Was God's Intent To Be Cryptic?

[POI]

Was God's/Jesus's Word(s) meant to sometimes be vague/mysterious?

Are humans just too stupid to collectively associate the correct intended conclusions behind some of these claimed Bible passages?

Should the reader of the Bible's claims, be at mere face value, even if the seemingly axiomatic claim does not look to comport with later human discovery?

Should the reader conclude, if the claimed passage does not align with discovery, that this is not what God actually meant?

Why would God not want His message(s) to be abundantly clear, which is evident by the reality that we have many mutually opposing sects in Christianity?

I'll stop here....

Thank you in advance!

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes....Damn'... As soon as I think of an example I start to argue against it, theist -style. And stuff like 'Last shall be first' and 'do not pray in public' and 'give all you have to the poor' are best not mentioned at all. But an obvious one. Blatantly and crudely so. The stuff about ancient wars and so on Interpreted to mean prophecies . Usually revolving about the stubborn persistence of the state of the star....No, The other one, without the creationist Biology books.

[POI]

What exactly IS the 'truth'? What is God's over all message? ..

It is what is said in the Bible.

Please address what I asked in post #19? I will restate/rephrase my inquiry for clarification.

You can drive down the road and see three churches directly next door to one another... -- (i.e.) a Baptist church, a Seven Day Adventist church, and a Catholic church. All three churches impose differing criteria/doctrines/messages. It's also possible you would not attend any of these three specific flavors? But even if you did attend one of these 3 specific flavors, the other two might be partially or completely incorrect, (according to you, via post #8)?

1. Please disclose your denomination of Christianity, as there exists many.

2. If you do not adhere to a specific denomination, please at least disclose that you are non-denominational --- which is also a specific flavor of sorts.

3. Please also tell me why your denomination is correct, while all the rest are instead "fitting God's word to their own doctrines and desires."?

[POI]

... the modus operandi of theist apologetics is to ague on interpretation of the evidence of the text, then on what the text actually says and then pretty much to deny or dismiss everything and cite Biblefaith.

Well I cannot speak for other groups but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses our approach is to allow the bible to interpret itself and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony.

I'm scratching my head here as well... If I read your statement above, it might lead one to think that the 'correct interpretation' and the most 'harmonious interpretation' is to follow the interpretation of the 'Watch Tower'? The ones which do not are either not practicing correctly; because of 1. ignorance, 2. denial, and/or 3. absence of presentation/demonstration? Would this sum up your response here, in a nutshell? If not, please clarify?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm scratching my head here as well... If I read your statement above, it might lead one to think that the 'correct interpretation' and the most 'harmonious interpretation' is to follow the interpretation of the 'Watch Tower'? The ones which do not are either not practicing correctly; because of 1. ignorance, 2. denial, and/or 3. absence of presentation/demonstration? Would this sum up your response here, in a nutshell? If not, please clarify?

I have no interest in clarifying your words much less your summary (which "in a nutshell" I dont fully understand anyway) but am happy to clarify what *I* wrote.

I wrote : Well I cannot speak for other groups ... I am in no position to say how other religious groups approach bible interpretation.

... but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses .... meaning as a baptised member of the Jehovahs Witness faith

... our approach is to allow the bible to interpret itself and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony. meaning we look to other bible verses to cast light on the meaning of verses that are ambiguous or hard to understand

... ...and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony. meaning, if there are two or more possible reading we will always choose to favor the one that best harmonizes with the other relevant verses.

[POI]

I'm scratching my head here as well... If I read your statement above, it might lead one to think that the 'correct interpretation' and the most 'harmonious interpretation' is to follow the interpretation of the 'Watch Tower'? The ones which do not are either not practicing correctly; because of 1. ignorance, 2. denial, and/or 3. absence of presentation/demonstration? Would this sum up your response here, in a nutshell? If not, please clarify?

I have no interest in clarifying your words much less your summary (which "in a nutshell" I dont fully understand anyway) but am happy to clarify what *I* wrote.

I wrote : Well I cannot speak for other groups ... I am in no position to say how other religious groups approach bible interpretation.

... but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses .... meaning as a baptised member of the Jehovahs Witness faith

... our approach is to allow the bible to interpret itself and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony. meaning we look to other bible verses to cast light on the meaning of verses that are ambiguous or hard to understand

... ...and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony. meaning, if there are two or more possible reading we will always choose to favor the one that best harmonizes with the other relevant verses.

