• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

presuppositionalism question

B

BH

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,072
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
I've been reading about Presuppositionalism on the internet. one thing that strikes me is how they reject any form of sure and certain knowledge of truth unless it's in the Bible.

one thing that came to mind is that the preachers assert the Bible is the truth and it trumps for instance science because science is contingent..

Anyway, the preachers always say that they learn something new everytime they study the Bible.

The Bible also warns of false teachers in side and outside the church.

my question is this. if the Bible is the truth and you learn something new everytime you read it how can you ever say you know the truth and are not in the grip of false doctrine?

why was God able to put the truth on ink and paper but not in our mind where we would just simply know it.

in the end, if you can never get to the point where you can say you have learned the Bible to the point there is nothing more to learn from it you cannot really say you know the truth. your source if truth really isnt giving you truth and really is defective like the secular sources of knowledge you criticise.
 
Who's to say that something is true? How a book is interpreted or what is declared to be true may be more indicitive of the psychology of the reader than what is written in the book.
 
BH said:
why was God able to put the truth on ink and paper but not in our mind where we would just simply know it.
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 11:14
"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."

So an apparent messenger of God could deceive you. I'm not sure of the verse but there could be what seems like God himself talking to you while not actually being the "one True God".

Based on what a pastor I spoke to said, you'd "test the spirit" and see how it lines up with the Bible...

Also I don't see the issue of learning new things as being a deep flaw. In fact I see it as a good thing which makes the Bible more interesting.
 
I understand excreationist. But I fail to understand why it would matter. Why couldnt the devil give us bad scriptures too?
 
BH said:
I understand excreationist. But I fail to understand why it would matter. Why couldnt the devil give us bad scriptures too?
Click to expand...
Actually the Mormons have a third testament... Christians would believe it is from man or possibly could be from the devil.

BTW in the temptation of Jesus Satan is quoting from the Bible, twisting it.... Jesus clarifies the "correct" interpretations of the Bible.
 
BH said:
I've been reading about Presuppositionalism on the internet. one thing that strikes me is how they reject any form of sure and certain knowledge of truth unless it's in the Bible.
one thing that came to mind is that the preachers assert the Bible is the truth and it trumps for instance science because science is contingent..
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are those out there that do this, however... If the obvious is so blatant a contradiction, then I would have no idea why this would be argued for, by this particular supposed presuppositionalist - although for most part, I would assume there to be an area that neither science or religion can validly satisfy the opposing view. Say for example: no one has any 'video footage', documenting the universe coming into being - to then, be able to offer the footage, showing either the BB or creation taking place. It depends on the type of confliction there is, of a truth that's being argued for. The bible isn't anti-science and science is not anti-biblical, they're two different types of discriptive observations.

BH said:
Anyway, the preachers always say that they learn something new everytime they study the Bible.

The Bible also warns of false teachers in side and outside the church.

my question is this. if the Bible is the truth and you learn something new everytime you read it how can you ever say you know the truth and are not in the grip of false doctrine?
Click to expand...
False doctrine you judge by the fruit thats produced, so to speak. Does it match with what Jesus teaches?

We are to keep learning, and studying as it's illustrated in Daniel, till the last days.

Daniel 12: 4 & 8:

4. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

. 8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

BH said:
why was God able to put the truth on ink and paper but not in our mind where we would just simply know it.
Click to expand...

As I understand. God put the conscience into our hearts (and minds) - people go against the conscience for self-gratification on the detriment of others, by their own wills to do so, whilst knowing this could be painful for the victim etc.. The truth as Jesus describes, is the knowledge and acceptance of His existence and what He presents to us. '

The truth will set you free,' can be in terms of you overcoming these selfish acts. 'The truth will set you free' also overcomes the fear of death - or in terms of having NO fear of the tyranical. Tyrants and dictators, do not like Jesus or His followers!

BH said:
in the end, if you can never get to the point where you can say you have learned the Bible to the point there is nothing more to learn from it you cannot really say you know the truth. your source if truth really isnt giving you truth and really is defective like the secular sources of knowledge you criticise.
Click to expand...
You can't learn enough with the current knowledge accumulated.
 
Lerner

I do not know how mny kinds of Christians you have known. Over here in the USA there are many for whom the bibkle is the one and only authority.

If an issue does not directly fit into scripture an interpretation is cobbled together.

Abortion is a good example. The Christian pro lifers say abortion is against god's will. American Christian slave owners justified slavery of blacks based on interpretation of the Mark Of Ham.

The problem with Christianity is there is no consistent morality in the bible. As in he quote biblical stories written in context of metaphor and current events in the times today are taken as literal stories. Job certainly had a context to current events when written.

In the movie Inherit The Wind about the Scopes trial there is a line 'The only book the jurors have probably read is the bible', and it is probably close to truth.


The curse of Ham is described in the Book of Genesis as imposed by the patriarch Noah upon Ham's son Canaan. It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and is provoked by a shameful act perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father".[1] The exact nature of Ham's transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years.[2]

The story's original purpose may have been to justify the biblical subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[3] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as a justification for slavery of black people.[4] Similarly, the Latter Day Saint movement used the curse of Ham to prevent the ordination of black men to its priesthood.[5][6]

Nevertheless, most Christians, Muslims, and Jews now disagree with such interpretations, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and race or skin color is never mentioned.[7]
Click to expand...

It poses a conundrum for a self professed Christian. If the bible is not literal truth what is the truth and how does one know it?

In the RCC the pope is taken to be the voice of god on Earth on matters of faith and interpretation. Along came Luther who said anybody can read he bible and commune directly with god with an intervening priest.

