Doesn't anyone here recognize a distinction between reading and interpreting? — tim wood

The distinction is crucial in a child's early education. For many children there is a phase - sometimes prolonged - when they can read the words of a paragraph but not get the meaning of it. Getting from just reading the words to getting the meaning - we use the word 'Comprehension' in the schools I've been involved with - is a crucial step, and is tested by giving children a passage to read and then asking questions about its meaning.

Mercifully, those questions are sensible things like 'why did Suresh go back to the tennis court?' or 'How do you think Lakshmi was feeling?' rather than 'Does that mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son or just from the Father?'

Please see Bitter Crank and AndrewK (thank you, thank you) just above.

How do you understand the distinction between reading and interpretation, and how do think it is relevant to what I have said here? — Janus

My example of the kiss, above, conveys it. If you want, you can deconstruct a kiss until there's no such thing. After all, it's a matter of muscles, skin, sense of touch (at least), hormones and endorphins. By the time you're finished, everything that makes a kiss a kiss has been analyzed away - the people aren't a part of it. And this has its place, but it has nothing to do with understanding what a kiss is as a kiss, and is even destructive to that understanding. And to be sure, there is such a thing as a kiss, and analyzing it with the wrong tools for the wrong purpose is just applied ignorance

By reading, I understand the encounter with any text wherein you take in the words and cognize the meaning(s) of them taken severally and together. Clearly reading can potentially include a lot. When you've pretty much reasonably got it, then you comprehend the text. Interpreting text means getting something out that isn't in the exact words, but is demonstrably from the text. And there is interpretation that imposes meaning onto a text that never itself contained it.

Your replies to my repeated statements of the question of the OP have dismissed reading in favour of interpretation, as if it were interpretation "all the way down." So I find them irrelevant both because wrong and because not to the point here.

If for example you have a child, and he or she were to ask you what a kiss is, and you confined your answer to the neuro-electro-chemical physiology of the thing, then I think it fair to say you were both wrong (because there is no kiss at that level), and that you had completely missed the point.

Because no text is understood just by reading the words. — Agustino

So if I write "The cat is black and was a year old when she had kittens" you would not be able to understand it just by reading the text?

Of course your brain would understand it once it was processed. It means exactly what it says.

So when it says in the bible that "Mary was a virgin when she had a baby" your brain would process it and it too would mean exactly what it says.

So why should everything else be a mystery that has to be unraveled before it can be understood?

So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” — Matthew 13:35

parable; a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels

10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:
And he goes on to explain.

Keeping things in context helps understanding.

Jesus was talking about things that ordinary everyday people might not understand. Complicated explanations would not have worked so he used parables to place the ideas into to day to day situations that the people could relate to.

But did he ever transmit any super secret information through them? He used parables to make sure that nothing was hidden.

That's true, but by "insight" I was referring to something that is evoked or alluded to by a text, but would (mostly) not be propositionally stated. If I am reading and something like this happens it would be perfectly in accordance with ordinary usage to say "It was a revelation".

But "reading" then according to you just refers to the act of reading. That act obviously involves skills including knowing the conventional meanings of words. Of course the possession of such reading skills and the act of reading itself must precede any interpretation, but so what? I still don't see how that rather obvious and mundane fact has any bearing on what you seem to have been trying to argue.

So if I write "The cat is black and was a year old when she had kittens" you would not be able to understand it just by reading the text? — Sir2u

Of course you would know what those words mean (if you did). The revelatory aspect of texts which may be experienced in the (all the more so by informed) act of interpretation consists in gaining insight into what is intended by the text; into what it is, in an overall sense, trying to convey. That is why Agustino is right to say that one must know the whole Bible (or any allusive unified literary work that contains meaning beyond the merely so-called literal) to understand most fully any part of it.

Obviously you couldn't even get started if you did not know the meanings of the words (or in other words were not literate in the language the text was written in). So, your objection here seems trivial and ill-founded. Have you ever heard of hermeneutics?

