AreEl Scripture Debate

[penfold]

NOTE: This is a topic split off from another thread. The preceding discussion can be found here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7289&start=30

I'll try to answer them as succinctly as possible because that is my style. You will be like my friend in the cockpit. If you insist that you know it all, you will crash and burn. I can talk you through correct biblical interpretation but I'm well aware that you will not cry Eureka! because there will be a lot of mental blockage in the way.

Forgive me, I really enjoyed your post, but I found this part a little bit patronising, so I am going to do something I do not like to do, which is explain a bit about my background. I hold an Ma (oxon) from Oxford University in Theology. I would love to discuss scriptural hermeneutics with you, but can we please drop the notion of your 'experience' vs my 'novice' status. Our authority should stand on what we have to say, nothing more nothing less. Just as my degree is irrelevant to the validity of my position so is your 'experience'.

This Literal method which - as its name implies -  interprets the Bible literally, was the method Jesus used himself. That Jesus uses the Literal method of biblical understanding is significant in itself.

This argument is circular. We only know the teachings of Jesus through scripture, so any discussion of how Jesus himself interpreted scripture is itself interpretive.

Imagine a witness in a court case. The judge thinks he might be lying. So he decides to check, he dos this by asking the witness: “Are you lying?” the Witness says “No”. Is it reasonable for the Judge now to be satisfied the witness is truthful?
It is the same kind of move to say that you know scripture should be interpreted literally because scripture says that we should. After all scripture only says that if we are already interpreting it literally!

So you have not in your (very informative) post actually offered a good justification of why the literal hermeneutic is to be preferred. I would invite you to do so. What I would say is this. You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture, it would be like checking the accuracy of an altimeter by referring to that same altimeter!

You do mention that there is a patristic tradition:

Literal interpretation was also the method of the early (Jewish) church and remained the standard method of interpretation until Origen.

Your history is poor here. Church fathers like St Clement of Alexandria prior to Origen (and Origen himself) were heavily influenced by the Platonic school of Philosophy in their interpretation of scripture (see their discussions of the Logos). I think what you are referring to is the the tradition of St Irenaeus of Lyon. While he does advocate complete scriptural authority his position on interpretation is not explicit. (Moreover it should be noted that for Irenaeus scripture was different, for example he accepted the 2nd Century work The Shepard of Hermas as scripture). Most telling though is that Irenaeus's largest work is Against All Heresies which is a book dedicated to 'outing' heretics, and according to him there are many. This fact alone shows your claim that there was a dominant 'standard method' of literalism prior to Origen to be clearly false!

However even these early church fathers are writing generations after Jesus. What of the earliest writings such as the gospels? Since the discovery of the texts at Nag Hammadi we now know that some of the earliest texts about Jesus (some contemporary with the synoptic gospels â€" cf. Prof Koester on Gospel of Thomas, also B Layton, E Pagels) are written in styles far closer to Semitic mystic and gnostic traditions (some - eg Pagels â€" even tentatively suggest a Buddhist influence coming from India via the Syrian trade routes).

Historically it is inaccurate to say that we know how the early Christians interpreted scripture; the picture is inescapably complex; far too complex to assert a 'golden thread' of correct biblical interpretation running to the present day. The truth is, to paraphrase Bultmann, we know very little about the intellectual context of 1st Century Palestine, and what little we know is less than certain.

This brings me onto something else:

AreEl, I note with interest you decided not to address my point about the historical divergence of interpretation of scripture.

I didn't address it because I didn't see it as important. There was no other reason.

Your defence as to why this is unimportant is that there is a correct interpretation of method, namely the literal method. Now setting aside the fact that you have not offered a good reason for accepting the literal method does your defence work?

In fact the problem goes deeper because, as I am sure you are aware, even within the literal tradition there are huge disagreements, so much so that back during the bad old days of the Reformation literalists killed each other over their differing 'literal' interpretations.

For example Zwingli, reading the last supper literally, saw that a sacrificial figurehead has to offer the sacrament; thus we require priests who symbolically take on the role of the lamb. The Anabaptists disagreed pointing out that nothing about hierarchy was explicit at the last supper; so we do not require priests and thus can give the sacrament to each other. Both claim to be literal interpretations, but differed so much that Zwingli ordered the Anabaptists to be drowned in the Rhone river.

