|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
OK. Instead of “us” one version has “you.” Can anyone do a grammatical (or other) analysis of the verse and trace this “word” and the others back to their antecedents?
I agree with your interpretation. Now who are the “us or you” and the “any” and the “all” to which this applies? Why is Peter even having to make this argument?
Angra Mainyu
I think he was referring to the people living in the world at that time when he said “any” and “all”. In my view, that’s what the text appears to be saying. If you think it says differently, I’d ask what you think it says?
Incidentally, given that Peter was referring to a believer, and he was a believer himself, the “us” or “you” didn’t seem to refer to his interlocutor or to both his interlocutor and himself. Rather, I think that that was a general statement, referring to people.
|
That’s a good working hypothesis. Now, go back to the passage in question and apply your hypothesis by tracing back to the antecedents (or explain why there are none, if that is the case) and then explain how your hypothesis works within the argument that Peter is making. Then people can look at your rationale and see if it is valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
People can look at the Bible in different ways. Where there are two different interpretations of a passage in the Bible, at least one must be wrong.
Angra Mainyu
“Wrong” compared to what?
The writers may have interpreted previous passages differently. Given that there were so many writers, and that the texts were selected later among many possible ones, it’s not clear which intended interpretation would be considered the correct one.
If you assumed that God is the author (by means of divine inspiration), then your contention would be correct. However, there’s no reason to believe that that’s the case. Even if it were, there would be no way of determining which of the many interpretations is correct.
|
Wrong compared to the truth. If one person says A and another person says ~A, then at least one of them must be wrong. If the truth is B, then they would both be wrong.
In the end, the correct interpretation needs to fit the data (the many passages written by many writers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
It is unfortunate because these people erroneously believe that they will escape accountability for their sin by doing certain works.
Angra Mainyu
I disagree. Many don’t believe that their actions are sinful, or wrong at all.
That aside, my question is the same: why would that be unfortunate?
Perfect justice, in the form of infinite torture, would be done. That wouldn’t seem unfortunate.
|
That is unfortunate also. If people do not think that they have sinned, then they have no incentive to escape accountability for that sin.
It is unfortunate, in the original situation, because people believe that their works will allow them to escape accountability for their sin such that they will be able to enter into heaven and not be confined to hell and torture because of their sins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
The original autographs are inerrant. No translation is inerrant. For purposes of argument, we assume that the Greek and Hebrew texts that we have are essentially the same as the original autographs (even though we recognize that they are not).
Angra Mainyu
In that case, how can you even try to determine what the Bible says, without reading Greek or Hebrew, and using only translations?
If translations aren’t inerrant, and we’re using only translations, then the text we have is not inerrant.
Because it is so obviously misunderstood. Inerrancy is an assumption based on that which the Bible itself says. The proof of any person’s interpretation of the Bible is to look at that which the Bible says and the argument for the specific interpretation.
You assume that the Bible is inerrant. But we can only work with interpretations, and try to prove the inerrancy of them.
If you try to check the text itself, in reality you’re interpreting the text as you read it. I mean, when you look at the Bible and the argument for the specific interpretation, you’re comparing said interpretation with yours, to check the former for correctness, which seems to amount to assume that your interpretation is correct.
My question would be: can you prove that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, and thus the interpretations of most Christians are wrong?
|
I agree. No one should use only translations. You need to go back to the text in the original language. While translations are not perfect, they tend to be very good. If there is difficulty in translating a specific passage, this can be seen in the different ways different translations render the verse.
The proof of any interpretation is that it fits the data. I don’t know that any interpretation could be called inerrant, but we can identify bad interpretations and good interpretations by the way they fit the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
Because, the Bible states this.
Angra Mainyu
But other texts (e.g., the Quran) could state the same.
Why would you assume the Bible to be inerrant, instead of some other book making the same claim?
|
I assume the Bible is inerrant because it basically says that it is. If the Quran also says that it is inerrant, then we just have to determine which god, Jesus or Allah, is the true God. Then we will know which text is inerrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
Because, the Bible states this.
Angra Mainyu
Suppose I claim
1) Torturing people for their beliefs is right.
2) In particular, torturing people for not believing claim 1), is right.
3) 1) and 2) are all an true statements, and I was inspired by an infallible being to write that.
Should we assume that 1) and 2) are infallible, just because 3) says so?
|
If you make the claim and your source for these statements really is God, then I would consider it inerrant. Is there a reason why they would not be (other than that people don’t like what was said)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
There’s another essential problem with a book claiming its own infallibility, because there must be a self-referential claim, whether implicit or explicit. The problem is obvious in the claims I made (who guarantees the truthfulness of 3)?), but it’s inevitable whenever a text makes claims about itself.