There was a long period where it was a punishable offense to translate the bible from Latin to common language.


He who controlled translation ad interpretation controlled the people. Henry 8th.

en.wikipedia.org

Tyndale Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Literalists don't read "the Bible", they read English translations of scholarly reconstructions of "The Bible." Often, translations of reinterpretations of previous reconstructions such as the NKJV. There is no such book as the Bible in reality, no autograph; it is cobbled together from real texts to be sure, but as a whole and unified document with a clear provenance, "The Bible" is no more real than the hypothetical Q Gospel or the Yahwist Pentateuch.
 
excreationist said:
Politesse said:
Literalists don't read "the Bible", they read English translations of scholarly reconstructions of "The Bible."
Click to expand...
Well here is an example of Answers in Genesis looking at the Hebrew:
answersresearchjournal.org

Semantic Range of יוֹם & Age of the Universe Part 1

There is a considerable disconnection between lexicography regarding יוֹם and the formation of creation theology.
answersresearchjournal.org answersresearchjournal.org
Click to expand...
Well no, that's an example of an author reading English-language scholarly papers about reading Hebrew copies of the Book of Genesis, then writing an unusually analytical article about it. I do appreciate that the author apparently studied the passage himself, and is clear about what manuscript of Genesis he's primarily referring to - the Masoretic text. But, that text has a pretty interesting history in its own right, and certainly is not an autograph of "The Bible", as I have stated. The author rightly compares this text, which he considers "canonical", to other early manuscripts in the ensuing discussion, and even (shockingly to me, for an AiG article) concedes that translating any of this into English is inherently an act of interpretation. But while commendable, all of this is rather reinforcing my point that it is impossible to refer honestly back to a single "The Bible", and that most people don't even attempt to do so. It is commendable that this author has done, though. Honestly, it's a pretty good article if you accept its premises. It's interesting that in order (presumably) to save the concept of literalism, he ends up rather altering the common definition of "literal" from how it is normally used by Creationists to something more akin to how a linguist would normally mean it. I mean, he's right, but that approach is not de rigeur in Creationist circles generally.
 
Politesse said:
:unsure: That is indeed an edition of the Bible... what's it got to do with anything?
Click to expand...
You wrote:
Literalists don't read "the Bible", they read English translations of scholarly reconstructions of "The Bible."
Click to expand...
I'm sure there would be some literalists who read that Hebrew based look at the Bible....
 
Last edited:
I'm aware that occasional literalists do learn Greek and Hebrew. It's a rare habit in their sect, though, usually a sign that someone is off to seminary. And as for an original "The Bible", it does not exist to read; all the sources you hace pointed to explain where their data and translations come from. Each of these constructions has a unique history all their own, and all are works of scholarly reconstruction, interpretation, and sometimes pure conjecture. Even the MT. Even the myriad Greek codices. Trying to use "The Bible" as the objective measure of the value of a theological claim is like trying to navigate by magnetic North; jt feels consistent, but is more complicated when you really start to look at it. If there are "links to other versions" of every verse, how objective can this standard ever truly be?
 
Politesse said:
....And as for an original "The Bible", it does not exist to read; all the sources you hace pointed to explain where their data and translations come from...
Click to expand...
Well the literalists would have Hebrew manuscripts that they believe are the closest to the original "inspired" version.... even though there are some big differences - e.g. the ages

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
excreationist said:
Politesse said:
....And as for an original "The Bible", it does not exist to read; all the sources you hace pointed to explain where their data and translations come from...
Click to expand...
Well the literalists would have Hebrew manuscripts that they believe are the closest to the original "inspired" version.... even though there are some big differences - e.g. the ages

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That's a pretty serious problem for a Presuppositionalist, as I see it. What they are trying to argue is that they are somehow above, or immune to, scholarly posturing and human bickering by light of their strict adherence to "The Bible". But if there is no "The Bible" beyond what scholars have reconstructed and interpreted for you, you aren't really escaping their world, are you? Even if you claim that the book in your hand is "the Original Bible", your claims are immediately subject to dispute, and that makes the use of the Bible as a blunt force weapon far less useful when working across denominational lines, let alone inter-religious ones (and their claims go well beyond just their faith).
 
The word here is yom, meanin day. Not long ages. Very long ages do not have mornings and evenings. Genesis 1 tells us God created Adam and Eve towards the end of the sixth day. Then rested on the seventh day. Genesish 5 tells us Adam and Eve had a son, Seth. Adam was 130 years old. But if Genesis 1 days were immense periods of time, Adam and Eve also had to be immensely old.

Pthhhhhhhh! To AIG!
 
Politesse said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
Very long ages do not have mornings and evenings
Click to expand...
Neither could days that happen before the sun and moon came into existence to define the morning and evening... unless you're in a mythological story, and the literal length of the day isn't really the point.
Click to expand...
It says God created the day and night on the first day. It just involved light and darkness. Creationists have said that God did it that way to discourage sun worshippers. Also in Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 there is no longer a Sun because once again God is the light source.
 
excreationist said:
Politesse said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
Very long ages do not have mornings and evenings
Click to expand...
Neither could days that happen before the sun and moon came into existence to define the morning and evening... unless you're in a mythological story, and the literal length of the day isn't really the point.
Click to expand...
It says God created the day and night on the first day. It just involved light and darkness.
Click to expand...
The point about days of non-standard length not having a morning or night seems moot without a sun or moon, though, doesn't it?

Creationists have said that God did it that way to discourage sun worshippers.
Click to expand...
They sure get tired of their supposed "add nothing to Scripture" rule in a hurry, don't they? Thank the Lord we have half-educated preachers to inform us of God's Machiavellian scheming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom