Does the Bible self-interpret?

[urroner]

Bumped for Billy:

Why was the simple and plain reading of "nothing is good" so wrong?

[cksalmon]

Since we know it isn't inerrant, we then know that it doesn't interpret itself, nor is it self-evident as to what its various passages really mean.

Hi j--

"We" don't know that.

Best.

cks

[Billy]

. . .but sometimes when the text is changed because of translation and then the text is interpreted through the eyes of a different culture, the translated and interpreted text seems to say X while the original text actually said M.

There can always be communication errors when translating from one language to another, nobody would disagree with you on this point. There also can be communication difficulties even among people who speak the same language, as evident on this board. But to say that it is impossible to translate an idea or concept from one language to another I would disagree with you on this point. My guess is that this is one reason for having multiple translators for the Bible, so that they can come to an agreement on the translation and its meaning.

BTW, how is this any different than the Book of Mormon or any other LDS church publications? By your argument you can only trust the writings in the original English editions.

[jwhitlock]

"We" don't know that.

For the "we" of us who haven't seen any cogent defense of Biblical inerrancy mounted, and who haven't seen the points we raise addressed concerning the inherent inadequacy of human communication to convey the divine will (in and of itself), it looks pretty clear that Biblical inerrancy just doesn't exist.

Hence, the point of the rest of my post stands.

[cksalmon]

For the "we" of us who haven't seen any cogent defense of Biblical inerrancy mounted, and who haven't seen the points we raise addressed concerning the inherent inadequacy of human communication to convey the divine will (in and of itself), it looks pretty clear that Biblical inerrancy just doesn't exist.

Hence, the point of the rest of my post stands.

I wasn't aware that "we" had raised any points, frankly, j. I'm more than happy for you to disbelieve in inerrancy, but you really shouldn't suggest, in response to me personally, that "we" know that the Bible isn't inerrant. If you're responding to me, you ought to state, "since I believe (though I realize that you disagree)...," etc.

I'm not among your "we." So, when you respond to "me" and invoke a "we," while "me" is not in the "we," I am rather compelled to believe that your "we" happens to be ignorant of my "me." That's my point.

If you merely mean that "we" who "know" the Bible is not inerrant "know" that the Bible is not inerrant, then I think you ought to make that clear.

After all, I'm not at all implicated in your tautological assertion, at this point.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

I wasn't aware that "we" had raised any points, frankly, j. I'm more than happy for you to disbelieve in inerrancy, but you really shouldn't suggest, in response to me personally, that "we" know that the Bible isn't inerrant. If you're responding to me, you ought to state, "since I believe (though I realize that you disagree)...," etc.

I'm not among your "we." So, when you respond to "me" and invoke a "we," while "me" is not in the "we," I am rather compelled to believe that your "we" happens to be ignorant of my "me." That's my point.

If you merely mean that "we" who "know" the Bible is not inerrant "know" that the Bible is not inerrant, then I think you ought to make that clear.

After all, I'm not at all implicated in your tautological assertion, at this point.

I thought I had explained what I meant by "we".

I apologize for your confusion.

[urroner]

There can always be communication errors when translating from one language to another, nobody would disagree with you on this point. There also can be communication difficulties even among people who speak the same language, as evident on this board. But to say that it is impossible to translate an idea or concept from one language to another I would disagree with you on this point. My guess is that this is one reason for having multiple translators for the Bible, so that they can come to an agreement on the translation and its meaning.

BTW, how is this any different than the Book of Mormon or any other LDS church publications? By your argument you can only trust the writings in the original English editions.

Never said anything you said I said. All I said is that info in always lost in translations. BTW, the original language of the BofM is not English, so data was lost in the translation also. But, sometimes, there are things that just will not translate from one language into another, no matter how many translators there are. There are play on words all the way through the scriptures, but a translation into a different language will usually destroy all these play on words because the play itself doesn't translate. Isaiah is great for using word play in his writings and very little of it comes across in the English Bible and with the loss of that word play, sometimes the scripture comes across very, very weird.

Then there is the lost of context in translation and this makes a lot of scripture hard to understand.

