Truth and its pursuit

[Bravus]

I think there are several layers of confusion here, so let me try to tease some of them out. Part of it is perhaps just that Redwood hasn't studied philosophy. That's not a problem, or any reflection on anyone involved, it just means particular terms are being used differently by particular people.

Redwood, you are using 'objective' as a way of labelling something about the *quality* of truth: good truth is objective truth. But what you're actually describing, with each person having their own 'good truth' is what a philosopher would call subjective truth. So you and David mean completely different things when you use the same words, which makes it difficult to carry on a conversation. Nobodies fault, just difficult.

Quote:

I would like to ask others if they feel there is anyone or anything that has more Objective Truth than God? Does God lack objective truth? Is God truth?

God's nature and existence is absolute truth. And God knows the absolute truth about everything, by definition. So the question is not whether God 'has' truth, but how much of it we have access to.

Quote:

Or is there some other truth out there that we should learn from?

What if something can teach us more *about* God?

[bevin]

Redwood says the Bible is God's Word because the Bible says it is God's word and he assumes God would not let a book claim to be His Word when it is not.

However the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, etc. also make this claim. And millions of Later Day Saint's swear that God has inspired the faith in them that these books are indeed His Word.

The same remarks apply to the Koran. And there is probably a billion people who will swear that God has inspired the faith in them that this Book is indeed His Word.

Therefore, unless Redwood has some additional filters, he should be a Later Day Muslim Saint.

However a study of the Book of Mormon and of the world around us shows

(a) the Book describes things that archeologists say did not happen

( the language of the Book is a weird mixture of KJV and

© the origin of the Book is with characters of dubious character

(d) the explanation (gold plates that disappeared, reformed egyptian, ...) seems very far-feteched and contradicts what we find in other studies

It is the comparison of the observable aspects of the book with the observable aspects of the world that enables us to filter out many of the books that claim to be God's Word.

The world is too complex to be faked - books are not.

/Bevin

[Woody]

Thank you guys for clarifying.

I guess you are right.

I accept that the Bible IS "objective truth" on Faith. I 'believe' in God's word as being "God's word" because it says it is. And I believe that GOD has preserved it and its accuracy.

I base my life on no other and do not apologize for it.

[David Koot]

Now, if we could get back to some other questions . . . as Bevin pointed out, adherents of the LDS faith claim that the Book of Mormon is the truth about God and from God. Muslims profess that acceptance of the Koran. Etc., etc. We, as Christians, believe such about the Bible, but NOT about the golden tables purportedly presented by 'Moroni,' for example. Thus, some pressing questions . . . What mechanism exists to externally, independently validate the 'Bible' as the God-inspired ('theopneustos') Word? (NOTE: By 'external validation' I do NOT mean a warm feeling, or some other emotion, or faith.) Secondly, which model of inspiration more closely approximates reality?

Any thoughts?

[David Koot]

It is the comparison of the observable aspects of the book with the observable aspects of the world that enables us to filter out many of the books that claim to be God's Word.

Okay. You have mentioned some examples, which certainly sound good. But . . . is there a consistent match-up between the various observable aspects of the Bible and the observable aspects of the world around us? Are there areas where there is not? If so, what then?

Permit me to give an example of how some devout believers handle such discrepancies: (1) to loudly affirm, "There is one God, and His prophet is Mohammed!" (2) reliance on impressions: "Ask God to tell you if these things are true. You will feel a warmth and a swelling in your chest." (3) "God said it, I believe it, and that's enough for me."

Are these the types of responses that we must resort to? Is true religion anti-intellectual? (and there definitely is a strong anti-intellectual strain in evangelical Christianity, among other religions)

Dave

[D. Allan]

The value of sacred scriptures lies in the experience of many lovers of God who preceeded us. We can learn from them. About spiritual life. But those ancient writings are accounts of other persons' spiritual experiences. Often 2nd hand accounts, or based on even more removed experiences from those of the writers.