I sense some hostility here? You openly admit you are a JW. I would assume you ascribe to the interpretation of the Watch Tower? I don't find that the Watch Tower's interpretation presents "harmony", as harmony means:

"an arrangement of the four Gospels, or of any parallel narratives, which presents a single continuous narrative text" Being that we have many many many opposing Christian doctrines, I see very little 'harmony' here?

Being that the objective of this thread is to get to the bottom of Jesus's meaning, would it be wise to adhere to interpretations of the "Watch Tower"? If so, then why do the vast majority not do so? Again, is it because:

1. ignorance (possibly me)?
2. denial (possibly me)?
3. Not being given the correct information (possibly me)?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #25]

our approach is to allow the bible to interpret itself and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony.

Isn't that just reinforcing a circular argument?

I don't think so, can you explain what you mean?

To me it sounds like the assumption of biblical harmony comes first and that determines which interpretation is accepted.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #25]

our approach is to allow the bible to interpret itself and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony.

Isn't that just reinforcing a circular argument?

I don't think so, can you explain what you mean?

To me it sounds like the assumption of biblical harmony comes first and that determines which interpretation is accepted.

Okay I can see what you mean but the question isn't "Is the bible harmonious?" but "how should the bible best be interpreted?". If the question was ""Is the bible harmonious?" And the answer "yes, because it is harmonious" then that would be circular. But presupposing that the bible (like any book really) should have its own internal logic and harmony and reading it accordingly, is not circular.

At any given moment a reader has to interpret what he is reading, sometimes that is going to boil down to "Does this make sense?" At that point he stands at the cross in the road, to the left is "no it makes no sense and that is the intention" or "No, it doesnt seem to make sense but it should? " Granted we are presupposing the book isnt supposed to be nonsense and yes, that could become a self fulfilling prophecy, but that works both ways. If you believe a book is supposed to be nonsense and always choose the most nonsensical option you do indeed end up with a book of nonsense.

To illustrate : Jesus refered to his followers as "sheep" while at other times refered to them as humans (men and women). Either sheep was a metaphor or he was mad and thought humans were in fact farm animals. In other words we can interpret what he said in a way that makes sense or that makes nonsense of his words.

That is a simple example but when scripture is unclear, ambiguous or when dealing with prophecy, seperating from the bedrock of "this needs to make sense, this needs to harmonize with the other elements in the book and (to add to the mix ) "this must reflect reality", is like the gold standard: it prevents wild speculation and mad insider trading.





JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

Is the bible easy or difficult to understand?
viewtopic.php?p=1049513#p1049513

Is the bible an incomprehensible mess?
viewtopic.php?p=1054980#p1054980

Should the bible make sense?
viewtopic.php?p=1055318#p1055318

Is the bible "a mystery" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1095732#p1095732

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE READING and ... HERMENEUTICS*

* bible interpretation

[Tcg]

At any given moment a reader has to interpret what he is reading, sometimes that is going to boil down to "Does this make sense?"

I thought you said earlier that the Bible interprets itself? So much for that thought. The answer to the question is of course, no, it doesn't make sense. At least not without a lot of help:




Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

I think the message is abundantly clear for all who remain in truth. The problems come when people begin to make interpretations so that they could fit God's word to their own doctrines and desires.

That certainly seems to happen a lot, but how do we determine who's in truth and who's doing the interpreting?

Who's doing the interpreting?

The guy you give the money to.


Cryptic messages, signs, and parables are the tools of the huckster. The fraud. The confidence man. The ne'er do well.

"Yo Joey, did you see the guy?"
"You mean the guy?
"Yeah, the guy. Did you see the guy?"

"Early this morning a mutilated body was found in the trunk of a car. Authorities suspect foul play."

This is how you do the witchcraft, the religion, the crime, and the lying to the pretty thing.

"Joey, did you see the trash?
"You mean the trash?"
"Yeah, the trash. Did you see the trash?"

"Joey's mutilated body was found right there next to the trash, where pretty thing said she'd leave him if he ever forgot to 'see' him it again. Authorities have no suspects at this time."

[JehovahsWitness]

I wrote :

... ...and accept the interpretation that best favors biblical harmony. meaning, if there are two or more possible reading we will always choose to favor the one that best harmonizes with the other relevant verses.

... "harmony", as harmony means: ...

I was using the Word harmony'in its more general sense