Bible Study

[therealUT]

How do you know your one coherent interpretation is any better than someone else's? We can know there is a "Ultimate Interpretation" but with in the realm of not knowing the author's exact purpose, and the Bible adds another level of complexity as it was "inspired by God", it is impossible to know what the "Ultimate Interpretation" is. so beyond the argument of coherency there is no real way to tell who is most coherent, and therefore the 'winner' of any ideological(may not be the right word there) argument on the subject.

I do not know that mine is better than another coherent interpretation. I do know that I can rule out incoherent interpretations, and I do know that there is a correct interpretation.

 

[Deputy Fife]

And furthermore, the arrogance of giving everybody else in this thread a Bible lesson as if you have all the correct answers is illustrative of the problem when everybody else believes they have all the correct answers of stuff they couldn't possibly know or understand.

Yep

 

[LouderVol]

I do not know that mine is better than another coherent interpretation. I do know that I can rule out incoherent interpretations, and I do know that there is a correct interpretation.

while it is certainly a case by case study, without knowing what the correct interpretation is how can you definitively say you have a coherent understanding of it? The correct interpretation will direct what is and isn't coherent, so to argue that you have a coherent understanding implies knowing what the correct interpretation is, at least vaguely.

You have brought up the points of taking the work as a whole, and comparing to others by the same author, this still involves a level of assumption on your part. and depending on the subject and author their views may change between pieces, or they may just be changing their arguing point based on un-knowable circumstances.

lets say a Christian writer covers various works for 15 years, a dozen books or so and stays consistent. then something bad happens, their faith is shaken and the next book is blaming God. You can't assume based on the totality of the work, nor on the author. so you have to look at the one book by itself. and in this case, and many others, the coherency and true interpretation of the book can easily be questioned.

(BTW i am arguing more because it is interesting than i think you are wrong)

 

[rjd970]

Has anyone disagreed with this point?



So, an interpretation that admits of an inconsistent and incoherent strand of thought is not less correct, on your view? That's absurd.



I can easily know that my interpretation is one that displays a coherent thought and that other interpretations do not. So, I can know that other interpretations are improper. And, I can know that there is a proper interpretation, because we cannot reject the assumption that the author or compiler wrote or compiled the text in order to present a coherent thought. If we have interpreted it in a way that the author's intended coherent thought matches our interpreted coherent thought, then we have successfully and properly interpreted the text.



I can also point to these inconsistencies. However, you cannot point to such inconsistencies within the Gospel of Matthew, within the Gospel of Mark, etc. You are pointing to them across these works. The compilers could see these inconsistencies, thus they were not compiling these books in order to present a coherent biographical picture. They were compiling them, as we can see when we read all the New Testament texts and see what it is that makes them cohere, an account of Jesus's divinity and teachings.



I'm not making claims that simply are not true. Further, your only hope of saving your ridiculous position is to show that inconsistencies exist across multiple works by multiple authors. No ****! I tell a fable about a tortoise and Achilles, you tell a fable about a tortoise and a hare. Yet, we can compile these in a single work, with the aim of presenting a consistent moral story, knowing that biographical details do not cohere. However, were I to say that Achilles was a man and Achilles was a rabbit, and at the same time he ran erect on two legs and on all fours, I would be incoherent. Yet, if I said, "Achilles is a rabbit sprinting to the finish line" and also said, "Achilles is one of the greatest men and Greek heroes", then one could provide a consistent reading: i.e., when I said, "Achilles is a rabbit", I was speaking figuratively and metaphorically. That's easy.

Furthermore, you are using this angle to argue against there being a proper interpretation of the Quran, which is a single work of a single author. You admit of the assumption regarding coherency, yet the bull-**** out of context reading that you pick up in snippets from Sam Harris's blog (of which, you simply relay Harris's misidentification of verse numbers...telling), is a reading that is inconsistent and incoherent. Thus, it is an improper reading.

I've admitted that many who profess to be Muslims are working off of improper readings. Improper readings can also be handed down through the generations. However, I can stand on firm ground in calling them improper, since they present the text as incoherent, when the text can easily be interpreted as coherent. Of course, this interpretation becomes a bit harder when you decide to quote half of a ****ing sentence from the text to prove your point, removing all the qualifiers about oppression, persecution, being fought against and fighting back, etc.

