The Mis-interpretation Of Ii Peter 1:20-21

[NewReformation]

II Peter 1:20 is commonly quoted by Catholics, and is intepreted as saying that no private interpretation of scripture is valid. But is this what this passage is really saying? Let's look further.

II Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."(NKJV)

"[b]Knowing this first[/b]" is a call to recognize that God's truth(scripture) is not of human origin. "[b]Prophecy of scripture[/b]" refers primarily to the Old Testament, and by implication, the New Testament as well. "[b]Private intepretation[/b]" is referring to how God's Word came about. Peter is not referring to interpretation of scripture, but rather how scripture originated. This is evident by the fact that Peter states "[b]No prophecy of scripture is of any private intepretation, FOR PROPHECY NEVER CAME BY THE WILL OF MAN.[/b] "[b]For prophecy never came by the will of man[/b]" means that Scripture is not man-made. Peter is saying that no prophecy of scripture ever came because of man's will. In fact, some of the writers did not understand what they were writing about(I Peter 1:10-11). "[b]but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit[/b]." The Greek grammatical structure of this phrase carries the idea that the writers were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit.

Rather than saying that scripture is not fit for private interpretation, this passage is telling us how scripture came about. Scripture did not come about by man's invention, but was brought by the Holy Spirit.

[the lumberjack]

oh my...

new reformation.

ON THE SCENE!

word to that.

[NewReformation]

Do you always put the little puking icon on your posts?

[the lumberjack]

always.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='NewReformation' date='Apr 12 2004, 01:02 PM'] II Peter 1:20 is commonly quoted by Catholics, and is intepreted as saying that no private interpretation of scripture is valid. But is this what this passage is really saying? Let's look further.

II Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."(NKJV)

"[b]Knowing this first[/b]" is a call to recognize that God's truth(scripture) is not of human origin. "[b]Prophecy of scripture[/b]" refers primarily to the Old Testament, and by implication, the New Testament as well. "[b]Private intepretation[/b]" is referring to how God's Word came about. Peter is not referring to interpretation of scripture, but rather how scripture originated. This is evident by the fact that Peter states "[b]No prophecy of scripture is of any private intepretation, FOR PROPHECY NEVER CAME BY THE WILL OF MAN.[/b] "[b]For prophecy never came by the will of man[/b]" means that Scripture is not man-made. Peter is saying that no prophecy of scripture ever came because of man's will. In fact, some of the writers did not understand what they were writing about(I Peter 1:10-11). "[b]but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit[/b]." The Greek grammatical structure of this phrase carries the idea that the writers were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit.

Rather than saying that scripture is not fit for private interpretation, this passage is telling us how scripture came about. Scripture did not come about by man's invention, but was brought by the Holy Spirit. [/quote]
Are you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? If not, how do you know that you are right?

What does the bible say the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is?

Where is something written before 1000 AD to back up what you claim?

What about how the only Scirpture at the time was that of the OT?

How can man pick books and call them Scripture? i.e. the New Testament

Did the bible just fall out of the sky?

protest-ism doesn't add up to scripture and where it came from. Quite sad.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited April 12, 2004 by ironmonk

[dUSt]

[quote name='NewReformation' date='Apr 12 2004, 11:02 AM'] Scripture did not come about by man's invention, but was brought by the Holy Spirit. [/quote]
So this is the final point. How does it contradict Church teaching?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Apr 12 2004, 12:18 PM'] So this is the final point. How does it contradict Church teaching? [/quote]
My point is how Catholics use this passage to say that no man can 'privately interpret scripture,' when in reality, this passage is not saying that at all! Even a cursory reading will tell you that.

[dUSt]

[quote name='NewReformation' date='Apr 12 2004, 01:09 PM'] My point is how Catholics use this passage to say that no man can 'privately interpret scripture,' when in reality, this passage is not saying that at all! Even a cursory reading will tell you that. [/quote]
Okay. So you're making a point against certain apologists as opposed to Church teaching. Okay. I don't need to defend anything then.

[DojoGrant]

This may be misinterpreted by some; and yet even with the correct interpretation (that it speaks of origins of Scriptural prophecy), it still holds true that if the prophecy put forth in Scripture was not a private interpretation of the one given it, then we too are not to interpret it beyond the one true interpretation which is of God.

Therefore, private interpretation is still wrong.

[willguy]

[quote name='NewReformation' date='Apr 12 2004, 02:09 PM'] My point is how Catholics use this passage to say that no man can 'privately interpret scripture,' when in reality, this passage is not saying that at all! Even a cursory reading will tell you that. [/quote]
You can privately interpret it all you want. It just doesn't make you right.