"The Bible doesn't mean what it says . . ."

[Zzyzx]

.
"The Bible doesn't mean what it says. It means what I say it means."

Many discussions in this Forum come down to or involve semantics " arguing about what the Bible really says or means

If the Bible is The word of God as often claimed, WHY doesnt it speak for itself " clearly, without need for argument about what it says or means?

If the Bible is NOT The word of God, but is the word of ancient writers speaking for God and giving their opinions or stories about God and events, WHY is the Bible regarded as sacred (or inerrant or infallible or whatever is claimed)?

[bjs]

So if we want to argue against JWs claim then we need to show through evidence that it is an inaccurate claim...

Nope. All we have to do is point out that fact that it is an unsupported claim. That has already happened and up to this point, no attempt has been made to support it.


It stands unsupported and therefore there is no reason to consider it valid.

Of course he has supported the claim. He has said that the Holy Spirit is required to understand the Bible. His support is that he, having the Spirit, understands the Bible while atheists, lacking the Spirit, do not.

Anyone can disagree with the claim, or be upset by it, or attempt to provide evidence that it is false. And anyone can say, That doesnt convince me, or That support isnt good enough, which is the response we can give to literally any piece of evidence on any topic.

However, saying that it is an unsupported claim is simply a false charge.

[rikuoamero]

So if we want to argue against JWs claim then we need to show through evidence that it is an inaccurate claim...

Nope. All we have to do is point out that fact that it is an unsupported claim. That has already happened and up to this point, no attempt has been made to support it.


It stands unsupported and therefore there is no reason to consider it valid.

Of course he has supported the claim. He has said that the Holy Spirit is required to understand the Bible. His support is that he, having the Spirit, understands the Bible while atheists, lacking the Spirit, do not.

Anyone can disagree with the claim, or be upset by it, or attempt to provide evidence that it is false. And anyone can say, That doesnt convince me, or That support isnt good enough, which is the response we can give to literally any piece of evidence on any topic.

However, saying that it is an unsupported claim is simply a false charge.

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge that the claim is made (The Holy Spirit is required to understand the Bible)...and for support, you just what...take it on faith that he has this holy spirit?
Has this Holy Spirit actually been demonstrated? Has the nuclear silo officer demonstrated his possession of the decryption key?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by bjs]

Thats not at all what special pleading means. There are different types of people; that is not special pleading.

It's special pleading when there is no way to verify that there actually IS a difference between so called different types of people.
How can I, a person who does not have a holy spirit, verify that that person standing over who says he has a holy spirit, actually has a holy spirit?
You can demonstrate that you are in fact a member of a club by doing things only members of that club ought to be able to do - you might have a physical key to get into a building, you might have a keycard, you might be able to order things on the club's tab etc.
What can a person who says they have the holy spirit actually do, to show they have the HS?

Until this HS is actually demonstrated, then it is special pleading from that person to say "Oh you're not getting the REAL meaning of the Bible because you don't have the HS". I have been given no reason to accept that THEY have the so called real meaning of the Bible.

Being unfalsifiable has nothing to do with special pleading.

It does. If you say you are a member of a club, but you are unable and unwilling to demonstrate that you are, then you've made an unsupported and unfalsifiable claim. If my acceptance of what you claim about the club is predicated upon you being a member of that club, this is where the special pleading kicks in.

If a standard means that you are instantly disqualified, then you are instantly disqualified and that is still not special pleading.

If the standard can be be shown to be real. I don't get to go into the cockpit of an aircraft, because I lack any training whatsoever. There are people who do have that training, they can get into the cockpit, they can express their understanding. They can show they have this training by actually flying the aircraft.
What can a HS claimer do to show they have a HS? Plenty of people say they have a HS and they all disagree with each other. How come pilots don't disagree on the proper operation of an aircraft?

If the requirement to get into a club is { }, then anyone who doesnt meat { } does not get into the club.

So what is { }? I don't know what it is. Do you? Should anyone who simply claims there is a requirement, and claims that they've met it, just be given an automatic acceptance by others? I don't think I have { }.

It might be unfair, or it might not really clubs requirement, but at no point has anyone committed the fallacy of special pleading.

So the other guy can say he has { }, not demonstrate it, not explain what it is...and somehow it's not special pleading?

Now you can try to show the JWs claim is false, or inconsistent,

How can I prove it false? That's the entire problem! Going by the logic of JW's claim, in order to prove that he does NOT have a HS, I would have to have it myself.

[Jagella]

...what's the purpose of reading the book?

The Bible is an anthology (collection of writings) selected to promote certain viewpoints. Readers understanding may not be or have been of primary importance.

Well, my question was rhetorical, but thanks for the informative answer.