That is, you are doing something that is intellectually irresponsible, and then proclaiming, "On this far-fetched and bull-**** interpretation, that is accepted among those who are illiterate, uneducated, or are simply power-hungry exploiters, the Quran says this".

Way to go, Columbo!

Some housecleaning is in order here...

Where have I said an interpretation is admitting a less coherent and inconsistent thought? Does Joevol think he is? Does the Catholic or Mormon think they are? The whole damn point is everyone, including you it seems, thinks they are right and everyone else is incoherent. If everyone thinks they are right, then chances are nobody is.

Where have I said that I'm assuming the author isn't presenting a coherent thought?

Also, I can point to many logical inconsistencies within each of the gospels, just like in the Qu'ran. And your explanation about inconsistencies between the gospels, is wrong, they absolutely mean something. There are disagreements on major freaking details. The whole issue with how mary/Joseph got to Bethlehem is riddled with errors by each of the writers when compared against known historical events, specifically the census taken at the time and what the authors were assuming about what "must" have happened based on Old Testament prophecy. The problem, which I've been stating all along, is arguing these details is a fruitless enterprise when people are interpreting what they want anyway. THERE IS NO CLEAR CORRECT INTERPRETATION. I'm sorry, there just isn't. I have mine, and I see inconsistencies even working under the assumption the writer really believes what they are writing. If it was clear, everybody would agree on at least the major details.

Go on believing you have all the correct answers and proper interpretations. I know that mine, at te very least, could be wrong. The very fact that there is disagreement with these interpretive details tell me there is some validity to my opinion here.

 

[Roustabout]

Some housecleaning is in order here...

Also, I can point to many logical inconsistencies within each of the gospels, just like in the Qu'ran. And your explanation about inconsistencies between the gospels, is wrong, they absolutely mean something. There are disagreements on major freaking details. The whole issue with how mary/Joseph got to Bethlehem is riddled with errors by each of the writers when compared against known historical events, specifically the census taken at the time and what the authors were assuming about what "must" have happened based on Old Testament prophecy. The problem, which I've been stating all along, is arguing these details is a fruitless enterprise when people are interpreting what they want anyway. THERE IS NO CLEAR CORRECT INTERPRETATION. I'm sorry, there just isn't. I have mine, and I see inconsistencies even working under the assumption the writer really believes what they are writing. If it was clear, everybody would agree on at least the major details.

Go on believing you have all the correct answers and proper interpretations. I know that mine, at te very least, could be wrong. The very fact that there is disagreement with these interpretive details tell me there is some validity to my opinion here.

Are you saying a conflict on a date is a logical inconsistency?

Apparent inconsistencies doesn't mean that there aren't explanations that deal or explain such inconsistencies.

Question: What is the OT prophecy that deals with the time of Jesus' birth?
Regarding the time issue, you are obviously giving preference to other historical information. Why is this historical data superior to that within Luke's gospel? You say "known", but how do you know it's "known?" Based on something you've read and interpreted no doubt. You are saying this is a major freakin detail so need to be correct on your ciriticisms.

Most people reference Josephus regarding this date, but why is it that Josephus is infallible? He isn't. Do you think there are any factual errors in the writings of Flavius Josephus? Or is it that this supports your skepticism? You don't know anymore about these dates than the average person. This certainly isn't the first time historians have recorded different times for an event. But there are several innocent explanations to this dating controversy. Of course, for you, they are a 'major freakin detail.' Let's see.

We know that Luke was a contemporary of Paul and interviewed eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. Josephus would have been around 2-15 years old at those times. The oldest manuscripts for Josephus are from the 10th century. Luke has manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd century. By the time Josephus compiles his date for the census there would have been no one alive at the time of the census.

Also, the historians did not use our calendar. Consider that we don't see these objections from people of that time. This is a modern objection. Where do you see a 1st or 2nd century historian obecting to Luke's date?

Now, is it possible that Luke got mixed up in his research and ascribed the wrong governer? Sure. But what does
that really do to the truth claims of Jesus' resurrection? Not much. Jesus is presented as living in Galilee, but born in Bethlehem.

