Ship of Fools: Self interpreting Scriptures?

Thread: Self interpreting Scriptures? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030842

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV /
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Romans 15:4 ESV / 33 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Isaiah 55:11 ESV /
So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Romans 10:17 ESV /
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Jeremiah 23:29 ESV /
Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?

Matthew 24:35 ESV / 21 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Joshua 1:8 ESV /
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

Hebrews 4:12-14 ESV
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

A few quotes from which you could you could make a case that scripture claims authority for itself within itself.

This is started here as it is really in response to discussion begun on the closed inerrancy thread in response to Mousethief who wrote:

"Where in Scripture does it say Scripture is enough?"
and
"On the other hand, Scripture says "hold fast to the traditions that have been passed down to you, whether by word or by letter from us." St. Paul seems to think that Scriptures aren't all there is."

In response to the second comment one undigested thought is that when Paul referred to traditions passed down, he was not referring to those subsequent to his own writings but rather to the Old Testament and to the writings of the other apostles.

[ 23. September 2016, 01:15: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

"Claiming authority" has got nothing to do with self-interpretation. Constitutions and laws claim authority. They still need to be interpreted.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"Claiming authority" has got nothing to do with self-interpretation. Constitutions and laws claim authority. They still need to be interpreted.

Granted. Perhaps the thread title is a bit provocative. My contention is that claims to authority are intrinsic rather than the meanings are always crystal clear. However I do think a cardinal rule of understanding is that face value clarity needs little elucidation usually for most texts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.

The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.

The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.

On the other hand there are also vast tracts of agreement among people and between groups on what the basics of Christiaity are. We might not agree on what exactly repentance is but all agree that it is required.
We may disagree on communion rites but most groups have a lords supper practice and similarly,baptism. Being a nay sayer is a bit dog in the mangerish. I wrote the thread title with as a question because to me interpretation is a given. I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I can only suppose that many of you can read the Greek and Hebrew in which the texts were written. I can't, and in any case I would require much more knowledge of the culture.

I depend on translations. There are many. They vary.

Is it unreasonable to suppose that Divinely inspired texts would be unambiguously available?

But then I hear that the letter killeth.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.

Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.

The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.

It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.

[ 23. September 2016, 07:17: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Also, some churches have more than 66 song-sheets, Jamat.

The Ethiopians have the most with 81, I believe.

What 'authority' do we apply to determine which books to include in the canon and which to exclude?

Sure, there is a general consensus on the NT books but not on the OT and 'inter-testamental' ones. Why is that? Who decides?

On the way we interpret the Pauline reference to 'traditional', it strikes me that we make a hermeneutical decision based on whatever our own tradition happens to be. If we are conservative Protestants we are inevitably going to think, 'Ah, it must be the OT ...' and then claim that this is the 'plain-meaning' of the text when there is nothing plain about it at all in this instance.

If we are Orthodox then we'll see it as a reference to traditions that include but are not limited to the scriptures.

In both cases we are making hermeneutical judgements on the basis of our tradition.

We all do that.

That's not a post-modernist dismissal of meta-narratives, simply an example of how these things work in practice.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Just in case it needs to be said, when I suggest - as is my wont - that there's a both/and not either/or thing going on with issues like this, I'm not saying:

- That the scriptures aren't inspired (I believe they are, but not in a crudely 'fundamentalist' understanding of the way that 'works' in practice - and I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that here at the moment).

- That the Church somehow arbitrarily decided which books to include and which to 'reject' - although as Mousethief has pointed out before, non-inclusion in the canon simply meant that they weren't to be read publicly in church as part of the services, not that they shouldn't be read at all ...

What I am saying is as follows:

It's often suggested by conservative Protestants that the scriptures 'self-authenticated' themselves to the compilers of the canon, which was why they were included. I'm putting that crudely, but that's essentially the argument.

Fine, I'll go with that to a certain extent - with the proviso that those who compilied and canonised the scriptures didn't necessarily have a vatic 'ping' Eureka moment but spent ages discussing, debating and thrashing things out collectively and collegially ... and further more that those who compiled and canonised the scriptures had their own authority for doing so - that conferred on the Church by Christ, her Head.

That authority doesn't contradict what we might call the intrinsic authority of the scriptures themselves. It simply 'draws it out' as it were.

Neither does this obviate the sense of the Holy Spirit guiding the process. That doesn't necessarily imply people having startling revelations and so on as they worked these things through.

If it'd been some kind of 'ping' fanfare moment - tan-tan-tara ... then the scriptural canon would have been agreed from the outset. Sure, the documents of what became the NT as we now have it were in circulation early on - but so were a lot of other texts that didn't finally make it into the canon as we have it today. For several centuries these would have been read and used alongside the canonical scriptures - let's make no bones about that.

So, I'm suggesting that a synergistic process took place - and yes, that does respect a high view of scriptural inspiration - and that the Church was fully involved in terms of people using their faculties.

Sure, one could say that the Church simply 'recognised' the inherent authority of the texts themselves - but that wouldn't have happened if the texts had been on a desert island somewhere with nobody interpreting them ...

Hence my both/and not either/or thing ...

One could put it crudely and suggest that the scriptures had an intrinsic authority which the Church - also having an interpretative and curatorial authority as the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head - then recognised and affirmed.

So, one could say that there was an authority coming from two directions - through the inscripturated word itself and through the community of faith which was empowered and indeed commissioned to be the custodian and interpreter of the teachings handed down from Christ and his Apostles.

That's the way the more 'High Church' argument would run.

Whatever view we take of that, it seems to me, we have to steer a course between two potential excesses.

1. Ignoring the collective, collegial and Church aspect and thereby dislocating the scriptures from the community of faith into which they emerged - they were written by individuals who were themselves part of the Church ...

2. Going to the opposite extreme and ignoring the individual element and conferring all authority on the collegial aspect - honed down at one extreme to a particular Magisterium (ie. cue creepy music ... darhn darhn dahhhh ... Rome).

Ok, those are caricatured views to a certain extent. Rome doesn't deny what conservative Protestants believe about the intrinsic value and authority of the scriptures.

