The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  Methodical interpretation of scripture is a science that is never truly mastered.

  The scientific method, on the other hand, can be mastered, you can know if an experiment fails or succeeds by observation. My opinion, on the other hand, may be ignored because ....why? I am not an established authority? I did not quote as many apologists as you? The work of linguists like Narkissos and Lelolaia are the closest thing we have to "scientific" analysis of the scripture.

  We often bring our own axioms to the table so to speak. We read things into scripture that is not there.

  So why do you insist on "correcting" others? Yours is yet another interpretation.

  I am trying to be a 'empty vessel' and go through a logical method of interpreting scripture.

  You are not an empty vessel. We are all hard-wired for prejudices from when we are very small. As soon as you acquire language your brain is hard-wired to think in a certain way. I used the logical method and applied it to scripture and concluded that following the bible requires faith. There is no way to have absolute confidence in the book based on logic, reason, or objective scientific observation.

  Thank you, leolaia. I've only read the Reader's Digest version of archaeological evidence. I understood that the book of Isaiah was remarkably well preserved, but I was not sure of the other books.
• 

  Narkissos

  About the so-called "inerrant originals"...

  (1) They make the "true Bible" the unfalsifiable equivalent of the heavenly Torah or Quran, or Joseph Smith's golden plates. Just too convenient to be an effective apologetic weapon.

  (2) They beg the question why would God care to produce an inerrant text at some point yet not care to keep it available to further generations.

  Now if we leave aside Cinderella's world and get back to the scientific approach: one major shift in recent textual criticism, partly as the result of Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) studies, centers on the very concept of "originals".

  Traditionally, Bible textual criticism (TC) was all about restoring the "original". If you had, for instance, two very different readings -- one in the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT), another in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the only important question was: which one of them reflects the original Hebrew text? Iow, did the LXX mistranslate the Hebrew or did it read a different Hebrew text, closer to the Hebrew original than the MT (implying that the MT reflects a somewhat "erring" textual tradition)?

  The finding of different Hebrew editions of the same texts among the DSS -- some closer to the MT, others closer to the LXX, others closer to the Samaritan Pentateuch or different from any otherwise known version -- shattered this paradigm and also destroyed the classical border between TC (usually accepted by Evangelicals as "lower criticism" on "text history") and literary criticism (rejected by most Evangelicals as "higher criticism" on "text prehistory"). The whole idea that at some point an "original" was produced and then diversely transmitted vanished into a much more complex paradigm, implying that different editions of the same books were actually produced separately and parallelly (not deriving from one another). In this perspective all extant texts are no longer available as clues to the one original text but must be studied individually, for themselves. Many variants which used to be hastily dismissed as "scribal errors" are now positively valued as an integral and purposeful part of one given edition, which cannot be assessed as "superior" or "secondary" to another.

  The same paradigm shift has affected NT studies as well, especially with increasing consideration for different editions such as the "Western Text".

  A sort of "Copernician Revolution" in a pretty obscure field, which "softcore Christianity" can easily survive, but certainly threatens the kind of fundamentalism which constantly appeals to the authority and inerrance of "originals" we do not possess and perhaps never existed.
• 

  defd

  I must admit I am WAY out of my league for this conversation. I must say that Shining one does make alot of sense. I am very impressed by him. I wish he was a JW
• 

  jgnat

  That is very nice, defd. Everyone needs a fan.
• 

  Shining One

  Narkissos,
  Don't talk to me about 'spiritual courage' when you won't even acknowledge that you 'read into' Galations 3:28 exactly what you wanted. Don't so qickly change the subject, stick with the context of Galations. BTW, after you address the issues that I raised above, go ahead and show me the alleged contradiction of 1 Corinthian 11 and 14. This is not a game of JW Bible 'ping pong'.
  I do acknowledge that some interpreters may view the head covering issue as one applying to today. Those ones usually fall into the category of legalists. They are welcome to be of that opinion and so are you. I suspect that you bring it up to disparage scripture, though. You have a solid interpretation in my post to deal with, please do so.
  Rex
• 

  jgnat

  I think the whole point Shining One, are we to take it literally or not? To pick and choose is to be arbitrary, and therefore, inconsistent in application. Which you are.
• 

  Shining One

  Hey Narkissos,
  I do agree that the idea of 'inerrancy' is a philosophical point and cannot be proven. In this respect it is much like the philosophy of the naturalists, LOL. It is useless to argue inerrancy since it does not exist for us to examine in the first place.
  Ms Jgnat,
  I understand what you are saying about interpretation but that still does not give excuse to not make use of the solid tools and scholarship that is available today. However, I do not think that Nark and Leo qualify as authorities. I would have to see their credentials and work beyond this arena. My impression is that they are skeptics who have a bias agsainst any conservative version (maybe even moderate as well) of scriptural interpretation.
  Rex
• 

  jgnat

  solid tools and scholarship that is available today

  Like linguists? Narkissos and Leolaia are linguists. Your application of tools has not been solid or consistent. You are swift to retreat to "authority" again, and you label these posters as "skeptics". Let's stick to the quality of their arguments, shall we?
• 

  Leolaia

  Shining One....Would you please respond my request for clarification on your statement that the text of the Qumran versions of the OT differ only in a "miniscule" way from the MT? Thanks.
• 

  Narkissos

  you won't even acknowledge that you 'read into' Galations 3:28 exactly what you wanted.

  What did I read into it? I just quoted the text, I did not ask for a commentary (yet I got it) and do not intend to comment the commentary.

  The subject of my post (apparently you didn't get it) was to point out the different way you deal with 1 Corinthians 11; 14 on the one hand and 1 Timothy on the other hand. Nearly every argument you used to establish the Pastoral instructions about women as permanent would equally apply to the Corinthian instructions, which you explain away as provisional. My point being: you "pick and choose" in the Bible like anybody else (perhaps only with poorer taste) and consequently your appeal to Scriptural authority is a farce.

  show me the alleged contradiction of 1 Corinthian 11 and 14.

  Do I really have to? Chapter 11 explains how women are allowed to prophetise or pray in the church; 14:33ff imposes them complete silence.