“Those that speak of “interpretation” blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
The word of God tells us that it is to be read, not interpreted. The Holy Spirit (if he is with you) interprets as the word is read.”
This is fundamentalism. It is an intellectual position shared by the Wahabbis - that scripture is divinely protected from alteration, and that every word is literally true. It is an act of faith, in defiance of easily demonstrable facts. It can lead to extreme conclusions, when logic and judgement are suspended, or deemed to be overridden by divine authority.
There are conflicts in scripture. There are varied versions. There are non-literal allegorical statements in scripture, like the parables told by Jesus. Translations between languages are less 100% accurate (Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English). There are timelines (like the flood) which don’t hold up to archeological evidence. Councils of people selected what was to be included and excluded. Meanings and usage change over time. If I were to note in my journal in 1970 that someone was cool, by 2570 a reader might think it miraculous that their body temperature was abnormally low.
You (anyone) must interpret words to comprehend their meaning. If you insist that you absolutely understand the scripture correctly, you are claiming to know God’s mind - quite a bit of hubris in that.
What if that bit about scripture is to be read, rather than interpreted, was added by a doctrinaire cleric hundreds of years after Christ, who was in tiff arguing with someone over meaning, and wanted to shut down debate? It is a circular argument to say that you must accept the absolute authority of a document, based on the document itself. So if that one element is not valid, than the whole fundamentalist approach to forming conclusions from scripture (AKA interpretation) would be without basis.
Ultimately, if your conclusions (interpretations) are not based sound judgement rooted in consistent morality, you can arrive at many harmful conlusions
Not when read in context.
There are varied versions.
These usually result from a non-use of the Greek and Hebrew.
There are non-literal allegorical statements in scripture, like the parables told by Jesus.
No...these are not allegory. They are parables.
Translations between languages are less 100% accurate (Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English).
The NT was written in Greek so no Aramaic to worry about. If we go from Greek to any language there is a slight difference in translation. Hence it befalls upon the teacher to explain the nuances of Greek to be sure the English (or whatever language) hearer understands the text.
There are timelines (like the flood) which don’t hold up to archeological evidence.
You presume the Bible is in error in the account of the flood and or possibly creation. If these are not literal, actual accounts, why were there referenced in the NT?
Councils of people selected what was to be included and excluded.
If you're referring to the canon, the church decided what was included and not. There were several conditions the church required to have a text included.
Meanings and usage change over time. If I were to note in my journal in 1970 that someone was cool, by 2570 a reader might think it miraculous that their body temperature was abnormally low.
This is true and which is why we should rely upon the Greek in understanding the word. The Greek does not change.
.
>> “There are conflicts in scripture” <<
To an unbeliever, not led by the spirit, that is so.
>> “You (anyone) must interpret words to comprehend their meaning.” <<
Again, for the unbeliever this may be so, if he is not led in the spirit.
The dark woods from which those words come are devoid of the Holy Spirit. Yehova intends that the People for His Name understand his word. That is why he does not filter it through Nicolaitans. He has prophets that deliver his word to nations, and his Holy Spirit that guides his sheep.
.
I don’t agree with the Bible not needing to be interpreted, but I do believe in fundamentalism in reading it. That has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion, as they are false beliefs with false gods. And there are plenty of more than sufficient answers for all the alleged problems you mention, like the “conflicts,” the versions, etc. I’ve studied the Bible and those very “problems” for years. There are also plenty of good sources on apologetics on the internet, so there’s no need for me to spend the time going over them. They each can be looked up.
” What if that bit about scripture is to be read, rather than interpreted, was added by a doctrinaire cleric hundreds of years after Christ, who was in tiff arguing with someone over meaning, and wanted to shut down debate?”
There are so many whole and partial copies of the New Testament texts from the earliest years which are consistent with each other that that scenario wouldn’t happen. And if it were possible, there is so much of the Bible that we have that something out of character with it would be rejected.
“It is a circular argument to say that you must accept the absolute authority of a document, based on the document itself.”
But not when it’s God’s Word.