the text objectively meaningless. When someone creates an opinion, they are using the facts that they have observed to make sense of an idea. If every interpretation is considered along with a persons reasons for it, then there can be a collective objective meaning. Objective just means that it is non-opinionated. The more people you can find, the more objective the meaning is. I don't really think objective is the word tbh as it implies factual evidence, of which we don't usually consider with religious documents. What we consider as support for these texts is either first hand observations of a phenomenon, or another persons observations. Both of these are subjective,

 

When religions deal with absolutes, they are usually very small or a part of a bigger religion. Any widespread text will have a mixture of reactions from a multitude of people. Using the art example, we have people that think a piece of art is great, people who hate it, and people that don't care. Considering people that like it, we have people that think the most prominent and powerful feature of the work is the palette, etc. . There are never enough absolute clauses to deal with all absolutes, so readers often have to interpret them (i.e is gay marriage against the bibles teachings?).

 

I may be rambling a bit, but this is definitely a thought provoking discussion.

 

You are not understanding the issue I'm trying to point out.

 

"The bible is the absolute word of god" is not a subjective opinion.  It's a claim about the bible's objective nature outside of any subjective views.  When you say that every subjective interpretation is equally valid, you are throwing away that claim about the objective truth of the bible.  You can't have both.  As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  This same claim is made of the qur'an.  It is said to be the perfect word of allah.  That's a claim about the objective nature of the qur'an.  This means that there is a correct interpretation, and you must align your subjective interpretation with the correct one, because it is the will of allah that you interpret it correctly so you can follow it correctly.  Likewise, since the bible is claimed to be the divinely inspired word of god, you must correctly interpret it so that you can fall in line with the will of god.

 

This is the nature of these religions.  Each one claims to have the correct holy book and each sect claims to have the correct interpretation.  There is a reason why they claim to be correct.  It's because there's no point in changing your life in accordance with any religion if every interpretation is equally valid.  It descends into nonsense.  The appeal of religion is the offer of a revelation and connection with some kind of fundamental truth, but if everyone is correct at the same time, then nobody has the fundamental truth and religion loses its meaning and purpose.

[Ascent_]

I agree with a lot of the things you are saying. People do come at the bible seeking fact. The problem with this is that every absolute interpreted from something like the bible is a subjective view. I am trying to analyze the situation as a third party who distances themselves from both the god and the reader. When only the text and readers are considered, any interpretation can be valid. By valid I do not mean true, as that would imply absolute truth or intended interpretation. Being valid just means that there is a basis for the interpretation, which I believe any interpretation has. I would have to agree though that when we talk about correctness we do have some intended interpretation, which would be the will of whoever wrote the book. I am still not sure whether I would call some interpretation wrong though, as a wrong interpretation indicates a non-factual basis. To me an interpretation is some understanding of the text. When taking an isolated approach, I cannot deem any interpretation as "wrong" as they are all rooted in some fact which is the statement or statements made in a text. I can see how someone who has created a subjective interpretation and deemed it the absolute word of god can say that there is but a single correct interpretation. I guess I am trying to say that if the dude that wrote some religious text came out and said what he meant, then I would agree that we can use correctness and incorrectness. I am coming at the problem from the stance that everyone has a reason for their interpretation. The OP specifically talked about people committing genocide and isolationism, so I my first reaction was to try and humanize them. As humans, we have no basis to deem each other's religious interpretation as wrong because no direct contact can be made between whatever divine thing instructed the writings of it and EVERYONE. Again, probably rambling a bit but I kinda see where you are coming from and I agree with a lot of what you have said. I am trying to use a non objective approach because we can never be truly objective with these texts. The initial post seemed to be a question of whether some extremists are justified in what they are doing, and I think that as terrible as their justifications are, we cannot really call them wrong. 

[Explosion-chan]

Interpretation is subjective. To one person the blue curtains represent the character's inner turmoil and sadness. To others the curtains are blue.

 

Neither is "wrong."

But there is a point when someone says red is blue. That's wrong

[Bobsplosion]

But there is a point when someone says red is blue. That's wrong

Red isn't blue, but maybe by whatever the hell the story is about the author is conveying blue by showing red.