One might argue that the Orthodox and traditional Anglicans and Lutherans to a certain extent, tend to go for a middle-way between those extremes.

Just some thoughts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.

That means nothing. All the major religions are generally harmonious, it is a requirement of being a religion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We (almost) all agree on celebrating the Lord's Supper and in baptising people not because that's obvious from the Scriptures -- if it were, there would be no exceptions -- but because of nearly 2000 years of tradition of doing so. Then when we look at the Bible, certain passages leap out as commending what we were already doing. They are interpreted in light of our long ongoing actions.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.

Not everyone even agrees that the Bible has 66 books. If they can't even agree what the Bible is, it seems unlikely that their interpretations would all be the same.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.

And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.

And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.

But even that highlights how it comes down to interpretation based on external data.

Given the evidence from the Early Church regarding the remarriage of widows, it wouldn't be unreasonable to read the injunction in 1 Timothy as saying that a bishop may not be remarried after being widowed.

And as to why no injunction against polygamy for anyone else? Well, if no one was doing it, you don't need to counsel people not to - after all Paul and the other NT writers are not writing comprehensive instruction manuals. I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But even that highlights how it comes down to interpretation based on external data.

Given the evidence from the Early Church regarding the remarriage of widows, it wouldn't be unreasonable to read the injunction in 1 Timothy as saying that a bishop may not be remarried after being widowed.

And as to why no injunction against polygamy for anyone else? Well, if no one was doing it, you don't need to counsel people not to - after all Paul and the other NT writers are not writing comprehensive instruction manuals. I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.

Well, we know that Herod the Great had multiple concurrent wives, so monogamy couldn't have been completely uniform. And given the glee with which Josephus goes about cataloging all of Herod's other wrongdoing, the fact that he doesn't ding Herod for polygamy is noteworthy.

That's just one example that springs to mind because it's of an historically significant person. I suspect a more comprehensive survey would find others.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.

No. You would find that it was legal but less common than single-partner marriage. But this is not remarkable. Single-partner marriage is the most common form of marriage in every culture. Even in those which have no religious or social prohibition of polygamous marriage.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.

And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.

In the gospels the subject of divorce arises and Jesus words are pretty unequivocal. Essentially he refers to the original paradigm ie one man and his wife not wives and regarding divorce the Mosaic rule was not ideal. In fact in this passage we see the only time he contradicts Moses in a ruling stating Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like,the entry of sin. I look at it like this, that part of the process of redemption is the restoration of the original paradigm so that the Apostles
according to Paul had the right to take a believing wife (not wives) on their travels. An overseer needed not to be a polygamist. I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.

[ 23. September 2016, 20:01: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.

Perhaps you missed my post preceding yours, but in the 1st century, polygamy was legal for the Jewish people. So that Paul does not prohibit it is telling.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the gospels the subject of divorce arises and Jesus words are pretty unequivocal. Essentially he refers to the original paradigm ie one man and his wife not wives and regarding divorce the Mosaic rule was not ideal. In fact in this passage we see the only time he contradicts Moses in a ruling stating Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.

It could just as easily be argued that the "original paradigm" was one man married to every woman in the world.

Additionally, the question of whether a man can divorce his wife doesn't really tell us anything about how many concurrent wives he can have. If, as you claim, prohibiting divorce is the "only time [Jesus] contradicts Moses" we must conclude that Jesus approved polygamy, which was permissible under the law of Moses.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like, the entry of sin.

[citation needed]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.
Perhaps you missed my post preceding yours, but in the 1st century, polygamy was legal for the Jewish people. So that Paul does not prohibit it is telling.

Fair point bearing in mind that the world was under Roman law not Jewish and that the New Testament only ever mentions monogamous couples within the church. Why would Paul bother to prohibit something if it wasn't an issue for his converts?

[ 23. September 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So, first it is anout Jewish culture until that does not work. And then it is about Roman law. So, were Christians supposed to persecute Christians when that was part of Roman law?
Paul saw fit to tell specific groups they should be monogamous. By conventional rules of logic, this means the rest are not so bound.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.

Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.

The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.

It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.

Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, first it is anout Jewish culture until that does not work. And then it is about Roman law. So, were Christians supposed to persecute Christians when that was part of Roman law?
Paul saw fit to tell specific groups they should be monogamous. By conventional rules of logic, this means the rest are not so bound.

There's even a folk aphorism describing this: "the exception that proves the rule".

quote:
[T]he presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).

Or a rule that takes pains to say deacons are prohibited from having more than one wife (the exception) implies that deacons are selected from a group where this is not universally the case (the rule).

[ 23. September 2016, 22:43: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Fair point bearing in mind that the world was under Roman law not Jewish . . .

Not strictly true. The Romans usually co-opted local power structures rather than replacing them wholesale. We actually see an example of this in the New Testament when Jesus' initial trial is before the Sanhedrin. The Romans mostly had a "hands off" policy unless a province wasn't paying its taxes or was in open revolt. The Roman power structure would have been more than happy to foist off something as mundane as family law on local customary law.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
. . . and that the New Testament only ever mentions monogamous couples within the church. Why would Paul bother to prohibit something if it wasn't an issue for his converts?

Does it? I don't recall any explicit mention of the monogamy of all the couples in the New Testament. Given our cultural conditioning we mostly read it that way, but that doesn't demonstrate authorial intent. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't necessarily prove anything. As lilBuddha pointed out earlier the basic demographic mathematics of human reproduction means that even where it's legally allowed polygamy will be available to relatively few, in practical terms. Historically in societies that have permitted it polygamy was the practice of a few members of the elite and practically unattainable for the masses.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.

The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.
On the other hand there are also vast tracts of agreement among people and between groups on what the basics of Christiaity are. We might not agree on what exactly repentance is but all agree that it is required.
We may disagree on communion rites but most groups have a lords supper practice and similarly,baptism. Being a nay sayer is a bit dog in the mangerish. I wrote the thread title with as a question because to me interpretation is a given. I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.