Then the "walk humbly with God". Keep God company? What? I've never been sure exactly what that means. — Bitter Crank

I think you're being disingenuous if you claim not to know what that is intended to mean and instead offer such a flippant, obviously ridiculous, interpretation. You don't have to feel empathy with the sentiment to know that it is intended, and how it is conveyed by the words.

"Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Hosea said. — Bitter Crank

I don't know what that means either. Does God walk humbly and want me to do that too? I have never thought of the biblical version of God as particularly humble.

Disingenuity reigns...

Of course you would know what those words mean (if you did). The revelatory aspect of texts which may be experienced in the (all the more so by informed) act of interpretation consists in gaining insight into what is intended by the text; into what it is, in an overall sense, trying to convey. — Janus

So let's try something. interpret this for me. What is the special hidden meaning here

1 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

You don't have to feel empathy with the sentiment to know that it is intended, and how it is conveyed by the words. — Janus

That is so true, it means exactly what it says, "walk humbly with God"

I think you're being disingenuous if you claim not to know what that is intended to mean and instead offer such a flippant, obviously ridiculous, interpretation. You don't have to feel empathy with the sentiment to know that it is intended, and how it is conveyed by the words. — Janus

No, wasn't being disingenuous, flippant, ridiculous, or anything else. You tell me what you think it means.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0316.htm#29

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm#27

These passages from Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23 are pretty straightforward about Yom Kippur.

These passages from Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23 are pretty straightforward about Yom Kippur. — schopenhauer1

But the thing is mate that you and me just don't know how to interpret them. They are full of hidden meanings that god put there so that we poor humans can spend our whole lives trying to figure out what the hell they mean.

Of course you are right, they are pretty straight forward. There is absolutely no reason to think that there should be any meanings other than those that are clearly visible. And most of the bible is just like that plain and clear.

I suggest you give it up. I'm not arguing anything, I was asking what I thought was a simple question that would have a simple answer, and am astonished that you still haven't got it.

What's the question? It's in the OP and repeated a couple of times through the thread.

But wait, there's more!. What about how to APPLY the words to make it an everyday thing? So the "Oral Torah" (essentially, traditions surrounding the text) arose out of disagreements and ambiguities. See below:

The Mishna was a compendium of Pharisidic tradition of the "Oral" disputes as to how to interpret the law going back to disputes that started at least by 200s BCE, but written down around 190 CE:

MISHNA : Seven days before the Day of Atonement the high-priest is to be removed from his house to the Palhedrin Chamber (παρεδρων), and another high-priest is appointed to substitute him in case he become unfit for the service by becoming unclean. R. Jedudah says another wife is to be appointed for him also, in case his own wife dies, whereas it is said [Lev. xvii. 11], "and shall make atonement for himself and for his house"; "his house"--that is, his wife. But it was objected that in this manner there will be no end to the matter. (The other wife may die too.)

But wait! There's more! What about how to understand what the Mishnaic interpreters said. There was another layer of scholars that tried to properly understand the previous interpreters! This layer is called the Gemara.. AND there's two additions with variations in interpretations! There's a Jerusalem one finished in 400 CE and a Babylonian one finished in 500 CE!

GEMARA: We have learned in a Mishna (Tract Parah, III., 1): "Seven days before the red cow 1 was to be burned, the priest who had to perform this ceremony was removed from his house to the northeastern chamber of the Temple," etc. "Whence do we deduce this?" said R. Miniumi bar Helviah in the name of Mahassia b. Iddi, quoting R. Johanan: "It is written [Lev. viii. 34]: 'As they have done this day, so hath the Lord commanded to do farther, to make an atonement for you.' 'To do farther' signifies the red cow; 'to make an atonement for you', signifies the Day of Atonement." But perhaps it signifies the atonement of sacrifices generally? Could we know, in this case, which priest is going to perform the rite? How, then, could he be removed from his home? But perhaps other festivals are meant? We infer the removal seven days before one day from the removal, seven days (before) for the service of one day, 1 but not seven days (before) for a service of seven days [of the festivals of Passover and of Tabernacles]. Perhaps Pentecost, which also is only one day, is meant? Said R. Abba: "We infer a day of one bull and one ram (when one such is sacrificed) [as on the days of consecration], from a day of one bull and one ram, which is the offering for the Day of Atonement; but for Pentecost two rams are prescribed." Perhaps New Year's Day is meant (which is also only one day)? Said R. Abahu: "We may infer a day of the bull and the ram at the priest's own cost from a day when the priest must act likewise, and that is the Day of Atonement. But on the days of Pentecost and of New Year the bull and ram are at the public cost." R. Ashi, however, said: "We may infer a day on which the bull is a sin-offering, and the ram a burnt-offering (as on the day of consecration and on the Day of Atonement), but on New Year's Day and Pentecost both are burnt-offerings."

