Ie. what justifies the unreasonable expectations set on deities by us mortals? — BlueBanana

I don't think the expectations are unreasonable. Why do you think it is unreasonable to expect a God to do for what I criticized Him for not doing?

"First of all, please explain on what ground you expect a mortal to do the job of a God"
— szardosszemagad

As I have stated, I don't. — BlueBanana

You implied that you did. You asked me if I could do a better job. That's a loaded question, not merely a simple inquiry.

You implied that you did. You asked me if I could do a better job. That's a loaded question, not merely a simple inquiry. — szardosszemagad

The question and its phrasing implied more that I assumed the answer to be no than yes.

Why do you think it is unreasonable to expect a God to do for what I criticized Him for not doing? — szardosszemagad

A very good question. For the same reason you think it's unreasonable to expect mortals to do it, I assume. I think it'd be a nirvana fallacy to expect and accept nothing but the best instead of one trying their best.

There you go. 8-)

Uh?

Historically, this just proves that the Bible and its interpretations have always been an evolving document. — schopenhauer1

Wow. Hold on. The words of the Bible do not change. Do you mean to say that previous interpretations were wrong, or that the interpretations were right for the time?

I mean, times are different now. Nobody gets to be burnt at the stakes any more for insisting that the Earth is round. I understand that by your saying that the bible is an evolving (?) document, you mean that human knowledge makes it necessary to re-evaluate parts of the bible for keeping it compatible for the new undeniable truths of the world, which the bible contradicts.

Fair enough, everyone knows that. But why use the word "evolution", or rather, a derivative of it, if neo-Darwinist evolution is still so vehemently denied by the religious? Are you not blaspheming by using this concept, which, by force of faith, is a wrongful, impossible thing to happen? If it is impossible, why can the document do it (without even changing itself) but not the biosphere?

So the document is evolving, without changing... that's not a Darwinist evolution then. What kind of evolution are we talking about?

Or are you using the word in a colloquial sense? In that case, how come the bible still insists that the Earth is flat? Or that a virgin can bring forth a child, or some people back 6000 years ago or so could live to be 600 years old or more, etc? Or that a man built a boat with the help of his family which was able to house all species of animals and plants for six weeks, with no food?

This is what you call evolution? I think new and more and more new interpretations are not a process of solving any mystery; it is, instead, merely rationalization in a very forced manner to stop the holy text from getting ridiculed by the faithful. Others are already astonished how reasonable people can believe it's a word of god, merely by looking at its description of events proven to be impossible which it boasts as historical truth.

Uh? — BlueBanana

I decided to close the argument at a point that we can both claim victory. If you don't like that, we can continue, but basically I find it pointless because now we are both saying the same thing, which is, the almighty could have done a better job, and I couldn't have, so what is the point of further arguing? To carry on an argumentative debate, the two parties have to disagree, which you and I don't.

So what do you want to talk about next? If it's a different topic, then please start one and I'll do my darndest to contribute. (Not a perfect guarantee.)

It seems fairly obvious that it is a prophecy of the coming of John the Baptist.

No, wasn't being disingenuous, flippant, ridiculous, or anything else. You tell me what you think it means. — Bitter Crank

Interpretations could be nuanced in various ways but for me its central meaning is to live with humility keeping God in your heart and mind instead of being consumed by worldly concerns for their own sake or for your own ego's sake. This is a pretty standard message common to many religions, although couched variously in somewhat different forms. I find it hard to believe you are not erudite enough to be well aware of that. You don't have to agree with it as a prescription for living, but it's not hard to understand its meaning, and understanding is not precluded by disagreement.

↪Janus I suggest you give it up. I'm not arguing anything, I was asking what I thought was a simple question that would have a simple answer, and am astonished that you still haven't got it.

What's the question? It's in the OP and repeated a couple of times through the thread. — tim wood

Here is your question:"Now it’s a simple question: how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification?"

And I have asked you to explain why you think the word of God should not be subject to interpretation. If you can answer that, then do so. If you can't answer, then be honest and admit it instead of trying to dismiss my question by insinuating that it is me that is being either obtuse or evasive.

