Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is interpretation of the Bible hopeless?

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:49:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's probably why the Jews and the early Christians both had an oral tradition in addition to the written scriptures.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?


Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:23:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drafterman

You have to either interpret it through Gnostic Christian eyes like mine or from the POV of Rome who wanted a pacifist God for the rabble. Read almost none of it literally and your chances of making sense of it improve dramatically. You can never know if you are 100% right though. Myths sometimes have more than one moral or story.

Scholars are just recently finding out how to interpret it.

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com...

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through Flavian and later through Constantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com...

Regards
DL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:33:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?


I'm guessing this is talking about old testament laws? Would that be correct?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

Couldn't you say the same thing about pretty much anything that is written since we cannot hear the tone of someone speaking?
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 12:16:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is exactly why I abandoned religion.

I used to go to church and everything. Then I hit a crises which I had to think of much in order to stay alive.
I thought of things I never had the time or chance to think. I realize the complication that words and perception could give, and thought that even if something like the Bible were the truth it be pretty much impossible to interpret what the truth really was.

You talk about visual, but even visual is deceiving. A group of people can watch a movie, and come up with many different scenarios. Imagine, if a movie, of which you can re-watch over and over again, result in such, what happens to a group that witness a car accident?
Our mind makes hard to understand things in our own world, a world in which you have to imagine just seems impossible to be achievable.

Religious teaches that God is in all of us, I definitely feel something beyond myself sometimes, which I call my inner-self. If that is God I'm already listening to him, since my voice of reason have always guided me with good advices and I usually listen and go with it.
So if God is within me, should I listen to myself and the God within me, or should I listen to someone that interprets a book, and say that is the true word of God? I choose to take the chance with myself.

_
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:07:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

This is the interpretation of those without the Spirit; you see the opposite of the truth!


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?

The symptoms are quite different for a start..

Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 6:30:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:33:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?


I'm guessing this is talking about old testament laws? Would that be correct?

I don't see why it would be limited to just that.


Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

Couldn't you say the same thing about pretty much anything that is written since we cannot hear the tone of someone speaking?

Yes. I totally agree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 6:31:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:07:27 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

This is the interpretation of those without the Spirit; you see the opposite of the truth!


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?

The symptoms are quite different for a start..

How so?


Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 6:58:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:49:08 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
That's probably why the Jews and the early Christians both had an oral tradition in addition to the written scriptures.

Which is why the tradition cannot be neglected in the interpretation of those scriptures.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 7:20:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@DCB

The holy spirit lets us understand the bible, right? But how come then, there are millions and millions of different denominations of Christianity? And how come they all claim to have the right interpretation? Hell, all who read the bible have a different intepretation of it. And many of them claim that the holy spirit let them understand it. How can we then trust any of these interpretations, then? How do we know the one that is genuine, when so many people fight over the most basic things of the Bible?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 8:08:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

No, it's like porn. They can't describe it, but they know it when they start speaking in tongues.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 8:16:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:
Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

You do understand, don't you, that the narrator started Project Mayhem, and established all the rules by which he was disgusted, right?

Or,was that part of your point as you pulled a Tyler Durden on this thread?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 8:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

I believe the idea is that you DON'T need any other additional information than what is written in the Bible. That you have this additional information in Fight Club is because you need that additional information in order to understand the Edward Norton character. In the Bible, one can care less about the narrator's perspective. It is what is written down that matters because that is Christian Canon. It is God's Word. That neither you, nor me, nor anyone else can "interpret" it correctly is sin manifest.

That Christ was Jewish and Caesar Roman also doesn't matter. What matters is your faith, and what is written in the Bible, because that is God's Word. You can be Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot... as long as you truly believed that Christ is the Lord your God while you did whatever you did, or even after you committed atrocities in the name of Satan, as long as you died with your faith in God intact at the moment of your death, you are saved.

