What's the point of debating with Christians?

[postroad]

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

I find it a bit depressing. I could even cope with it if they came to a consensus. I'm thinking of Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures. He simply had no respect for context or even the correct rendering?

Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so. Are believers claiming the same authority when they bend the texts to fit their beliefs?

Is that what is meant by Spiritual discernment?

I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text. I'm required to defend the plain reading and accused of attempting to force the text into a preconceived interpretation simultaneously?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

It must have been another case of a believer reading their own preconceived position into the plain reading of the text?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

Your post sums it up perfectly. You are able to contort a set of words into what you wish it to represent and then present it as the "obvious" interpretation.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

It must have been another case of a believer reading their own preconceived position into the plain reading of the text?

Indeed. Your reasoning couldn't have been clearer.


This is a perfect example of ignoring the obvious meaning of a text, not because the text isn't clear, but rather because it is.




Tcg

[Mithrae]

Every kind of literature, religious or non-religious, has rules to help with understanding and anybody who wants understanding needs to study those rules.

I'm sorry but this seems to be patently false on anything but the most superficial, meaningless level. If you're a native English speaker and you pick up Harry Potter you're going to understand it perfectly easily; same story if you're not a native speaker, or you're reading a translation in your own language, except that a few idioms might be lost. The only 'rules' in this case would be nothing more than knowing that it is fiction. In the case of say popular science books, even that 'rule' isn't needed for understanding.

Granted the time, language and culture gaps between modern readers and biblical authors do introduce some complications. But the simple fact remains that in some cases the texts are patently wrong, sometimes blatantly contradictory, sometimes wildly ambiguous and sometimes virtually incomprehensible. Theologians and scholars with all the training in the world still frequently disagree on what they 'really mean.' In some cases, yes, internet amateurs come along with highly dubious or patently absurd interpretations... absurdities which often stem directly or indirectly from the foundational assumption that the anthology is the 'word of God' to be treated as a single whole.

If it were the 'word of God,' it'd be a lengthy, meandering and ultimately very poor attempt at communication even by the standards of most high school kids. Insistence that you need the right 'training' to 'really understand' it only prove that point even further... while still often being fairly obvious smokescreens trying to hide the worst deficiencies.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]


Yes, I know the first rule.

All OT texts must be subservient to the NT. Or rather whichever NT type of belief among many the Christian holds.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]


Yes, I know the first rule.

All OT texts must be subservient to the NT. Or rather whichever NT type of belief among many the Christian holds.

Um, that's actually the fourth rule in his link. It's like you don't know Christians at all, man

• 4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

All of it relies on the demand that Hebrew Scriptures be interpreted in context of a New Testament that didn't exist in the first century.

By what standard and authority were the writers of the New Testament books interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures?

I submit they pulled that authority out of thin air.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

It's amazing that no consensus has been reached among believers considering that such as straightforward and trustworthy method of resolving the tensions exists.

Basically it can mean whatever position between two mutually exclusive texts they choose.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

Im trying to go deeper than surface level. Now instances of what he claims can occur but the generalisation makes the claim absurd and we know postroad is not absurd so we know to look deeper.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 19 by Wootah]

The generalization isn't absurd at all.

It's written into the rules of interpretation itself.

They state that no contradictions exist in Scriptures. From that perspective I could show contradictory texts and believers would deny they exist on that principle alone.