Why PFAL sucks

[T-Bone]

All aboard…The LoShonta Express is leaving reality in about 5 minutes of this day and time and hour…

…where do the train tracks go?

Train tracks? We don’t need train tracks where we are going… Banzai !!!!!!!!

 

but if you don't like trains, you can always take the bus

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Does the Bible read itself?

The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" does not mean the Bible performs the action of interpretation. 

It means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself.

Now, you can apply this knowledge to answer your question, yourself.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" does not mean the Bible performs the action of interpretation. 

It means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself.

Now, you can apply this knowledge to answer your question, yourself.

I rest my case.

[OldSkool]

35 minutes ago, chockfull said:

I so totally need one of those Rumba vacuums to scare my dogs lol.

They self vacuum on a programmed route.  Any similarities between that and some people is completely coincidence 

%#@! I never thought of that and I have a 10 pound pomeranian. She's already scarred because we moved from a carpeted home to 100% hardwood - she looks like a cartoon character running in place most days. That vacuum would be the move....my 16 year old torments her enough so I shouldn't...but mann do I ever want to.

[OldSkool]

24 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

All aboard…The LoShonta Express is leaving reality in about 5 minutes of this day and time and hour…

…where do the train tracks go?

Train tracks? We don’t need train tracks where we are going… Banzai !!!!!!!!

 

but if you don't like trains, you can always take the bus

 

 

 

 

 

[OldSkool]

20 minutes ago, Mike said:

us doing the interpretation

Pssssst.....hey Mike......I thought the word intreprets itself. You just did a huge Freudian Slip there buddy!

[T-Bone]

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" does not mean the Bible performs the action of interpretation. 

It means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself.

Now, you can apply this knowledge to answer your question, yourself.

Your statements imply an intermediary step – the reader’s mind.

Some helpful information IS in the Bible - one can use some of the keys suggested by Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible – like paying attention to immediate context, remote context…but some of his ideas were bogus like to whom is it addressed, dispensationalism.

But still – what is implied is that it’s up to the reader to use his mental faculties to note the context, remote context…but for a deeper understanding of the biblical languages, cultures, theological themes, ancient worldviews, political settings, etc.  one will have to consult legitimate sources outside the Bible…and of course the reader should still exercise cognitive skills when analyzing any information – to see if the source uses good standards of scholarship, logic, etc.

your saying "The Bible interprets itself ...means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself." does not make sense. you're redefining a screwy theory to make it compatible with the evidence.

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by T-Bone
revision

[OldSkool]

2 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Your statements imply an intermediary step – the reader’s mind.

Some helpful information IS in the Bible - one can use some of the keys suggested by Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible – like paying attention to immediate context, remote context…but some of his ideas were bogus like to whom is it addressed, dispensationalism.

But still – what is implied is that it’s up to the reader to use his mental faculties to note the context, remote context…but for a deeper understanding of the biblical languages, cultures, theological themes, ancient worldviews, political settings, etc.  one will have to consult legitimate sources outside the Bible…and of course the reader should still exercise cognitive skills when analyzing any information – to see if the source uses good standards of scholarship, logic, etc.

 

Speak! One of the best posts ever and lately that bar has been raised.

[Nathan_Jr]

80. Scripture STILL doesn’t interpret itself.

This wonderful kernel was established thousands of years ago. (The 2nd time did it.) Today it was reaffirmed.

 

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" does not mean the Bible performs the action of interpretation. 

It means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself.

Now, you can apply this knowledge to answer your question, yourself.

Mike, have you ever gotten the impression people here were toying with you? If not, at least THEY know they're simply trying to make you go faster on the hamster wheel.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Rocky

[Mike]

On 10/26/2022 at 4:06 AM, penworks said:

...The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture.

People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here.

I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles. 

 

Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself, I’d like to add to your analysis of books and interpretations. I’d like to insert something right after your sentence “We're talking about reading literature here.”

We could be talking about another kind of book, a technical book, like Physics or Math or Chemistry.  With these books the idea is to get to what the AUTHOR’S interpretation of a passage is.  If a reader fails to get the author’s interpretation of a particular chapter in a technical textbook, then that reader will surely get wrong answers, incorrect numbers, for the questions at the end each chapter. Often, a technical book will have the answers to each chapter’s questions in the back, so a reader can see if they are on track, or lost in a private interpretation, by how well they score in answering numerical questions.

So there are books where  it matters greatly to arrive at the author’s interpretation of a text, and to avoid private interpretations.

Now comes your next sentence:
“I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature...”

To which I say:
Not so fast! Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.

I reject your broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.

PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Mike

[Nathan_Jr]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

“I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature...”

