AreEl Scripture Debate

[xSilverPhinx]

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

I think some calibrate what the bible says against their own life experience, but then it's all down to interpretation (which is exactly the problem when trying to show what's "true" based on experience to other people who do not share it). Truth value in that case goes out the window without external verifiable evidence to back it up, which for some reason some theists don't understand.

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

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said "many people".

[The Black Jester]

I think some calibrate what the bible says against their own life experience, but then it's all down to interpretation (which is exactly the problem when trying to show what's "true" based on experience to other people who do not share it). Truth value in that case goes out the window without external verifiable evidence to back it up, which for some reason some theists don't understand.

I feel the need to interject here briefly (and I shall do so only briefly, as I'm sure AreEl would prefer to defend his/her own ideas).  This is dangerously approaching a circular discussion, when it need not be so (at least not yet).  Although I'm not absolutely certain what AreEl meant, I suspect you are somewhat closer than the others.  I don't believe AreEl was suggesting that either a specific instrument, or a single specific text, can be used to calibrate (either figuratively or literally) itself.  I belive AreEl was drawing on 25 years (if I have that right) of flying experience to point out that one instrument is calibrated by the use of another of essentially the same type.  This is relevant to the discussion for the following reason: the Bible is not a single document, it is a collection of documents.  What I have heard literalists argue before is that, as this collection was essentially written by different people in different times, with different agendas (as we non-believers are fond of pointing out), each document of the collection can be used to compare against and validate/invalidate the others.  So one "spiritual" or "inspired" document can be used to verify another.

Again, I'm not certain this is what AreEl is arguing, and I'm not certain this improves the literalist's position, when all is said and done, but  I think we should at least be clear on what we are each saying before we tear each other to shreds.  The principle of generosity in interpretation: it is far more likely that I have misunderstood your position, than that your position is irrational.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think some calibrate what the bible says against their own life experience, but then it's all down to interpretation (which is exactly the problem when trying to show what's "true" based on experience to other people who do not share it). Truth value in that case goes out the window without external verifiable evidence to back it up, which for some reason some theists don't understand.

I feel the need to interject here briefly (and I shall do so only briefly, as I'm sure AreEl would prefer to defend his/her own ideas).  This is dangerously approaching a circular discussion, when it need not be so (at least not yet).  Although I'm not absolutely certain what AreEl meant, I suspect you are somewhat closer than the others.  I don't believe AreEl was suggesting that either a specific instrument, or a single specific text, can be used to calibrate (either figuratively or literally) itself.  I belive AreEl was drawing on 25 years (if I have that right) of flying experience to point out that one instrument is calibrated by the use of another of essentially the same type.  This is relevant to the discussion for the following reason: the Bible is not a single document, it is a collection of documents.  What I have heard literalists argue before is that, as this collection was essentially written by different people in different times, with different agendas (as we non-believers are fond of pointing out), each document of the collection can be used to compare against and validate/invalidate the others.  So one "spiritual" or "inspired" document can be used to verify another.

Again, I'm not certain this is what AreEl is arguing, and I'm not certain this improves the literalist's position, when all is said and done, but  I think we should at least be clear on what we are each saying before we tear each other to shreds.  The principle of generosity in interpretation: it is far more likely that I have misunderstood your position, than that your position is irrational.

This doesn't have to do with AreEl specifically though since he's defending his position I am eager to see what he might have to say about it, but with an impression I get with theists in regards to this topic when it comes to the truth value of the bible, and how to read it and in what context. Just a thought I threw out there.

I'll rephrase it this way:

Two or more barometers are calibrated in a measurable environment (air pressure at an altitude) and can be used to verify eachother and perform the necessary corrections, but that's only possible because there's a measurable environment. With the bible, its different parts can't be calibrated against eachother without a measurable environment outside of itself because then it would be circular, and going by what I see is happening, some theists use their life experience as that environment. This poses obvious problems for other people when trying to suggest a correct way to read the bible and does nothing for the truth value or arguments on the correct interpretation because the environment can't be verified to be true outside experience.  

To each his own, I guess.

This is an interersting topic.

[AreEl]

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?

I said that an altimeter is set by a barometer; you and Penfold say that an instument can't be calibrated to itself. I agree and say that self-calibration would be absurd. Are we not all saying the same thing? What was the purpose of your original intervention?

+++

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

The above comment expresses derision. As such, it is unobjective, emotional and cannot be considered as based in reason.

+++

I don't believe AreEl was suggesting that either a specific instrument, or a single specific text, can be used to calibrate (either figuratively or literally) itself. I belive AreEl was drawing on 25 years (if I have that right) of flying experience to point out that one instrument is calibrated by the use of another of essentially the same type. This is relevant to the discussion for the following reason: the Bible is not a single document, it is a collection of documents. What I have heard literalists argue before is that, as this collection was essentially written by different people in different times, with different agendas (as we non-believers are fond of pointing out), each document of the collection can be used to compare against and validate/invalidate the others. So one "spiritual" or "inspired" document can be used to verify another.

Again, I'm not certain this is what AreEl is arguing, and I'm not certain this improves the literalist's position, when all is said and done, but I think we should at least be clear on what we are each saying before we tear each other to shreds.

Excellent! You understood perfectly.

+++

...Two or more barometers are calibrated in a measurable environment (air pressure at an altitude) and can be used to verify each other and perform the necessary corrections, but that's only possible because there's a measurable environment. With the bible, its different parts can't be calibrated against eachother without a measurable environment outside of itself because then it would be circular, and going by what I see is happening, some theists use their life experience as that environment. This poses obvious problems for other people when trying to suggest a correct way to read the bible and does nothing for the truth value or arguments on the correct interpretation because the environment can't be verified to be true outside experience.

You'll have to rephrase what you wrote because I don't understand it. The Black Jester got it right so you may want to study his post before rephrasing yours.

[xSilverPhinx]

...Two or more barometers are calibrated in a measurable environment (air pressure at an altitude) and can be used to verify each other and perform the necessary corrections, but that's only possible because there's a measurable environment. With the bible, its different parts can't be calibrated against eachother without a measurable environment outside of itself because then it would be circular, and going by what I see is happening, some theists use their life experience as that environment. This poses obvious problems for other people when trying to suggest a correct way to read the bible and does nothing for the truth value or arguments on the correct interpretation because the environment can't be verified to be true outside experience.

You'll have to rephrase what you wrote because I don't understand it. The Black Jester got it right so you may want to study his post before rephrasing yours.

I got that the Black Jester equates different scriptures within the bible to different barometers being used for calibration, but it's the barometer-bible analogy I have a problem with in the first place because:

-you can only calibrate a barometer based on another barometer (or altimeter) because there exists an external environment which allows for measurement, a space filled with air or atmosphere. They have to be of the same type because they measure the same thing. This measurable thing is air pressure which occurs in any space filled with air, even though in our atmosphere it varies at different altitudes. Even so, it's something that can be objectively measured.    
Without air pressure in the first place, you couldn't calibrate any barometer even if using another of the same type...in fact barometers would become essentially useless.

-using different biblical scriptures to calibrate eachother poses the problem of circular reasoning IMO without an external context (such as an atmosphere in the above example). It is my impression that theists use their own subjective experience as that context more than they use the bible itself or extra-biblical sources, but that lacks the objectivity compared to the barometer example. Because of this everybody reads the bible as they see fit to live their lives, but without the measurable objective truth value that the barometer example has.