Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Roland Barthes will be round later to explain all the things that are wrong with this statement.

 

For any text it is true. Even if God did write the Bible, we'd need the Adamite language that he took away from us during The Unpleasantness With The Tower Of Babel to even agree amongst ourselves on an interpretation.

This kind of reminds me of that time that someone pointed out that the "Bible code" was as likely to occur in just about any text of roughly the same density as the Bible (they chose Moby Dick), and the rebuttal was that, ah, but you see, Hebrew is a mathematical language, so... yeah, take that, statistics That fact was totally irrelevant, since the text was still comprised of the same number of words and letters either way.

Similar, the Bible is still written in a language. Thus, it is as open to interpretation as every other book ever written. Everyone's understanding of the meaning of a word differs depending on their life up until the point of reading it. Multiply that by the tens of thousands of words in the Bible, and you've got a fair amount of room for manoeuvre. It's ridiculous to suggest that a text "interprets itself". If it's written in a language, it's every bit as subject to the death of the author as The Little Engine That Could.

 

You can think any thing you want but that doesn't change the fact the Bible is designed by God to interpret itself. (Hebrews 4:12)

 

Nothing is wrong with the statement, it is simply true.

 

No and No. So, you’re saying that God would not have the ability to write a self interpreting book, even overcoming the splitting of the languages? Interesting, you seem to have a pretty limited sense of who God is.

Bible code? I don’t believe I’ve said anything about a Bible code.

Death of its author? God has not died lately.

Open to interpretation? Sure People are free to interpret something anyway they want to but that doesn’t necessarily make their interpretation the correct one.

As I’ve already mentioned, God wrote the Bible to be self interpreting and if you leave your preconceived notions and agendas behind, the Bible becomes pretty straight forward and self explanatory.

 

which notions and agendas?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "self-interpreting book", because so many people seem to interpret it so differently. Does this mean some are just wrong, blind, perverse, etc.? I regard the Bible as a source of truth, and rely on my best judgment, understanding, and the guidance of the Spirit in interpreting it. And of course, I think my interpretation is right. But I'm certainly aware that there are lots of Christians who disagree with me, and in an earlier era, I'd be a crispy critter. When you say the Bible is straightforward and self-interpreting, are you saying we need to interpret it literally? Throughout the debates on these forums, I've been fascinated at how often you, neodude and I agree in our conclusions on things like hell, the afterlife, etc., but I've sensed that we're arriving at these from completely different premises and understandings of scripture.

 

Well, now this is venturing into the realm of belief, not fact.

And look, I'm all for freedom of belief, but not when it comes at the expense of someone else's belief.

Take this quotation for example. You're using your interpretation of a bible quote to evidence your belief that the bible is meant to interpret itself. Sort of a circle, ya know?
While you do this, you meanwhile belittle my own perspective, simply out of an unwillingness to appreciate an outside opinion that differs from your own.

Like I said, you can believe whatever you want, but telling someone else that they are, just frankly, WRONG, within the realm of beliefs, is rather rude and close-minded.

 

See, but that's the thing.

What if I leave my preconceived notions and agendas behind, you leave your own behind, and we still come up with different interpretations?

How will you know who came to the table with preconceived notions and agendas, or that either of us even did?

 

Criminy, what’s so hard to understand?

Okay I’ll give you an example.

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

Some interpret this to mean that Jesus is God.
Some interpret this to mean that Jesus is part of a Trinity.
Some interpret this to mean that Jesus is one with God in thought, purpose and or goals.
Etc.

So how should it be interpreted?

Should we just use our preconceived notions or agendas and say; that’s what it means?

Perhaps, now this is just a suggestion, we should let the Bible interpret it?

Let’s see what else the Bible says about Jesus being one with his Father.

“I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. (John 17:20-22)

Seems easy enough but many don’t bother. Most it seems would rather the Bible mean whatever they want it to mean regardless of what the Bible actually says.

 

to me this looks like a preconceived notion

 

you're doin' it wrong!!!

 

doing what wrong?

 

No. No it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

Essentially, an author cannot claim that there is a right or wrong interpretation of his text, only what their intention might have been. The notion that a person is "reading it wrong" is dead.

So no. You're wrong. The Bible isn't self-interpreting because it's an inanimate object, and even if God Himself wrote whichever version of the Bible you're reading (which he didn't), it would not be any more self-explanatory or self-interpreting than any other book. Doesn't mean you can't believe whatever you want, just means you don't get to tell us that the Bible agrees with you. But then, no one else can tell you that either. Everyone's a winner!

I'd like to give Roland Barthes a big hug. Sadly he's dead.

 

If you think you've left your preconceived notions behind, see if you agree with OWB. If you don't, you've probably not left them behind yet.

Cyclic logic time is fun time.

 

The problem is you keep thinking of God as a man, he just isn't. Just because man can't do something doesn't mean God can't. (Hebrews 4:12)

 

I don't believe I ever said the Bible agrees with me.

 

so are you then saying it does not agree with you?

 

No, sorry, that's not the case at all. God doesn't actually enter into the equation. The Bible is still written in a human language, therefore Barthes still applies. It has nothing to do with what I think God is. Language is limited. By God Himself, if my memory of the Bible serves. Barthes' death of the author DOES apply to all texts, whether you believe it or not. You can insist that it's different with the Bible because God is different and lalala all you like, you're just wrong.

The only situation where it would not by necessity apply is if you are saying that God's message is limited to what the language that the Bible was originally written in can convey, but even then, I would be suspicious of how you could come to this conclusion without a more-than-working knowledge of that language.

Now please, don't pursue this. If you continue to insist that God can be an exception, you'll just look like a jackass.

That's misleading. The Bible is a book, it doesn't agree with anyone. But since you claim the Bible to be "self-interpreting", unless you are a very strange person I think it would be safe for me to assume that you concur with that "self-interpretation".

Frankly, I don't care whether you ever said that the Bible "agrees with you". It's obvious enough from everything else that you've said on the subject how you feel, but even if it weren't, your choice of words here does not imply that you don't believe that the Bible agrees with you - just that you have not yet said it.