 

 

To which I say:
Not so fast! Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the recipe rightly divided will make difference the results you want

Scripture is a type/genre of literature, within which are sub-genres like apocalypse, poetry, hymns, prophesy, narrative…

Edited October 31, 2022 by Nathan_Jr

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself, I’d like to add to your analysis of books and interpretations. I’d like to insert something right after your sentence “We're talking about reading literature here.”

We could be talking about another kind of book, a technical book, like Physics or Math or Chemistry.  With these books the idea is to get to what the AUTHOR’S interpretation of a passage is.  If a reader fails to get the author’s interpretation of a particular chapter in a technical textbook, then that reader will surely get wrong answers, incorrect numbers, for the questions at the end each chapter. Often, a technical book will have the answers to each chapter’s questions in the back, so a reader can see if they are on track, or lost in a private interpretation, by how well they score in answering numerical questions.

So there are books where  it matters greatly to arrive at the author’s interpretation of a text, and to avoid private interpretations.

Now comes your next sentence:
“I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature...”

To which I say:
Not so fast! Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.

I reject your broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.

PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scriptur

Don't you mean the reader's interpretation of the author's interpretation of what the author meant?

That's why there's so many different term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in  Moby Dick means.

Interestingly enough, if you asked Melville why a white whale, he'd probably shrug his shoulders and say, "It sounded good."

Edited October 31, 2022 by So_crates

[Nathan_Jr]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

We could be talking about another kind of book, a technical book, like Physics or Math or Chemistry.  With these books the idea is to get to what the AUTHOR’S interpretation of a passage is.  If a reader fails to get the author’s interpretation of a particular chapter in a technical textbook, then that reader will surely get wrong answers, incorrect numbers, for the questions at the end each chapter. Often, a technical book will have the answers to each chapter’s questions in the back, so a reader can see if they are on track, or lost in a private interpretation, by how well they score in answering numerical questions.

So there are books where  it matters greatly to arrive at the author’s interpretation of a text, and to avoid private interpretations.

Huh??? The author's interpretations of his own writing? Do you mean to use the word meaning everywhere you are using the word interpretation?

Hopefully, this hypothetical technical book is written with greater clarity and plainer language than this paragraph.

Slow down, Mike. Gather your thoughts, SIT, write a structured outline and begin again.

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself, I’d like to add to your analysis of books and interpretations. I’d like to insert something right after your sentence “We're talking about reading literature here.”

We could be talking about another kind of book, a technical book, like Physics or Math or Chemistry.  With these books the idea is to get to what the AUTHOR’S interpretation of a passage is.  If a reader fails to get the author’s interpretation of a particular chapter in a technical textbook, then that reader will surely get wrong answers, incorrect numbers, for the questions at the end each chapter. Often, a technical book will have the answers to each chapter’s questions in the back, so a reader can see if they are on track, or lost in a private interpretation, by how well they score in answering numerical questions.

So there are books where  it matters greatly to arrive at the author’s interpretation of a text, and to avoid private interpretations.

Now comes your next sentence:
“I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature...”

To which I say:
Not so fast! Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.

I reject your broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.

PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.

 

Interpretation = the action of explaining the meaning of something.

This would be possible if the author is alive and is explaining what he or she meant in writing the passage.

 

With an ancient book like the Bible – the writers have passed away (hold all your clamoring about God is not dead until you hear me out, please – and see my * footnote )…That leaves us with a different objective and there’s at least a few ways to reach that (again I'll touch on that with the below * footnote).

A realistic goal is trying to discover what the author MEANT. When we’re looking for meaning – we should look at what the message MEANT to the original recipients. Usually that’s not too difficult because we can look at what the reaction was to the message, if there were any directives to follow, etc.

 

Also, it’s possible a prophecy could have an immediate fulfilment and also foreshadow a greater event    - see   Bible Hub: commentaries on Isaiah 7:14   and   Wikipedia: Isaiah 7:14   and compare the passage of the prophet Isaiah addressing King Ahaz of Judah and telling him he will be given a sign the siege will be broken – and then compare    Matthew 1:23,24.

~ ~ ~ ~ 

The problem with comparing apples to oranges – like your analogy of comparing the Bible or parts of the Bible to a technical textbook or recipe book  - the problem is that you are comparing things that are so very different – they are incomparable!

I mean - how are apples and oranges alike? Okay – they’re both fruit…come from seeds…good to eat…grow on trees…

But the Bible compared to a technical manual, math book, recipe book – well…the Bible and math books mention numbers…the Bible and technical manuals mention specifications – like the dimensions for the tabernacle and the temple…the Bible and recipe books mention food prep, diets...but hopefully these rather nebulous  comparisons are not what you're trying to make - or are you?

