RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2011 at 1:13 pm by Timothy.)
(May 29, 2011 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Well, yes we know the christian view, "The bible is right no matter what because the bible says so"How exactly is that the "Christian view"?
(May 29, 2011 at 6:10 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: I love the way christians make out that their holy book is so simple and clear to understand.Who exactly are you talking about? As I've already said, I make no claims like that of any sort. Like any collection of ancient texts, it requires study to find out what the intended meaning was. That is because the books of the Bible were not written to us in our time and culture, but to other people in other times and cultures different from our own.
Now, does that mean that there is nothing that translates easily into our language today? Not at all.
Does it mean that the original audiences would have found its meaning ambiguous? Again, in no way.
Does it mean that every interpretation of the Biblical texts is equally valid? Of course not. We find out the original intent by carefully weighing the reasons for and against the different interpretations, given knowledge about the original languages, the historical context, etc.
Let's go back now to the actual thread now, and bbrettle's argument (or rather, lack thereof) that Mark 16:15 implies the God needs humans to do things for Him. Is anyone willing to argue (according to the usual standards of interpreting ancient texts) that this verse, as originally intended, implies this?
(May 29, 2011 at 6:10 am)DoktorZ Wrote: You claimed that his reading of that passage was "ignorant," therefore you assume that the reading is transparent. In fact, inherent in your claim is that his putative "ignorance" is a lack of contextualization, which demands readings outside of Mark 16:15--i.e., the wider scriptures. Already, you are engaging in obfuscation, word-play, and "boundary policing." I took a short look at your other posts here, and I find similarly suspicious behavior.I've already explained my intent with respect to saying that bbrettle was using an argument from ignorance. The question raised by bbrettle's claim (which is now rapidly being avoided by this shoal of red herrings) is "Does Mark 16:15 imply that God is dependent on humans?" Simply reading the text prima facie, there is no mention that God does depend on humans, or anything remotely analogous. I asked bbrettle to give a reason why he thought the text did imply what he said it did. He states perfectly clearly that "I don't know what else I could draw from it." It is an explicit statement about a lack of knowledge.
I've said nothing about the transparency of Mark 16:15 or any other text, or the necessity of a canonical reading from other texts of Scripture in order to understand the meaning of Mark 16:15. I have no desire to obfuscate and every desire to make my communication as clear as I can make it. Point out anything I have said which you deem to be deliberate concealment, ambiguity, word-play or "pushing of beliefs" and I will quite happily explain to you in even clearer terms what I have been trying to say.
