A few introductory clips on Hermeneutics, the art of interpretation, including the thought of Gadamer. These clips come from the 1998 series called the Examined Life. #philosophy #gadamer #language
As an undergraduate majoring in philosophy, I felt very strongly that the biography of the author should be read before their text. No joke - my professors would adminish me for this.
@@juliomateus714 I know, but I was typing on a phone and had to the draw the line somewhere before my patience expired and I threw the phone out the window. LOL! And I figured it was correct enough to be inferred. ;-) Auto-correct too often replaced my words with something ridiculous, so I turned it off. But now I still spend the same amount of time retyping. And so, I will soon reclaim my status as a luddite and trade my "smart"phone in for a landline...or maybe a telegraph.
I've always read first and if the writing has interested me i then find out about the author. I believe when you read a biography first, it ruins the personal interpreation and meaning one gets.
Wonderfully concise, edifying, and inspiring presentation. I’ve been interested In Gadamer for a while, but now I’m really intent on pursuing his work and hermeneutics in general. Before this, I knew something about hermeneutics, but mostly that I should know more. Thank you for helping. Excellent job.
I am doing my PhD in a german University and want to understand the hermeneutical analysis of literature. I will be thankful if you upload some more videos regarding Hermeneutics and its methodology of analysing literature. Looking forward. Thanks.
Hmm, you’re doing a doctorate and are calling out for videos as an aide? 🤔 Are you averse to books and articles? If so, that is not a good sign.😉 On Gadamer and literature, there are dozens and dozens of studies in English, let alone those in German. One very good introduction to Gadamer and his thought in relation to literature and to adjacent theories of art and interpretation (including that of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Bloom, Hirsch et al) is, still, David Couzens Hoy’s _The Critical Circle: Literature, History, and Philosophical Hermeneutics_ (University of California Press, 1978).
@EyeByBrian it's not that I have not been trying to read books and stuff. My problem is a bit different. In my previous education, I had almost next to nothing sort of theoretical background for some obvious reasons and it's been taking much effort and time to familiarise myself with theoretical jargon and to develop a much-needed academic style of reading and analysing literary texts. Thank you for suggesting the book. I am grappling with this problem. I hope i ll be able to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing the literature in the light of Gadamer's thoughts.
@@EyeByBrian Imagine offering advice instead of trying to be one of the seven apostles of academia. Thanks, for the Couzen's mention though. I will check it out.
This video popped up in my TH-cam feed shortly after I commented elsewhere about interpretation of a Pink Floyd album cover and whether I and others were "reading in" various things. (Specifically, Atom Heart Mother.) I now have several questions about the hermeneutics of TH-cam. It seems like the algorithms have correctly "interpreted" my comments about questions of interpretation. (Unless, of course, I've misinterpreted TH-cam's behavior and the appearance of this video in my feed has no connection with that particular comment.) But I'm hesitant to call this interpretation, since TH-cam algorithms don't (presumably) have an actual mind or conscious experience. Real interpretation requires a consciousness, doesn't it?
The author lived in a bubble of his time and had his inside world of that outside world in connection to his soul and psyche and tried to express whatever with his expressing capability. The reader lives in his bubble of inside world and soul and psyche and sees where he/she can connect to the words of the writer. And that is where pictures and logical understandings and emotions are created within the reader from reading the words - so those are the points where the grasping starts.
