Sorry, back, been busy having my children serenade Lilly. No, the authors intent seems to place No limits on what a reader interprets from those words.

Whenever you begin with "lets assume" and then proceed to a conclusion without elaborating upon that assumption you have abandoned "truth" entirely. You see, you aren't even asking me to assume that they didn't believe you are asking me to conclude that they did not -but based upon what, precisely?

I would ask a reader why they felt the text indicated this, and presumably they would have something that lead them to this.

In every one of your examples you are assuming the truth and then arguing against examples which you feel are not the truth -you still have not established what this truth or meaning is beyond what interpretation you prefer..and clearly, in this example, another reader disagrees with you. In fact, there is a mountain of assumptions behind the way you are approaching this. Here's a fun one, why are you assuming that any two jesus' in the narratives are the same jesus? If jesus says something that seems out of charcter, does it seem so because jesus didn't say it (or because jesus didn't mean it as written), or because the author has made modifications to the character of jesus? Even within a single narrative, you assume that the entirety of the narrative is a complete work from a single author -a concise story-line with no added or subtracted bits. Perhaps the author of the first verse had a different meaning in mind than the author of the second verse? Hows about that for "apparent contradictions" vanishing? At no point do any of these obfuscating theories rely on ambiguity within the text at all, only ambiguity within our mind as regards the text applied to some other object or event. The story still stands, there in the black and white, all by it's ones-sies.

Proposing what the authors intent may have been or what you think it is is completely pointless; the bible has no helpful footnotes to explain the "hidden meaning" so until any one denomination produces evidence saying they're correct you're all as wrong as each other. The author's intent matters not; a lot of christians have not read the bible, so the intent has fuck all meaning for them, and the author's intent may all be well and good, but it doesn't stop the bible being some completely irrelevant bull shit.

Actually, the bible DOES have explanatory foot notes - a bit like works of Shakespeare.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm)spockrates Wrote: Hey, Catfish--thanks for posting! Regarding the first suggestion, it seems to me the two lists of sins do not contradict each other, though Ezekiel's list is more exhaustive. Do you think these words of Ezekiel,

"'And they ... committed abomination before me...'"

echo these words of James?

"...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

I'm thinking they are describing the same sins, though James is certainly less vague. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, it describes how gang rape was a common occurrence in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes, I do believe one list was more complete than the other. Kinda like the flood narative.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm)spockrates Wrote: Regarding the second suggestion, I'm not sure I see a conflict. James describes the fate of those who died in the original catastrophe (whether it was a meteor strike, or a powerful volcanic eruption, I don't know). Ezekiel describes the fate of those who take after the people who died long ago by committing the same sins they committed.

My take on Ezekiel is that Sodom will be restored to it's former estate which appears to contradict the "fate" of Sodom described in Jude.

(July 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Actually, the bible DOES have explanatory foot notes - a bit like works of Shakespeare.

Unfortunately none of which where written by the authors. If you'd like to send me any book on your shelf I can add all the footnotes you like.

(July 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Actually, the bible DOES have explanatory foot notes - a bit like works of Shakespeare.

Unfortunately none of which where written by the authors. If you'd like to send me any book on your shelf I can add all the footnotes you like.

Actually the authors DID include explanatory notes. (Example John 9:7)

Maybe not enough to make it comprehensible to every single reader but hey, thats what translators are for.

...and these

Those are your footnotes? Whew, I was starting to worry that no one would ever figure this story out. Perhaps you should take a look at the footnotes on just that verse. They're roughly 10 times larger than the verse itself, (which you seem to believe qualifies as a footnote for some mysterious reason). I think I'm going to stick with what a footnote is, rather than accepting your offering here. I'll also have to pass on the childrens bible reader, because I have children in my house, and an obligation to keep shady influences out of their lives. Thanks though.