I think Christianity makes a lot of valid points and I take from it what I like (such as the concept that God is love and the golden rule). However, it was written by man, with man's perspective. To say such a document in its entirety is divine and infallible is simply foolhardy. There is even debate on what the Bible should be...which chapters, which verses, etc. At some point, you have to admit fallibility.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:08:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 8:23:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think Christianity makes a lot of valid points and I take from it what I like (such as the concept that God is love and the golden rule). However, it was written by man, with man's perspective. To say such a document in its entirety is divine and infallible is simply foolhardy. There is even debate on what the Bible should be...which chapters, which verses, etc. At some point, you have to admit fallibility.

If they were smart, they would have gotten Golden Plates like Joseph Smith did.

Almost every religion, Eastern or Western, formed before or after Christianity, has a version of The Golden Rule. The Christian version was the 1st to be stated positively (do unto...as opposed to thou shalt not), but other than that, you can pull a Golden Rule out of any other religion you like.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:19:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 7:20:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
@DCB

The holy spirit lets us understand the bible, right? But how come then, there are millions and millions of different denominations of Christianity? And how come they all claim to have the right interpretation? Hell, all who read the bible have a different intepretation of it. And many of them claim that the holy spirit let them understand it. How can we then trust any of these interpretations, then? How do we know the one that is genuine, when so many people fight over the most basic things of the Bible?

Cowardice predominantly; take women preaching, for two millennia there has been no problem with the straight forward interpretation of the New Testament, that women may not preach.

But, because the west has undergone a cultural revolution since the 60's, the Church has capitulated and become more worldly.

Discerning by the Spirit and obeying it are not same thing.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:21:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 6:31:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:07:27 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

This is the interpretation of those without the Spirit; you see the opposite of the truth!


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?

The symptoms are quite different for a start..

How so?

The main symptom of a brain tumour would be.. A brain tumour.


Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:08:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 9:21:35 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 6:31:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:07:27 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

This is the interpretation of those without the Spirit; you see the opposite of the truth!


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?

The symptoms are quite different for a start..

How so?

The main symptom of a brain tumour would be.. A brain tumour.

Yawn.



Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:08:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/15/2012 9:21:35 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 6:31:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/15/2012 4:07:27 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 10:59:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:51:20 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:36:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:32:11 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:26:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:20:41 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:06:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
On my morning commute, my mind, through its various wanderings, got to thinking about Fight Club. Specifically, this scene:

Goon 1: They say in Project Mayhem we have no names.
Narrator: You listen to me, this is a man and he has a name. It's Robert Paulson, ok?
Goon 1: Robert Paulson...
Narrator: He's a man and he's dead now because of us, alright? Do you understand that?
Goon 2: I understand. In death, a member of project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 1: His name is Robert Paulson.
Goon 2: His name is Robert Paulson.
All Goons: His name is Robert Paulson.
Narrator [begins to object but is drowned out by the goons chanting "His name is Robert Paulson."]

Now, key to interpreting this is the visual aspect. We see the look on Ed Norton's face and can use that to determine how to appropriately interpret what he means and his reaction to the others. Specifically, he objects to the entire Project Mayhem nonsense, and is horrified at their interpretation of his words, which is basically the opposite of his intention. However, imagine if a scene like this was transcribed into the Bible:

1: And the first goon said: In Project Mayhem we have no names.
2: And the narrator said: Listen unto me. This is a man and he has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
3: This man is dead because of us. Dost thou understand?
4: And the second goon said: I understand. In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name. His name is Robert Paulson.
5: And then the rest of the goons chanted: His name is Robert Paulson.

Without seeing the scene, one cannot appreciate the Narrator's response, which is crucial to understanding. Here, no objection to the goon's interpretation is apparent, making it seem like this was the intent.

How do we know that similar information hasn't been left out of the Bible? We don't have attitude or intonation. Maybe some of the "laws" were said in a sarcastic manner that was clearly understood by the people who were there to hear them. Maybe some of it is ironic, or was a joke. How could we ever know?

Even if the Bible was a accurate recording of the words said, there still isn't enough information captured to know how to appropriately interpret those words, making any sort of conclusion hopelessly and utterly subjective and personal.

We know by faith and interpret by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is, in actuality, the infallible, inerrant word of the living God.

