DBT

Unless new information comes to light, don't we normally take unambiguous statements to mean exactly what they say?

Now if Jacob claimed he had seen God face to face, and survived - the context and structure of the sentence implies that he meant that literally. If he had meant it figuratively there was no need to qualify it by mentioning his 'survival' We can only take that he meant it literaly.

mdd344

Amaleq13,
You stated
Okay, how does one do it?

I disagree completely. If we stick to what the Bible teaches, more here than not are demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge regarding what it teaches. I have seen some say some things, others say other things, but not much yet has been correct. As an example, the treatment of the 'kingdom' concept by two on the 'Daniel' Thread. One an expert in something, and the other very sure of what he believes--and yet both have an astonishing lack of knowledge regarding the kingdom and what it is. That to me is problamatic.

I would reject that any person could study the Bible and its evidence rationally and come to the conclusion there was no God. But, that is just me. I stipulate that you feel the same, in reverse.

mdd344

DBT,
I disagree. Why would we assume, given what we also know to be true (no man can see the face of God the Father and live) that Jacob saw the face of God the Father?

Why isn't the other evidence sufficient to at least allow us to question the exact nature of what Jacob saw, and who he saw?

RexT

Yeah, its true that no one can be completely objective. Its not true that the atheist comes to the bible disbelieving it. I don't think its fair to label people that way. Of course, those who label themselves that way can be treated by that label. Myself for example, being indoctrinated as a child to believe the bible was the inerrent word of god, without question, I was theistic in my views. Yet, as I began to think more critically in my early adulthood, I found it was impossible to maintain my theism. Thus, I went through an agnostic phase and later an atheistic phase. So how should I be labeled? At this point, I would not label myself at all, yet I am not completely confused on the issues either. There are some ways I remain theistic, at least as I have indicated, I have directly experienced something that I can only call divine. There are some ways I remain agnostic, clearly I do not know everything about divinity. There are some ways I remain atheistic, there is no empirical evidence for god. So I cannot be defined by any one label.
The problem of bias does not end at bible study, it includes every area of human interest and research. There is no way to step completely outside of our humanity, but the problem can at least be mitigated by following the rules of mathematics and logic. Of course, I am not so restricted in my views that I think logic is the only tool of knowledge, but it does seem the most reliable. As I said, I have personally experienced my own divine nature, or perhaps it was the nature of god that I was fortunate to experience. Regardless of its source, the experience itself awakened me to certain possibilities that logic could never do.
You logic here is valid, but your premise is unfalsifiable. If you believe god directed the bible, and you found what appears as a flaw in it, it would indeed follow that any error would belong to you. But you should try to realize what it is that makes your premise true. It is not god that makes your premise true, that you believe god directed the bible, it is you. Therefore, you have personally set up the premise and the conclusion and thus, how to measure who is wrong. You have given yourself a great deal of power here to create the rules of what is true or false, but you violated the standard rules of logic in the process. You have done the exact opposite of mitigating your bias; you gave it all your strength and made your bias unassailable. No one can argue with your belief, but we can say that your belief does not rise to the standards of logic, which applies equally to all claims without bias.And who decides what is "proper"?Correct.Who then decides proper context? Apparently, there seems to be some debate, even within the church, as to what is proper context.Who decides the definition of truth? Apparently, the meaning of truth too is debated among philosophers and theologians alike.Well, that shows that majorities are not necessarily correct.I agree completely with what you say here, as long as you are not trying to declare peoples unwilingness to mitigate bias is somehow justification for your own bias. There happen to be at least some people who strive to mitigate the problem of bias, even if they fail to reach absolute perfection. We can at least respect their efforts and appreciate their achievements toward such mitigation. That is where logic really shines, it goes a long way toward exposing bias and mitigating it.This is hardly a fair comparison. First, we have a pretty good idea of how math developed, and who the great thinkers were that descovered its principles. Second, math can be tested and its proofs reconstructed by any objective person capable of understanding it. The same cannot be said of the bible.I have spent most of my 49 years seeking truth. Thus, I can intelligently answer your question; it is not possible to find truth unless we do what is necessary to find it. But this is elementary logic that anyone would agree with. The real questions are; what is truth, I mean, would we know it if we found it, and what is it that one must do to find the truth? I spent many years looking for truth in the bible, and yes, I did find some there. Yet, with the same ability I have to decern the truths in the bible, (if I have any such ability) I found also many untruths in the same bible.