.....
MISHNA: During all the seven days he sprinkles the blood [of the daily offerings, to become practised], fumes the incense, trims the lamps, and offers the head and the leg. During all the other days, he sacrifices, if he chooses, since the high-priest offers the first portion as he prefers, and takes for his own use a portion of the first offering.

GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds so? Said R. Hisda: That is not in accordance with R. Aqiba. For R. Aqiba holds that when a clean man is sprinkled upon, he thereby becomes defiled. And since the high-priest was sprinkled upon all the seven days, how could he perform the service? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Num. xix. 19]: "And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean." Infer from this (since unclean is written, not him), that only an unclean person becomes clean; but if a clean person is sprinkled on, he becomes unclean. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. But the sages said: This only applies to things subject to defilement. Abayi, however, said: It may be said, the Mishna can be even in accordance with R. Aqiba; and the case is, the whole day he can perform the service, in the evening he bathes, and when the sun has set, he becomes clean.

But wait, there's more! The Geonim were a group of scholars in 600-1000 CE who made further interpretations of the Mishna/Gemara (Talmud).

But wait, there's more! The Rishonim, people like Maimonides, wrote books like the Mishneh Torah about the previous Talmud tracts and Geonim.. Etc. etc.

So if I write "The cat is black and was a year old when she had kittens" you would not be able to understand it just by reading the text? — Sir2u

No. I need to know, to begin with, which cat.

It means exactly what it says. — Sir2u

Not necessarily. The sentence may be code for something else for example.

So why should everything else be a mystery that has to be unraveled before it can be understood? — Sir2u

I've stated that it must be read in context, taking care to go back to the way it would have been understood in the Judaic culture in which it arose.

Keeping things in context helps understanding. — Sir2u

Ah yes, indeed. I've been saying this for awhile.

But did he ever transmit any super secret information through them? He used parables to make sure that nothing was hidden. — Sir2u

Yes, parables are indeed a way to communicate information that cannot be communicated otherwise. What's your point?

The Bible, on the other hand, is qualified as the “Word of God.” Now it’s a simple question: how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification?

Well he didn't sit down to write the words, and if it is revelation, what is/was/will be revealed is provided by the hands of the men who wrote these stories and their ability to convey that inspiration. To best of my knowledge none of it was written by women.

Where is the feminist interpretation of the bible?

It apparently was written by men, from a male pov and seems to be mostly about men. When women do show up they seem to be mostly portrayed as weak, evil or as chattel.

Bloody hell.

Does that mean that even the knowledgeable, the enlightened, the blessed ones don't agree on what religious texts mean. :s
That sounds just like a person that wants to keep his cushy job trying to convince everyone else that only he can do it because he is the only one that has been taught to read QBasic.

No. I need to know, to begin with, which cat. — Agustino

But that is only lack of data, not a way of interpretation.

Not necessarily. The sentence may be code for something else for example. — Agustino

Yes you are right, it could be talking about the color of the stool I just left in the bathroom.

Oh dear I have done it again. Talking in code is such a problem. I did not mean that I left an object used for sitting on in the bathroom, I meant the pooh.

Blimey I did it again, sorry. Let me explain. I went to the bathroom for a pooh, but not Winnie-the-Pooh, shit. No, shit is not used as an expletive there, I just stated what I did actually leave in the bathroom.

Oh, in case you are wondering what a bathroom is, it is a place where people go to get clean.