But is that enough? Mormons agree with us on those things. The devil really is in the details. What things mean is not so clear as the "clear" meaning of the text you claim exists.

quote:
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like,the entry of sin. I look at it like this, that part of the process of redemption is the restoration of the original paradigm so that the Apostles
according to Paul had the right to take a believing wife (not wives) on their travels. An overseer needed not to be a polygamist. I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.

You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does it? I don't recall any explicit mention of the monogamy of all the couples in the New Testament. Given our cultural conditioning we mostly read it that way, but that doesn't demonstrate authorial intent. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't necessarily prove anything. As lilBuddha pointed out earlier the basic demographic mathematics of human reproduction means that even where it's legally allowed polygamy will be available to relatively few, in practical terms. Historically in societies that have permitted it polygamy was the practice of a few members of the elite and practically unattainable for the masses. [/QB]

I think you're right the bible does not explicitly prohibit polygamy and it is likely there were polygamists in the early church and that is why Paul explicitly prohibits them from leadership. I take the weight of the NT as being on the side of singleness as the ideal (yeah, Jesus was and Paul recommends it in 1Cor 7) but this is certainly not adhered to by Christians today, then if you can't control your desires [Cool]

you should marry A wife or A husband. If you have multiple wives before you were a Christian then you should not seek to change this status upon conversion. 1Cor 7.

One can build a case for monogamy being God's intended plan for mankind from Genesis 1 & the polygamy is the result of the fall and is, therefore, sinful.

This multiple wives issue isn't a new issue, the church in parts of Africa struggles with this issue, indeed Sydney Anglicans prefer to forge links with male polygamist bishops rather than female monogamous ones, that's for sure.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@ Croesus:
I am aware of how the Romans used local structures but whether it affects the family law issue who can know.
On your other point I notice Paul stayed for a year or so with Aquila and his wife Priscilla (Acts 18). But obviously what we know of the issue is assumed from this kind of detail.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.

Yes I do. My way of seeing the Bible is as an over arching narrative on the theme of fall and redemption. If in the beginning there was man and wife why would the restoration of this as a strand of redemption be unreasonable? Milton wasn't too dissimilar.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.

None at all. But, like it or not, you have to admit that the bible-interpreting-bible arc narrative is a strong one. I can see how believing that x=y=z (in terms of interpreting the bible) is a very comforting idea.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.

Mmm. I think such a thing has a strong hold on those who believe it because it seems to hang together so well.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.

Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.

The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.

It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.

What alternative would you propose? How does the bible fit into your account of the relationship between the divine and the aspect of creation closely created in the image thereof?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.
Mmm. I think such a thing has a strong hold on those who believe it because it seems to hang together so well.

Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.

Yes I do. My way of seeing the Bible is as an over arching narrative on the theme of fall and redemption. If in the beginning there was man and wife why would the restoration of this as a strand of redemption be unreasonable? Milton wasn't too dissimilar.

"[Your] way of reading the Bible" is not the only way. You may think it's the obvious one. But others think theirs is the obvious one. Still others think there is no obvious one. Does this not give you even a teeny bit of self-doubt in the obviousness of your "way"? Not in whether or not it's right. Whether or not it's clear and obvious to all comers.

The alternative would seem to be that you're saying that if someone approaches the Bible with good will and the Holy Spirit they see it YOUR way; and if they don't see it your way it means they lack good will or the Holy Spirit.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.

Well just to be clear (and I don't think you were saying it here, but just to be sure) this isn't my view.

Also I think you are right that it depends on interpretation. And yes, I think that it is a bit misleading to say that no interpretation from outside is happening.

But I'm not sure that this is necessarily deliberate - because at times those who hold these beliefs are operating within a certain mindset and worldview which seems to make sense of the bible and the world and so aren't fully aware of what they're doing.

Overall, though, totally agree with what you've said here.

quote:

The alternative would seem to be that you're saying that if someone approaches the Bible with good will and the Holy Spirit they see it YOUR way; and if they don't see it your way it means they lack good will or the Holy Spirit.

Yes, again I think that's very likely what is going on here; the mindset is that those who can't clearly see what the bible is saying in totality are lacking the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Not sure that's quite what Jamat has said, but is what I've heard people say who seem to believe this.

[ 24. September 2016, 15:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative.

Yes, everyone does it. But not all approaches are equal.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Milton wasn't too dissimilar.

Milton was a single, human author with a planned story arc. His poems and prose make much more sense being read as self-contained works because this is what they are.

If God dictated the bible to the extent that you seem to feel, then he is a bi-polar, power mad schizophrenic who finally started taking his meds and receiving counseling towards the end of his work.

ETA: It is not that the Bible fails as an internally consistent work, it is that it fails this spectacularly.

[ 24. September 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, everyone does it. But not all approaches are equal.

Agreed.

quote:
If God dictated the bible to the extent that you seem to feel, then he is a bi-polar, power mad schizophrenic who finally started taking his meds and receiving counseling towards the end of his work.

Snrk.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I'm not sure that this is necessarily deliberate - because at times those who hold these beliefs are operating within a certain mindset and worldview which seems to make sense of the bible and the world and so aren't fully aware of what they're doing.

Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.
None at all. But, like it or not, you have to admit that the bible-interpreting-bible arc narrative is a strong one. I can see how believing that x=y=z (in terms of interpreting the bible) is a very comforting idea.

Yes, exactly. It works...until it doesn't. Then you can interpret your troubles as oppression by the Evil One; sent/permitted by God for your growth; quietly wonder and struggle; ask questions; reframe your faith; feel totally lost; leave...

All sorts of people do that about all sorts of things: work, family, Significant Other, fact, theory, reality, sports, beer, politics, coffee, etc.

It's not confined to fundamentalist Protestant Christians taking an approach that seems silly to others. It's the way people are.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.

...mostly because people want to laugh at someone else, rather than realize and deal with their own cluelessness.

[Angel]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.
...mostly because people want to laugh at someone else, rather than realize and deal with their own cluelessness.

Well maybe mostly, but NOT ENTIRELY!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

It's not confined to fundamentalist Protestant Christians taking an approach that seems silly to others. It's the way people are.

