Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth; scientific truth is simply the correct understanding of the physical world. The bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true. If therefore the bible touches on science (which it does rarely, but it does on occassion) but one interpretation contradicts what we know to be true about the physical world and the other doesn't, its not rocket science to know which interpretation is correct.

Logic,

JW

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

[bjs]

[Replying to Justin108]

Eh… sort of, but not really.

JW seems to be suggesting that when there are two possible interpretations of a passage, then we should assume that the one which matches our existing understanding of reality is the correct one.

Why would JW suggest this if JW doesn't start with the assumption that the Bible cannot make any mistakes?

To take an extreme example, if we read the statement, “She is as slow as a turtle,� then we could understand that a few different ways.

This is obviously a metaphor. What JW suggests is that in literally every single instance where something the Bible says is shown to be wrong, the fault must lien in our interpretation. No exception. JW starts with the a priori assumption that no matter what the Bible says, it must be true. This is circular logic.

This entire post seems to be built on the idea that JW started with the assumption that the Bible contains no errors.

However, you asked JW for the correct way to interpret the Bible. That is asking for a conclusion, not an opening assumption.

Any a priori assumption about how to interpret a text will be problematic, and it does not appear that JW was attempting to give an assumption of that nature. Rather, JW’s statement that “the Bible is a book of truth� is clearly his conclusion on the matter.

He has studied the material and come to the conclusion that this is the best way to interpret the text. To treat his conclusion as an a priori assumption is nothing but an abuse of his words.

[bjs]

[Replying to Justin108]

Eh… sort of, but not really.

JW seems to be suggesting that when there are two possible interpretations of a passage, then we should assume that the one which matches our existing understanding of reality is the correct one.

To take an extreme example, if we read the statement, “She is as slow as a turtle,� then we could understand that a few different ways. Perhaps she runs at speeds around 0.05 miles per hours. Or perhaps the writer feels that she could and should be moving at a faster speed, even though she is actually moving faster than a turtle.

Obviously the latter is more likely the case and we would assume that to be true without giving it a second thought.

This is how we read virtually everything that we come across. To fail to read the Bible in the manner, or to say that it is circular reasoning, seems disingenuous.

Got it.
So we should read the Bible like we do any other book, even children's books.

I cannot say that I disagree with you.

Yes, a children’s book. Or a novel. Or an instruction manual for building a grill. Or an essay on physics. Or Plato’s Republic. Or, at least in this aspect, every other thing we ever read. In everything we read we tend to give the author the benefit of the doubt that the text makes sense, unless we it is impossible to do so. Then we must decide if either the text or our pre-existing worldview is inaccurate.

Specifying only children’s books, as if to suggest that the Bible is somehow a childish book, is itself an immature suggestions.

[Justin108]

This entire post seems to be built on the idea that JW started with the assumption that the Bible contains no errors.

However, you asked JW for the correct way to interpret the Bible. That is asking for a conclusion, not an opening assumption.

JW's answer, however, depends on an opening assumption. It depends on the assumption that the Bible is without flaw, and if you so happen to find a flaw, then the fault lies in your interpretation. Why would the fault always lie in my interpretation? Why is it beyond possibility that the fault lies in the Bible?

He has studied the material and come to the conclusion that this is the best way to interpret the text. To treat his conclusion as an a priori assumption is nothing but an abuse of his words.

If he formed this conclusion without the a priori assumption that the Bible is a book of truth, why did he tell me to interpret the Bible as though it is a book of truth? If he did not initially interpret the Bible with the preconceived notion that it's the book of truth, then why would he tell me to do it that way?

If JW didn't interpret the Bible without the preconceived notion that it's a book of truth, then he would be able to give me an objective means of interpretation that does not rely on the Bible being a book of truth. He would give me a method that would allow me to reach that conclusion on my own.

[bjs]

This entire post seems to be built on the idea that JW started with the assumption that the Bible contains no errors.

However, you asked JW for the correct way to interpret the Bible. That is asking for a conclusion, not an opening assumption.

JW's answer, however, depends on an opening assumption. It depends on the assumption that the Bible is without flaw, and if you so happen to find a flaw, then the fault lies in your interpretation. Why would the fault always lie in my interpretation? Why is it beyond possibility that the fault lies in the Bible?

JW specifically said that if there are two (or more) possible interpretations – one which finds fault with the Bible and one which does not – then we should assume that the interpretation which does not find fault in the text is accurate.

JW suggested if someone is faced with two possible interpretation and chooses the one which finds fault with the Bible, then in reality the fault is with the interpreter.

JW was entirely correct on this point. If there is a reasonable interpretation of the text which find no fault with the text itself, and someone chooses to ignore that interpretation in order to say that the Bible is wrong, then the fault is entirely with the person.

Now if there is a passage for which leaves no room for an explanation that fits with someone’s understanding of the world, then the interpreter must decide if either the text or his own pre-existing worldview is inaccurate. JW has suggested that he has found no such text.

