God�s Word?

[JohnnyP]

Who makes the ruling when there is conflicting interpretation of "the evidence" among textual critics?

Even non-believers can help make a ruling through reason of what the Bible says...like you don't have to be Asian to know what good Asian food is, or how to make it correctly (I watch Chopped ). Of course not everyone accepts rulings, as that goes...

Isn't it the case that "interpretation" is inherently "mind-dependent"? Otherwise, it would just "be", and would require no interpretation.

Something like we are discussing in the Islam forum...

(A) "X killed Y"

It may just be, in black and white. Or it may be interpreted as:

(B) "X destroyed the reputation of Y"

"B" may have been what really happened, and could just "be," but requires interpretation to determine that, ideally based on other sources, precedents, etc.

[NotSoHumblePie]

Something like we are discussing in the Islam forum...

(A) "X killed Y"

It may just be, in black and white. Or it may be interpreted as:

(B) "X destroyed the reputation of Y"

"B" may have been what really happened, and could just "be," but requires interpretation to determine that, ideally based on other sources, precedents, etc.

This is interesting. I am currently typing up a response to you for a post in another thread. The reason I say it's interesting, is here we seem to have about the same problem as we do in the other thread.

You seem to have some sort of separate dictionary. One where words mean things completely different from their standard definition. The similarity to this situation, is where you attempted to alter the definition of the word "inherent" to mean something which can be "turned on or off", even though that is a direct contradiction of the definition of "inherent".

I'd be interested to hear, what is your definition of the word "interpretation" which would allow "interpretation" to be mind-INdependent. I'm very, very curious...since the very definition of "interpret" seems to include the mind as a fundamental part of its identity.

[firstfloor]

What I'm saying about FF's theory is that if #1-2 are true and God wanted Adam to have sex and start a family by way of the Serpent awakening sexuality, why would God in #3 tell the couple not to play with snakes which would avoid awakening that sexuality to have sex and start a family? It's contradictory and doesn't make sense. I still haven't seen what the following had to do with being a symbol of awakening sexuality, how does sexuality eat dust?

The talking snake is symbolic. The curses explain the characteristics of actual snakes. There is a very full discussion of the story here:
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.co....g-of-myth.html

[Tassman]

Isn't it the case that "interpretation" is inherently "mind-dependent"? Otherwise, it would just "be", and would require no interpretation.

[JohnnyP]

This is interesting. I am currently typing up a response to you for a post in another thread. The reason I say it's interesting, is here we seem to have about the same problem as we do in the other thread.

You seem to have some sort of separate dictionary. One where words mean things completely different from their standard definition. The similarity to this situation, is where you attempted to alter the definition of the word "inherent" to mean something which can be "turned on or off", even though that is a direct contradiction of the definition of "inherent".

Where inherent = belonging to the basic nature of someone or something -- for example I could have the inherent ability to murder but never exercise that ability. I'll reply more over there...

I'd be interested to hear, what is your definition of the word "interpretation" which would allow "interpretation" to be mind-INdependent. I'm very, very curious...since the very definition of "interpret" seems to include the mind as a fundamental part of its identity.

I'm not saying interpretation is independent of the mind, but that it may not always be necessary, as far as making sense of what is stated. Where interpretation = the act or result of explaining or interpreting something -- from the earlier example: "X killed Y" requires no real interpretation if we take it at face value, "killed" may really mean causing someone's death. But context around and elsewhere may suggest that it really means, "X destroyed the reputation of Y" -- in that case interpretation is required to explain the true meaning.

One reason there are so many different interpretations among Christians is that some force interpretations on things that are plainly stated in order to support their own agendas, as they may also take things too literally to do the same where they should have gone further to interpret what is stated.

The talking snake is symbolic. The curses explain the characteristics of actual snakes. There is a very full discussion of the story here:
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.co....g-of-myth.html

If you take the Serpent's curses literally, what sense is there in cursing a symbol of sexuality to be like a snake? If you say humans shouldn't play with snakes and be afraid of them, does that mean they should be afraid of sex? Still doesn't make sense.