These disagreements go on to this day, literalism in African Christianity is used to justify exorcisms and a belief in ghosts. The literalism of the Amish (modern followers of the anabaptist tradition) lead them to reject modern society. The inhabitants of Wako found a literal interpretation of scripture as a blueprint for radical political rejection. The Westboro Baptist church claim to have the true literal interpretation of the bible and have somehow emerged with a theology of hate.

So if you think the problem of historical divergence in interpretation is unimportant, what about the problem of historical disagreement amongst 'literal' readings of the bible?

I ask again, how do you know your interpretation is correct?

[Recusant]

One suggestion: It might be worthwhile, subject to agreement between AreEl and penfold of course, to move this thread to the "One on One Debate" subsection of the Philosophy section, and have a separate comment thread.  This way the flow of discussion would not be interrupted by comments from peanut gallery members such as myself, and AreEl would be free to deal only with penfold's points (should he be more comfortable doing so) rather than those brought up by all interested, yet almost necessarily partisan, parties.

[fester30]

I have to agree with Penfold on the patronizing nature of AreEl's posts on interpretation.  I have a problem with theists who assume they know scripture better than I do because I'm an atheist.  A survey-based study that was published last year presents the possibility that atheists actually know more about religion than theists do http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx.  The study doesn't specifically mention that atheists know scripture better, but I certainly don't think a theist should assume superior knowledge.  That's stereotyping.

The Rabbi that taught my Old Testament theology class in college (at a Jesuit University) spoke and wrote fluent Hebrew.  One of the lessons from his course was that the Bible cannot be taken literally, as much of it was not intended to be interpreted that way based upon the language.  Translation problems alone make this impossible.  Just one example:

Judges 5:22(KJV) --Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the prancings, the prancings of their mighty ones.

Other versions call it galloping or dashing instead of prancing.  The Hebrew word in this passage for the galloping of horses is an example of onomatopoeia*.  The word when spoken aloud actually sounds like the hooves of galloping horses hitting the ground.  The Rabbi outlined this for two reasons.  On one hand, he was showing what he felt was the beauty of the Hebrew language.  On the other hand, he was showing that this was just one place where translation into English left something behind in the feeling and experience of reading the passage, almost like watching a movie without the sound.  There are many such places where either there is no direct translation from Hebrew to English, or where something tangible or intangible gets left behind, rendering a literal interpretation impossible.

I realize this course I took was only on the OT.  I have no idea whether there are similar problems with the Greek language in the NT.  However, since so much of the NT is based upon and in fact depends upon OT prophesy, it doesn't matter if the NT has the same problems.  The OT problems with literal interpretation bleed into the NT.  

*Here is an internet link for the Hebrew: http://biblos.com/judges/5-22.htm.  The transliteration is...

"mid-da-ha-ro-vt" and "da-ha-ro-vt"

If you pronounce them properly, and repeat them in rhythm, they sound like horses galloping.

[AreEl]

Forgive me, I really enjoyed your post, but I found this part a little bit patronising, so I am going to do something I do not like to do, which is explain a bit about my background. I hold an Ma (oxon) from Oxford University in Theology. I would love to discuss scriptural hermeneutics with you, but can we please drop the notion of your 'experience' vs my 'novice' status. Our authority should stand on what we have to say, nothing more nothing less. Just as my degree is irrelevant to the validity of my position so is your 'experience'.

I am not patronizing and I'm sorry you took it that way. What were your motives in moving our conversation to this new place? Also, the history of biblical interpretation isn't of any interest to me so, no, I am not interested in discussing this with you. Since you have a degree in theology, why are you even asking me questions of the nature you are asking?  And, No!  our authority can not stand only what we have to say! What a bizarre thing to affirm for someone like you! Am I to understand that everybody's opinions are of equal value?  Are everybody's abilities equal when it comes to interpretation? If both your degree and my experience are irrelevant to our respective positions, then what is the point? Do you actually believe what you wrote or were you...momentarily inattentive? Would you really want your surgeon to have a degree in medicine, or will just any butcher do? The next time you fly overseas, would you really want the pilot to have the necessary experience or would you be satisfied with someone who got his training on Microsoft Flight Simulator?