In other words, a sentence like “this claim is correct” doesn’t make sense. However, if in a sentence or group of sentence on the Bible, there’s a claim that the rest of the Bible is true, who says that the claim of truthfulness is true as well?
The Bible can't validly claim its own infallibility. At most, a part of the Bible can claim the infallibility of the rest.
|
If the Bible makes the claim, then it must live by the claim. That is why so much energy goes into showing that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. An error or contradiction will invalidate a claim of inerrancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
Maybe we could define a “Christian” by that which the Bible says about such people.
For example, we can start with—
“Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.’” (Acts 26:28)
and try to discover what Agrippa was talking about.
Angra Mainyu
However, that would not be an accurate definition in my view.
First, different people have different opinions on what the Bible says. I don’t know what you think Agrippa was talking about, but I’m sure that whatever it is, others will reach a conclusion different from yours.
Second, the definition could be disputed by those who consider that the Bible isn’t the only source of dogma (e.g., Catholics).
There’s no reason for me to assume that your sources are better than theirs, or that your interpretation is better. Then again, I have no reason to assume they’re right, either. That’s why I prefer a more inclusive definition.
Still, I’d like to hear your definition of Christian - I mean one that we could use to tell a Christian from a non-Christian.
|
Again, regardless of a person’s opinion, the real issue comes back to -- What does the Bible say? I think Wayne Delia remembers my definition of a Christian because it rubs him the wrong way. Maybe he can provide what I said earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
One of us is wrong.
Angra Mainyu
I agree. Suppose the Bible is correct, inerrant, etc.
Then, God created a Universe with Hell.
God created the force – whatever that is – that takes people to Hell.
Clearly, those in Hell don’t like being there, so they’re in Hell against their will, sent by a God-designed force in a God-designed universe – i.e., sent by God.
|
Basically, yes. At the same time, these people did not merit entry into heaven. They are in a catch-22. They committed sins for which they did not want to be held accountable but they didn’t want to do that which was necessary to escape that accountability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
Yep. My position is that, where two interpretations exist, at least one must be wrong.
Angra Mainyu
But what makes you think that that is the case?
That aside, even if that were the case, how could one determine which one is correct?
Given that God isn’t going to tell us, there’d be no way of checking that.
In other words, different people would consider that God had different intentions, and there’d be no way to see who would be right.
|
Again, we go back to the original data and see if the interpretation explains the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
That choice relates to the action required for a person to deal with their sin prior to standing before God and being judged. A person would know about that choice by being told about it or reading about it.
Angra Mainyu
Could you be more specific, please?
I’d like to know what the choice is, not to what it relates. In other words, what is the action required?
Also, how would they know about that choice?
Because they can be told about many choices (Sunni Muslim, Shiite Muslim, Catholic Christian, Evangelical Christian, Neopagan, Hindu, Buddhist, and a long etcetera), all of them religious – though not all of them involving the idea of judgment before a God.
|
To repeat, a person would know about that choice by being told about it or reading about it. The choice relates to there sin. A person is accountable for their sin. If a person sins, he has the choice of seeking forgiveness for that sin. A person can be told many things. Not everything a person will be told is to his advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
Each person decides what to believe.
Angra Mainyu
I disagree, if you mean that in the sense of choice.
I cannot choose to believe in Ares, Ra, or the Muslim God. I could lie and say that I believe, but that would not make me believe. My conclusion is that those deities don’t exist – it’s a conclusion, not a decision in the sense of a choice.
If it’s different for you, I’d like to know how that’s possible.
Could you choose to believe in Zeus, or Minerva?
If so, why don’t you make that choice?
Why would you choose the God of Christianity instead?
|
You decide what to believe based on the information available to you. If you have complete information, you can make a choice (either good or bad). Even lying is a choice, but not a good one. Given the information that I have, Zeus and Minerva are not real and God is, so I believe in God. If I have made a wrong decision, then I will reap the consequences of that wrong decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
rhutchin
OK. We still have different groups with different underlying assumptions. The different underlying assumptions produce different interpretations of the Bible and each is judged on individual merit. What’s the issue?
Angra Mainyu
Why would you add your assumptions?
Assumptions like the existence of the world outside one’s mind and logic are intuitively evident, but why should one assume that a God exists?
In particular, why should one assume that the Christian God exists, and/or that the Bible is infallible?
Moreover, how could one make such assumption?
As I mentioned earlier, I cannot just assume the existence of Prometheus and believe it (I could assume it for the sake of the argument in a thread, but I’d now he doesn’t exist).
How can a person believe in a non-evident assumption for which they have no evidence?
|
A person can assume the possibility that God exists based on the historical accounts in the Bible.
Any assumptions a person makes about God would be drawn from the Bible and not what he wants God to be.
|
10-15-2006, 09:58 AM