Yes. And no. Yes it is natural to warp the world to fit your preconceptions, desires, etc.
But we are not slaves to this and it is not an excuse.
I had written a longer post illustrating why all examples of self-delusion are not equal, but that is too much a tangent.
Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.
So my contributions to contending against such myopic views is not for my amusement.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes. And no. Yes it is natural to warp the world to fit your preconceptions, desires, etc.
But we are not slaves to this and it is not an excuse.

Actually, I think it is an "excuse" and simply suggesting that one is "not a slave" to something is to misstate and misunderstand the strength of a narrative that can get a hold on someone.

It is to suggest that there is something wrong with someone who thinks along this line and that if they were to think or try a bit harder, they'd obviously snap out of it.

I don't think it is quite like that - of if it is, then it is very dismissive to put it in those words.

It is the nature of a strong all-encompassing worldview that it is able to take on all-comers. And it isn't anything remarkable to say that the person who finds that this kind of worldview doesn't work any more suddenly rejects it altogether rather than working on a slightly modified worldview. That's kinda the nature of the thing.

quote:
I had written a longer post illustrating why all examples of self-delusion are not equal, but that is too much a tangent.
Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.
So my contributions to contending against such myopic views is not for my amusement.

OK but they are rather dismissive, you'd have to agree, right?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.

Perhaps you might like to cite one of these passages 'they' disagree with?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.
Perhaps you might like to cite one of these passages 'they' disagree with?

Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.

Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.

The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.

It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.
What alternative would you propose? How does the bible fit into your account of the relationship between the divine and the aspect of creation closely created in the image thereof?

Like Jeremy Hardy on Any Questions at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when asked what his alternative was, he didn't have one and there didn't have to be one. I agree with everything apart from your penultimate sentence. Unless you mean by interpreted relationally by the immediate intended readers in relationship with the writers. Fine. Otherwise not. There was no intent toward us, toward the body of Christ, whatever that was and could be construed to be now.

The Bible consists of many upward streamers from the Earth with one definite downward leader being Earthily documented, like fulgurite, in its definite lightning strike, for me. There is a weak current flowing now. Our response to the Spirit.

Dust swirls up to the light.

Mole he is burrowing; his way to the sunlight. He knows there's someone there; so strong.

Interpretation is an iterative process in the light of the evolution of awareness, starting with those who first expressed their thoughts and feelings in verbal tradition at least 50,000 years ago.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Interpretation is an iterative process in the light of the evolution of awareness, starting with those who first expressed their thoughts and feelings in verbal tradition at least 50,000 years ago.

I have accepted your challenge, and reconsidered what I mean by "relational interpretation". Reflection has brought me so far to an understanding which is not far from what you are saying; it is simply embedding this process of iterative interpretation into the life of faith, removing any suggestion of it being a separate activity.

I see no separate category into which the reading of the bible fits uniquely: there is no immediate revelation, no book of instructions for the rest of life to be found waiting for us in the bible which makes the activity of reading a part of life set apart. We have to take the risk of carrying our interpretative stumblings into the rest of our life of faith, and exposing them to the light of that life, and the light of the life in and with the ever-loving trinity of divine persons in which we are called to dwell, to be able to see truly, however dimly, what we are being shown.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually, I think it is an "excuse" and simply suggesting that one is "not a slave" to something is to misstate and misunderstand the strength of a narrative that can get a hold on someone.

A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.

quote:

OK but they are rather dismissive, you'd have to agree, right?

Yes, I can be dismissive. But rarely only dismissive.

[fixed code]

[ 25. September 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.

I really don't accept that it is that kind of thing. I don't see that we're into the territory of someone suing someone else in a court of law because they think that the bible is a consistent narrative that hangs together.

Yes, I accept that kind of thing has happened before, but in general there is nothing objectively wrong with believing the bible is a consistent narrative. That idea is not - in and of itself - directly damaging.

quote:
Yes, I can be dismissive. But rarely only dismissive.

You seem to be saying that someone who believes this about the bible should be feeling some kind of remorse because it is bad (possibly even in a legal sense). I don't accept that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.
I really don't accept that it is that kind of thing. I don't see that we're into the territory of someone suing someone else in a court of law because they think that the bible is a consistent narrative that hangs together.

Seriously, what?
I was using the law as an example. We already have behavioral rules that are meant to restrain our more base nature, our thinking without proper consideration. Civilisation is constructed on this premise.
Moral frameworks should not be allowed a lesser standard.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@ Mousethief:

Haven't we already discussed that one? But in any case, see below.

How would you interpret or exegete it?

quote:
How do you interpret this, and on what basis?
Well here's how I would do it. I am not theologically learned.

Text/context/co text

Text :Assume these words convey Jesus' meaning in translation

Context: Jewish understanding would be that in the OT, eating of flesh with blood was anathema and so his audience of disciples are intentionally being shocked
Context 2: the utterance occurs soon before Calvary. Jesus must be flagging his imminent crucifixion.

Co text: 1There are parallel utterances eg my flesh is real food,my blood is real drink. I am the bread of life, he who comes to me shall not hunger. Do this in memory of me.

Co text 2 Paul refers to the taking of bread by Jesus and says 'when supper was ended he took the Cup.' etc.. And By doing this we signify the Lord's death till he come.
There are others

Conclusion: Jesus has created for his immediate audience a violent paradigm shift. He has played on their OT knowledge of the Torah to force them to look at him as a sacrifice animal with his blood as a source of new life.
Paul has created a repeatable action by which believers can celebrate the source of their regeneration. He even goes so far as to enjoin that to eat and drink unworthily is to eat and drink damnation to oneself but to say the number of times one can do this is unrestricted. There is a chance to examine ones own heart as well as celebrate the new life..the new reality..the regeneration.

So the basis of this is text linked to context linked to co text.

[ 25. September 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Lil Buddah: Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.

I take it from this that you are against any belief that the Bible is a consistent and overarching meta narrative of God's dealings with mankind as leading to wars, conflicts and prejudices and bad laws that we all should be crusading against. Please confirm.