My guess is that you think that in order to qualify as the word of God a text could have just one literal meaning. To me to think this would be absurd. If God is infinite, why would his Word not have infinite meaning?

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" Matthew 13:13

"THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;
Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
Socrates taught what Meletus
Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse,
And Caiaphas was in his own mind
A benefactor to mankind.
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white."

Excerpted from 'The Everlasting Gospel' by William Blake

And I have asked you to explain why you think the word of God should not be subject to interpretation. — Janus

I never said the word of God should/could not be subject to interpretation. What I did ask, that you even reproduced above, is how, if even you, you Janus, have in hand a text that you claim is the word of God, you can also claim that your interpretation of that text, as opposed to the text itself, is in fact the word of God. The idea is that this particular, this peculiar, claim cannot stand - be in any way valid - for both the text and the interpretation of the text. (E.g., assuming the interpretation is not exactly the same as the text, is different from the text in any way whatsoever, then the claim amounts to the claim that God does not say/mean what he says, an absurdity.)

This of course presupposes that interpretation and reading are not exactly the same thing, which, without looking, I think you concede above. Maybe it wasn't you. What do you say? Is reading exactly the same thing as interpretation? Do the two words mean exactly the same thing? If your answer is yes, then please review some of the earlier posts.

We arrive at a question "What, exactly, is the standard by which to measure/establish the value of any interpretation of the Bible? Is there one, or many? Are they universal and necessary, or contingent? — tim wood

I doubt if there was ever ONE standard by which to judge the meaning, value, interpretation, or efficacy of a given biblical passage. I am guessing that as the texts accumulated over the coarse of several hundred years there was considerable divergence.

Internal consistency would be one standard. Is this particular law treated in this passage the same way that it is treated in the other 10 passages where it is mentioned.

Consistency with the cult (in this case, the religion of the Jews). The texts of the OT were probably not the only source of cultic content--just as the NT is not the only source of Christian cultic content. For instance, animal sacrifice conducted by a priestly type of some sort probably existed before the beginning of the Jewish cult. The Eucharist might have been part of the early cult of Christianity and was then (possibly) read into the NT).

For a couple of obvious examples, rabbits and eggs have nothing to do with the resurrection, and pine trees have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. None the less, they are part of the cult of Christianity -- at least for those parts of the Christian world under the influence of German and English culture -- which is the pagan source of rabbits and decorated pine trees.

Consistency with the believers' understanding of their religion. This standard was critical in sorting out the various scriptures at the time the NT was formalized. There were various 'sub-cults' in early Christianity, like the Gnostics. The committee that put the NT together wasn't especially fond of Gnosticism, Arianism, and a dozen other heresies, so those type of narrative were left out. The book of Revelations was not readily accepted, not for heresy, but because it concerned relatively local administrative matters (and, incidentally, was put into metaphorical form). It's got some great lines, and was eventually accepted, and all those metaphors have come in handy innumerable times -- for better and worse.

Consistency with the surrounding culture which was pagan. A lot of Greek philosophy (neoplatonism) worked its way into the New Testament, because whatever Jews and early Christians might believe, Greek Philosophy was pretty much de regueur for the thinking elite -- and it was the thinking elite who edited the NT. It wasn't a populist document.

Finally, for later Christians (including 21st century Christians) there is the standard of whether the scripture stands the test of time. People ask, "When we read the Bible (if we were to do that) does it speak to us in language and concepts that are meaningful to us?" For many people, the scriptures are not so meaningful that everybody who reads them finds them compelling. For many people the scriptures do not stand the test of time. (Though one must add, for many it does. Christianity is growing in total number of believers, just not in the US and western Europe. The disbelievers, or lapsed Christians, are in the advanced capitalist societies where culture has been pretty heavily secularized, alienated, pummeled by incessant commercial messaging, social deterioration, etc. etc. etc.).

