Atheism ends today

[ProfessorDavey]

So the thing to do is to let the Bible interpret itself.

How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book. Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.

[Dicky Underpants]

How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book. Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.

I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?

Yup - weird isn't it

[Udayana]

Most stuff has multiple, often inconsistent, interpretations. There's no reason to believe that only a single interpretation is correct or even that any interpretation must be correct.
 

[jeremyp]

I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?

I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.

[Spud]

How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book.

They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.

[Gordon]

They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.

How self-referential: seems like a recipe for compounding errors.

[jeremyp]

They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called.

Only if you are a protestant. Catholics have 73 and the Orthodox Church has 81.

They interpret each other.

Which of the books in the Bible tell us which other ones should be in the Bible?

[ProfessorDavey]

They interpret each other.

Missing my point Spud.

My point was that a book cannot interpret itself - or even another part of a curated collection (which is what the bible is). No it is an author or a reader that does the interpretation, not the book itself. So to reiterate:

'Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.'

My point is that the interpretations are inconsistent and also opaque as we have very little understanding of what the original author of sections of the bible actually intended as the bible has been re-written, selectively curated, translated etc so much that it is pretty well impossible to determine what the original authors might have intended.

[Dicky Underpants]

They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.

And often they contradict each other. Sometimes a prophet knowingly contradicts another, concerning some important religious practice which is taken for granted as being in accordance with God's will. Take Jeremiah 7:22 on sacrifice, for instance:

"For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices."

This of course has implications for Pauline Christianity, where Christ himself becomes the sacrifice offered up.

[Spud]

Only if you are a protestant. Catholics have 73 and the Orthodox Church has 81.
Which of the books in the Bible tell us which other ones should be in the Bible?

Hi Jeremy,
I don't know much about that but I can give you an example. As I understand it, the books of Maccabees tend to over-glorify the Maccabees. Although the latter overthrew Antiochus 4th. they didn't re-instate the family of Zadok to the high-priesthood. Ezekiel stated that the priests in the re-built temple had to be descended from Zadok (Numbers 25:10-13, Ezekiel 43:19, 44:15-16). So the offerings on the day of Atonement during the time of the Hasmoneans weren't the real thing. The books of the Apocrypha are useful as historical documents but are not inspired scripture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.

I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy. That's the reasonable interpretation. The weak link is humanity itself and that is a scandalous suggestion to those sympathetic with secular Humanism or whatever it's called these days

[ProfessorDavey]

I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy. That's the reasonable interpretation.

Given that there isn't any evidence that god even exists I'd suggest this isn't a reasonable interpretation but a baseless assertion.

You are entitled to your opinion Vlad but you aren't entitled to aggrandise it by claiming it to be a reasonable interpretation when the very starting point of your assertion is a completely unevidenced assumption, i.e. that god exists. You then layer further unevidenced assertions onto unevidenced assertion, i.e. that you know how this god (not proven to exist) actually acts.

Non-sense.

[Stranger]

I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.

I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy.

Then they are rules made by a sadomasochistic, unjust, unfair, psychopathic nut job. In no way was it an act of mercy, it's literally insane to torture oneself to temporary death in order to 'forgive'  humans for being humans (i.e. the way this insane god created us).

The weak link is humanity itself...

Then this god of yours did a shoddy job in creating us.

[jeremyp]

Hi Jeremy,
I don't know much about that but I can give you an example. As I understand it, the books of Maccabees tend to over-glorify the Maccabees. Although the latter overthrew Antiochus 4th. they didn't re-instate the family of Zadok to the high-priesthood. Ezekiel stated that the priests in the re-built temple had to be descended from Zadok (Numbers 25:10-13, Ezekiel 43:19, 44:15-16). So the offerings on the day of Atonement during the time of the Hasmoneans weren't the real thing.

The book of Joshua tends to over glorify Joshua. Archaeology tells us it is mostly fiction. Maccabees does, at least, describe events that actually happened.

The books of the Apocrypha are useful as historical documents but are not inspired scripture.