If so, it is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of whether afore mentioned Bible IS an overarching metanarrative of God's dealings with mankind.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lB--

An excuse doesn't mean it's ok that something happened. It means that the doer may have mitigating circumstances, and therefore may not be at fault, as far as punishment.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?

ISTM that your discovery of post modern theory leads you to think that everything we experience is smoke and mirrors but then you,
'except Jesus'
as if this answers everything.

In response to your statement:

The man Jesus mentions, the woman Jesus mentions and, Fall? the reason Jesus came.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Jamat, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy so that if someone doesn't accept, as you do, that everything in Scripture is all in perfect harmony and true, they must believe that it's all a lie.

You've been on the Ship long enough, I would have thought, to grasp that that is a false dichotomy. The view of many people here is that there are things in the Bible that are problematic.

With all due respect, one of the most difficult things in talking to you is that you tend not to engage with any such notion of difficulty.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jamat, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy so that if someone doesn't accept, as you do, that everything in Scripture is all in perfect harmony and true, they must believe that it's all a lie.

You've been on the Ship long enough, I would have thought, to grasp that that is a false dichotomy. The view of many people here is that there are things in the Bible that are problematic.

With all due respect, one of the most difficult things in talking to you is that you tend not to engage with any such notion of difficulty.

With equal respect I am happy to discuss specifics. So far only Mousethief seems to want to do that. Show me the difficulty to discuss.

What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view. Well that is pretty obvious, so do you and everyone else. Perhaps define the 'false dichotomy' as opposed to X sees the Bible differently to Y which to me is simple disagreement?

Regarding the overall harmony of the Bible many scholars believe it, just not many shippies. Upon whom is the burden of proof the affirmers or deniers?

Let's consider Is 53. Is the person here Jesus? The Messiah but not Jesus? Or the nation of Israel personified? Rashi in the 11th century introduced the idea that it was national Israel to counter Christian polemics. Before that the Rabbis saw it as referring to Messiah who must suffer. Amazing how good the fit is with Jesus though. Much ink has been spilt but for mine, here we have a clear eg of fulfilled prophecy which has influenced my thinking regarding the integrity of the Bible.

BTW Orfeo I am responding to you as a shipmate rather than as a host but your post had a hostly tone. Hope that is OK.

[ 26. September 2016, 03:43: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Jamat, I didn't ask you to exegete that passage and frankly don't give a rip about your exegesis of it.

You asked for an example. I gave an example. Yes, I know you have an interpretation of it. Thaaaaaat's Niiiiiiice. And rather in keeping with my point, which your explaining-away does nothing to counter.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Lil Buddah: Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.
I take it from this that you are against any belief that the Bible is a consistent and overarching meta narrative of God's dealings with mankind as leading to wars, conflicts and prejudices and bad laws that we all should be crusading against. Please confirm.

If so, it is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of whether afore mentioned Bible IS an overarching metanarrative of God's dealings with mankind.

I am saying that the Bible is not consistent, especially if read simplistically. I suppose I am saying that it is definitely not a fully realised meta-narrative. And that, if this were God's intention, either he or his human tools were very flawed.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--

An excuse doesn't mean it's ok that something happened. It means that the doer may have mitigating circumstances, and therefore may not be at fault, as far as punishment.

OK does not have a precise meaning. It can be anything from overwhelmingly positive affirmation to barely acceptable. And that fits the parameters of excuse.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?
ISTM that your discovery of post modern theory leads you to think that everything we experience is smoke and mirrors but then you,
'except Jesus'
as if this answers everything.

In response to your statement:

The man Jesus mentions, the woman Jesus mentions and, Fall? the reason Jesus came.

Well that's a start Jamat. Well done. On what basis did Jesus mention the man, the woman, the fall?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And yes the 'Well done' was deliberately patronizing and provocative, for that I apologize, I should have said thank you for engaging.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.
I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.

@Mousethief: unsure that this is all about Your point whatever it is.

@Martin: when do you patronise simple faith. Everyone needs it right and how can it be in Jesus and not in the scriptures?

[ 26. September 2016, 18:31: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Jamat: "@Martin: when do you patronise simple faith. Everyone needs it right and how can it be in Jesus and not in the scriptures?"

Never. Right and I don't know.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I had hoped you could engage with the question on what basis did Jesus mention the man, the woman, the fall?

I'm trying to make sense of this:

"@Martin: when do you patronise simple faith. Everyone needs it right and how can it be in Jesus and not in the scriptures?"

So Jesus had simple faith? Agreed. And if He had it IN the scriptures, which He did; He had to believe in the myths of scripture, it was culturally, intellectually, epistemologically impossible not to, then it is implicit in scripture that it is required of us?

Nope.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God. How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth? But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

What Jesus are you believing in? A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.

Not at all. How could I? You don't. I do.

quote:

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.

I can.

quote:

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?

How could He not?

quote:

But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

Why?

quote:

What Jesus are you believing in?

The same one as you: the one witnessed to in the New Testament.

quote:

A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.

No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.
I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.
If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.

No. There's the false dichotomy again. If someone expresses doubts about the Bible being a complete divine message, that doesn't equate to thinking it is "patently obvious" that it's not a complete divine message. You seem locked into notions that "not believing X" is the same as "believing the opposite of X".

The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?

[ 26. September 2016, 22:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Simple faith trumps faith and reason. Look at the world. It's true. We just need lobotomies to embrace it, to be happy. Just stop thinking.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.
I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.
If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.
No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?

I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'

I only began this as the inerrancy thread was closed at the time.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Mousethief: unsure that this is all about Your point whatever it is.

You'll have to forgive me. I thought that when you put "@Mousethief" at the top of your post, that you were responding to me. My bad. I suppose thsis comment isn't addressed to me either, is it? <sings> I'm so vain, I probably think things directly addressed to me are about me*.

_______________
*or at least mean to relate to/with me**

===============
**but that doesn't scan

[ 26. September 2016, 22:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.
I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.
If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.
No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?
I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'

I only began this as the inerrancy thread was closed at the time.

