Dr Evil

Of course you can interpret this, using the most commonly accepted meaning. But if you are using the text above there is no way of knowing that this is the original text, written 2000 years ago. There is a gap of hundreds of years, and no evidence that the surviving texts reflect the original texts of the time. So in interpreting this saying you can understand it, but is that what the author 2000 years ago even wrote?

This is the problem of many of the books of the ancient world. The only version we have are from the Arabic medieval scribes. These are almost certainly not from the original Greek scrolls, so via another language, possibly Latin, or later Greek versions. But do these reflect what the Greeks wrote? It is impossible to know. We speak of Aristotle and Plato's works, but what we have are not their works, they are what others say are their works.

J-D

You are irrelevantly confusing two completely different issues. The interpretation of a text is one matter; the determination of its origin is another. Determination of origin is not a prerequisite of interpretation.

I open up a Bible; I read that verse in it; I understand what it means. And so do you, although you are resisting the admission. And the meaning we gather, although you are also resisting this admission, is the meaning intended by the person who wrote those words--regardless of whether some unknown hypothetical person, who may only be a product of your imagination, at some speculative earlier date, previously wrote something which may or may not have been in the same words.

Dr Evil

Sorry, but you are still missing the point. You are interpreting something written 1700 years ago. You call it The Bible. Both of those things are fine. The issue is, what are you interpreting? If you think it is something written at the time of Jesus, about Jesus, in the language of Jesus, then you are mistaken. What you are interpreting is a book written about Jesus. But you could just as easily read the Book of Mormon. That is also a book about Jesus, and also written well after his supposed death. You can develop iron-clad interpretations of non-literal language in both of them. They will both tell you zero about Jesus.

J-D

No. You are in error. That is not, and never was, the issue. I am not, and never was, disputing about that point.

I was and am disputing your original assertion, for which you have never offered an adequate justification.

If you have forgotten what your original assertion was, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this exchange and check.

Atheos

...

outhouse

because that is not how it was originally intended, even by following the collections and redaction compilations of legends one can tell by its different stages, how the context was ment to be read or sung

it does contain, allegory, metaphors, songs, poems, this is a fact, and its also a fact you loose the original context and beauty with a literal reading.

outhouse

this is a statement you cannot assert with any credibility.

the only thing up for debate is how limited the information is that can be puilled from careful examination

Toto

May I suggest that outhouse lacks credibility? And that he has an unfortunate habit of making assertions without citing authority? Perhaps it would be best if he allowed the participants in this discussion to proceed without his input.

Dr Evil

My first post that began this discussion was:

"If the Bible is not to be interpreted literally, it can be interpreted in any arbitrary manner whatsoever. A 5-th century monk in Constantinople would interpret it in a completely different manner to a highland village-dweller in Papua New Guinea in the 21-st century. So apparently they can be totally and utterly different (and contradictory), and yet both totally true. That is why the notion of non-literal translation is nonsense.

Because the real world has shown the literal interpretation to be wrong, theists are now trying to get around reality. With non-literal interpretations they are free to just make up whatever they want. "When Jesus did blah, blah, blah, it really means this totally different thing." No it doesn't. It means your book is wrong. Pure and simple."

All of my assertions flow from this. My assertions are:

(1) None of the books making up the Bible are reliably datable to the period they are purportedly about. There are books considered as canon by some groups, that are considered heretical by others. Regardless, no reliable versions are contemporaneous. The New Testament books date to at least nearly 300CE. Therefore, if the non-literal language is interpreted, there is no certainty that you are not interpreting the last author's ideas, hundreds of years after the supposed events.

(2) None of the books making up the Bible are reliably traceable to the original version, or original language. This situation is worse for the New Testament, where most have gone through several translations. Therefore, if the non-literal language is interpreted, there is no certainty that you are not interpreting the last translator's ideas.

J-D

The two paragraphs you have numbered do not 'flow' from your earlier assertions. That's your mistake.