Have you been reading my responses to you? Here is one regarding the question of the difference between reading and interpretation:

↪tim wood

But "reading" then according to you just refers to the act of reading. That act obviously involves skills including knowing the conventional meanings of words. Of course the possession of such reading skills and the act of reading itself must precede any interpretation, but so what? I still don't see how that rather obvious and mundane fact has any bearing on what you seem to have been trying to argue — Janus

Why should I be necessarily able to claim that my interpretation of a text that I believe to be "the Word of God" is itself the Word of God? If my interpretation were the Word of God, then it would, equally as the text, be inspired by God, and could not be inconsistent with the text. You do seem to be thinking in terms that a text, to be the Word of God, must have just one literal meaning, but I think that is wrongheaded as I already pointed out.

What do you think a text being the Word of God means? Do you think that idea itself has just one literal meaning, and if so, what do you think that meaning is?

No. — Agustino

So why then?

The dream itself contains the message. — Agustino

Damn, I should have figured that out. Do I need an interpreter to explain it for me. Not unless I am stupid.

I merely drew your attention to the fact that the Bible itself doesn't paint the picture of God that you have in your mind for the purposes of this conversation. This isn't about me or listening to me, it's about reading the Bible. — Agustino

So do you have any new image of god that the bible portrays or is your image the same one everyone else uses? I have read the bible, it is interesting but as a work of fiction, historical fiction maybe, but still fiction. And the picture I have of god is about the same as I have of Zeus, but not as colorful.

Oh yeah, you're actually expected to think for yourself and relate it to your own experiences, wow, who would ever do that! — Agustino

Ok, so he does talk in riddles and even his groupies did not understand him. What kind of a teacher is he then? If god was supposed to have sent him to collect souls to the cause would it not have been easier to speak clearly and make sure the people got the right message instead of saying think for your selves and risk them getting it wrong.

You should get a room for yourself and put a sticker on the door reading "kids only" — Agustino

You are one of the children of god that has to have everything interpreted for you, so maybe you should be the one to do this.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. — 1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways and stopped believing in Santa Claus.

It seems fairly obvious that it is a prophecy of the coming of John the Baptist. — Janus

Thank you, So it is clear, there was no need to do any fancy interpretations, just read it. It is nice to know that even ordinary people can read the bible and not worry about whether they are understanding it properly.

You meant to write "not worry..." I presume? But yes, anyone should be able to read it with an open heart and mind, and find its poetry working on them to some degree. What you quoted was a straightforwardly prophetic passage, but there are many others which are much more parabolic, and hence open to various interpretations, which although different need not be exclusive of one another. This is the beauty of poetic language; it does not characteristically present the reader with a bunch of propositions to be either affirmed or negated.

Interpretations could be nuanced in various ways but for me its central meaning is to live with humility keeping God in your heart and mind instead of being consumed by worldly concerns for their own sake or for your own ego's sake. This is a pretty standard message common to many religions, although couched variously in somewhat different forms. — Janus

I live with a great deal of humility, I am not consumed by world concerns for my own sake nor for my ego's sake. And I don't have to blame god for the way I am.

I find it hard to believe you are not erudite enough to be well aware of that. You don't have to agree with it as a prescription for living, but it's not hard to understand its meaning, and understanding is not precluded by disagreement. — Janus

The meaning of it was well understood, the need for nuances in a holy work are what I do not understand.

And I have asked you to explain why you think the word of God should not be subject to interpretation. If you can answer that, then do so. — Janus

Why should anyone even be allowed to try to decide what a god really means by his words. Unless there is doubt about them actually being his words.
It looks as if some people think that they are above god and that they can make his words fit to the occasion as necessary. If these people are supposed to be inspired by god, then should he not get his act together and inspire them all in the same way so as to avoid confusion
It seems pathetic to say that it is necessary because of changing times, because then it means that god did not take into account that time would make a difference to the way people live. If he all knowing then isn't it silly to say "he did not do that for __" insert any reason you can think of. If his plan was for mankind to go out and populate the world would he not have known already the changes that would be coming?