Your defence as to why this is unimportant is that there is a correct interpretation of method, namely the literal method. Now setting aside the fact that you have not offered a good reason for accepting the literal method does your defence work?

I haven't offered ''a good reason'' for accepting the literal method because I intended to continue my arguments. At the end of my post in the other topic, I typed ''To Be Continued.''  Apparently, you missed that. Why were you so quick to post this reply? You don't have to answer me; answer it to yourself.

So if you think the problem of historical divergence in interpretation is unimportant, what about the problem of historical disagreement amongst 'literal' readings of the bible?

I think that the historical divergence in interpretation of scripture is unimportant from the point of view of one's salvation. Divergence in interpretation is important to those who are interested in these things, just as football scores are of interested to football fans.

I don't really understand your motives for engaging a conversation with me, Penfold. Wouldn't you already know the answers to the questions you are asking?

[AreEl]

I have to agree with Penfold on the patronizing nature of AreEl's posts on interpretation. I have a problem with theists who assume they know scripture better than I do because I'm an atheist. A survey-based study that was published last year presents the possibility that atheists actually know more about religion than theists do http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-p ... urvey.aspx. The study doesn't specifically mention that atheists know scripture better, but I certainly don't think a theist should assume superior knowledge. That's stereotyping.

You appear to have read into what I said. Take every thing I say literally and do not look for hidden meanings or assume devious intent. To be clear, let me clearly state: most educated atheists have a working knowledge of the Bible that is far superior to that of educated nominal Christians. I wasn't refering to scriptural knowledge, I was speaking of literal interpretation and nothing more. Atheists and most Christians interpret the Bible using the Allegorical method because it suits their purpose.

[fester30]

I have to agree with Penfold on the patronizing nature of AreEl's posts on interpretation. I have a problem with theists who assume they know scripture better than I do because I'm an atheist. A survey-based study that was published last year presents the possibility that atheists actually know more about religion than theists do http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-p ... urvey.aspx. The study doesn't specifically mention that atheists know scripture better, but I certainly don't think a theist should assume superior knowledge. That's stereotyping.

You appear to have read into what I said. Take every thing I say literally and do not look for hidden meanings or assume devious intent. To be clear, let me clearly state: most educated atheists have a working knowledge of the Bible that is far superior to that of educated nominal Christians. I wasn't refering to scriptural knowledge, I was speaking of literal interpretation and nothing more. Atheists and most Christians interpret the Bible using the Allegorical method because it suits their purpose.

For one thing, you seem to have avoided addressing the error in using literal interpretation.  For another thing, that's okay because I'm not like "atheists and most Christians," as you put it.  I don't interpret the Bible at all.  The Bible doesn't hold value as religious text for me, nor does it hold value as an historical text except in the most vague sense.  No interpretation necessary for me, literal or otherwise.

[AreEl]

You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture, it would be like checking the accuracy of an altimeter by referring to that same altimeter!

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading. A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture...

Why?

+++

For one thing, you seem to have avoided addressing the error in using literal interpretation. For another thing, that's okay because I'm not like "atheists and most Christians," as you put it. I don't interpret the Bible at all. The Bible doesn't hold value as religious text for me, nor does it hold value as an historical text except in the most vague sense. No interpretation necessary for me, literal or otherwise.

You are not paying attention to what I wrote. Or you're not following the conversation. I'm not sure which.

[Tank]

You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture, it would be like checking the accuracy of an altimeter by referring to that same altimeter!

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading. A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

The point penfold was making was quit right. You can not calibrate any system against itself. The critical word in penfold's point is 'same' as in the same altimeter. Altimeters are calibrated with reference to other altimeters not themselves. Do fly-by-wire systems use a single computer? No they do not, they have 3 independent systems that refer to each other. If one goes down then as long as the remaining two concur then the system will still operate.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember. You cannot calibrate a system by referring to that same system.

[fester30]

For one thing, you seem to have avoided addressing the error in using literal interpretation. For another thing, that's okay because I'm not like "atheists and most Christians," as you put it. I don't interpret the Bible at all. The Bible doesn't hold value as religious text for me, nor does it hold value as an historical text except in the most vague sense. No interpretation necessary for me, literal or otherwise.

You are not paying attention to what I wrote. Or you're not following the conversation. I'm not sure which.