The issue is being so sure that you have the truth, in all its completeness, that you have to have everyone else agree with it.

Do you really think that everyone will answer for whether they interpret Scripture the same way? That doesn't seem Biblical to me. I was always taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through being in complete agreement with what every verse in the Bible meant.

I don't believe that the Bible condemns doubt, or questioning. If it does then I guess I'm fucked, but then one has to start asking why God created brains if we were forbidden to try using them. If God is only happy with one point of view, then God really ought to have pre-programmed it in, instead of allowing all this messy diversity of thought and all the difficulties involved in communicating through the imprecision of language (amplified by translation between languages and a couple of thousand years of cultural change).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You and me both orfeo!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.

What's his interpretation?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
The issue is being so sure that you have the truth, in all its completeness, that you have to have everyone else agree with it.

I do not have that conviction. Only Kim Jong Un has that. Have I ever intimated any such conviction or are you inferring it? If so you are mistaken. I do think though that it is possible to have genuine faith. Not the Copeland kind where you talk and God jumps, but the kind that reassures that you are a kid in his family.

quote:
Do you really think that everyone will answer for whether they interpret Scripture the same way? That doesn't seem Biblical to me. I was always taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through being in complete agreement with what every verse in the Bible meant.

Certainly not and I agree such a view would not be Biblical. I think the basis of judgement is what you have done with the genuine understanding God has gifted you with. (To every man he has given a measure..)When you reject the truth I think he withdraws from you but that the door remains open. (While there's life ..hope)

quote:
I don't believe that the Bible condemns doubt, or questioning. If it does then I guess I'm fucked, but then one has to start asking why God created brains if we were forbidden to try using them. If God is only happy with one point of view, then God really ought to have pre-programmed it in, instead of allowing all this messy diversity of thought and all the difficulties involved in communicating through the imprecision of language (amplified by translation between languages and a couple of thousand years of cultural change).

Once again I agree. Doubt or questioning is not something that Jesus condemned. You just have to consider Thomas, Peter or the adulterous woman to get that it isn't at all about those things. Nor is it about using your brains or not using them. However, we are more than our bodies or our brains. I think the messy diversity you mention is accounted for if we let the Bible teach us with all its imperfect heroes who were often just as stuffed up as us. No, I think in the end it is about humility. Scripture says He fills the empty with good things.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.
What's his interpretation?

Whatever your want it to be

[Big Grin]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

quote:

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?
How could He not?

Now that is arguing like a Rabbi. I realise that Jesus laid aside his godly attributes to become human but would that have included his common sense?

quote:

But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

Why? [/QUOTE]
Because it is a figment of your imagination perhaps?

quote:

What Jesus are you believing in?

The same one as you: the one witnessed to in the New Testament.[/QUOTE]
Well I doubt it as he refuses to conform to our mentalities.
There's a kiwi poet called JK Baxter who wrote a poem called the Maori Jesus. Not the NT one though. Maori Jesus

quote:
No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else. [/QB]

Here I think you fail Philosophy 101.You cannot ride multiple realities by saying all are mythical and also historical.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
[qb]
You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.
I can.
You have a logic problem here. Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality? Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.
What's his interpretation?
Whatever your want it to be

See, you are postmodern. That's what art is all about.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God. How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth? But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

What Jesus are you believing in? A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.

1) I do not have a problem with Jesus, as God in human form, believing in myth.
2) I do not have a problem with worshipping such an incarnate God.

Why on earth do you feel qualified to claim that my belief in Jesus can be no good to me? I worship the incarnate God, NOT an "historical human about whom swirls myths". The fact that I disagree, minorly, about aspects of who Christ was does NOT mean that I don't believe that he was God incarnate.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?
I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'

Oh, screw that. What you're really saying is "Everything I believe to be truth is something that matters for eternity. Therefore, I am justified in pushing it on people, because I am affecting their eternal destiny."

Something can be true without affecting one's eternal destiny. You're not evangelising; you're just using that as justification for being pushy and ignoring nuance.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

quote:

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?
How could He not?
Now that is arguing like a Rabbi. I realise that Jesus laid aside his godly attributes to become human but would that have included his common sense?

To be fully human is to believe in myth. Fairy tales. Some have the opportunity to develop beyond that. Jesus did to a superhuman transcendent extent, by His divine nature, despite not having the culturally accreted intellectual tools to do so. What does common sense have to do with the retention of believing in myth? How does common sense enable one to believe myth? YECs have more common sense than all scientists?

quote:

quote:

But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.
Why?
Because it is a figment of your imagination perhaps?

quote:

What? My belief in Jesus and its use to me? If you say so.

quote:

What Jesus are you believing in?
The same one as you: the one witnessed to in the New Testament.
[/QUOTE]
Well I doubt it as he refuses to conform to our mentalities.
There's a kiwi poet called JK Baxter who wrote a poem called the Maori Jesus. Not the NT one though. Maori Jesus
[/QUOTE]
So you do believe in the Jesus witnessed to in the New Testament, but you doubt that I do despite my saying that I do because he refuses to conform to our mentalities?

quote:

quote:

No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else.
Here I think you fail Philosophy 101.

So you've taught philosophy. Wow.

quote:

You cannot ride multiple realities by saying all are mythical and also historical.

quote:

If you say so.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.
I can.
You have a logic problem here.
Where?

quote:

Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality?
No.

quote:

Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.

Me too.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?

I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...

Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?

I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...

Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.

Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
The Jesus of the Bible is neither a sacramental Jesus or a post-modern Jesus. He said himself in Matt 24 that false Christs would arise. You think you've come from where I am now but who made Derrida et al the holy screen to see everything through? Their insight ISTM was to allow for the validity of text to be determined by the reader's world as well as by the writer's. It isn't authoritative or unquestionable. The danger of a false Jesus is a false gospel that does not save.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

Why on earth do you feel qualified to claim that my belief in Jesus can be no good to me? I worship the incarnate God, NOT an "historical human about whom swirls myths"

I have no idea what you believe. You are commenting of a conversation without recognising the context. I am interested though in what kind of nuance you think important.

