"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)?

[Zzyzx]

.

Look at Scripture this way: It's inspired by the Holy Spirit which, ultimately, makes him the author working through a variety of writers.

Let's add another logical fallacy -- Appeal to Authority and/or Appeal to False Authority

There is no assurance that a 'Holy Spirit' is anything more than an imaginary construct of religion promoters OR that such a 'spirit' is involved in writing or understanding.

Evoking the 'spirit' may work in church or in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums, but not here or anywhere that all do not agree to accept Bible tales as authoritative.

[bjs]

In defense of logic:

I am not going to comment on the accuracy of JWs claim that one must have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible, but I do want to say that it is not special pleading.

JW seems to be saying that if you want to open a lock, you must have a key. Those who have a key can open the lock. Those who do not have a key cannot open the lock. We can say that this standard is unfair, or that it inaccurate, but not that it is special pleading. It is a standard applied consistently, not just to JW himself.

Or, to use Riks analogy, if I do not know Swahili then I cannot enter a certain club. Thats not special pleading. The bouncer can deny me access for not knowing Swahili. Now it may be an unfair standard (Why does knowing Swahili matter?). It could be a false standard (I got into the club without knowing Swahili!). But none of that makes it the logical fallacy of special pleading.

So if we want to argue against JWs claim then we need to show through evidence that it is an inaccurate claim, or show that it is a claim inconsistent with Jehovah Witness theology on the whole. The claim is not special pleading.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

Or, to use Riks analogy, if I do not know Swahili then I cannot enter a certain club. Thats not special pleading.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Knowing Swahili itself isn't the requirement. The requirement is { }. It's...something, that I am told is said (and apparently understandable only in) Swahili. I, being a person who does not speak Swahili, cannot verify or falsify the claim of there even being a special requirement, much less that it's Swahili related. What is special pleading is saying there is a special requirement, not explaining what it is, and saying that since I lack a certain thing, then I can't understand even the requirement.
The requirement to understand what the Bible means, as said by JW (the key ingredient) is the Holy Spirit. However, I cannot understand this requirement (the Holy Spirit) since I well...lack the Holy Spirit!

or show that it is a claim inconsistent with Jehovah Witness theology on the whole. The claim is not special pleading.

It is special pleading since this discussion has two types of people - the person who like JW says they have the Holy Spirit and says they have the special understanding and meaning of the Bible, and people like me, who do not say we have a Holy Spirit.
Anything a person like me says about the Bible, the person like JW can just lazily disregard by citing their mysterious Holy Spirit understanding. The person who claims to have this Holy Spirit has put themselves in an unfalsifiable position - they can supposedly never be shown to be wrong by a person like myself. I am instantly disqualified. It's very similar to previous critiques I've written regarding creationists and their statements of faith. They say they have their Bible, and they say their Bible gives a young age for the Earth. Thus, no matter what results might be obtained by scientific measurements, if those measurements give millions of years, the creationist can just disregard those results lazily.
And it's not like the Holy Spirit-claimer can actually demonstrate that they do in fact have such a thing in their corner. It's only claimed.
Why should a person like myself or Z give any credence to what a person like JW says is the 'correct' meaning of the Bible, when they say they get their 'correct' meaning from a spirit entity that I do not have?

[Tcg]

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.



Tcg

[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.



Tcg

The problem is not so much that it is unsupported, but that the Christian claiming such is attempting to make themselves immune to critique. You or I, in this discussion, apparently (at least, as the claim goes) require the Holy Spirit in order to get the quote unquote correct meaning of the Bible, to even be able to discuss it with these Christians on a level and fair playing field.
From their perspective, we lack their special spirit. Therefore, we're automatically not on a level playing field. They get to say whatever they want regarding the Bible, say "This is what the Bible means" and we can't critique it.

For this to be an actual fair and level playing field (and not the twisted version they have constructed), they have to disavow this requirement of a holy spirit.

[Tcg]

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.



Tcg

The problem is not so much that it is unsupported, but that the Christian claiming such is attempting to make themselves immune to critique. You or I, in this discussion, apparently (at least, as the claim goes) require the Holy Spirit in order to get the quote unquote correct meaning of the Bible, to even be able to discuss it with these Christians on a level and fair playing field.
From their perspective, we lack their special spirit. Therefore, we're automatically not on a level playing field. They get to say whatever they want regarding the Bible, say "This is what the Bible means" and we can't critique it.

For this to be an actual fair and level playing field (and not the twisted version they have constructed), they have to disavow this requirement of a holy spirit.

I agree. My response was primarily to point out the flaw in bjs' defense of JW's flawed argument.


