God of the Bible as Flawed Human

If I had to guess it would be that you assume that you can apply standard techniques of textual criticism to the Bible as if these will inform you as to what it means. "Thoughtful analysis vs. forcing a view" awaits your demonstration regarding lack of assumption. Otherwise it is fair to suppose your view to be somewhat tilted in your own favour.

that's not an assumption. that's a methodology. you start with an idea, and seek to make the bible fit it. i do the opposite. this thread has established that. and as i said in the part you just quoted, i quite often find things that are not in my own favor.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

Try this then...If I had to guess it would be that you assume that you can apply your methodology to the Bible as if this will inform you as to what it means. Lets just clear up whether you are starting with an idea too.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

as oppposed to what, divine inspiration?god wrote the book, but we need god read it to us and explain it to us in order for us to understand it? don't think about it, just listen to your pastor? god said it, but we need god explain his own words, and what he really meant? that makes god out to be deceptive -- a liar.(for the record, my particular methodology is adapted from several thousand years of jewish tradition.)

---

The first question at hand is do you, like me, have starting assumptions. It would appear that you do. At least that is cleared up. Now you want to talk about the relative merits of your assumptions versus mine. Here you represent the credentials of my assumptions - with not untypical panache. Rather than get into a tit-for-tat might we suppose that 'divine intervention' would better inform as to what the Bible means than:

that "the bible makes sense" is not an assumption. it's based on study. if i thought the bible was a non-sensical and useless text, i would have written it off years ago.you propose a way of reading that utterly ignores common sense, objectivity, and the facts regarding what is on the page. you might as well read whatever you want into the text, on the pretext of "god tells me so." god tells me black means white, and day means night, and evil means good, and death means life. ok, fine. my decision to base my reading methodology on thousands of years of jewish tradition is divinely inspired. the tradition is also divinely inspired. god tells me it's right.

---

I didn't say the bible making sense to you was an assumption. I am arguing that the sense you make of it results from the methodology you use. Your assumption is that the methodology you use will provide you the correct sense of what the Bible is saying. It doesn't matter what our respective assumptions are - none of them can claim an objective higher ground in debate - for neither is demonstrably superior as a way of understanding what the text is saying. For in order to verify that any methodology is a good one we would first need to know what the text means and only then calibrate a particular methodology against it. You can see the problem I hope.In the example we have discussed (Proverbs) two results arose, one from each of our respective starting assumptions. Your own exposition terminated in two contradictory pieces of wisdom which contained no advice as to which of the proverbs should be followed. And it is impossible to follow the advice of one proverb without ignoring the advice of the other - which speaks volumes about how valuable one considers the advice of either proverb to be.My own exposition gave two non-contradictory pieces of wisdom which, when applied together, form practical, common sense (when you consider it) advice for one who is considering whether or not he should answer a fool.You can see why one might have trouble believing your assumptions are the correct ones.

you're trying to play another slight-of-hand trick here, iano. yet it still leaves the obvious conclusion that a plain reading of the bible (my methodology) yeilds an erroneous result. ie: the bible lies. um, no. objective is always superior to subjective. you have no particular definition for a consistent reading of the bible. at all. anyone claim that their reading of the bible is divinely inspired. for instance, i just did. if the argument doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for you either. your method is based on nothing but starting assumptions -- not regarding logic, or reason, but regarding the philosophy present. when demonstrated that you are wrong, you turn to semantics and trying to bend the text. this is dishonest, and wrong. and if your god tells you this is true, your god is a liar and a fraud, and no god at all. your god is loki, or satan. and yet there they are in the text, contradicting each other. one says exactly the opposite of the other.the point of this, which you missed, was to demonstrate to everyone else here the faults in your logic. there is no way you can seek to find a reasonable answer to this quandry without distorting or betraying the meaning of one of the proverbs. and it also served to demonstrate the problem with your assumptions that the bible needs to agree with itself, and your assumptions about what the bible is and the function it serves. and your exposition was erroneous, as it was pointed out to you. you claimed that we should answer fools, but not according to their folly.

quote:

