Thanks for always sharing me your questions.

I think it is better to read about the scripture and collect enough data before starting to interpret the scripture. To think in the authors terms and his culture is extremely important in this respect.

It is better to re-ask specialist person, where I am just mechanical engineer and unable to present a tough comment.

Regards, Emad

Thanks for sharing. To me, a nice simple question, not an easy one. “The Bible is only as good and decent as the person reading it.”

--Dan Savage

Regards

I agree with all RG Colleagues.

For the Catholic people the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures is labour of the Pope in communion with the Catholic Bishops. No other can do it with legitimity.

Genesis, for example, can be related very closely to the geological history of the Earth, as is known today.

This is where I have very little understanding :)

Interpretation is left at the hands of preachers and priests , I guess it is their job to present it in a way that it is relatable.

The scriptures should be read and interpreted from several perspectives: Discourse content, grammatical, meaning and semantic field; Philosophical current; Historical perspective; Theological.

Language has severe built-in limitations (i.e., inherent limitations that even an ideal human language would not escape), whereas by definition Godhood has no such limitations, therefore your first order of business is to determine whether the tool of ‘language’ (the tool of scriptures) is up to the task of conveying godlike thoughts at all.

And this is what you’ll find:

It is mathematically impossible for any text in human language form to be the “word of God”: in simple terms, a finite language cannot house or accommodate thoughts from an infinite source.

More specifically, there are at least 4 separate mathematical reasons why godlike thoughts cannot be expressed in any human language:

1- The inescapable and infinitely constraining 1-D linearity of all human languages, inherently unable to convey multi-linear thoughts without extreme warpage (think Mercator projections times infinite.) Any God would “speak” in multi-D language. Degrading the dimensionality would detract from godhood. Here’s an example:

Imagine for instance that you'd want to write a simple essay on spacetime. You would perhaps start by entitling your essay 'Spacetime', but you'd immediately find this title unsatisfactory, because you would have unduly positioned the word element 'space' before the equivalent element 'time', and what you are attempting to do is precisely stress the equivalence and full interchangeability of the two concepts of space and time. You then try to shift around the order of the word elements and come up with Timespace - every bit as unsatisfactory, for the selfsame reason. You then try capitalizing the initial letter of every word element, and you end up with either SpaceTime, or TimeSpace - it's better, but not by much. There is still this stubborn, unwelcome order of appearance of the two concepts, imposed by the 1-D linearity of language.

Then you hit upon the solution: you write the word SpaceTime in an unbroken looping circle. The two constituent word elements have now become equivalent, embedded within the lettered closed loop, where neither word element is first nor second. You have solved an intractable issue by, in effect, upping to two dimensional writing, occupying a paper expanse both lengthwise and heightwise - a higher-dimensional text than the usual 1-D script allowed by traditional writing. This extra dimension is the only way you can faithfully render your meaning. For godlike speech, multiply this by … infinity.

2- The consequences of Tarski's undefinability theorem, which shows that the truth of any outwardly-looking statement cannot possibly be proven from within the language that made the statement in the first place (hence the necessity of ‘leaps of faith’, if we are to believe what is written when it is not independently corroborated).

3- The inherently unpredictable phenomenon of emergence, which kicks in when some phenomenon's or attribute's metric grows by orders of magnitude (such as any godlike attribute in the context.) Emergence would impact the meaning, in a godlike context, of ordinary human words, such as ‘shall’, ‘want’ ‘anger’, and make their full meaning in such context unknowable),

and

4- The inevitability of circular reasoning in this context (“it’s true because the Bible says so”).

"What is the best way to interpret scripture and why?" I will answer this question with respect to the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The following is not exhaustive, but rather I would suggest it is a basic foundation, upon which to begin the process of interpretation

The best way to interpret the Scripture is with an attitude of complete submission and obedience to God, and in line with tried and tested hermeneutical methodologies that will yield accurate interpretive results.

The reasons are: 1. to preclude human autonomy during the interpretive process, including the setting aside of presuppositions, and bias. 2. The deployment of tried and tested hermeneutical methodologies may in theory lead to orthodox interpretations, thereby ruling out esoteric and denominationally inclined interpretations.