You say Apocrypha, Catholics say Bible. How was it determined that the books of the Apocrypha were not inspired scripture. Bear in mind that more than half of all Christians disagree with your classification.

[jeremyp]

I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy.

Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.

[jeremyp]

Given that there isn't any evidence that god even exists

In the context of this thread, we can go further. Christians asked God to end atheism. Atheism did not end. This is positive evidence that God (or, at least the Christian god) does not exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the context of this thread, we can go further. Christians asked God to end atheism. Atheism did not end.

True.

This is positive evidence that God (or, at least the Christian god) does not exist.

I think you and I know that not to be a justifiable conclusion. It could be that god doesn't answer prayers, perhaps he gets irritated at christians making demands of him. Given that he has apparently been around for a very, very long time perhaps he's taken a short break for the last 1990 years and put his prayer-phone onto the voicemail and out of office reply. Maybe he rather likes atheists and recognises that by choosing not to provide any evidence for his existence that it is the atheists who have the most logical approach to the question, rather than the blind and unevidenced faith.

Or then again god might just not exist

[jeremyp]

True.
I think you and I know that not to be a justifiable conclusion.

I think it is a justifiable conclusion in respect of the Christian god.

It could be that god doesn't answer prayers, perhaps he gets irritated at christians making demands of him. Given that he has apparently been around for a very, very long time perhaps he's taken a short break for the last 1990 years and put his prayer-phone onto the voicemail and out of office reply. Maybe he rather likes atheists and recognises that by choosing not to provide any evidence for his existence that it is the atheists who have the most logical approach to the question, rather than the blind and unevidenced faith.

Or then again god might just not exist

Hmm, that is a good point. It's well known that omnipotent God needs to rest at the weekend.

[Spud]

Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.

Nobody escapes the punishment, as everybody dies.
I think old testament times were different as regards the possibility of eternal punishment. This is because they had no proof of a general resurrection except clues from Enoch and Elijah who didn't die but were taken 'up". The teaching of the prophets was that repentance had real consequences in this life, rather than that if we repent we will have eternal life.
Jesus taught the latter, and that there will be a resurrection of everyone, knowing that he would rise from the dead as evidence.
This doesn't subvert any rules, does it?

[jeremyp]

Nobody escapes the punishment, as everybody dies.

Dying is not punishment. It's what happens to all living things in the end.

I think old testament times were different as regards the possibility of eternal punishment. This is because they had no proof of a general resurrection except clues from Enoch and Elijah who didn't die but were taken 'up".

There's still no proof of resurrection.

The teaching of the prophets was that repentance had real consequences in this life, rather than that if we repent we will have eternal life.
Jesus taught the latter, and that there will be a resurrection of everyone, knowing that he would rise from the dead as evidence.
This doesn't subvert any rules, does it?

Yes it does. If the rule is that we are to be punished for our sins and there is a way to get around the punishment, the rule is subverted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.

I think you have discarded two of God's decrees here 1) His intent is to rescue humans from ''the wages(effects accrued) of sin'' by 2) Taking the effects on himself in the person of Jesus.

[jeremyp]

I think you have discarded two of God's decrees here 1) His intent is to rescue humans from ''the wages(effects accrued) of sin'' by 2) Taking the effects on himself in the person of Jesus.

Did he not create the "wages of sin" rule himself?

And let's be honest, he didn't take the effects on himself. People who sin are dead forever. Jesus was dead a couple of days. It's just one massive loophole after another.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did he not create the "wages of sin" rule himself?

And let's be honest, he didn't take the effects on himself. People who sin are dead forever. Jesus was dead a couple of days. It's just one massive loophole after another.

Everybody is raised to judgment, some will go to the second death and some to eternal life. What you suggest is a strange mash up of bible and the secular view.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Everybody is raised to judgment, some will go to the second death and some to eternal life.

He who fails to bow down before Colin, the Great Nabob of the leprechauns shall have a camel forever spit in his eye.

OK, your turn for the next utterly unqualified faith clam drivel...