---

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly

---

it's really to bad you had to cut that phrase out of the text, and hope we forgot. heck, it sounded good -- you suckered ned into thinking you had made a valid point. my only assumption, as you pointed out, is that the bible makes sense and we can understand it. as you have demonstrated in this thread, your methodology turns the bible into an incomprehensible, subjective, and deceptive text, and presumes that god is a liar.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

Not necessarily. One could equally conclude that the methodology you use is an erroneous way to understand what the Bible is saying. You are assuming its not faulty. Like I have already stated in summary It would seem that you assume a particular methodology is the correct one and then when it produces a particular result, hold that result up as proof your assumption is the correct one. The rest of your post is a round-a-bout way of saying this. The flaw in such thinking isn't hard to miss.I won't be getting into Proverbs with you again no matter how tall you make the letters. I was simply pointing out that our respective (quite different) expositions of those verse might be indicative of the usefulness of our respective starting assumptions. I'm not trying to argue, as you do, that "my assumptions are the right ones". Each must decide for themselves.The proof might well be in the pudding

what sort of assumptions do you suppose i make when reading your posts? or anyone else's? what kind of methodology do you suspect i use? what assumptions do you make about mine? what methodology do you use?should i just read your posts as meaning "i'm the biggest idiot in the world" because i think god tells me so? or should i try to apply some kind of rationality to it, and, you know, actually read what you have to say? which do you suspect is a more respectful and correct method?and why does it differ when it comes to the bible?my assumption is that bible operates rationally. that applying reason to it is the correct way to analyze it, as opposed to arbitrarily assuming we know what it means and disregarding what it says. your posts in this thread have demonstrated your methodology, and even described it outright. and that methodology flies in the face of reason and logic -- asserting that bible is not a reasonable, logical, or even honest text. you demonstrate that you believe the bible says one thing, yet means another.if those are the battling assumptions, so be it. i'm sticking to my logic, reasoning, and the words on the page. feel free to continue to just make stuff up as you see fit and distort the bible to fit it. but it's rather obvious to everyone which kind of assumption is more dangerous, which is more valid, and who's just full of it. there's a point you missed, and it's described elsewhere in this thread where i specifically contrast our two methods. my assumptions about what the text says -- the same kinds of assumptions you make -- are very often overturned. even my basic assumption that the bible is literal is frequently overturned in specific sections.confirming a hypothesis is not circular logic, even though you try to make it sound as such. it's not that my "assumption" that the bible is rational text is also my conclusion, it's that this reading helps to better explain the text, its origins, its authors, the social context it was written under, etc.by contrast, your starting assumptions -- what you think the bible says -- are always confirmed, and it tells you nothing about text. maybe a simple moral platitude about how to live, but generally nothing we can't get with common sense. the major fault in your logic, as i pointed out earlier in this thread, is that you do not overturn a single assumption, anywhere, or at anytime. you know the "truth" and evidence to the contrary only convinces you that the evidence is wrong. you tailor the evidence to fit your assumption.and this can be evidenced most recently by your excision of a phrase from the text in order to make it fit your explanation. poor form, iano. no, you won't, will you? because you are wrong, and refuse to admit it. you cannot pretend that your reading is valid when it's based on a distinction you have made up wholesale that does not appear in the text. yes, and you make stuff up. if you don't see the usefulness, you pretend it's there and edit the text to make it look like it is. that's not very useful, because anyone can do the same to anything and read whatever they want into the bible or anything else. the proof is in this thread, and in your semantics, slight-of-hand, and avoidance. nobody is fooled, iano. you're only fooling yourself.