BTW, not to push the point, but the plain text "nothing is good," are you willing to comment on it? I've let you know that it's a trap, one that I got caught in and learnt a lesson from that I have never forgotten. Sometimes what we think is plain and simple isn't plain and simple. Sometimes when we think something is plain and simple simply means that we don't understand the facts.

[Zakuska]

Now you know how they feel.

If you feel that a church saves you then the answer is no. But the problem is that a church is not what saves you.

Thats news to Paul.

Romans 11

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: http://' target="_blank"> 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

[Zakuska]

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

It is more plausible that the above sentence really means that there are many Gods?

Are you saying that scripture is broken Billy?

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Why is God calling others gods if the title is only to be applied to himself?

[Bill Hamblin]

Did you talk to Isaiah?

Just like you do, your point is?

". . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

If God says that no God is formed before him and no God will be formed after him, is this a lie?

Isa 43:10 reads

le-pānāy lōʾ n

[Beowulf]

Thanks for shooting down my argument Bill Hamblin (which had been based on temporality)...

But even assuming Bill Hamblin's interpretation, Isaiah's phrasing does not exclude the existence of other gods. It simply does not talk about it all.

Billy's assertion that I am mind-reading Isaiah is curious, since Billy's interpretation of this verse is rampant mind-reading, whereas my assertions are (at least) based on a (sort-of) understanding of the period and culture within which Isaiah wrote.

And Bill Hamblin is one step ahead of me, in that he can read Hebrew as well...

On the other hand, all Billy can bring to this discussion is a repetition of the verse's phrasing, which he apparently believes is self-evident confirmation of his preconceived notions (that more than one god cannot exist).

Surely you can do better than that.

Beowulf

[Mudcat]

I like the fish thing. I like to go fishing. Not only are there good fish all over the place, but here in Florida, there are fish that are here, but weren't here originally and because of they are here, they are messing things up. Also, if the fish isn't prepared (interpreted) correctly, it can make somebody sick. I catch blowfish all the time, but I will never eat it. I enjoy not being poisoned accidentally.

I like your last statement where the Bible isn't God's Word, Christ is, but it seems that too many are attempting to make the Bible to be the Final Word and the Only Word and I have problems with that. It just seems to me that they are trying to make their interpretation of scripture to be the Word of God and then trying to make that Word of God to be infallible and not subject to any criticism. What happened to the humility and meekness?

Yeah, I was always partial to how Lewis put a lot of things.... not all mind you, but a lot things.

I think the basis for Final and Only Word of God, is one from historicity. To most, it is all we have.

The natural comparison on an LDS board by LDS would be that the Standard Works are a happy addition to the Bible.

I think I have seen how most of those discussions turn out, so I wouldn't mind approaching this one from a different angle.

Let's say somewhere in the Old World, they managed to excavate a copy or two of a letter that was very intact. As it turns out, this letter seemed to be Paul's lost epistle. Many experts on the writings of Paul and various other archaeologists confirmed that the dates fit and it was consistent with other epistles of Paul.

Would it be accepted by all, by some, by none? Who, if any would be able to say that it should canonized?

just a thought

[Billy]

Isa 43:10 reads

(Bill Hamblin's translation)

"There will not be formed a god in front of my face, nor behind me," that is, don't make/place an idol physically before or behind Yahweh.

So you think the meaning of this phase is that it is wrong to make/place an idol before or behind Yahweh but it is OK to make one out of sight of Yahweh?

[Billy]

But even assuming Bill Hamblin's interpretation, Isaiah's phrasing does not exclude the existence of other gods. It simply does not talk about it all.

On the other hand, all Billy can bring to this discussion is a repetition of the verse's phrasing, which he apparently believes is self-evident confirmation of his preconceived notions (that more than one god cannot exist).

". . .Before Me there was no God formed,

And there will be none after Me. Is 43:10

Will you write a sentence for me that is more clear than Is 43:10 that states that there is no God formed before or after God?

[urroner]

". . .Before Me there was no God formed,

And there will be none after Me. Is 43:10

Will you write a sentence for me that is more clear than Is 43:10 that states that there is no God formed before or after God?

"Nothing is good." What could be more plain or even more clear than this? Doesn't it just state that everything is not good?