I politely submit that your claim is not true. We don't live in the individuated solipsistic prisons of our own pools of meaning. That is a narcissistic delusion foisted upon the world be misguided masculine and patriarchal models of meaning. Paranoid models, i emphasise. I haven't yet seen a successful attempt to explain an egotistic starting point that is radically disconnected from another external realm of meaning, that doesn't collapse into self-refuting solipsism, both ontological, semantic and epistemological. Hence its (and your) premises are wrong, on pain of actual objective contradictions (which may actually exist, but shouldn't be so easily resorted to, via a glib and facile enthusiasm) Instead, the correct starting point of the "fons et origo" of meaning, is that Reality speaks Her objective meaning though us, at least some of Her meanings. We do not invest reality with meaning, though clearly we do create portions of reality and hence meaning through our embodied biological-psychical-social-political-economic lives. Our womanly meaning, is inherently socially constructed, and all our lives, even the most seemingly private feelings and ponderings and dreams, are in fact social and objective entities. This is a quite different question from the anthropological relativity of all models of meaning, to multiple variables and factors. Hundreds or thousands or millions of such variables, in fact. Love, andrea
Hmmm, I cant say I'm very sympathetic to certain parts of this theory of meaning. On the one hand, there is the obvious necessity for greater and greater refinement in our knowledge of the context of the author's life and work; both her particular life-path and the general social, political, economic, class, artistic, philosophical trends, etc, etc. The spirit of the age. But then we are offered a non-dilemma, stemming from a very typically masculine and patriarchal image (misconception) of meaning, as something locked in a man's mind (I chose the gender with deliberately satirical mockery), secure and imprisoned behind his impenetrable defensive ego boundaries. This model is male ego-mania bordering on solipsism.. At root, we need always to work with three simultaneous sources of meaning - speaker meaning , sentence meaning, and hearer meaning. All three are wholly objective, though how one might compute their objective content is a very nice question. Next, we need to remember that the paradigm of communication is not some dusty German lecture hall, where half the audience is asleep, bored stiff with Professor AltenPharrt in a high collar lecturing on Kant. Or some unspeakably dull character with a penis wo is pontificating at the Sorbonne on "the thought of Gadamer". Why have I never wanted to experience such a treat of edification? The way women conduct discussion is very different. We employ multiple speakers, riotously hopping from one subject matter to the next, and weaving in and out of multiple conversations. Women's notably greater linguistic power, and greater psychical-emotional interlock (generate via our undoubted coevolving interpersonal collective psyche), means that very few men can engage in this mode of multi-polar, multi-topic, multi-conversational polyphony. Just watch what happens if a man is introduced into a room of women discussing anything, He is puzzled, embarrassed and disturbed and usually has to excuse himself on some glib, juvenile pretext, such as needing a piss. Finally, it would be very prudent to work from the presumption that in our long 250,000-odd years of evolutionary adaptation to our slowly-slowly modulating environment (also to our faster modification of that environment, and our much faster ability to construct and tear down the edifices of our objective interpersonal and individual psychical worlds - vide Richard Dawkins' work) we communicated at the profoundest level long before our evolution of formalised grammatical symbolic language, even its purely spoken form. It is a safe conjecture thatWe were using the symbolism of our bodies, often tattooed, painted, cut, scarred and bedecked with organic and mineral materials, and in dynamic and static modes. We also had our terrific power of vocalise. All these wavebands (one might loosely call them) were pitched both visually and audibly, and in combination with our other senses and our total being - as sensuous, erotic, aromatic, panting, glistening, fucking, gestating, birthing, lactating, screaming and running, embodied social sisterly creatures). Furthermore, were lived and operated in the gorgeous ultra-sensuous polychromatic and polyphonic world of the sub-Saharan jungles - a riot of colours and movement and soundwaves. We were also very probably psychically interlocked with other species. It is a viable hypothesis that our womanly psyches (I'm not really at all interested in the psyches of men, who are a distinct parasitical species, better labelled Vir sapiens) were interlocked with other species, especially big cats, and higher primates, such as Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorillas. Furthermore, and