Wait a minute, if a bathroom is a place to get clean why did I take a crap there. Language is so complicated, I think I need an interpreter to help me get through my day.

Unless you are some sort of a pervert that gets off reading behind the text, between the lines or looking for hidden meanings in every sentence text usually means what it says and needs no further explanation.

You do not need to know which cat is black to understand the sentence. There is no hidden meaning nor is there any need to interpret it. People do not usually say things like "The cat is black" in the middle of a conversation unless they are actually talking about cats and this is what gives context to the words.

A person that suddenly burst out, or even a person walking along the street muttering "The cat is black" would usually be considered to have some sort of mental problem. What does that say about people that write books that say one thing and mean something different?

I've stated that it must be read in context, taking care to go back to the way it would have been understood in the Judaic culture in which it arose. — Agustino

Putting words into context and giving words other interpretations are not the same thing. And the people that wrote the bible would have known exactly what god and Jesus were saying. They must have written their exact words and both god and jesus must have been very careful about what they said because they wanted, needed people to understand and follow their way of thinking. So why should they include hidden meanings?

What's your point? — Agustino

A parable is not another hidden meaning and is not subject to interpretation, it is just a simpler explication of a topic so that simple people can understand.

But that is only lack of data, not a way of interpretation. — Sir2u

One cannot interpret or understand without context.

You do not need to know which cat is black to understand the sentence. — Sir2u

A sentence isn't some Platonic object that lives off in some separate realm and can be understood apart from its context. The meaning of a sentence is in the intention of its author. If a monkey typed that sentence, I'd tell you it means nothing, it's gibberish. If a secret agent typed that sentence, I may think it means something different than is at first apparent. Etc.

Meaning is context dependent, and interpretation aims at deciphering the intention of the author.

And the people that wrote the bible would have known exactly what god and Jesus were saying. — Sir2u

Nope, that's not actually the case. The Bible makes the opposite to be quite evident actually. For example:

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon’s house, appeared at the gate; and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Peter went down to the men and said, “Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?” They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.” So he invited them in and gave them lodging. — Acts 10:9-23

So again, your ignorance of the Bible only shows itself.

They must have written their exact words and both god and jesus must have been very careful about what they said because they wanted, needed people to understand and follow their way of thinking. So why should they include hidden meanings? — Sir2u

"Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!"

A parable is not another hidden meaning and is not subject to interpretation, it is just a simpler explication of a topic so that simple people can understand. — Sir2u

You have never heard of Kierkegaard's indirect communication? The point of parables is precisely that their meaning cannot be communicated otherwise, since it's not a matter of reason, but of direct perception and intuition, which requires to look and see via images as it were - to have a direct insight.

Nope, that's not actually the case. The Bible makes the opposite to be quite evident actually. For example:
balh, blah.
So again, your ignorance of the Bible only shows itself. — Agustino

How does this example prove anything? Did Peter not know what god was saying to him? Did he fail to understand that someone came to get him?
I honestly don't see how this is relevant to anything, please enlighten me.

You have never heard of Kierkegaard's indirect communication? — Agustino

Not even his followers agree with some of his ideas, maybe because he failed to write them clearly and wrote with hidden meanings included.

The point of parables is precisely that their meaning cannot be communicated otherwise, since it's not a matter of reason, but of direct perception and intuition, which requires to look and see via images as it were - to have a direct insight. — Agustino

Is that not the same thing I said?

"Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!" — Agustino

Are you saying that god is the kind of being that deliberately tries to confuse the people he wants to praise and adore him?

Did Peter not know what god was saying to him? — Sir2u

No, he did not know what God communicated to him through the vision he had. That's why he was perplexed.

Not even his followers agree with some of his ideas, maybe because he failed to write them clearly and wrote with hidden meanings included. — Sir2u

He is a philosopher, not a guru, so he doesn't have "followers".

Is that not the same thing I said? — Sir2u

No. You implied that parables are just a simple way to communicate something that would otherwise be very difficult to communicate and would require one to be very educated, etc.

Are you saying that god is the kind of being that deliberately tries to confuse the people he wants to praise and adore him? — Sir2u

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying that the text makes it clear that God isn't the kind of being that appears very clearly at the whims and wishes of people. He is a Hidden God.

