Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Monday, October 04, 2010, 11:33 (5163 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I remember replying to this one, but my internet on board the boat is always flaky at best, so it might not have gone through. Or perhaps the answer was wrapped up together with another reply elsewhere in the thread, either way, I apologize for the delay.
When I spoke about cross-referencing the scripture, I meant cross-referencing the bible to the entirety of the Bible in terms of determining internal consistency.
In relation to proving it scientifically, it would of course require comparison to scientific/historical data.-There have certainly been no replies to my two posts of 30 September. It would be very frustrating for you (and me!) if your replies have got lost. I always write out my responses, save them, and copy and paste them as a precaution. You did, however, write a very interesting piece on the "hell" thread, which brings us both much closer together on the issue of religion.-Two queries from earlier posts that have also remained unanswered are 1) Matthew's genealogy "proving" Christ's descent from Abraham and David through Joseph, who was not Christ's father, and 2) your motive for trying to prove that the Bible writers were not crackpots. You had said that you were NOT trying to prove God's existence, and I pointed out that every writer who claimed to reproduce the words of God would have to be called a crackpot if God didn't exist (alternatively, a charlatan, which is even worse.)-As regards "cross-referencing" and "entire contexts", in support of your claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible, are you kidding? If I thought I'd found a contradiction, you could argue that I must read not only the whole Bible, but also every version (including the original), every translation, and every commentary. If I fail to do so, I have not proved there are no contradictions. However, this is a minor matter compared to the issue of God's justice and your/Matt's/my criteria for what constitutes right and wrong.