here is a topic not even seemingly dreamt of by these tedious male Hermeneuticists, portentously trundling between Paris and Berlin, where were quite possibly just a subsystem of a total-planet-spanning pan-psychism (vide Buddhism and the Gaia hypothesis for instance). Men (most of them) seemingly don't like that idea, much as they do, in contrast, relish building political economic systems, such as patriarchal-capitalism, which treats the material world as mere meaningless dead matter to be extracted and pulverised into raw materials for their factories, producing ever more boyish-teenage techno-drivel. A system of constant seeking after new markets to maintain the rate of capitalist profits and exploitation. Which vile system is now embarked upon a new permutation of capitalist imperialism, this time the conquest of our very psyches, so we can either be reprogramed to buy at near infinite rates, or be exterminated as surplus feminist or proletarian labour power. Well, I didn't once here the words or phrases Marxism, American Petro-Dollar Empire, patriarchy or feminism in this little lecture. Zero our of Ten! Furthermore, as the coup de grace, Eda Lovelace, Russell, Gödel, Turing, even Wittgenstein, would have recognised this as yet another instantly self-refuting meta-theory. In a domain of universally opaque meanings (I do wish we would stop hearing the word "texts" when the primary examples of meaning are dynamic social-constructions such as polyphonic speech and music), what exactly is the source of the transcendental stability and transparency somehow uniquely obtained by this portentous model called Hermeneutics? Just further bourgeois-intellectual, patriarchal, laughable politically irresponsible mystification, to which the Parisian decadent intellectual class is all too prone. Love andrea
My training with philosophy have been a training with Continental one, and hermeneutics, despite never having read Gadamer or Ricoeur, it's not unknown. The problem with hermeneutics philosophy Is that you can Say everything with her, in fact my prospettive change, toward a more historical and scientific look at it
I have been interested in textual criticism and hermeneutics for a long time. Good stuff. But why the dreadful music every time you speak? Makes it unwatchable for me.
Hermeneutics (coming from the Greek word hermeneuo, that means "explain, interpret, translate", as found at John 1:42; 9:7; Heb 7:2) is a word meaning "of interpretation of texts: relating to or consisting in the interpretation of texts, especially the books of the Bible."(Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005) And though "philosopher" Friedrich Schleiermacher had his theory of how to make interpretations, this does not fit what the Bible says. Of the Bible, Joseph (1767-1657 B.C.E.) who was in prison (from about age 22 till he was 30) for the the "crime" of attempted rape of Potiphar's wife that he did not commit, the chief cupbearer and chief baker for Pharaoh was thrown into prison with Joseph for some "sin" against Pharaoh. Both the chief cupbearer and chief baker had dreams on the same night and their faces were looking gloomy and dejected, so that Joseph asked them why they were "so low", to which they said: "We each had a dream, but there no interpreter with us." Joseph then tells them: "Do not interpretations belong to God", whereby they both related their dreams to Joseph.(Gen 39:10-20; 40:1-9) And Joseph is absolutely correct with his words that "interpretations (of the Bible) belong to God", since "all scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tim 3:16) and he alone holds the key to its accurate interpretation. And through whom does he use to accurately interpret the Bible ? Amos 3:7 helps with this, saying: "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah (God's name, see Isa 12:2; 26;4, KJV) will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets." So, it is only Jehovah God's servants "the prophets" who are privy to what his word the Bible really means. Everyone else is "the darkness outside".(see Matt 8:12; Isa 42:1, 19) When King Nebuchadnezzar had several dreams of "an immense image" made up of various metals and clay (Dan 2:1, 31), his magic-practicing priests, the conjurers, the sorcerers, and the Chal·deʹans could not relate the dream nor its meaning to him, but only Daniel, who was a loyal servant of Jehovah God.(Dan 2:29-43; 9:3) Perhaps not long after Nebuchadnezzar had the dreams "of an immense image" in about 606 B.C.E., he had another dream of a tree whose height was enormous, becoming strong and reaching "the heavens" (or sky). However, "all the other wise men of my kingdom are unable to make the interpretation known to me. But you (Daniel, given the name Belteshazzar by Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 1:7) are able to do so, because the spirit of holy gods (or the spirit of Jehovah God) is in you."