The Divine speaks, we hear it, what's to interpret? But your view is that of the outsider. For the insider (the believer in the Divine Being) a second, third, or fourth look at the text is a friendly, cooperating-with-God project. Interpretation isn't an adversarial process. For the believer, there can't be a conclusion of "this doesn't mean anything". Rather, it's an attempt to obtain the full meaning. — Bitter Crank

Sharp! And interesting! Unless you object, I should like to call these successive "looks" dialogues-with-the-text (DT), partly because I take the efforts - the looks - to be both in good faith, and very much in the spirit of a dialogue.

Some questions emerge: If God has spoken (in the text - the claim, again), then what can possibly warrant moving to a DT to "reveal" a different meaning. By "different" I mean not-the-same; similar but not the same, just is not-the-same. You start with exactly the word of God (according to the claim) and move toward something that in respect of what it is is exactly not the word of God.

So I wonder how that works - my own thought and opinion being that it doesn't, that it constitutes a fraud that is only as well-intentioned as it is self-ignorant and unaware.

Now let's disregard - throw out - the claim. Let's suppose that the Bible is not (claimed) to be the word of God.

(We see here that the claim establishes a polarity that in itself obscures both the nature of and the path to, the Bible. The nature of that obscurity arises when such claims become entangled with claims of truth. The only way that I can see to clear that view is to rule out any notion of the truth of the claim. That is, the claim becomes the statement of the absolute presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. This formulation puts the claim beyond/outside the question of whether the claim is true or false. As an absolute presupposition, its sole function is to be (absolutely) presupposed; that is, to be taken as ground and bedrock for whatever can be erected on it. Or another way: it is not to be measured, rather it is that by which other things are measured.)

As ground/bedrock/foundation, the Bible transforms into something that is efficacious. But the underlying effect is to transform the Bible to a book of ideas. Ideas (for brevity's sake) are subject to and creatures of the agon, the agora, the contest in the marketplace. As such, they are indeed subject to, and properly subject to, interpretation, the contest going to the best interpretation.

The marketplace, then, establishes both the "meaning" and the value of the Bible. But clearly the marketplace is not the last, or only, or even best, criterion for establishing value. We arrive at a question, "What, exactly, is the standard by which to measure/establish the value of any interpretation of the Bible? Is there one, or many? Are they universal and necessary, or contingent?

A parable is not another hidden meaning and is not subject to interpretation, it is just a simpler explication of a topic so that simple people can understand. — Sir2u

No. You implied that parables are just a simple way to communicate something that would otherwise be very difficult to communicate — Agustino

The point of parables is precisely that their meaning cannot be communicated otherwise, since it's not a matter of reason, but of direct perception and intuition, — Agustino

Yes, parables are indeed a way to communicate information that cannot be communicated otherwise. — Agustino

So we do agree on what a parable is.

No, he did not know what God communicated to him through the vision he had. That's why he was perplexed. — Agustino

When I dream about someone I know telling me something, I understand what they are saying. Why I had the dream is another question entirely. Does the dream have a meaning is something else again. But I still understood the words that the person spoke.

If god did not bother to explain what the vision meant then how are mere mortals ever going to know. So basically I think what you mean when you say interpretation is guessing at or assigning other meanings which might not necessarily in line with gods words.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying that the text makes it clear that God isn't the kind of being that appears very clearly at the whims and wishes of people. He is a Hidden God. — Agustino

Apart from actually denying that you are saying something while doings so, which in itself is ridiculous, the rest of this is the same pitiful excuse so many use to make people do things. From politicians and preachers to parents and kids, it is always the same. "You don't know so I am right, listen to me"

I have asked you quite a few questions and for several explanations which you have failed to reply to, am I supposed to think that there is some unknowable message in you none replies or do you not think them worth replying to?

Does that mean that even the knowledgeable, the enlightened, the blessed ones don't agree on what religious texts mean. :s
That sounds just like a person that wants to keep his cushy job trying to convince everyone else that only he can do it because he is the only one that has been taught to read QBasic. — Sir2u

I think it shows the historical nature of the document and its evolution.