I agree that the Bible is meant to indoctrinate. If you can get people to believe outlandish claims, then you can get them to believe anything. That's why we read such preposterous stories in the Bible. And if the Bible fails to convey the message you intend it to foiling your attempt to indoctrinate, then you can always "correct the misinterpretation." If the supposedly errant individual nevertheless insists that her interpretation is correct, no matter how good her reasons, then you can attempt to discredit her making her out to be a fool who gets it "wrong."

So the purpose of the Bible isn't so much to have people read it but to convince people that what you say it says is what it says. If people do read it and come to conclusions you did not intend them to come to, then you may actually wish to discourage them from reading the Bible. This approach is not merely hypothetical but was officially employed by the Catholic Church. Now Protestants may disagree and encourage people to read the Bible for themselves, but Protestants often likewise end up discouraging any Bible reading that is not consistent with their doctrine.

For those with the hubris of boasting that only they understand the Bible's meaning, I must wonder why they contradict each other regarding that meaning.

Hubris is right. Self-appointed experts who come by their expertise by joining a religious group.

As you may know Tam's approach is to say she speaks directly to Christ, and he speaks back! Who can argue with that?

...they may be over-estimating devotion of believers to the Bible...

I'm well aware of the apathy many people, including Christians, display toward the Bible rarely bothering to read it. I can think of two reasons for such apathy. First, the Bible is irrelevant in modern life. Its morality, for instance, is either unreasonable, hurtful, or downright dangerous, and few then practice it. Second, the Bible is a huge book and often difficult to understand. Few people have the time or inclination to read and learn its one-thousand plus pages.

[bjs]

Being unfalsifiable has nothing to do with special pleading.

It does. If you say you are a member of a club, but you are unable and unwilling to demonstrate that you are, then you've made an unsupported and unfalsifiable claim.

That is not what special pleading is. Special pleading is:

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... l-Pleading


There is nothing in the description of special pleading that includes claims being unsupported or unverified.

However, this basic fact has been repeated to you several different times. It seems clear you are going to stick with your false definition of special pleading and no amount of evidence will cause you to stop. As long as you maintain this false definition of special pleading, despite being shown repeatedly that it is false, there is nothing left for me to say.

[Jagella]

That is not what special pleading is. Special pleading is:

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

That's the commonly accepted meaning of special pleading. A good example of special pleading is to insist that Jesus was historical while denying the historicity of other figures like King Arthur for whom we have evidence much like the evidence for Jesus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by bjs]

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

You don't think this is what is happening here in the discussion with the Holy Spirit claimers? Normally, when reading a text, all this required is a pair of eyeballs, a mind and knowledge of the language that the text is written. However, in this discussion, when discussing the meaning of the Bible (or a subsection of the Bible), the people who are claiming they have the HS are saying that their meaning is correct and that their meaning is correct because they have the HS. However, they are unable to substantiate the claim of the HS, which looks to me to fall under the "without providing adequate justification". They're more or less claiming an automatic victory in this discussion (even if not explicitly). They think they don't need to demonstrate that their HS is actually real. They are exempting themselves from the requirement of substantiating claims.
I've tried to resolve this in the past - I've linked to encrypted documents or mentioned sheets of paper I've had with secret messages, and not one person who claims to have a Holy Spirit or similar entity behind them has even tried.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 5 by Tcg]

Not even close given the fact that there is no verifiable evidence to back up this invented "spiritual impairment."

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

If you're argument is there is no substantial proof, within the book that Christianity claims to take their religion from, that some have eyes to see, and most don't, there is a LOT of substantiation within the pages of the Bible to back up JW's claims... It is, in fact, brimming with it.

I could list them out book, chapter and verse; probably more than you would care to read.

Conversely, if you mean you're not satisfied with biblical claims and want other proof outside of that, well, I don't usually get into semantics.

Soj

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

"The Bible doesn't mean what it says. It means what I say it means."

Don't you usually find that most folks don't even know what it says? Or even care what it says?

Course, its a big ole book and there's a lot of subjects covered in a manner not at all in line with a modern society like ours... so it would be easy to miss a few things here and there. But I find, by and large, very few, professing to take their religion from that book, who are concerned with aligning themselves to its teachings.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 5 by Tcg]

Not even close given the fact that there is no verifiable evidence to back up this invented "spiritual impairment."

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

It means precisely what it says.

If you're argument is there is no substantial proof, within the book that Christianity claims to take their religion from, that some have eyes to see, and most don't, there is a LOT of substantiation within the pages of the Bible to back up JW's claims... It is, in fact, brimming with it.

The Bible contains the claim. The claim is not evidence.

I could list them out book, chapter and verse; probably more than you would care to read.

It wouldn't be anything I haven't read before.

Conversely, if you mean you're not satisfied with biblical claims and want other proof outside of that, well, I don't usually get into semantics.

Soj

It's not a matter of semantics, it is the absence of evidence. As you have just revealed in this phrase, "biblical claims". You don't even attempt to provide evidence, nothing but another referral to "claims."



Tcg