(Dan 4:4-18) On the night of the downfall of ancient Babylon, October 5/6 539 B.C.E., "the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace opposite the lampstand, and the king (Belshazzar) could see the back of the hand as it was writing. Then the king turned pale and his thoughts terrified him, and his hips shook and his knees began to knock together."(Dan 5:5, 6) The "handwriting on the wall" could not be interpreted by Belshazzar's "wise men", so that the queen (Belshazzar's mother), told him that "there is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of holy gods. In the days of your father (or his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar), enlightenment and insight and wisdom like the wisdom of gods were found in him." "King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar your father appointed him as chief of the magic-practicing priests, conjurers, Chal·deʹans, and astrologers; your father did this, O king. For Daniel, whom the king (Nebuchadnezzar) named Bel·te·shazʹzar, had an extraordinary spirit and knowledge and insight to interpret dreams, to explain riddles, and to solve knotty problems. Now let Daniel be summoned, and he will tell you the interpretation.”(Dan 5:10-12) So, to accurately "interpret" the Bible, a person has to be one of Jehovah's loyal servants, attached to his organization, have his holy spirit and be humble (see Matt 11:25, 26), for Jesus said that he would appoint "a faithful and discreet slave" in these "final part of the days" (Dan 2:28; 10:14), that would be able to unlock "the mysteries of the Kingdom", that is the theme of the Bible.(Matt 13:11; 24:45-47)
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.12 | 28 เม.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xCjbu5t25Pw/mqdefault.jpg)
God I love when you have German and French philosophy on the channel and I especially LOVE Gadamer. Thank you so much for this.
Are there any other videos on this channel explaining the thoughts of Gadamer?
Have you ever tried reading Gadamer? Makes Hegel look like a piker😅
Reading Gadamer has been so perplexing 😮💨
@@adnanmohsinofficial4620 Tell me about it. And a dictionary foesnt really help
@@adnanmohsinofficial4620not on this channel, but look up Michael Sugrue on Gadamer. It’s one of my favorite lectures.
As an undergraduate majoring in philosophy, I felt very strongly that the biography of the author should be read before their text. No joke - my professors would adminish me for this.
Interesting and I agree
You mean 'admonish'.
@@juliomateus714 I know, but I was typing on a phone and had to the draw the line somewhere before my patience expired and I threw the phone out the window. LOL! And I figured it was correct enough to be inferred. ;-)
Auto-correct too often replaced my words with something ridiculous, so I turned it off. But now I still spend the same amount of time retyping. And so, I will soon reclaim my status as a luddite and trade my "smart"phone in for a landline...or maybe a telegraph.
@@juliomateus714 It's probably a mistake, which is different than an error. Correcting a mistake is doing what the actor can already do themselves.
I've always read first and if the writing has interested me i then find out about the author. I believe when you read a biography first, it ruins the personal interpreation and meaning one gets.
I wonder what Gadamer would say about TikTok
The End of Civilisation
Fascinating .
Wonderfully concise, edifying, and inspiring presentation. I’ve been interested In Gadamer for a while, but now I’m really intent on pursuing his work and hermeneutics in general. Before this, I knew something about hermeneutics, but mostly that I should know more. Thank you for helping. Excellent job.
The examined life is such an interesting series .
I am doing my PhD in a german University and want to understand the hermeneutical analysis of literature. I will be thankful if you upload some more videos regarding Hermeneutics and its methodology of analysing literature.
Looking forward.
Thanks.
Hmm, you’re doing a doctorate and are calling out for videos as an aide? 🤔 Are you averse to books and articles? If so, that is not a good sign.😉 On Gadamer and literature, there are dozens and dozens of studies in English, let alone those in German. One very good introduction to Gadamer and his thought in relation to literature and to adjacent theories of art and interpretation (including that of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Bloom, Hirsch et al) is, still, David Couzens Hoy’s _The Critical Circle: Literature, History, and Philosophical Hermeneutics_ (University of California Press, 1978).
@EyeByBrian it's not that I have not been trying to read books and stuff. My problem is a bit different. In my previous education, I had almost next to nothing sort of theoretical background for some obvious reasons and it's been taking much effort and time to familiarise myself with theoretical jargon and to develop a much-needed academic style of reading and analysing literary texts. Thank you for suggesting the book. I am grappling with this problem. I hope i ll be able to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing the literature in the light of Gadamer's thoughts.