This is also a case where further interpretation would have helped: "First they become aware of their own nakedness, an obvious allegory for puberty." -- are we only aware of our nakedness when we hit puberty? I don't remember ever running around naked in kindergarten with no shame. Rather, "nakedness" is an allegory for being in a state of sin and not being able to hide it, like, "the criminal stood naked before the judge." Doesn't always mean literally naked. Anyway...

For example, if God's Laws are given accurately in the Bible, like no adultery, that biblical truth exists with God, could have existed from eternity long before humans were around to interpret it and before there was a Bible. Etc...

[Tassman]

For example, if God's Laws are given accurately in the Bible, like no adultery, that biblical truth exists with God, could have existed from eternity long before humans were around to interpret it and before there was a Bible. Etc...

[firstfloor]

If you take the Serpent's curses literally, what sense is there in cursing a symbol of sexuality to be like a snake? If you say humans shouldn't play with snakes and be afraid of them, does that mean they should be afraid of sex? Still doesn't make sense.

You are far too literal. Understanding fables requires a bit more imagination and freedom of association than that.

[JohnnyP]

Now you are venturing into existence of God or not, rather than staying within the hypothetical of, if God and His Law existed before humans, then it existed beyond mere human interpretation.

You can shut down the discussion by saying there's no evidence God exists if you want, but then we can't discuss logic of other things like omniscience vs. free will, etc.

You are far too literal. Understanding fables requires a bit more imagination and freedom of association than that.

I'm not the one saying that the Serpent was a literal talking snake in the story, I say he was a cherub.

Anyway, your understanding doesn't make sense: saying the Serpent is a symbol of sexuality that God wanted humans to explore, yet also saying God warned humans not to play with snakes and thus sex is a contradiction. And saying that a symbol of sexuality was cursed to slither as a snake and eat dust, what does that even mean? How does a symbol of sexuality do that?

You have to explain these things in order for your idea to make sense, it's not a problem of being too literal or not. The pieces need to fit together.

[Tassman]

Now you are venturing into existence of God or not,

rather than staying within the hypothetical of, if God and His Law existed before humans, then it existed beyond mere human interpretation.

You can shut down the discussion by saying there's no evidence God exists if you want, but then we can't discuss logic of other things like omniscience vs. free will, etc.

We exist in a determined universe whether or not it was predetermined by an omniscient deity OR whether it is simply an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe, i.e. 'causal determinism'. In either case free-will is an illusion, although it is seemingly

[JohnnyP]

seemingly

I think I asked before but not sure if you weighed in, your opinion here:

On the basis of these results, some researchers concluded that free will is an illusion.
(BUT)
We have free will to abort an action. So, we may better think of volitional action in this case not as free will, but as "free won't." We can stop an action initiated by our brain nonconsciously. -Psychology Today

[Tassman]

I think I asked before but not sure if you weighed in, your opinion here:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/f...-and-free-will

[JohnnyP]

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/f...-and-free-will

[Doug Shaver]

Is it physically possible for The Bible or any part of its content, even in the autographs, to be inerrant?

I can't think of any reason to say it's impossible. I don't see what "physical" possibility has to do with it.

if God proof reads scripture and makes corrections then we can be sure that it accurately represents His history, diary and opinions.

I have no problem with the conditional. I have a problem with the antecedent.

Is it possible that modern God inspired literature does exist but it is not recognised as such because of conservative opinions in The Church?

If God exists, I don't see why not.

My own view is that the Bible authors thought they were inspired by God, said so in their writings

That seems to be true in Paul's case, and maybe some of the OT prophets. I don't remember any of the other writers expressing such thoughts.

[firstfloor]

If God exists, I don't see why not.

[Doug Shaver]

So, you think a non-existent god can inspire literature?

Scripture does exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by scripture. Obviously, there exist writings that certain religious groups call scripture; and, within those groups, certain subgroups believe that their scripture is inspired by God. I don't argue over the labeling of scripture, but I do argue about its being inspired by God.