Or, could it be that Quirinius held a different position before he became governor of Syria, or held the position more than once? There is evidence to support this. Luke says this is the "first" census taken while Quirinius was governor. Why would he make that distinction unless there was more than one.
For example, we know that Haslam is both mayor and governor. If I say Governor Haslam voted for something in Knoxville in 2008, I'm not saying he was governor at that time. Or when referencing General Neyland. If I say General Neyland went 8-1 in 1926, I doubt anyone cares that he was only a captain at that time. FWIW, the term 'governor' translated from the Greek isn't an official title. It actually translates, "while governing." We also have historical evidence that Quirinius was a military "leader" in the region of Syria between 12-1 BC.

Also consider that in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, Luke got it right.

 

[rjd970]

Are you saying a conflict on a date is a logical inconsistency?

Apparent inconsistencies doesn't mean that there aren't explanations that deal or explain such inconsistencies.

Question: What is the OT prophecy that deals with the time of Jesus' birth?
Regarding the time issue, you are obviously giving preference to other historical information. Why is this historical data superior to that within Luke's gospel? You say "known", but how do you know it's "known?" Based on something you've read and interpreted no doubt. You are saying this is a major freakin detail so need to be correct on your ciriticisms.

Most people reference Josephus regarding this date, but why is it that Josephus is infallible? He isn't. Do you think there are any factual errors in the writings of Flavius Josephus? Or is it that this supports your skepticism? You don't know anymore about these dates than the average person. This certainly isn't the first time historians have recorded different times for an event. But there are several innocent explanations to this dating controversy. Of course, for you, they are a 'major freakin detail.' Let's see.

We know that Luke was a contemporary of Paul and interviewed eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. Josephus would have been around 2-15 years old at those times. The oldest manuscripts for Josephus are from the 10th century. Luke has manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd century. By the time Josephus compiles his date for the census there would have been no one alive at the time of the census.

Also, the historians did not use our calendar. Consider that we don't see these objections from people of that time. This is a modern objection. Where do you see a 1st or 2nd century historian obecting to Luke's date?

Now, is it possible that Luke got mixed up in his research and ascribed the wrong governer? Sure. But what does
that really do to the truth claims of Jesus' resurrection? Not much. Jesus is presented as living in Galilee, but born in Bethlehem.

Or, could it be that Quirinius held a different position before he became governor of Syria, or held the position more than once? There is evidence to support this. Luke says this is the "first" census taken while Quirinius was governor. Why would he make that distinction unless there was more than one.
For example, we know that Haslam is both mayor and governor. If I say Governor Haslam voted for something in Knoxville in 2008, I'm not saying he was governor at that time. Or when referencing General Neyland. If I say General Neyland went 8-1 in 1926, I doubt anyone cares that he was only a captain at that time. FWIW, the term 'governor' translated from the Greek isn't an official title. It actually translates, "while governing." We also have historical evidence that Quirinius was a military "leader" in the region of Syria between 12-1 BC.

Also consider that in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, Luke got it right.

The timeline I'm reading says Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth only after the Birth of Jesus while they fled from Herod (who, btw, died in 4 BC)...Matthew is further referencing OT prophecy from Micah 5:2, in Matthew 2:6.

Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus, but differs from Matthew by saying they traveled to Bethlehem for the Augustus census because Joseph was from the house of David and was required to return to the city of his ancestor. There is no mention of this by any Roman historian..and the census mentioned by Josephus was only a local census by Quirinius (who wasn't even a governor during Herod's reign) didn't happen until 6 AD.

In the Gospel of John it is inferred that Jesus was never born in Bethlehem to begin with (John 7:40-42).

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of it anywhere, which is probably the most accurate.

This is all assuming, of course, there wasn't after-the-fact edits of what the original authors wrote.

By the way, interpretation is everything, below is a counter to what I'm saying by OC:

Matthew and Luke can't seem to agree on anything of importance? Do you think you are perhaps stretching the truth a bit?

The four gospels were written about similar events from different perspectives and for four separate specific purposes. John states that he recorded his events so that people could see that He was the son of God. Luke wrote in a strictly sequential manner so that Theophilus could know the certainty of specific thing that he had been told. Some of the gospels were written to a Roman audience. Others to Jewish audiences. Each gospel was written from the specific perspective of one deisciple.

It makes sense that each author would write about the same events, for different purposes, highlighting some events and leaving others out, without being contradictory. For instance, I could tell a group that I am from Pheonix, lived in Savannah, and currently live in Germany. One person could then say that I live in Germany. Another can say I lived in Savannah. Another could say that I am from Pheonix. None would be contradictory.