@@EyeByBrian Imagine offering advice instead of trying to be one of the seven apostles of academia. Thanks, for the Couzen's mention though. I will check it out.
@@adnanmohsinofficial4620You’re welcome, and I wish you the best for your project. 👍🏻
Great.
Well done.
direct transfer is the goal.. knowledge is indirect
This video popped up in my TH-cam feed shortly after I commented elsewhere about interpretation of a Pink Floyd album cover and whether I and others were "reading in" various things. (Specifically, Atom Heart Mother.)
I now have several questions about the hermeneutics of TH-cam. It seems like the algorithms have correctly "interpreted" my comments about questions of interpretation. (Unless, of course, I've misinterpreted TH-cam's behavior and the appearance of this video in my feed has no connection with that particular comment.) But I'm hesitant to call this interpretation, since TH-cam algorithms don't (presumably) have an actual mind or conscious experience. Real interpretation requires a consciousness, doesn't it?
Id love to read this guy's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita if he had one😅
The author lived in a bubble of his time and had his inside world of that outside world in connection to his soul and psyche and tried to express whatever with his expressing capability. The reader lives in his bubble of inside world and soul and psyche and sees where he/she can connect to the words of the writer. And that is where pictures and logical understandings and emotions are created within the reader from reading the words - so those are the points where the grasping starts.
"Nietzsche said order comes out of chaos"
I politely submit that your claim is not true.
We don't live in the individuated solipsistic prisons of our own pools of meaning.
That is a narcissistic delusion foisted upon the world be misguided masculine and patriarchal models of meaning. Paranoid models, i emphasise.
I haven't yet seen a successful attempt to explain an egotistic starting point that is radically disconnected from another external realm of meaning, that doesn't collapse into self-refuting solipsism, both ontological, semantic and epistemological. Hence its (and your) premises are wrong, on pain of actual objective contradictions (which may actually exist, but shouldn't be so easily resorted to, via a glib and facile enthusiasm)
Instead, the correct starting point of the "fons et origo" of meaning, is that Reality speaks Her objective meaning though us, at least some of Her meanings.
We do not invest reality with meaning, though clearly we do create portions of reality and hence meaning through our embodied biological-psychical-social-political-economic lives.
Our womanly meaning, is inherently socially constructed, and all our lives, even the most seemingly private feelings and ponderings and dreams, are in fact social and objective entities.
This is a quite different question from the anthropological relativity of all models of meaning, to multiple variables and factors. Hundreds or thousands or millions of such variables, in fact.
Love, andrea
@@MG-ge5xq th-cam.com/video/pci3TUFwCfg/w-d-xo.html
Hmmm, I cant say I'm very sympathetic to certain parts of this theory of meaning.
On the one hand, there is the obvious necessity for greater and greater refinement in our knowledge of the context of the author's life and work; both her particular life-path and the general social, political, economic, class, artistic, philosophical trends, etc, etc. The spirit of the age.
But then we are offered a non-dilemma, stemming from a very typically masculine and patriarchal image (misconception) of meaning, as something locked in a man's mind (I chose the gender with deliberately satirical mockery), secure and imprisoned behind his impenetrable defensive ego boundaries.
This model is male ego-mania bordering on solipsism..
At root, we need always to work with three simultaneous sources of meaning - speaker meaning , sentence meaning, and hearer meaning. All three are wholly objective, though how one might compute their objective content is a very nice question.
Next, we need to remember that the paradigm of communication is not some dusty German lecture hall, where half the audience is asleep, bored stiff with Professor AltenPharrt in a high collar lecturing on Kant. Or some unspeakably dull character with a penis wo is pontificating at the Sorbonne on "the thought of Gadamer". Why have I never wanted to experience such a treat of edification?
The way women conduct discussion is very different. We employ multiple speakers, riotously hopping from one subject matter to the next, and weaving in and out of multiple conversations.
