Another Primitive Faith question....

I don't buy it, Thunderchild. I took enough literature courses in college to know that every individual brings to the written document his own personal baggage of experience, training, psychological handicaps, upbringing, and personal ideas, so that he is interpreting the document through his own personal filter. No two people will interpret the same identical written document in the exact same way; English professors are fond of telling you, "There is no exact right answer; it's what you think the story means."

And that's precisely what you get with the Bible. Six people get six different ideas about what they think it means. As an illustration, take this simple sentence:

"I never said you stole money."

What does that sentence mean? It might seem pretty simple, but look at the ways it can be interpreted:

1. I never said you stole money. (Somebody else might have, but I didn't.)

2. I never said you stole money. (How dare you suggest such a thing!)

3. I never said you stole money. (I might have written that you did, or implied it, but I never said it.)

4. I never said you stole money. (Your boss might have, or your neighbor, but not you.)

5. I never said you stole money. (Borrowed it, maybe, or misappropriated it, or lost it---but you didn't steal it.)

6. I never said you stole money. (Chewing gum, cars, secret documents, sure; but you didn't steal money.)

See what I mean? And that's just one sentence. How much more open to myriad interpretation is a complex and varied document like the Bible.

That's why without some kind of set standard, there will never be any agreement on what the Bible is actually trying to say.

Wolseley, that reminds me of something that once read hung over a diaper changing station in a church nursery:

1 Corinthians 15
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-



Michelle

Ah yes. But there is a rub when it comes to the scriptural part of the Bible.

My favourite for the purposes of demonstration is this: Eph 5:5

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Click to expand...

1/ According to the passage
...a/ no idolater will have an inheritance in the kingdom
...b/ no idolater will have an inheritance in the kingdom if he is a whoremonger, unclean, covetous
...c/ a person who is a whoremonger, is unclean or covetous is an idolater: he will have no inheritance in the kingdom
...d/ it is not possible based on this passage to determine whether a, b, or c is intended.

Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Now answer that same question again, taking the Colossians passage into account.

While I agree that a single sentence can have a variety of meanings - particularly when written ("verbal has a number of cues to determine intent which cannot be properly conveyed in writing:" he said with a smirk)
However, groups of sentences tend to convey greater levels of information.

If written communication really was as incoherent as professors seem to like pretending it is, it would be impossible to understand anything that was committed to writing. The Biblical requirement for two or more witnesses is an important issue. If two passages can't be found saying the same thing, it is certain that the first has not been properly understood. (Unless of course, what is written is not scripture) The lack of independent witnesses is one of the determinants.

The same style of argument is used sometimes by atheists.

CHRISTISNOWHEREAMONGUS Christ is now here among us? or, Christ is nowhere among us? (Given that this is a demonstration of how writing messages was undertaken 2000 years agone in Greek and Hebrew both, and still is in Japan.) However, pretending that the comment is scripture, and pretending further that either statement might be scriptural... Somewhere else it will be written either: HEREANDNOWCHRISTISAMONGUS, or, CHRISTISNOTTOBEFOUNDAMONGUS

Reading that is like reading the old joke about what one toe said to the other: "THERE'SAFUNGOUSAMONGUS".

Not so much a joke though, when it comes to that demonstration passage.

What is the context (and reading comprehension must show enough of a passage to make context clear)? The preceding sentence might be "THEECCLESIASNOTEDTHATMIRACLESWERENOLONGERINEVIDENCE

ANDDECLARED"CHRISTISNOWHEREAMONGUS."

Further to your objection though, yes, the first couple of sessions for Bible study groups are devoted to knocking the stuffing out of pre-conceptions.

Example: Two thousand years ago, the existence of the ovum was unknown. It was believed as a matter of scientific fact, that a woman's womb only provided a suitable environment for the growth of a miniscule human (male or female) implanted in her by the man. This (contrary to assertions by rabid feminists) is the primary reason for blood lines being established from the male rather than from the female heredity.

1Cr 11:7 - 8 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

But take a look at
http://pub43.ezboard.com/fwayrunnersfrm16.showMessage?topicID=10.topic
How many different answers do people come up with? The questions force the student to analyse the text - and most OSAS believers come back from the (very basic and mostly incomplete) study spitting chips and making nasty comments about how the study is invalid because if it was valid it would prove OSAS wrong. (and the study is about, of all things, baptism).

Uniform answers are being derived, even in the face of pre-conceptions.

Wols I wouldn't say reject. More like "disagree with".

And of course - we could pretend that Paul was referring to the creation of Eve from one of Adam's ribs in that example.