My guess is that you think that in order to qualify as the word of God a text could have just one literal meaning. To me to think this would be absurd. If God is infinite, why would his Word not have infinite meaning? — Janus

Hot dog about those window blame humperdinkle bald.

If words can have infinite meanings, try to find out if I just insulted you.

You meant to write "not worry..." I presume? — Janus

Yes, thank you for pointing it out. (Y)

Fixed it.

I live with a great deal of humility, I am not consumed by world concerns for my own sake nor for my ego's sake. And I don't have to blame god for the way I am. — Sir2u

If this is truly how you live, then you are already walking with God. And no right thinking person would blame God for how they are.

The meaning of it was well understood, the need for nuances in a holy work are what I do not understand. — Sir2u

The passage you are responding to was directed to BC. In any case, why should a holy work not be nuanced, just as all good poetry, indeed literature, is?

Why should anyone even be allowed to try to decide what a god really means by his words. Unless there is doubt about them actually being his words. — Sir2u

It seems to me that you are misunderstanding, and trivializing the notion of words being Words of God. You are looking at this notion as some kind of empirical or propositional claim, which is inappropriate and is only the stuff of fundamentalism. Words are the Words of God when they speak to the open-hearted in ways that allow them to see, hear and feel God. There is a plethora of literature in many traditions that attests to this. What do you think being "the Word of God" really means?

If words can have infinite meanings, try to find out if I just insulted you. — Sir2u

Is it my intelligence or your own that you have insulted?

If this is truly how you live, then you are already walking with God. — Janus

No, I walk without him. He would not walk anywhere with me after the number of times I have denied his existence.

And no right thinking person would blame God for how they are. — Janus

But so many do. I'll let you think about it.

The passage you are responding to was directed to BC. — Janus

Yes I know it was directed at someone else, I just could not resist answering though.

In any case, why should a holy work not be nuanced, just as all good poetry, indeed literature, is? — Janus

I heartily agree that most good poetry and literature is nuanced and that it does in fact improve the writing most of the time.
But I also realize that it is fiction.
A biography of Winston Churchill could be told in so many ways to make his life seem bigger than it actually was, to make him appear romantic or sexy or even stupid. It could be biased to suit the opinion or needs of almost any political group. The writer could emphasize some parts of his life while ignoring other parts to give his life different meanings. All of this could be done, but if the writer tells a lie then it is no longer the biography of Winston Churchill.

If the bible is the word of good then it can contain nothing that is not the word of god. Human interpretations of his meanings would make a mockery of him.

Words are the Words of God when they speak to the open-hearted in ways that allow them to see, hear and feel God. — Janus

But if the open-hearted need to have it spelled out for them by some authority then it does not fill its objective.

Is it my intelligence or your own that you have insulted? — Janus

I would not insult you. And I have no reason to insult myself. But it is impossible for words to have infinite meanings, even for a god. There would be no meaning to anything said.

No, I walk without him. He would not walk anywhere with me after the number of times I have denied his existence. — Sir2u

I think you underestimate him; or overestimate his peevishness.

But so many do. I'll let you think about it. — Sir2u

The many you refer to are not right-thinking persons then. But thanks for letting me think about it anyway.

If the bible is the word of good then it can contain nothing that is not the word of god. Human interpretations of his meanings would make a mockery of him. — Sir2u

The Bible might be the Word of God for some and not for others. Who is right? One must decide for oneself whether and to what degree the Bible, in all its parts, is the Word of God. If it is not the Word of God for you, then to be sure it is not the Word of god for you. Can you explain what you think it could mean for a work to be the Word of God beyond that? Think about a poem (or any text) that is revelatory for someone; is it necessarily revelatory for others? Potentially revelatory? That's a very important question in aesthetics and hermeneutics right there.

But if the open-hearted need to have it spelled out for them by some authority then it does not fill its objective — Sir2u

It's not a matter of being "spelled out for them by some authority" but rather of being seduced by the Word. This is something that must be experienced in order to be understood, just as the revelations of great literature must be experienced in order to be understood.