Women's notably greater linguistic power, and greater psychical-emotional interlock (generate via our undoubted coevolving interpersonal collective psyche), means that very few men can engage in this mode of multi-polar, multi-topic, multi-conversational polyphony.
Just watch what happens if a man is introduced into a room of women discussing anything, He is puzzled, embarrassed and disturbed and usually has to excuse himself on some glib, juvenile pretext, such as needing a piss.
Finally, it would be very prudent to work from the presumption that in our long 250,000-odd years of evolutionary adaptation to our slowly-slowly modulating environment (also to our faster modification of that environment, and our much faster ability to construct and tear down the edifices of our objective interpersonal and individual psychical worlds - vide Richard Dawkins' work) we communicated at the profoundest level long before our evolution of formalised grammatical symbolic language, even its purely spoken form.
It is a safe conjecture thatWe were using the symbolism of our bodies, often tattooed, painted, cut, scarred and bedecked with organic and mineral materials, and in dynamic and static modes.
We also had our terrific power of vocalise.
All these wavebands (one might loosely call them) were pitched both visually and audibly, and in combination with our other senses and our total being - as sensuous, erotic, aromatic, panting, glistening, fucking, gestating, birthing, lactating, screaming and running, embodied social sisterly creatures).
Furthermore, were lived and operated in the gorgeous ultra-sensuous polychromatic and polyphonic world of the sub-Saharan jungles - a riot of colours and movement and soundwaves.
We were also very probably psychically interlocked with other species. It is a viable hypothesis that our womanly psyches (I'm not really at all interested in the psyches of men, who are a distinct parasitical species, better labelled Vir sapiens) were interlocked with other species, especially big cats, and higher primates, such as Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
Furthermore, and here is a topic not even seemingly dreamt of by these tedious male Hermeneuticists, portentously trundling between Paris and Berlin, where were quite possibly just a subsystem of a total-planet-spanning pan-psychism (vide Buddhism and the Gaia hypothesis for instance).
Men (most of them) seemingly don't like that idea, much as they do, in contrast, relish building political economic systems, such as patriarchal-capitalism, which treats the material world as mere meaningless dead matter to be extracted and pulverised into raw materials for their factories, producing ever more boyish-teenage techno-drivel. A system of constant seeking after new markets to maintain the rate of capitalist profits and exploitation.
Which vile system is now embarked upon a new permutation of capitalist imperialism, this time the conquest of our very psyches, so we can either be reprogramed to buy at near infinite rates, or be exterminated as surplus feminist or proletarian labour power.
Well, I didn't once here the words or phrases Marxism, American Petro-Dollar Empire, patriarchy or feminism in this little lecture. Zero our of Ten!
Furthermore, as the coup de grace, Eda Lovelace, Russell, Gödel, Turing, even Wittgenstein, would have recognised this as yet another instantly self-refuting meta-theory. In a domain of universally opaque meanings (I do wish we would stop hearing the word "texts" when the primary examples of meaning are dynamic social-constructions such as polyphonic speech and music), what exactly is the source of the transcendental stability and transparency somehow uniquely obtained by this portentous model called Hermeneutics?
Just further bourgeois-intellectual, patriarchal, laughable politically irresponsible mystification, to which the Parisian decadent intellectual class is all too prone.
Love andrea
My training with philosophy have been a training with Continental one, and hermeneutics, despite never having read Gadamer or Ricoeur, it's not unknown. The problem with hermeneutics philosophy Is that you can Say everything with her, in fact my prospettive change, toward a more historical and scientific look at it
I am more close to Gaddamar than Dilthey though I revere both equally I always interpretate guided by my prejudices not eschewing them
I wonder if these techniques would be valuable in AI development.
3:45 (For future reference)
ugh why the background music?
Who has hermeneutic authority?
Author-ity?
You need to understand all forms of rhetoric.
Adding "because" at the end of your sentence, followed by a reason, would make it a complete sentence. Oh, the irony.
