The power INTERPRETATION

Terry

Jehovah's Witnesses think they possess the Truth.

This Truth is defined as the accurate knowledge of the Bible.

The Bible is asserted to be the will of the Supreme and Soverign god, Jehovah.

In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses are not dealing with God or the Bible.

They are dealing with INTERPRETATION.

The Bible is unable to "say" anything. This is largely because there are no definitions of words used which have actual referents.

When I say "rain" I can point to the water falling from the clouds. But, when I say "spirit" or "righteousness" I can only point to words on a page.

The power of INTERPRETATION is connected to AUTHORITY.

Who gets to interpret? The one AUTHORIZED.

It comes from some person or group asserting that THEY ALONE know a mystery you cannot know without them telling you.

It is an ancient form of Con Game. Interpretation.

I know what is going to happen. If YOU want to know ask me. I won't tell you unless you pay me or do X for me.

How do I know? (Fill in a bullshit process here).

1.Tea leaves

2.Casting dice (Urim and Thummim)

3.Reading livers

4.Feeling bumps on your head.

5.Reading your palm

6.Watching the flight of birds

7.Taking an hallucinogin and dreaming

Matters not what the "process" is. It all comes down to Interpretation.

In Ancient Greece the ORACLE OF DELPHI would make cryptic responses to queries. Why? It required "interpretation" on the part of the person asking the question. That left wiggle room when something didn't work out. It could be "interpreted" away.

NOSTRADAMUS earned a pretty good living writing inscrutable quatrains that "predicted" events to answer questions from wealthy clients. The number one complaint from his clients was that they couldn't "interpret" the meaning!

The daily Horoscope gives bland, generalizations which purport to apply to the lives of people born under a certain "sign" of the zodiac. Each person is free to justify their own interpretation and make it--somehow--work.

The C.T.Russell bible students took it as true that Russell somehow had access to Truth they didn't have on their own. Russell interpreted the scriptures for them and worked it into an explanation said to be superior to mere bible reading!

The reason the Watchtower Society has a doctrine of Faithful and Discreet Slave is to have a mysterious process of KNOWING the Truth which you cannot access without playing by their rules.

First Russell's wife, Maria, regarded herself and her husband as the FDS. Russell didn't like Maria having co-power!

Rutherford hung on to Pastor Russell as the FDS for a while and changed it when things cooled off after his takeover. The concept was KEY to having a special Authority to speak on behalf of the Supreme Being.

How do the anointed "know"? they are anointed??

They just do! God's "spirit" speaks to them. Blah blah blah.

But, this speaking and telling and channeling this Truth is fallible for some strange reason.

Why?

Because men are fallible and they are just men.

Oh really?

The message of Truth is only as "true" as the fallibility of men?

Consider this. The bible has been "transmitted" over thousands of years and anybody can read it and come up with something profoundly different from everybody else.

Is this Authority? Or,is this the nature of Interpretation?

Either something is True and from a Soverign being or it is the work of fallible men.

Where does this leave evidence, fact, communication and authority??

It nullifies it.

Why?

Because Truth cannot be demonstrated without a referent. Otherwise, it is circular reasoning.

Robdar

Terry,

May I copy this and pass it around to a few people?

Quentin

The number of those that interpret is small compared to the number of those that accept interpretations, no matter how foolish the interpretation of anything can be. It is not restricted to spirtual matters. It's spread out evenly accross the board. Science, polotics, religion all have their authrotative interpreters.

Question. What is intrinsic in human nature that causes the many to follow the few? Solid commentary by the way.

sspo

Right on, Terry.

That's the reason of 1000's of religions or sects or cults in christianity.

Homerovah the Almighty

Yes Russell and Rutherford did indeed cut them a big piece of the power pie, what came out afterward from their colons

is what the JWS past and present have to unfortunately continue to deal with.

Sorry just my interpretation

Terry

May I copy this and pass it around to a few people?

Everything I write I grant automatic permission for reprint if you think it might be useful.

The peculiar and singular thing to notice about bible interpretation is that there can never be a "correct" one. It is all assertion.

The more closed a sect, cult or denomination is the more they must automatically insist upon orthodoxy of interpretation for control.

The claims of inerrancy which emanate from the really rabid believers is more an act of pure will and desperation than it is of acumen and intellect.

John Doe

I think you dispense with the merits of interpretation too easily. Interpretation is obviously not always a con game or unverifiable. A good example is language interpretation. When we must converse with someone who speaks a different language, we must rely on interpreters or interpreting tools in order to mutually convey meanings.

What is the difference? The quality of the subject being interpreted. However, the same limitations apply as in your analogy. Interpreting a "tree" from one language to another uses a concrete, specific item for reference. Abstract words such as "faith," "spirituality," and "love" allow for much different interpretations.

What can we conclude from this? Interpretation is not the culprit. The culprit is the substance of what's being interpreted. Any idea that is by nature subjective allows the ambiguities that leads to control and manipulation by those with such motives. Our biggest clue that this is happening is if someone tries to make something concrete that is inherently abstract.

Terry

I think you dispense with the merits of interpretation too easily. Interpretation is obviously not always a con game or unverifiable. A good example is language interpretation. When we must converse with someone who speaks a different language, we must rely on interpreters or interpreting tools in order to mutually convey meanings.

I think you are confusing translation with interpretation.

When you see the letter BLVD on a street sign you must interpret and translate into Boulevard.

When one fellow says, Buenos Dias, senor

and I say

Good Day, sir

there is no need for interpretation.

But, if one fellow says

Buenos Dias, senor

and a translator comes up with

Howdy, fella

---then, you have interpretation.

When you stray from precision and the literal expression by extrapolating it into somebody else's common parlance you've tampered with the sense of the speaker. You may not have destroyed the intention of the speaker, but, you've interfered in way that adds your personal thought process to intrude and make you a third party to the conversation.

In greetings it matters little. But, in religious pronouncement that hang in the balance of the specificity of expression....well...you've gone way too far intruding!

Think how many religious arguments hinge on one tiny word!!

In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was (a) god.

That's a famous case of intrusion, interpretation and translation which nullifies the neutrality of scholarship.

Terry

Interpretation is not the culprit. The culprit is the substance of what's being interpreted. Any idea that is by nature subjective allows the ambiguities that leads to control and manipulation by those with such motives. Our biggest clue that this is happening is if someone tries to make something concrete that is inherently abstract.

Blaming the victim for the crime are we?

Words which have no referents are conceptual. The original conceiver (the person who thought it up) is the only one who "knows" what he or she meant.

There is no way to penetrate the mind of an artist and divine the "meaning" of their art. They themselves might not be conscious of "meaning".

Scripture is certain artifice if not art.

Terry

Interpretation is not the culprit. The culprit is the substance of what's being interpreted. Any idea that is by nature subjective allows the ambiguities that leads to control and manipulation by those with such motives. Our biggest clue that this is happening is if someone tries to make something concrete that is inherently abstract.

Blaming the victim for the crime are we?

Words which have no referents are conceptual. The original conceiver (the person who thought it up) is the only one who "knows" what he or she meant.

There is no way to penetrate the mind of an artist and divine the "meaning" of their art. They themselves might not be conscious of "meaning".

Scripture is certain artifice if not art.

The power INTERPRETATION

Share this