But it is impossible for words to have infinite meanings — Sir2u

Note, that it is 'in-finite meaning' that is intended not 'infinitely many meanings.

Can you explain what you think it could mean for a work to be the Word of God beyond that? — Janus

You have asked that question a few times now, could you answer it.

I have done this many times before and have been given the same answers usually.

If I said that the word of god should reflect his being and therefore should be perfectly written you would tell me that it is so. It is I that fail to understand the meanings because I will not open my heart to it.

If I said that the word of god should be all-encompassing as he is. Then you would tell me it is so because it is not lacking in any way. Obviously, because it can be interpreted to mean almost anything it is all-encompassing.

If I said that the word of god should be useful and guiding to his people. You will tell me that it is so, that the bible contains many helpful and educational resources. So why is it that only a few of those people know how to get the good stuff out of it and the rest have to listen to them.

If humans are the work of god then anything written by man is the word of god, because we are all influenced by him. Why can't the Hobbits be treated with the same reverence as the bible?

It's not a matter of being "spelled out for them by some authority" but rather of being seduced by the Word. This is something that must be experienced in order to be understood, just as the revelations of great literature must be experienced in order to be understood. — Janus

That sounds like a commercial for cake mix.

You have asked that question a few times now, could you answer it. — Sir2u

Firstly, I asked what you think being the Word of God means, and secondly I have not been sparing in saying what I think it means, which is to say what the more philosophically sophisticated, who understand that it is not an empirical matter, will say it means. The answer is given in the only terms that can really make any sense; in terms of human experience.

.

If humans are the work of god then anything written by man is the word of god, because we are all influenced by him. Why can't the Hobbits be treated with the same reverence as the bible? — Sir2u

I would say that in a sense insofar as any work is an authentic expression of the human spirit and experience, that it is a Word of God. But then there are many texts that are not specifically concerned with religious experience, with the good life in the spiritual, that is to say the redemptive and transformative, sense.

That sounds like a commercial for cake mix. — Sir2u

Great rebuttal!

Note that we are not talking about what is objectively the case here; there is no such thing. To think there is, constitutes the first fundamentalist mistake.

Anyway it is inevitable, given our very different starting presuppositions that we will continue to talk past one another, which would be a further waste of time and energy, so I think this conversation has run its course.

Wow. Hold on. The words of the Bible do not change. Do you mean to say that previous interpretations were wrong, or that the interpretations were right for the time? — szardosszemagad

So the document is evolving, without changing... that's not a Darwinist evolution then. What kind of evolution are we talking about? — szardosszemagad

I think you are misinterpreting me.. the parallel there is funny. Easy to misinterpret any text ;).

So I hold a historical-critical approach. What I meant was that both the written text and the application (and interpretations) of the written text evolved over time. So if you were to rewind back to 700s BCE, you would have a possible text that was an amalgam of traditions and mythical texts from the Israelite and Judahite sources. This would resemble to some extent the stories in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. If you were to fast forward to the 600s BCE, you would probably see influence from the Cohens/Levites in Leviticus and Deuteronomy written in more or less full form (possibly influencing the previous texts to conform to the later narrative). Then in the 500s-400s BCE, you may have seen the various sources redacted, edited, and added to so that it came in its final form of the Torah we know today- the Five Books of Moses. These books were probably presented in final redacted form by Ezra the Priest who was trying to institute a fully-formed theocratic state under the auspices of the Shah-an-Shah in Persia who ruled over Judah at this time (called the province of Yahad in Persian).

Now, let's also add some more historical understanding. Who were "the prophets" (the neviim in Hebrew)? They were probably guilds of "seers" who were dedicated to the god Yaweh. By the 600s, the main power structure was the King, the Priests, and the Prophets. The prophet guilds sometimes had more influence like in King Hezekiah and King Josiah's time, and around this time, they convinced the power structure to mainly ditch the other gods in favor of the patron god Yaweh. They probably also maintained a moral element in the religion. In other words, they may have aligned the ritualistic aspects with moral aspects such that morality was tied up in Divine Command.