I guess Hebrew to English is not the only example of "lost in translation."

[xSilverPhinx]

You know AreEl, some would say that if many people are not quite following what you meant to say, it might be because you could've written a clearer message.

[penfold]

What were your motives in moving our conversation to this new place? Also, the history of biblical interpretation isn't of any interest to me so, no, I am not interested in discussing this with you. Since you have a degree in theology, why are you even asking me questions of the nature you are asking? ...

[...]

I don't really understand your motives for engaging a conversation with me, Penfold. Wouldn't you already know the answers to the questions you are asking?

I split the thread off because I started the other one to discuss a problem in secular ethical theory; not debate hermeneutics.

I have these debates online because I enjoy them. The reason I ask questions is that I find it helps focus debates. I asked you these particular questions because you seemed like an erudite and engaging person and someone I totally disagreed with. I wanted to know what your thoughts were on things I find nonsensical about biblical literalism. I thought it would be fun to talk. I like debate, I like engaging with other minds. There is nothing more sinister going on (but then, if there was, I would say that...).

No!  our authority can not stand only what we have to say! What a bizarre thing to affirm for someone like you! Am I to understand that everybody's opinions are of equal value?

Not that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but that all opinions should be fairly valued. If someone makes a truth claim, then the importance of their person should add no weight to their position. An interesting example in our own cultural history: Aristotle was a great mind, but a crap scientist, almost all of his science was wrong. However such was his intellectual authority that for literally hundreds of years after his death people would not even try and disprove his theories and would be ridiculed if they did.

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading. A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

The point penfold was making was quit right. You can not calibrate any system against itself. The critical word in penfold's point is 'same' as in the same altimeter. Altimeters are calibrated with reference to other altimeters not themselves.

^I have nothing really to add to this; only to thank Tank for the assistance, and reiterate the crucial point: You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture.

I haven't offered ''a good reason'' for accepting the literal method because I intended to continue my arguments. At the end of my post in the other topic, I typed ''To Be Continued.''  Apparently, you missed that. Why were you so quick to post this reply? You don't have to answer me; answer it to yourself.

So please, do continue your arguments.

peace

[penfold]

:pop:

One suggestion: It might be worthwhile, subject to agreement between AreEl and penfold of course, to move this thread to the "One on One Debate" subsection of the Philosophy section, and have a separate comment thread.  This way the flow of discussion would not be interrupted by comments from peanut gallery members such as myself, and AreEl would be free to deal only with penfold's points (should he be more comfortable doing so) rather than those brought up by all interested, yet almost necessarily partisan, parties.

^ dude has wisdom.

ah well, a bit late now...

[AreEl]

The point penfold was making was quit right. You can not calibrate any system against itself. The critical word in penfold's point is 'same' as in the same altimeter. Altimeters are calibrated with reference to other altimeters not themselves. Do fly-by-wire systems use a single computer? No they do not, they have 3 independent systems that refer to each other. If one goes down then as long as the remaining two concur then the system will still operate.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember. You cannot calibrate a system by referring to that same system.

You either misread me or misunderstood me. I never said that an altimeter is calibrated by refering to itself for that would be absurd! This is what I said:

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading.

I then went on to say that an altimeter and a barometer are essentially the same instrument. Read it again:

A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

+++

guess Hebrew to English is not the only example of "lost in translation."

What on earth are you talking about? Please post clear messages and avoid innuendo.

+++

You know AreEl, some would say that if many people are not quite following what you meant to say, it might be because you could've written a clearer message.

Many people? Where is the evidence of this? I count only you and Fester.

+++

Not that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but that all opinions should be fairly valued. If someone makes a truth claim, then the importance of their person should add no weight to their position. An interesting example in our own cultural history: Aristotle was a great mind, but a crap scientist, almost all of his science was wrong. However such was his intellectual authority that for literally hundreds of years after his death people would not even try and disprove his theories and would be ridiculed if they did.

OK...I disagree with the part of your quote in boldface but let's leave it at that. Another thing: I'm not erudite! I may come accross that way but I'm not.

You haven't answered my question as to why the Bible can't be used to justify itself:

You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture, it would be like checking the accuracy of an altimeter by referring to that same altimeter!

You cannot use scripture to justify how you interpret scripture...

Why?