If one uses the standard of truth that you use, which insures that the bible has no untruths in it, it would follow that the contradictions and untruths one finds in the bible are merely human error, mistaken intrepretation. If I am so pathetic and inept to keep from making such mistakes in judgment, I am surely unable to decern truth from fiction. Thus, all hope is gone that I shall ever know any truth at all.

On the other hand, if I am able to decern truth from untruth, then there are surely errors in the bible and it was not directed by any god, but other humans. So, whom do I trust, myself or the bible? This is a false dilemma, for I always have only myself to trust. If my judgement is sound, even though I will ocassionally make mistaks, my good judgment will allow me to at least correct those mistakes when they come to my attention. But if I my judgment is unsound, it is not improved if I choose to accept the bible as sound. So either way, it comes down to me.

Rex

mdd344

Rex,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Let me say two things. First, you asked several times questions like 'who decides...' The answer to each is the Bible decides (i.e. God has already decided).

Then second, you said, 'it come down to me.' That is true. It does.

One more thing. I do not think the Bible contains any real contradictions. I know people have said it does, and some have provided links, and the like. I, however, do not believe the evidence warrants such a conclusion. And I am starting to believe that some who claim to know these things do not understand much of the Bible basic teaching to begin with. Not you here, btw. but some others, who I am sure are sincere in many respects about what they believe.

I don't try to label anyone. I don't know what I would label you. Do you recall a question Pilate asked Christ? It was like one of your statements:

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

The answer is:

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Amaleq13

I already answered this question in that same post. In short, atheists who convert to Christianity tend to stop treating the Bible like any other ancient texts while Christians who lose their faith in the Bible tend to do so because they stop granting it special exemption.

Gamera

The bible is a text and hence must be interpreted. Hence the rise of exegesis and hermeneutical theory.

Texts simply don't say things. They must be interpreted. This is particularly true with the dense, symbolic and complex texts that make up the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

To give an obvious example, see Luke 22 where Jesus tells the apostles that his earlier admonition to go to town without any accoutrements is rescinded, and they must now carry swords. The poor dull apostles take him literally and look around for swords. And this interaction ensues.

Luke 22:38 - And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough

Now, this passage has a literal meaning and a totally opposite ironic meaning. The literal meaning is that Jesus really meant for them to get swords and is happy they found two. The figurative meaning is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, with swords meaning conflict, and the dull-witted apostles took him literally and got swords, and Jesus utterly disappointed and exhausted by the fact that the apostles have learned nothing from him, agrees with them in an ironic fashion. He's about to be cruxified and doesn't have the energy to correct their mistake, which stands for the entire misunderstanding of his mission.

In the ironic interpretation, this little vignette is about misinterpreting the scriptures by taking them literally and not spiritually. In the other interpretation Jesus is a war monger.

Take your pick. But either way you have to interpret; the text doesn't say (and it says a lot about the reader which interpretation they follow -- I notice the religious right takes the dull-witted literal interpretation, not surprisingly)

RexT

That is an interesting point. The way a person intreprets anything at all tells us something about that person, but it tells us nothing of whether that which is being intrepreted is true or false.

For another example, those who intrepret god as being an angry, vengeful god might tell us that the person is generally vengeful. While a person who intreprets god as a benign, loving god might tell us that the person is generally loving. Neither intrepretation tells us if god exists.

Rex

Gamera

Well said. Which suggests to me that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are not about the existence of God, but rather raise existential question about who we are as the readers of those texts. Christianity in my view is essentially and primarilly existential.

And that's a hell of lot more important and interesting -- gaining insights into who you are -- than finding out how many days creation took.

RexT

Yeah, I could accept that. I could go even further to suggest that religion is a protective device that both hides repressed or disowned elements of our character and also provides a safe mechanism for expressing those elements.

As an extreme example, if one believes his god hates infidels, and has commanded that such evil should be destroyed; the believer is protected in two ways. First, it is not he that has hatred in his heart, but a righous god that has been wronged by the infidels unbelief. Second, he feels justified in his murder of the infidel, for a righous god has commanded it, and his service to that god is fulfilled.

But which is true; that god hates infidels, or that the believer is a blood thirsty murderer? I know not whether god even exists, but I know without any doubt that such an individual lusts after murder and that he denies that such is an element of his own character. Indeed, he is a good servant of god. The same applies to those who would rather see god as a patient, forgiving god, or anything in between.

Ergo, belief in god is essentially equivalent to the individual subconsciously making himself or herself a god, without taking any personal responsibility for their actions that stem from such belief. Amazingly, they are completely unaware of this. Scary isn't it.

Rex