(July 31, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Tobie Wrote: Proposing what the authors intent may have been or what you think it is is completely pointless; the bible has no helpful footnotes to explain the "hidden meaning" so until any one denomination produces evidence saying they're correct you're all as wrong as each other. The author's intent matters not; a lot of christians have not read the bible, so the intent has fuck all meaning for them, and the author's intent may all be well and good, but it doesn't stop the bible being some completely irrelevant bull shit.

The counterpart to author's intent is the reader's desire. When we look for the "author's intent", we are looking into the context and language in order to tell what a line means. Usually this is easy, as the Bible is written in a straightforward style. What we shouldn't do is guess the meaning based on our own experiences, or what we are feeling that day. There is no hidden meaning. If you don't understand a verse, post it here. I and my fellow brothers in Christ will do our best to provide an explanation using Biblical and historical evidence. Chances are we'll agree, even though we come from different denominations. We must not fall into the vague "there are so many variances, everyone has to be wrong" kind of thinking. That is nonsense. We are all called Christians because we follow Christ to the best of our ability. Anyone who does not believe Jesus' words and actions are true is not a Christian. It's that simple. Denominations are to be discussed by the spiritually mature.

(July 31, 2012 at 1:28 pm)spockrates Wrote: Please explain why the true meaning of a story is not what the writer intends. For example, why would the true meaning of a newspaper article not be what the journalist who wrote the article intends?

The truth is not always what what the journalist writes or says.

Watch Fox news for reference.

(July 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sorry, back, been busy having my children serenade Lilly. No, the authors intent seems to place No limits on what a reader interprets from those words.

Whenever you begin with "lets assume" and then proceed to a conclusion without elaborating upon that assumption you have abandoned "truth" entirely. You see, you aren't even asking me to assume that they didn't believe you are asking me to conclude that they did not -but based upon what, precisely?

I would ask a reader why they felt the text indicated this, and presumably they would have something that lead them to this.

In every one of your examples you are assuming the truth and then arguing against examples which you feel are not the truth -you still have not established what this truth or meaning is beyond what interpretation you prefer..and clearly, in this example, another reader disagrees with you. In fact, there is a mountain of assumptions behind the way you are approaching this. Here's a fun one, why are you assuming that any two jesus' in the narratives are the same jesus? If jesus says something that seems out of charcter, does it seem so because jesus didn't say it (or because jesus didn't mean it as written), or because the author has made modifications to the character of jesus? Even within a single narrative, you assume that the entirety of the narrative is a complete work from a single author -a concise story-line with no added or subtracted bits. Perhaps the author of the first verse had a different meaning in mind than the author of the second verse? Hows about that for "apparent contradictions" vanishing? At no point do any of these obfuscating theories rely on ambiguity within the text at all, only ambiguity within our mind as regards the text applied to some other object or event. The story still stands, there in the black and white, all by it's ones-sies.

Glad you're back! My son is a singer, too. He's a member of a show choir, so we travel to competitions around Indiana, and to other states, such as Florida.

I'll answer your question if you answer the one I asked yesterday, which remains unanswered:

:p

What if a reader said the moral of the story of the French version of Little Red Ridinghood is to trust strangers. Would you accept even this as true?

---

(July 31, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Tobie Wrote: Proposing what the authors intent may have been or what you think it is is completely pointless; the bible has no helpful footnotes to explain the "hidden meaning" so until any one denomination produces evidence saying they're correct you're all as wrong as each other. The author's intent matters not; a lot of christians have not read the bible, so the intent has fuck all meaning for them, and the author's intent may all be well and good, but it doesn't stop the bible being some completely irrelevant bull shit.

Well, the direction of the dialog is currently pointing toward ambiguity within the biblical text and whether this is sufficient to doubt the Bible as a whole. I find it fascinating that Rythym claims nothing in the Bible is ambiguous. Please tell me, Tobie: Do you agree with him?

Regarding the Bible being irrelevant bull, please explain why it is completely irrelevant to you.