[Tank]

The point penfold was making was quit right. You can not calibrate any system against itself. The critical word in penfold's point is 'same' as in the same altimeter. Altimeters are calibrated with reference to other altimeters not themselves. Do fly-by-wire systems use a single computer? No they do not, they have 3 independent systems that refer to each other. If one goes down then as long as the remaining two concur then the system will still operate.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember. You cannot calibrate a system by referring to that same system.

You either misread me or misunderstood me. I never said that an altimeter is calibrated by refering to itself for that would be absurd! This is what I said:

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading.

I then went on to say that an altimeter and a barometer are essentially the same instrument. Read it again:

A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

AreEl, I read exactly what you wrote and I understood it thank you. However you have failed to understand the point that penfold was making and that I re-iterated. Let me recap.

penfold "You can't calibrate an instrument against itself." Uses an altimeter as an example, but it could be any instrument.
AreEl. Misunderstands and/or misinterprets and/or misrepresents penfold's point and changes it to say that two different instruments of basically the same type are used to calibrate each other. In this case (altimeters) a perfectly accurate statement in its own right, but not the point penfold was making.
Tank. Re-iterates and re-illustrates what penfold actually meant.
penfold. Agrees that I have re-iterated his point correctly.
AreEl. Again avoids the true intent of penfold's initial point and my accurate reiteration of said point.

So AreEl, you need to understand the point penfold was making and it is this. You can't calibrate an instrument against itself. It must be calibrated against a different, external standard. You can't test the accuracy of an instrument in isolation and only with reference to itself. This is very basic stuff that I learned in my HNC electronics back in    1981 I think. If you ask any qualified engineer they will agree that what penfold and I have said is correct. Any instrument can not be calibrated self-referentially.

AreEl, do you now understand the point that penfold was making and that I re-iterated?

[fester30]

The point penfold was making was quit right. You can not calibrate any system against itself. The critical word in penfold's point is 'same' as in the same altimeter. Altimeters are calibrated with reference to other altimeters not themselves. Do fly-by-wire systems use a single computer? No they do not, they have 3 independent systems that refer to each other. If one goes down then as long as the remaining two concur then the system will still operate.

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember. You cannot calibrate a system by referring to that same system.

You either misread me or misunderstood me. I never said that an altimeter is calibrated by refering to itself for that would be absurd! This is what I said:

Actually, an altimeter is set using a barometer's reading.

I then went on to say that an altimeter and a barometer are essentially the same instrument. Read it again:

A barometer is an instrument that reads air pressure; an altimeter is also instrument that reads air pressure. Essentially, an altimeter is a ''barometer'' set to read air pressure at varying altitudes; likewise, a barometer is an ''altimeter'' set to read varying air pressure at a set altitude. They are the same instrument! so in a very real sense, you do use an altimeter to check an altimeter. On the surface this may seem absurd but once you understand the principles involved, the simplicity of the system guarantees its accuracy

The workings of an altimeter are unimportant but the principle above is something you would do well to remember.

AreEl, I read exactly what you wrote and I understood it thank you. However you have failed to understand the point that penfold was making and that I re-iterated. Let me recap.

penfold "You can't calibrate an instrument against itself." Uses an altimeter as an example, but it could be any instrument.
AreEl. Misunderstands and/or misinterprets and/or misrepresents penfold's point and changes it to say that two different instruments of basically the same type are used to calibrate each other. In this case (altimeters) a perfectly accurate statement in its own right, but not the point penfold was making.
Tank. Re-iterates and re-illustrates what penfold actually meant.
penfold. Agrees that I have re-iterated his point correctly.
AreEl. Again avoids the true intent of penfold's initial point and my accurate reiteration of said point.

So AreEl, you need to understand the point penfold was making and it is this. You can't calibrate an instrument against itself. It must be calibrated against a different, external standard. You can't test the accuracy of an instrument in isolation and only with reference to itself. This is very basic stuff that I learned in my HNC electronics back in    1981 I think. If you ask any qualified engineer they will agree that what penfold and I have said is correct. Any instrument can not be calibrated self-referentially.

AreEl, do you now understand the point that penfold was making and that I re-iterated?

But the Bible is not an electronic instrument.  It is God's word, it says so.  Therefore it is infallible... it says that, too.