I could relate my life story. One may begin telling it from the time I lived in Savannah. Another may begin yesterday. Another may begin from Pheonix. None would be wrong.

For that matter, I could say that my step-father's father was a Jew. My mother's father was a native american. My father's father was Irish. One could then say that my grandfather was a Jew. My grandfather was Native American. My grandfather was Irish.

None would be contradictory in the least. I would have three different genealogies that differ but do not contradict.

Something must be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same context to be a contradiction. For instance:

It was snowing at 3:00 today would not be a contradiction. It was snowing at 3:00 today in Nashville, but not at 3:00 today in Knoxville-- would not be a contradiction.

It was snowing today in Chattanooga at 3:00, but not at 3:30-- would not be a contradiction. But, it was snowing and not snowing today in Chattanooga, at 3:00-- would most likely be a contradiction.



OK... I'll try to wade through the elephants one at a time...

So, one author gave more information than another, that does not in any way contradict the other's information, and you feel it's a contradiction? I find that odd.

I know of few people that claim that Jesus was actually born in the year 0. The segmentation of time between BC and AD was made much later than the gospels, so how could the gospels be wrong about it?

Because we have not found any official documents about one specific event, it didn't happen? That's an odd way to think of historicity. If, 2000 years from now, no one finds my birth certificate, does that mean that you and I are not corresponding? I mean, obviously I was never born.



Do you not get the irony that John is showing here? Some in the crowd said, "It's the Messiah!" Others said, "It can't be! He's from Galilee. The Messiah must come from Bethlehem." We know from other testimony that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem to fulfill this very prophecy.

I'm not sure how you can logically assert that the wrongness of a crowd's testimony creates a contradiction in the Bible. I mean, the Bible never said they were right. Instead, the Bible included the their wrongness as an ironical aside.

OT prophecy heavily inferred that Israel would get a Messiah and miss him. (Actually it predicted two different facets of the Messiah's ministry, and inferred that they would not recognize Him and accept Him the first time.) This section showed that actually happening.

Who's right? I think I am, but I admit I don't know for sure.

Perhaps TRUT can help, he seems to have the "Rosetta Stone" for interpreting this mess.

 

[Septic]

The timeline I'm reading says Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth only after the Birth of Jesus while they fled from Herod (who, btw, died in 4 BC)...Matthew is further referencing OT prophecy from Micah 5:2, in Matthew 2:6.

Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus, but differs from Matthew by saying they traveled to Bethlehem for the Augustus census because Joseph was from the house of David and was required to return to the city of his ancestor. There is no mention of this by any Roman historian..and the census mentioned by Josephus was only a local census by Quirinius (who wasn't even a governor during Herod's reign) didn't happen until 6 AD.

In the Gospel of John it is inferred that Jesus was never born in Bethlehem to begin with (John 7:40-42).

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of it anywhere, which is probably the most accurate.

This is all assuming, of course, there wasn't after-the-fact edits of what the original authors wrote.

By the way, interpretation is everything, below is a counter to what I'm saying by OC:



Who's right? I think I am, but I admit I don't know for sure.

Perhaps TRUT can help, he seems to have the "Rosetta Stone" for interpreting this mess.

The seer stone may be more useful.

 

[Roustabout]

The timeline I'm reading says Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth only after the Birth of Jesus while they fled from Herod (who, btw, died in 4 BC)...Matthew is further referencing OT prophecy from Micah 5:2, in Matthew 2:6.

This doesn't mention a timeline predicted from the OT, which is exactly what you implied. The only timeline relates to a very complex prophecy in Daniel regarding when the promised Messiah would enter the gates of Jerusalem. So Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod. Again, the issue with Herod has several plausible explanations. First, most believe that Jesus was not born in year 0. Just that discussion alone could be a lengthy thread. As I already mentioned, the people of that time had no knowledge of our A.D. - B.C. calendar. We are depending on historians to construct a chronology that gives us an accurate timeline, which may or may not be correct. Further, Herod had sons who succeed the throne and also went by Herod. Again, most are depending on the infallible Josephus for their dates.

Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus, but differs from Matthew by saying they traveled to Bethlehem for the Augustus census because Joseph was from the house of David and was required to return to the city of his ancestor. There is no mention of this by any Roman historian..and the census mentioned by Josephus was only a local census by Quirinius (who wasn't even a governor during Herod's reign) didn't happen until 6 AD.

When you say 'differs' you seem to be implying 'contradicts.' Different information is not necessarily contradictory. Keep in mind that all of this could have been easily dealt with by the early church by simply choosing one gospel or eliminating the others. Or, editing out any 'differences.' I would imagine that four gospels without any textual variance would be a major red flag on authenticity. It is interesting that there are parts of the Gospels where there are suspected edits, such as Mark 16:9-20. But none of these alleged edits deal with anything like we are discussing.

Taxation was a common part of the Roman Empire, and there are historical hints that multiple census occurred. This is an issue that could have easily been addressed and refuted by early historians. There is no evidence of this being the case.

In the Gospel of John it is inferred that Jesus was never born in Bethlehem to begin with (John 7:40-42).

?? John is dealing with an objection of the time. That is, he is bringing up an objection he was familiar with. If anything it adds validity, since John could have easily chosen to leave this out of the text. It's also interesting that he doesn't dive into a defense. He just leaves the objection there.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of it anywhere, which is probably the most accurate.

Making no mention of something is accurate? Ok.

This is all assuming, of course, there wasn't after-the-fact edits of what the original authors wrote

If there were, then it is most curious why they didn't edit out any personally embarrassing information among other things.

By the way, interpretation is everything, below is a counter to what I'm saying by OC:

There are several interpretive matters when it comes to the NT. For example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Is it a parable, or is Jesus speaking to something literal? There are good arguments for both. I can read both positions, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with what you are speaking to. I think you are stretching the term 'interpretation.' Again, you mentioned the issue of logic, but I'd like you to answer the question I asked.

 

[rjd970]

This doesn't mention a timeline predicted from the OT, which is exactly what you implied. The only timeline relates to a very complex prophecy in Daniel regarding when the promised Messiah would enter the gates of Jerusalem. So Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod. Again, the issue with Herod has several plausible explanations. First, most believe that Jesus was not born in year 0. Just that discussion alone could be a lengthy thread. As I already mentioned, the people of that time had no knowledge of our A.D. - B.C. calendar. We are depending on historians to construct a chronology that gives us an accurate timeline, which may or may not be correct. Further, Herod had sons who succeed the throne and also went by Herod. Again, most are depending on the infallible Josephus for their dates.


When you say 'differs' you seem to be implying 'contradicts.' Different information is not necessarily contradictory. Keep in mind that all of this could have been easily dealt with by the early church by simply choosing one gospel or eliminating the others. Or, editing out any 'differences.' I would imagine that four gospels without any textual variance would be a major red flag on authenticity. It is interesting that there are parts of the Gospels where there are suspected edits, such as Mark 16:9-20. But none of these alleged edits deal with anything like we are discussing.

Taxation was a common part of the Roman Empire, and there are historical hints that multiple census occurred. This is an issue that could have easily been addressed and refuted by early historians. There is no evidence of this being the case.



?? John is dealing with an objection of the time. That is, he is bringing up an objection he was familiar with. If anything it adds validity, since John could have easily chosen to leave this out of the text. It's also interesting that he doesn't dive into a defense. He just leaves the objection there.


Making no mention of something is accurate? Ok.


If there were, then it is most curious why they didn't edit out any personally embarrassing information among other things.


There are several interpretive matters when it comes to the NT. For example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Is it a parable, or is Jesus speaking to something literal? There are good arguments for both. I can read both positions, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with what you are speaking to. I think you are stretching the term 'interpretation.' Again, you mentioned the issue of logic, but I'd like you to answer the question I asked.

The prophecy dealt with it happening in Bethlehem, Matthew assuming they were there all along, Luke assuming they traveled there, fixing the problem of the prophecy. I still contend a proper reading of John states that he never assumed he was born there. Mark just skips over the whole thing, hence my point that just not stating what you don't really know is best. Nothing was implied about a timeline other than this.

Everything else I disagree with and is a matter of interpretation.

Again, that is not the way I'm reading it. This is explicitly why I didn't want to participate in the ridiculous exercise that is this thread.

This is TRUTs Bible Study Thread, he can arbitrate.