The word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

Who's "we"? People of faith seem to have come up with thousands of different interpretations of the Bible.

We, who interpret it literally and simply, know that the only true temptation is to make it easier on ourselves; when you're taking the hardest possible meaning you're on the right track..

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to note that, even if the words recorded in the Bible are correct, that doesn't guarantee a correct interpretation of meaning.

It does if you have the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You know that you know that you know:D

In other words: you don't.

This is the interpretation of those without the Spirit; you see the opposite of the truth!


Firstly, you suddenly believe the craziest most far out thing ever; that some obscure Jewish preacher in some Roman backwater was actually the Son of God and died for me that I might live forever..

And why is that an indicator that you have the Holy Spirit, as opposed to... say, brain tumor?

The symptoms are quite different for a start..

How so?

The main symptom of a brain tumour would be.. A brain tumour.

Yawn.

Other symptoms include yawning..


Secondly, you begin to 'see' you own deceptions, the games we play to manipulate or avoid etc..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:35:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 9:08:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:23:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think Christianity makes a lot of valid points and I take from it what I like (such as the concept that God is love and the golden rule). However, it was written by man, with man's perspective. To say such a document in its entirety is divine and infallible is simply foolhardy. There is even debate on what the Bible should be...which chapters, which verses, etc. At some point, you have to admit fallibility.

If they were smart, they would have gotten Golden Plates like Joseph Smith did.

Almost every religion, Eastern or Western, formed before or after Christianity, has a version of The Golden Rule. The Christian version was the 1st to be stated positively (do unto...as opposed to thou shalt not), but other than that, you can pull a Golden Rule out of any other religion you like.

Agree. This whole thread is an exercise in futility, IMHO. However, a Christian answer to the thread would be - You are a sinner, so of course you will never be able to interpret the Bible "correctly". Live with it, and die with it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:46:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:35:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/15/2012 9:08:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:23:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think Christianity makes a lot of valid points and I take from it what I like (such as the concept that God is love and the golden rule). However, it was written by man, with man's perspective. To say such a document in its entirety is divine and infallible is simply foolhardy. There is even debate on what the Bible should be...which chapters, which verses, etc. At some point, you have to admit fallibility.

If they were smart, they would have gotten Golden Plates like Joseph Smith did.

Almost every religion, Eastern or Western, formed before or after Christianity, has a version of The Golden Rule. The Christian version was the 1st to be stated positively (do unto...as opposed to thou shalt not), but other than that, you can pull a Golden Rule out of any other religion you like.

Agree. This whole thread is an exercise in futility, IMHO. However, a Christian answer to the thread would be - You are a sinner, so of course you will never be able to interpret the Bible "correctly". Live with it, and die with it.

But a Christian can say this wrongly (in pride; I deserve to be saved, you don't) or the right way (in humility; only by the grace of God am I any different)
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:52:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 6:58:17 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:49:08 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
That's probably why the Jews and the early Christians both had an oral tradition in addition to the written scriptures.

Which is why the tradition cannot be neglected in the interpretation of those scriptures.

In conclusion, interpretation of the Bible is not hopeless as long as one considers the other information we have when performing the interpretation.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 11:16:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:46:32 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/15/2012 10:35:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/15/2012 9:08:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:23:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
blah blah blah
But a Christian can say this wrongly (in pride; I deserve to be saved, you don't) or the right way (in humility; only by the grace of God am I any different)

@DanielChristopherBlowes
I think you are making a wholly different point. I'm not sure to what you're referring. Your statement doesn't seem to have any relevance to how the Bible is interpreted.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 11:18:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:52:03 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/15/2012 6:58:17 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:49:08 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
That's probably why the Jews and the early Christians both had an oral tradition in addition to the written scriptures.

Which is why the tradition cannot be neglected in the interpretation of those scriptures.

In conclusion, interpretation of the Bible is not hopeless as long as one considers the other information we have when performing the interpretation.

I disagree. We are all sinners, we can only comprehend the Bible in our limited fashion. It is hopeless to think we can correctly "interpret" the Bible, no matter how much information we are given.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?