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 never put a period where comma dot dot dot's belong eh!
I have been interested in textual criticism and hermeneutics for a long time. Good stuff. But why the dreadful music every time you speak? Makes it unwatchable for me.
Hermeneutics (coming from the Greek word hermeneuo, that means "explain, interpret, translate", as found at John 1:42; 9:7; Heb 7:2) is a word meaning "of interpretation of texts: relating to or consisting in the interpretation of texts, especially the books of the Bible."(Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005) And though "philosopher" Friedrich Schleiermacher had his theory of how to make interpretations, this does not fit what the Bible says.
Of the Bible, Joseph (1767-1657 B.C.E.) who was in prison (from about age 22 till he was 30) for the the "crime" of attempted rape of Potiphar's wife that he did not commit, the chief cupbearer and chief baker for Pharaoh was thrown into prison with Joseph for some "sin" against Pharaoh.
Both the chief cupbearer and chief baker had dreams on the same night and their faces were looking gloomy and dejected, so that Joseph asked them why they were "so low", to which they said: "We each had a dream, but there no interpreter with us." Joseph then tells them: "Do not interpretations belong to God", whereby they both related their dreams to Joseph.(Gen 39:10-20; 40:1-9)
And Joseph is absolutely correct with his words that "interpretations (of the Bible) belong to God", since "all scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tim 3:16) and he alone holds the key to its accurate interpretation. And through whom does he use to accurately interpret the Bible ?
Amos 3:7 helps with this, saying: "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah (God's name, see Isa 12:2; 26;4, KJV) will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets." So, it is only Jehovah God's servants "the prophets" who are privy to what his word the Bible really means. Everyone else is "the darkness outside".(see Matt 8:12; Isa 42:1, 19)
When King Nebuchadnezzar had several dreams of "an immense image" made up of various metals and clay (Dan 2:1, 31), his magic-practicing priests, the conjurers, the sorcerers, and the Chal·deʹans could not relate the dream nor its meaning to him, but only Daniel, who was a loyal servant of Jehovah God.(Dan 2:29-43; 9:3)
Perhaps not long after Nebuchadnezzar had the dreams "of an immense image" in about 606 B.C.E., he had another dream of a tree whose height was enormous, becoming strong and reaching "the heavens" (or sky). However, "all the other wise men of my kingdom are unable to make the interpretation known to me. But you (Daniel, given the name Belteshazzar by Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 1:7) are able to do so, because the spirit of holy gods (or the spirit of Jehovah God) is in you."(Dan 4:4-18)
On the night of the downfall of ancient Babylon, October 5/6 539 B.C.E., "the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace opposite the lampstand, and the king (Belshazzar) could see the back of the hand as it was writing. Then the king turned pale and his thoughts terrified him, and his hips shook and his knees began to knock together."(Dan 5:5, 6)
The "handwriting on the wall" could not be interpreted by Belshazzar's "wise men", so that the queen (Belshazzar's mother), told him that "there is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of holy gods. In the days of your father (or his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar), enlightenment and insight and wisdom like the wisdom of gods were found in him."
"King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar your father appointed him as chief of the magic-practicing priests, conjurers, Chal·deʹans, and astrologers; your father did this, O king. For Daniel, whom the king (Nebuchadnezzar) named Bel·te·shazʹzar, had an extraordinary spirit and knowledge and insight to interpret dreams, to explain riddles, and to solve knotty problems. Now let Daniel be summoned, and he will tell you the interpretation.”(Dan 5:10-12)
So, to accurately "interpret" the Bible, a person has to be one of Jehovah's loyal servants, attached to his organization, have his holy spirit and be humble (see Matt 11:25, 26), for Jesus said that he would appoint "a faithful and discreet slave" in these "final part of the days" (Dan 2:28; 10:14), that would be able to unlock "the mysteries of the Kingdom", that is the theme of the Bible.(Matt 13:11; 24:45-47)
New phone. Who dis? My mind went to text messages upon hearing the intro:/