In 586 BCE, Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and took the elite classes (priests, kings, prophets, etc.) with them, leaving some Jews behind. Again, this is when the "Bible" was redacted and put together. When Ezra came back, he brought with him scribes, priests, and even "prophets" who would help establish a theocratic state of sorts. This council was called the Great Assembly. Just like the Constitution of the US, the Torah in its final form was considered the Law of the land and main source for tribal history. However, they still had to "show" people how to follow it. So they probably had "oral" traditions decided upon by the Great Assembly (like the Supreme Court makes judgements about the written Constitution which is also considered binding law). These oral traditions explained certain rituals, holidays, prayers, and how to follow the text itself. This was supposed to get passed down from priests/scholars/prophets down to the next generation in a game of telephone. It was never thought to be written down. This is what I meant by "pristine" state, because my argument is the religion as it was set up was really put together by this Great Assembly more or less, and thus the original intention of the Torah by Ezra and Great Assembly (just like the original intention of the Constitution) may have had slight variations which harbored more traditions that may not have been in the original or changed the context of the original document to fit new situations (just like the Supreme Court with the Constitution.. The 6th Amendment says right to counsel for defense, but it was Gideon v. Wainright in 1963 that made it mandatory for states to provide a public defender).

You realize, that this would be anathema to Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians who would say, no the traditions go back to Moses who wrote it down many years earlier (1200 BCE). So, my argument was it was myths, laws and traditions that were redacted and edited over time, with its final form around 400 BCE and was redacted by Ezra and scribes, with certain "unwritten" laws and judgements made by Ezra, scribes, and Great Assembly that itself evolved over time with newer judgements or replacements with older ones, or perhaps changed as the information was transmitted in different ways the original, etc. etc. I hope this answers your question about what I mean that it was an evolving document.

With this approach, you cannot interpret our understand the history or intention of the Bible, without understanding the civilization, the people, the culture, the context, and the history from which it came.

I think this conversation has run its course. — Janus

I think I agree. But just a comment I expect no answer to.

The lord of the rings is a grand story. It contains most of the situations found in the bible, from war to love, friendship to enemies, loyalty to betrayal, images of god like beings doing things that no mortal human can do, and so on.

In many thousand years when the archeologists are digging in the remains of our utterly destroyed civilization looking for any clue as to what life was like in our times. They find some books, a bible a Koran, the Talmud and the Lord of the rings. Do you think that they would be able to tell the difference between them?

Do you think that they would be able to tell the difference between them? — Sir2u

I think they piece it together and Gandalf provides the sacred texts to Moses in the Shire and they go on a great adventure to Egypt where Sauron and his Orcs enslave the Israelites, and save them and lead them to the Lonely Sinai Mountain where Smaug lives. Meanwhile Moses' nephew Mohammad finds some elves and angels and fights Sauron again and brings with him dwarves in the battle of Mirkwood.. The messiah, Aragorn returns and reestablishes a sacred kingdom reuniting the two kingdoms of men and elves or something like that.

I think they piece it together and Gandalf provides the sacred texts to Moses in the Shire and they go on a great adventure to Egypt where Sauron and his Orcs enslave the Israelites, and save them and lead them to the Lonely Sinai Mountain where Smaug lives. Meanwhile his Moses' nephew Mohammad finds some elves and angels and fights the return of Sauron brings with him dwarves in the battle of Mirkwood.. Aragorn comes back and reestablishes a kingdom and brings the Kingdom of Men together again with the elves and angels or something like that. — schopenhauer1

Bloody marvelous, where is the thumbs up button when you need it? (Y) (Y)

Edit ; What do they Elves do?

Thanks :D! I cleaned up the post a bit, I think you copied my original one. The Elves fought with the evil Amelakites and Edomites in the Battle of Beleriand in which the Angels were employed from Valinor to help defeat them and their evil king Morgoth. Later the Angels asked the Elves to come back with them to Valinor but some remained behind in Babylonia instead of going back to the Holy Land and established mystical schools which kept the secrets and traditions of the First Age.