Historically, this just proves that the Bible and its interpretations have always been an evolving document. It was stitched together in steps most likely and redacted to a whole unit by the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly period c.400 BCE. Then even after this, how the nuances of ceremony, law, and custom, are to be followed exactly, and the precise meaning of the text itself was highly debatable. Was there ever a "pristine" way of understanding the text? Arguably, those rabbis would suggest that they were trying to nail this down, but clearly there was no way of knowing which tradition was absolutely correct. I believe it was mainly voted on majority opinion or the most respected scholar, or something of that nature.

I guess historically, if there was ever a case as to when the most "pristine" understanding of the Bible's text was had, it would be around the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly around 400s BCE. Ezra (and probably other scribes) were probably the final redactors and compilers of the traditions into a cohesive unit- probably in the attempt to reestablish a more or less Jewish theological state under Nehemiah (the Jewish governor sent to reestablish the district under Artaxerxes). I am sure with this, there was probably certain guidelines set down during Ezra's time, but then questions arose and different traditions or differing opinions came along, and then this evolved into more debates, and none of it was written down, so like a game of telephone it was always trying to get the interpretation right. Not only this, but new situations that were not thought of before arose and they had to be incorporated into the already existing interpretation, etc. etc. The point being it was probably never really pristine, even at its most pristine point but always evolutionary.

For some context you can read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly

I think it shows the historical nature of the document and its evolution. — schopenhauer1

I agree, and that is about all the modern bible is. A historically document that has been corrupted so that no one alive today can ever hope to interpret it because we have no idea what it was really like at the beginning or what it its real meaning or purpose was.

Any modern interpretation would be nothing more than speculation.

When I was younger, I read many of these histories of the bible's writers. But that was long ago. I found that even putting a lot of the bible into historical context, the known facts about history not the traditional history, much of it did not make a lot of sense. If you read it as it was then it was a just bunch of stories. You had to add to the reading to get it to make sense as something spiritual. Why should divinely inspired writing need to be added to or looked at from a different point of view for it to make sense?

In the bible Jesus talks in parables, some get explained but most don't.
If the purpose of jesus's teaching was to instruct the people why did he not explain them all? Surely if even the enlightened disciples needed an explanation of them it would serve a good purpose to explain them.
If the purpose was to make the people think, then any and every interpretation would be valid.
But if he was only telling stories then no interpretation is necessary.

I think the bible is a bunch of stories and that anyone that wants to try to INTERPRET them has some sort of self serving motive.

so that simple people can understand. — Sir2u

No.

When I dream about someone I know telling me something, I understand what they are saying. Why I had the dream is another question entirely. Does the dream have a meaning is something else again. But I still understood the words that the person spoke. — Sir2u

The dream itself contains the message.

I think what you mean when you say interpretation is guessing at or assigning other meanings which might not necessarily in line with gods words. — Sir2u

Nope.

Apart from actually denying that you are saying something while doings so, which in itself is ridiculous, the rest of this is the same pitiful excuse so many use to make people do things. From politicians and preachers to parents and kids, it is always the same. "You don't know so I am right, listen to me" — Sir2u

I haven't actually said that, I merely drew your attention to the fact that the Bible itself doesn't paint the picture of God that you have in your mind for the purposes of this conversation. This isn't about me or listening to me, it's about reading the Bible.

I have asked you quite a few questions and for several explanations which you have failed to reply to, am I supposed to think that there is some unknowable message in you none replies or do you not think them worth replying to? — Sir2u

I fail to see the questions that I failed to reply. I've replied to everything it seems to me. Is there some unknowable message? I'm not sure what you mean, and why you brought unknowable messages in the discussion in the first place.

In the bible Jesus talks in parables, some get explained but most don't. — Sir2u

Oh yeah, you're actually expected to think for yourself and relate it to your own experiences, wow, who would ever do that! You should get a room for yourself and put a sticker on the door reading "kids only" :-}

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. — 1 Corinthians 13:11