Interpretation of scripture

[Willum]

So, in following the debate in The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?, watching the to and fro and the different interpretations, and the "the literal interpretations isn't correct"s, I have reached a conclusion.

The people who wrote the Bible obviously had no conception about what they were writing about.
Even were they exposed to the truth, they still had no clue how to describe it, or even what bits of it were true and actionable.

Is there anything wrong with the assumption that he Apostles and other Biblical writers were unproductive and did not have a clue about what they were writing about?

[bluethread]

So, in following the debate in The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?, watching the to and fro and the different interpretations, and the "the literal interpretations isn't correct"s, I have reached a conclusion.

The people who wrote the Bible obviously had no conception about what they were writing about.
Even were they exposed to the truth, they still had no clue how to describe it, or even what bits of it were true and actionable.

Is there anything wrong with the assumption that he Apostles and other Biblical writers were unproductive and did not have a clue about what they were writing about?

The problem with always going with the "literal interpretation" is that it injects modern cultural bias into the text. As with any form of literature, it must be interpreted based on the historical, grammatical and cultural contexts of the original intended audience.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

And the OP's premise is that any interpretation is based on the Bible writers being as unable to describe what they observed as they were of describing any other truth.

How do you think they would describe E&M, quantum theories, pathology?
They couldn't, nor did they have any chance of appropriately describing any other truth.
So, even if there is something to the Bible, hoping anyone got it right is a fool's dream.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

And the OP's premise is that any interpretation is based on the Bible writers being as unable to describe what they observed as they were of describing any other truth.

How do you think they would describe E&M, quantum theories, pathology?
They couldn't, nor did they have any chance of appropriately describing any other truth.
So, even if there is something to the Bible, hoping anyone got it right is a fool's dream.

This is the falacy of novelty. Yes, we have more and varied ways of describing things. However, that does not mean that the descriptions of thing in the Scriptures are not suffient for the initial purpose for which they were intended. The other side of your objection is that they described things in ways that are not common to modern culture. So, it is important that we not interpret things in the Scriptures based on modern ways of describing them, but that we seek to understand how the intended audience would have described them.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

The fallacy of novelty is claiming something is right because it is new. That is not the premise of the topic.
So, it remains very clear the Apostles and other Biblical writers were describing a fallacy, or had no clue what they were describing and should be dismissed out of hand.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

The fallacy of novelty is claiming something is right because it is new. That is not the premise of the topic.
So, it remains very clear the Apostles and other Biblical writers were describing a fallacy, or had no clue what they were describing and should be dismissed out of hand.

No, yours is the fallacy of novelty. The idea that the Scriptures should be rejected because modern translations do not match up with modern ways of describing things is a fallacious argument.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

Nope, that isn't it either. But I do love how so many liked your inaccurate assumption.
The fallacy is that the Apostles OBVIOUSLY didn't know the Bible from their elbows, and described whatever it was supposed to be about as well as an Islington gnat would describe Peking.

TRY to stay on topic.

The premise is that you believers don't have trouble with scripture, it is that scripture is a poor facsimile of what ever its writers were trying to say. So it isn't your fault you argue over it.

[brianbbs67]

Is it not written, that some will not understand parts or all of scripture?

I know, sounds like a cop-out but would explain much.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by brianbbs67]

The point is that just about every believer believes scripture a different way.
Since this is so, the "some," is just about all, making scripture meaningless, basically.

Basically, if the writers didn't have a clue, it would explain more...

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 8 by brianbbs67]

The point is that just about every believer believes scripture a different way.
Since this is so, the "some," is just about all, making scripture meaningless, basically.

Basically, if the writers didn't have a clue, it would explain more...

Maybe it is the readers of those writers and their writings, which they so readily criticize and put down, who don't "have a clue".