[code]

[ 27. September 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.

Yes they can. Indeed the whole of the Christian faith is built on that kind of oxymoron: the incarnation.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
Yes they can. Indeed the whole of the Christian faith is built on that kind of oxymoron: the incarnation.

I would say paradox rather than oxymoron but YMMV.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jamat--

quote:

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)

NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

quote:

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)
NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.

Nice one ..depending one your gender?
[Smile]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?

I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...

Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.

mr cheesy said it Jamat. And I can assume nothing at all in this conversation.

quote:

The Jesus of the Bible is neither a sacramental Jesus or a post-modern Jesus.

Of course He isn't. Agreed. Why say it?

quote:

He said himself in Matt 24 that false Christs would arise.

I know. Mine isn't. Any more than yours.

quote:

You think you've come from where I am now

Fundamentalism. Not in your head.

quote:

but who made Derrida et al the holy screen to see everything through?

Evolution.

quote:

Their insight ISTM was to allow for the validity of text to be determined by the reader's world as well as by the writer's. It isn't authoritative or unquestionable.

It's rational. Evolutionary. We inevitably know more than the writer. Any writer. In accumulated technique, understanding, insight since they wrote. And less. Consciousness is such an ephemeral thing. Making up stories from stories is such a fraught business. Constantly edited, noisy, entropic, incoherent. There's no going back, as in this thread.

quote:

The danger of a false Jesus is a false gospel that does not save.

It certainly is. You can't know that you've fallen in to that pit. It'll be all right. That's the good news.

Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jamat--

How are you defining "myth", please?

I know of at least two definitions:

--a story that is false;

--a deep Story that helps you live, which may or may not have factual elements.

ISTM you're using the first definition.

IMHO, Myth is based on story and truth; and Legend is based on story and fact. Sometimes, myth and legend intertwine, as with King Arthur.

Thx.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

How are you defining "myth", please?

I know of at least two definitions:

--a story that is false;

--a deep Story that helps you live, which may or may not have factual elements.

ISTM you're using the first definition.

IMHO, Myth is based on story and truth; and Legend is based on story and fact. Sometimes, myth and legend intertwine, as with King Arthur.

Thx.

Agreed. The value of myth is in the 'deeper' truth implicit in the narrative. However, I was using it as 'untrue' belief.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.

There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.

Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate. [Votive]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@Hosts
As stated, I only began this thread as the inerrancy one was temporarily closed. Should you wish to close it, and move this discussion there, I have no objection.
Jamat

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting. Although this thread has devolved into a discussion of the former and the latter hasn't had a look-in since the OP.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jamat--

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

quote:

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)
NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.
Nice one ..depending one your gender?

LOL. Abigail was an ardent feminist, at a time when women had very few rights. Don't know whether she was commenting on men, or just using the accepted pronoun.

If you look at the main page for her on that site, you'll see much more direct comments on patriarchy. She told her husband, John Adams, to "remember the ladies" in setting up the country. Don't know whether he didn't bother, or no one would listen. Wish *she'd* been president!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.

What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.

It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..."
If you define the word 'interpretation' you can look at it in one sense as the way a reader understands a specific meaning or alternatively as the way meaning is transferred. It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative. It is already evident that the Bible is a library of varied works of genres from narrative to poetry. All of which adds up to a very general argument if held in a vacuum. I'm sure we mostly would agree that Paul claimed apostolic authority. However, was Peter appointed the first pope? I'd say that's a stretch but not to an RC. Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims in the second sense. It claims to transfer a divine message.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.
There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.

Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate.

Thanks mate, I'll die fit as a fiddle. My BP is normal, blood sugar very well controlled.

No apology necessary on the fact that Jesus believed things that aren't true and that that does not invalidate Him in the slightest and that you can't compute that. He was not as wrong as you on evolution of course, according to His lights. The Greeks starting with Anaximander had inevitably intuited it rationally 600 years before Him of course.

Jesus was inevitably wrong by our current thinking across the board, how could He not be? His self interpretation of scripture was fully anciently Jewishly enculturated with ancient Greek and other Asian ideas thrown in for two thousand years, stewed in to the Jewish culture.

That's fully human. In which the fully divine incarnated.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative

Translation: The bits one wants to believe are literal are and the bits one doesn't, are not.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..."
If you define the word 'interpretation' you can look at it in one sense as the way a reader understands a specific meaning or alternatively as the way meaning is transferred. It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative. It is already evident that the Bible is a library of varied works of genres from narrative to poetry. All of which adds up to a very general argument if held in a vacuum. I'm sure we mostly would agree that Paul claimed apostolic authority. However, was Peter appointed the first pope? I'd say that's a stretch but not to an RC. Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims in the second sense. It claims to transfer a divine message.

Like kill every man, woman and child.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[/qb]

Like kill every man, woman and child. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Is there a point somewhere?
[Snigger]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yes, but you can't possibly see it despite everyone else here being able to. Which is fine.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative
Translation: The bits one wants to believe are literal are and the bits one doesn't, are not.

I struggle to take this seriously. Are you honestly that naïve?
Jesus early life was in Nazareth = denotative.
ie literal.
A door was opened heaven= Now there is something to talk about.
This is not a discussion that is meaningful if it is about generalities.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..." ... Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.
Like kill every man, woman and child.

You can't see that can you?

Ohhhhhh! It's not a problem for you is it? God DID order that. And yes, I have been there. We do overlap to that degree.

[ 28. September 2016, 20:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jamat--

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like kill every man, woman and child.
Is there a point somewhere?

Do you actually think that's funny? If it happened, it certainly wasn't funny--even if God thought it was justified.

Sadness, anger, empathy, even fear would be ok. But laughter???

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like kill every man, woman and child.
Is there a point somewhere?

Do you actually think that's funny? If it happened, it certainly wasn't funny--even if God thought it was justified.

Sadness, anger, empathy, even fear would be ok. But laughter???