If you believe such a text exists, then it would be useful to provide an example. For my own part, having reached a theistic worldview, I agree with JW on this point. In my years on this forum I have seen many posters ignore reasonable interpretation of the text in order to choose interpretations that suit their purposes. I have not personally seen any examples of biblical texts which contradict the truth.

He has studied the material and come to the conclusion that this is the best way to interpret the text. To treat his conclusion as an a priori assumption is nothing but an abuse of his words.

If he formed this conclusion without the a priori assumption that the Bible is a book of truth, why did he tell me to interpret the Bible as though it is a book of truth? If he did not initially interpret the Bible with the preconceived notion that it's the book of truth, then why would he tell me to do it that way?

You asked for a means of interpreting the text. He gave you one. At that point, for you, it ceases to be a priori. A priori means without knowledge. If someone gives you knowledge on a topic then it can no longer be considered a priori.

If you were seeking an a priori way of interpreting the Bible, then the answer is “There is none. Any genuinely a priori approach to any manuscript of any kind will be faulty. You can read the text and come up with a way of interpreting it, or you can ask others for advice. The moment you do either it ceases to be a priori.�

[Travellingwagon]

Maybe I missed it in previous comments, but which Bible are we talking about here (there are so many with different interpolations)? Are you talking about a Jehova Witness Bible? If that is the case, those Bibles are 100% refuted within Christianity, having been hacked to pieces to fit a cult' s perspective and personal theology...

[Justin108]

JW specifically said that if there are two (or more) possible interpretations – one which finds fault with the Bible and one which does not – then we should assume that the interpretation which does not find fault in the text is accurate.

There will always be two or more interpretations to any text that claims to be open to interpretation. There will always be a way to interpret a text to force it to conform to reality. A good example from JW was a discussion we had on Genesis. I pointed out the flaw in the creation account placing plant life before the creation of the sun, moon and stars. JW's explanation was that God simply made the sun, moon and stars visible on day 4 and that volcanic gasses hid the sun, moon and stars before then. This despite Genesis' clear use of the word "made" when it says God "made" the sun, moon and stars on day 4. Should I automatically assume this absurd interpretation is accurate simply because it is closer to science? Should I assume that the author of Genesis actually meant that the stars were created on day 1 but simply made visible on day 4?

Saying that we should always find an interpretation that conforms to reality is practically no different from saying the text is never wrong.

Bill: Jack is never wrong
John: Yesterday, Jack said X
Bill: But if we were to interpret X a certain way, we will find that Jack is still not wrong because Jack is never wrong

There is not a verse in any text that cannot, with enough imagination, be interpreted in a way to force it to conform to reality.

JW suggested if someone is faced with two possible interpretation and chooses the one which finds fault with the Bible, then in reality the fault is with the interpreter.

Why is the fault always with the interpreter? Why is it beyond possibility that the Bible is simply wrong?

JW was entirely correct on this point. If there is a reasonable interpretation...

JW didn't mention anything about reasonable. JW simply said that one should interpret the text as though the Bible is right. I do not consider JW's interpretation of Genesis as mentioned above to be remotely reasonable. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis to suggest volcanic gasses.

If you believe such a text exists, then it would be useful to provide an example.

As long as a theist can claim that the text is meant to be a metaphor, it's impossible to find a text that cannot be interpreted in a way that conforms to reality. This is a very clever safety net from the authors of the Bible, I must say. You could write just about anything. As long as you claim that it's open to interpretation, no one would ever be able to call you out on the flaws in your text.

In my years on this forum I have seen many posters ignore reasonable interpretation of the text in order to choose interpretations that suit their purposes.

By "reasonable", do you mean you aim to find out what the author probably meant? Or do you mean to make the text conform to reality?

Here is an old thread that deals with the issue of interpretation.
viewtopic.php?t=32013&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

You asked for a means of interpreting the text. He gave you one.

Yes, and the method he gave me asks that I assume from the start that the Bible is a book of truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by Justin108]


Hello,

I have no problem with anyone discussing anything have I written but I am very very careful about the exact words I use, if you quote me I would appreciate you using the "quote" button as I am not fond of being misquoted.

I of course remain available in the original thread to respond to anything I have written.

Carry on,

JW


LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 512#881512

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 35 by Justin108]

Hello,

I have no problem with anyone discussing anything have I written but I am very very careful about the exact words I use, if you quote me I would appreciate you using the "quote" button as I am not fond of being misquoted.

If at any time I claimed you said something you did not in fact say, feel free to point it out and I will find the appropriate quote.

Other than that you can both consider discussing the issue raised (OP) rather than devoted a thread to what I post.

As the author of the OP, I don't mind a subtle derailing. And since the OP discusses your circular reasoning specifically (as is clear in the OP directly quoting you), it is perfectly fitting to quote other instances of your circular reasoning.

Carry on

Gee, thanks for your permission

[JehovahsWitness]

Carry on

Gee, thanks for your permission

You are most welcome. Did I make myself clear or was there anything you wanted me to clarifiy in the above post #36?

JW


Post #36
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 510#881510]

[Justin108]

was there anything you wanted me to clarifiy in the above post?

JW

Yes. See post 14