 

Could you be more specific in your concern: “Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.” Are you trying to replicate the unleavened bread?

~ ~ ~ ~

Also, could you elaborate on what problems you foresee when you said this: “broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.” Sounds like you’re going back to the false issue we just discussed about “the Bible interprets itself”. That’s odd – you started off this post with “Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself…” Seems like you’re going in circles rather than moving on.

~ ~ ~ ~

 

And lastly, could you clarify this statement of yours: “PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.” Could you give an example of a passage that would be in the category of human feelings and how it should be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like (whatever that is) sections of scripture.

~ ~ ~ ~

*footnote:

I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages like   Proverbs 16:25    and    Judges 21:25   will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are often prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray.

 

I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17    is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,  having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…”

 

People are not robots. We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23   and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes    Proverbs 2:3-5      , Ecclesiastes 7:12  , Psalm 37:23      Psalm 111:10  , and   James 1:5 .

I do not disparage the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in  John 7:17    “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”...   I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like   John 16:13   and    I John 2:27  .

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by T-Bone
added hyperlinks

[Nathan_Jr]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I reject your broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.

Ok. Reject it. You do you.

Isn't the Bible a collection of writings (literature) written by men (except Hebrews) who were inspired by God? Is this what you are rejecting?

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Nathan_Jr
No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Some scholars speculate the author could have been one of Paul's female followers.

[Nathan_Jr]

6 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

John 7:17    “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”...   I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like   John 16:13   and    I John 2:27  .

I'd say Lo Shonta to this, but it just wouldn't cover it. This excerpt can stand alone without comment.

[Nathan_Jr]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.

 

Why?

[Rocky]

Would I be rude to point out that Mike has hijacked this thread and it has turned into just another thread with Mike's vain babblings having overtaken the original intent?

[Nathan_Jr]

4 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Would I be rude to point out that Mike has hijacked this thread and it has turned into just another thread with Mike's vain babblings having overtaken the original intent?

Not rude at all. Mike is hopelessly spinning on the hamster wheel of PFAL. His spinning is evidence in favor of this thread's proposition - that PFAL sucks.

[T-Bone]

47 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Would I be rude to point out that Mike has hijacked this thread and it has turned into just another thread with Mike's vain babblings having overtaken the original intent?

No you’re not being rude at all! Matter of fact you’re absolutely right. 

 

But you know me - I never write anyone or any discussion off - there’s always hope. Besides - it ain’t over until it’s over.

 

I do appreciate you chiming in - and I’ve tried to be on my best behavior since the last time we’ve talked about this.

 

You might think this is a waste of time - and you might be right…I’m not looking to convince or convert anyone to my way of thinking…and I enjoy the freedom to think and choose a response as we all have on this site…

 

believe it or not I actually have been enjoying this recent back and forth with Mike - because I think we’ve both been somewhat civil about our disagreements. I’ve told him at least twice on this thread it’s okay to disagree - just try to be honest and say why rather than spinning up more nonsense…

 

Maybe the Socratic method is going slow - and maybe it’s been 2 steps forward and 1 step back - but that’s still some progress…I mean we kinda got over “the Bible interprets itself” false issue - at least a little bit - because now we’re discussing HOW a student of the Bible can or is supposed to interpret the Bible . That’s a big step in the right direction. Anyway I like some of the challenges Mike can bring to any thread cuz it gets me to re-examine why I look at the Bible a certain way and in that is another challenge to see if I can properly articulate my thought process.

 

I started this thread and yes the intent was - and in my mind still is - to state why PFAL sucks…if anyone wants to come on this thread and disagree saying PFAL does NOT suck - I’m okay with that - just don’t give me nonsense for your reasons why you think that.so far, every poster has given specifics on why they think it sucks. 

 

If someone wants to start a thread of why PFAL does not suck - I say go for it. I’ve already expressed a few cool things I got out of it and wouldn’t be shy to say them on that thread - but I certainly wouldn’t agree with the idea that PFAL is the gold standard of Bible study or whatever category you want to place it in as being representative of perfection. 

[Rocky]

53 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

You might think this is a waste of time - and you might be right…

My intent only was to inject a moment of perspective into the mix. 

[OldSkool]

5 hours ago, Rocky said:

Would I be rude to point out that Mike has hijacked this thread and it has turned into just another thread with Mike's vain babblings having overtaken the original intent?

No...you would be stating the obvious. Mike knows what he's doing and it's done by design.

[waysider]

You might ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

[OldSkool]

26 minutes ago, waysider said:

You might ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

Not sure who knows this...but: There is water at the bottom of the ocean.

 

This one right here...prob my fav song form them of all time.