[Remole]

I really don't mean to quibble with your or the other interlocutor. It's just that whenever there is a FR thread on the interpretation of the Bible, some posts seem to suggest that the text of the Bible is immediately understandable, without any need for mental effort or interpretation; and some posts disparage interpretation as a godless activity. My point was to show that any explanation of a text is an instance of interpretation. The challenge is to interpret a text in such a way that the method chosen is the best way to get at the meaning which the sacred author wanted to communicate; and that the process should take place within the context of a believing community (and so interpretation is not a mere solitary action).

[vt_crosscut]

Perhaps I was to quick to use the word "interpretation" in my original post. I should have used my trusty thesaurus and found a much more interesting word like "caviling" or "interlocutor" (I had to look both of them up).

It was not my intent to imply that any interpretation is wrong or to start a thesaurus battle between seemingly like minded people. My intent was to state that the entire Bible either is or is not the infallible word of God. I don't think that there is any middle ground. When I said interpretation in my original post, I meant the way which some people choose to accept parts of the Bible as truth and other parts as fantasy. I did not mean to imply that understanding the Bible can be done with making some interpretations of what the words mean. However, this interpretation must be done in the context of believing that the Bible is the infallible word of God.