---

It seems your approach doesn't differ when it comes to the Bible. You seem to approach the Bible with a methodology that you could apply to any ancient text (or any text at all for that matter)This assumes the Bible is 'any text at all' and can be approached in the way you (rightfully) approach "any text at all". I just assume the Bible is not "any text at all". And because I assume it to be unique, a unique approach to it is assumed to be required. Reason isn't excluded from my own analysis. An explanation of Proverbs 26:4/5In fact that exposition of Proverbs doesn't require any of my own starting assumptions for its construction (as I have already pointed out). Anyone could follow the reasoned explanation and apply the wisdom of both proverbs in their dealing with fools - whether they assumed what I assume of the Bible or not. Thats the great thing about wisdom, any wisdom: it makes sense. This points to the strength of your assumptions. That they can be overturned? If the hypothesis said "I predict the sun will be eclipse by the moon at 2:31 pm tomorrow" and that occurred then the hypothesis would be confirmed. But if the hypothesis is confirmed by something which only it can interpret as confirmation then that is circular. It would be like me saying "My hypothesis is that God says to me that Pr 26:4 means what I said it means in msg 96 - and it does mean that - therefore my hypothesis is confirmed"You start with the assumption that the Bible is a rational text. So do I. But we might find that our respective views on 'rational' differ. You might begin with "rational in the sense that I can read it literally and that that will provide its sense to me. And sure enough, this methodology which applies my rational thinking in a formal, disciplined way confirms what I suspected" More circular reasoning Arach. I am not saying you are incorrect - but that that as an argument for your assuming the higher ground in debate is circular. That's what proverbs do - they point out to us common sense that we may have overlooked. Or a sense that makes common sense where we ponder the wisdom a little. A "stitch in time saves nine" is common sense and is widely applicable if considered a litte. lf the wisdom didn't strike us as common sense or truth to us then it wouldn't be much of a wisdom (for want of being able to discern it as such) Much as I would like to examine your contention that 26:5 said it was the better of the two suggested actions w.r.t. answering fools, I really will not go back to it. And to my knowledge NosyNed too. I think his tongue-in-cheek response to you went a little over your head (one of the inherant dangers when one reads things too literally).Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

let's make no bones about this. you try to hide the obvious point with words. your assumption is that the bible is a nonsensical and deceptive text. it's not wise to call your own words wise, iano. besides, your point is demonstrably wrong. look, you wrote:

quote:

---

The wisdom of 26:4 doesn't contradict the instruction of 26:5. 26:4 gives a warning about the pitfalls. 26:5 instructs as to what to do regarding fools and why to do it.

​

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

​

"By all means answer a fool. But don't let your answers be ones where you are a kettle calling a pot black. Otherwise you may well become a fool too."

---

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

you used "according to his folly" as a distinction. both verses contain the phrase. you are wrong. one is not pitfall while the other an instruction. both are pitfalls, because both contian the word "lest." one is a pitfall for you, the other for the fool. iano, you can't pretend that confirmation bias is a strength. it's a logical fallacy. the fact that when presented with evidence contrary to your assumptions you overturn the evidence speaks volumnes about your intellectual honesty. your assumptions are more important to you than even the factuality of what the bible says. you again try to hide to obvious with words. a reasoned approach explains a lot about the data. the evidence available through study confirms that the bible functions as a reasoned and rational text. no, you don't. you start with the assumption that bible is a supernatural text that cannot be undertood without the aid of the holy spirit. you have demonstrated your assumption at work -- if it doesn't fit with your assumption about consistency, it must be because you don't understand why it's consistent. besides the fact that this makes god to be a liar, do you not see the fundamental problem here? no, quite often it is contrary to what i suspected, but serves to explain the text better. again, you skip over the fact that there are texts i freely admit are not literal. how do you suppose i came to that conclusion, if i'm using circular logic? objective, rational, and reasoned approaches are always superior to subjective, irrational, and unreasoned approaches. examining the content of the text is always more correct than distorting it. and suddenly, you do understand what a proverb is. this is amazing, iano. what happened?...now, why do you suppose that a proverb has to be a literal truth, the word of god, or agree with all other proverbs? you misread. i didnot say it was the better "of the two." each proverb claims it is better, because of the consequences of the other. that's the issue -- that we cannot determine which is actually better without betraying the meaning of one of them. ned wrote:

quote:

---

Oh, I should learn not to jump in with a flawed memory of events. Ok, I don't see how the contraction can be explained away then.

​

Thanks for the thanks Iano but I think you have to withdraw it now.

---

care to explain how that's tongue-in-cheek? he quickly realized the flaw in your logic, and withdrew his support. maybe this is simply another case of you reading whatever the hell you want into everything.

---

Hey! I've an idea. Lets ask him. This thread is all about how each of us read things. Lets stake both our reputations (or at least whats left of them) on this mutually agreed third party. I read NosyNeds message to be tongue-in-cheek and you don't. Seems like a clear cut opportunity to resolve things.Whaddya say - his decision is binding and all that!Over to you Ned (and your cheques in the post)