JW's argument, however, is unsupported and for that reason alone is invalid. You have pointed out deeper flaws and deeper reason to reject it. Reasons that are clearly valid.


On a side note. It's nice to see you posting again.


Tcg

[Jagella]

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?

Simply put, the Bible is a very confusing book. It is poorly organized, it is cryptic in many parts, it is very often ambiguous, and it was written in now-dead languages and is poorly translated. Logically, no all-wise and all-truthful god would use such a mess to communicate a vitally important message. People, on the other hand, could well have written the Bible for political purposes doing so with the little knowledge they had and making the errors that people of their time believed.

Now many people, mostly Jews and Christians, don't see the Bible this way. They believe they have some special powers to decipher its meaning while the less privileged are "blind" to its message. That's why many Christians are quick to ridicule unbelievers who read the Bible and come to "unorthodox" conclusions about it. Those conclusions that unbelievers come to and Christians deny and find to be offensive are asserted to be "false" by Christians.

The upshot of all this is that we are seeing an example hereof why many people are religious. They wish to believe they are special and have privileged knowledge that unbelievers do not have.

[Jagella]

Many Christians hold the view that those without God's blessing of holy spirit can understand what the bible says but only His people will be able to understand what it means.

Hence the often said: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means." Any decent book should convey meaning clearly to anybody who bothers to read it. Otherwise, what's the purpose of reading the book?

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. They can't all be right, but they sure can all be wrong! They remind me of calculus students who brag of their understanding calculus without ever proving so on one exam.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many Christians hold the view that those without God's blessing of holy spirit can understand what the bible says but only His people will be able to understand what it means.

Hence the often said: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means." Any decent book should convey meaning clearly to anybody who bothers to read it. Otherwise, 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.

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

Transformational Discipleship study that shows only 19% of churchgoers personally (not as part of a church worship service) read the Bible every day. That is roughly the same as those who responded "Rarely/Never" (18 percent). A quarter of respondents indicate they read the Bible a few times a week, and 14% say they read the Bible "Once a Week" while another 22 percent say "Once a Month" or "A Few Times a Month."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/edste ... daily.html

They can't all be right, but they sure can all be wrong!

AND, they cant agree with one another about what the Bible says or means.

They remind me of calculus students who brag of their understanding calculus without ever proving so on one exam.

Yes

[bjs]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

Or, to use Riks analogy, if I do not know Swahili then I cannot enter a certain club. Thats not special pleading.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Knowing Swahili itself isn't the requirement. The requirement is { }. It's...something, that I am told is said (and apparently understandable only in) Swahili. I, being a person who does not speak Swahili, cannot verify or falsify the claim of there even being a special requirement, much less that it's Swahili related. What is special pleading is saying there is a special requirement, not explaining what it is, and saying that since I lack a certain thing, then I can't understand even the requirement.
The requirement to understand what the Bible means, as said by JW (the key ingredient) is the Holy Spirit. However, I cannot understand this requirement (the Holy Spirit) since I well...lack the Holy Spirit!

or show that it is a claim inconsistent with Jehovah Witness theology on the whole. The claim is not special pleading.

It is special pleading since this discussion has two types of people - the person who like JW says they have the Holy Spirit and says they have the special understanding and meaning of the Bible, and people like me, who do not say we have a Holy Spirit.
Anything a person like me says about the Bible, the person like JW can just lazily disregard by citing their mysterious Holy Spirit understanding. The person who claims to have this Holy Spirit has put themselves in an unfalsifiable position - they can supposedly never be shown to be wrong by a person like myself. I am instantly disqualified. It's very similar to previous critiques I've written regarding creationists and their statements of faith. They say they have their Bible, and they say their Bible gives a young age for the Earth. Thus, no matter what results might be obtained by scientific measurements, if those measurements give millions of years, the creationist can just disregard those results lazily.
And it's not like the Holy Spirit-claimer can actually demonstrate that they do in fact have such a thing in their corner. It's only claimed.
Why should a person like myself or Z give any credence to what a person like JW says is the 'correct' meaning of the Bible, when they say they get their 'correct' meaning from a spirit entity that I do not have?

Thats not at all what special pleading means. There are different types of people; that is not special pleading. Being unfalsifiable has nothing to do with special pleading. If a standard means that you are instantly disqualified, then you are instantly disqualified and that is still not special pleading. If he can demonstrate something is true or not does not make it special pleading.

If the requirement to get into a club is { }, then anyone who doesnt meat { } does not get into the club. It might be unfair, or it might not really clubs requirement, but at no point has anyone committed the fallacy of special pleading.

Now you can try to show the JWs claim is false, or inconsistent, but picking a random logical fallacy and accusing him of it is a false abuse logic (which is the only thing I am really arguing against in this thread).