Sure I'm an axe murderer duh.
People complain about SL bringing every argument back to church/state.
What has that particular canard got to do with scriptural interpretation?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jamat--

As to whether God really told the Hebrews/Israelites, on oh so many occasions, to take over land and slaughter everyone who was there: men, women, kids. Real people.

Interpretation of that matters: Did that literally happen? Did God hate those people? Does God take sides? Is God a blood-thirsty ogre? Did the Hebrews/Israelites honestly think God wanted them to do that, but they somehow got their interpretation tragically wrong? Did they decide on slaughter on their own, then blame it on God? Etc.

If you're going to take the Bible some combination of literally and seriously, then do that--but really do it. E.g., take the people in it seriously. What, if anything, was God doing in *their* lives?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes, but you can't possibly see it despite everyone else here being able to. Which is fine.

Fine in what sense? Maybe God could see stuff everyone else here can't.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It can't be helped. You think?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

As to whether God really told the Hebrews/Israelites, on oh so many occasions, to take over land and slaughter everyone who was there: men, women, kids. Real people.

Interpretation of that matters: Did that literally happen? Did God hate those people? Does God take sides? Is God a blood-thirsty ogre? Did the Hebrews/Israelites honestly think God wanted them to do that, but they somehow got their interpretation tragically wrong? Did they decide on slaughter on their own, then blame it on God? Etc.

If you're going to take the Bible some combination of literally and seriously, then do that--but really do it. E.g., take the people in it seriously. What, if anything, was God doing in *their* lives?

Look what you've done Martin!
@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer. Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.

You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.

You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.

I did that for 40 years.

I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.

I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry, from the other thread, you obviously believe that parts of the Bible are Satanic lies. On what basis?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer.

It is a thread killer because it cannot be answered by the self-interpreting crowd with intellectual integrity.

quote:

Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.

It is completely relevant. It is a direct example of why the Bible cannot be self-interpreting and Christianity be as labele non the tin. It is one or the other.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.

You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.

You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.

I did that for 40 years.

I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.

I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.

You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now. Is this not moral and intellectual superiority? "Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."
What goes round etc.
Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh) and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin. Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic. These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable. They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible. Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.

I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.

"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer.
It is a thread killer because it cannot be answered by the self-interpreting crowd with intellectual integrity.

quote:

Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.
It is completely relevant. It is a direct example of why the Bible cannot be self-interpreting and Christianity be as labele non the tin. It is one or the other.

In reply to your first comment, It can be answered but you probably don't like the answer. In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In reply to your first comment, It can be answered but you probably don't like the answer.

Bring it. But you won't like my reply.

quote:

In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.

Essentially, God the killer does not jibe with Jesus message. Unless your God is more like Zeus or Odin than the one Christians claim to worship.

[ 29. September 2016, 02:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's two fallacies without even looking.

Your hermeneutic of my comments is wrong and as you can't be trusted with small matters ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Until you can see where you are wrong in your hermeneutic of me, we're left with your Ptolemaic system. Kepler awaits you.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.

Then why did you title this thread as you did? Just to agree with me?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.

You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.

You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.

I did that for 40 years.

I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.

I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now. Is this not moral and intellectual superiority? "Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."
What goes round etc.
Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh) and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin. Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic. These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable. They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible. Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.

I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.

"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?

OK Jamat, I must apologize. I can see where you drew the fallacious conclusion that I was saying that Mosaic law is Medo-Persian, which I wasn't. I was saying that all of your theology is Medo-Persian as a metaphor. In which I am correct. You abrogate nothing. All must be true. Hence you end up with an impossibly Byzantine Ptolemaic theology, which I shared for 40 years.

I apologize because I didn't say that Medo-Persian wasn't literal, despite the fact it obviously isn't as I couldn't possibly make that kind of error to ascribe the mythical Law of Moses to a culture that came a thousand years later DESPITE the fact that the last and greatest edits to the Law of Moses came during and after Medo-Persian cultural immersion.

You know the chief characteristic of the law of the Medes and the Persians of course.

[ 29. September 2016, 13:26: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.

You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.

You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.

I did that for 40 years.

I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.

I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now.

I couldn't not.

quote:
Is this not moral

No.

quote:
and intellectual superiority?

Yes.

quote:
"Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."

No.

quote:

What goes round etc.

Yes.

quote:

Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution

It's not mine. It's the rocks'. I believe the rocks. They can't lie.

quote:
and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh)

Your fallacious presumption is, yes.

quote:
and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin.

I don't, as explained above. Your theology, your epistemology is.

quote:
Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic.

Because it is.

quote:
These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable.

Not to me. Can you show me a contest between authorities?

quote:
They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible.

Evolution is flammable?

quote:
Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.

I'd love them to be supernatural. They may be. To be honest I believe they are and the WHOLE Jonah story. So what? What they signify beyond broad brush strokes I don't know. What the incredibly detailed prophecy of the Kings of the North and South signifies morally, I don't know. Do you? The story of Jonah is sublimely beautiful, whether it's true or not is irrelevant. It's a huge milestone in human moral evolution projected back on to God at least.

quote:

I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.

"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?

No where near.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

So does self-interpreting simply mean that we make the assumption that our preferred canon is internally consistent?

IMHO I have gained greater understanding by accepting that while there may be a unity (probably resulting from the views of the canon makers) there is also diversity and there are contradictory views expressed.
ISTM very likely this results from trying to express religious/spiritual experience in propositional terms, or a desire to turn narratives and poetry etc. into a systematic theology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
So does self-interpreting simply mean that we make the assumption that our preferred canon is internally consistent

No. It means there is only one interpretation, and it is self-evident. People who reject it, or claim to regret it, are being willful, dishonest, self-serving, and/or disingenuous.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting
Can people keep the genocide argument on the Biblical Inerrancy thread please? I was keeping an open mind as to whether this thread might develop in a different direction, but it looks like we might as well just stick to the Inerrancy thread, so I'll close this one.

By the way, things are not designated Dead Horses so people will stop discussing them, but so they will discuss them here and not swamp the other boards. There is no problem with discussing the genocide question - that's one of the things this board is set up for.

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0