Such scriptures are "God-breathed" because of subjective experiences of ancient peoples, experiences of the spirit. To look to them for absolute authoritative guidance is mistaken. We all can have our own experience with God. And we can still learn from "scriptures."

[bevin]

Quote:

But . . . is there a consistent match-up between the various observable aspects of the Bible and the observable aspects of the world around us? Are there areas where there is not? If so, what then?

Well, there are several "intellectual" responses to this

(a) To claim that the world has been incorrectly observed

( To claim that the Bible has been incorrectly understood

© To claim that the comparison has been incorrectly done

Variations on ( include to claim that only parts of the Bible are infallible, and to claim that all the Bible is infallible for its purpose, but its purpose is not teaching science.

Usually the claims around (a) and © center on the dishonesty or limitations of the observer/comparator

After testing (a) and ©, I am much more inclined to believe (

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Occurs to me that we need to think about our purposes. Are we looking to the Scriptures to:

(a) tell us about the nature of God

( tell us how to be saved

© tell us how to live

(d) tell us about the nature of humanity

(e) tell us about the natural world around us

(f) and so on...

David has dismissed the usefulness of subjective experience, D. Allen has affirmed it... but when we talk about usefulness the hidden question is always 'useful for what purpose(s)?'

[D. Allan]

My quick answer, Bravus, is to say what scriptures did for me. And that is to put me in touch with God. After that what more can one want? except the dicipline to stay in touch. For me it didn't come about through intellectual gymnastics. It was faith that was awakened. Now I don't give authority to the Bible, only to God. My pastor says, "Authority is not something that is demanded, but something that is given." Sacred writings are not meant to be something that we must cower before. We are free in every way, intellectually, too. It would be of great interest to study the Bible and other scriptures in a scholarly and scientifie manner. They have whatever authority we give them. But our faith is based on our own personal experience with God. Not that of ancients, although their experiences may be helpful to us to read and ponder. (hmmm guess that wasn't to quick after all...)

[David Koot]

David has dismissed the usefulness of subjective experience,

For purposes of determining the facts. Subjective experience is useful and extremely important in terms of what things mean to us personally. In that arena, subjective experience trumps.

[David Koot]

( To claim that the Bible has been incorrectly understood . . . to claim that all the Bible is infallible for its purpose, but its purpose is not teaching science. After testing (a) and ©, I am much more inclined to believe (

Both statements would seem reasonable. Without a doubt, the Bible has been incorrectly understood in many cases. And, it is a fair assessment to state that the Bible is infallible for its purposes. It would also appear reasonable to say that the purpose of the Bible is not to teach science. I do not here suggest that the Bible contains erroneous teaching about scientific issues. Simply that its purpose is not to serve as a science textbook.

At the same time, it is indeed possible that the world has in some cases been incorrectly observed. Observing the data objectively can be extremely challenging. Two students can observe the same set of data and come away with very opposite conclusions, because of their interpretation of the data. Case in point: one student with a 'creationist' mindset may interpret geological data to support special creation. Another student with a long-age evolution mindset may interpret the same data in a way that supports evolution. Why? IMO because of the construct each one places upon the data. What is the solution? Observe the data without the constructs.

In conclusion, I see the potential for a combination of the factors Bevin has listed. I also see a potential conflict. Assuming that a student compares information in the Bible with observed evidence in nature . . . What if there is an apparent conflict between the two? How does one determine if there is in fact a conflict? IOW the danger of using the thing to prove itself can work in either direction.

Dave

[David Koot]

In that arena, subjective experience trumps.

I should clarify that statement. Subjective experience must ALWAYS be measured against the standard of the Bible, which is the test of doctrine as well as experience.

Dave

[bevin]

In ancient times, as today, there were people who claimed to predict the future. We read about such people in the Book of Daniel, and we see such people on TV. How do we determine if they are reliable?

By carefully controlled experiments!

Without the person knowing they are being tested, and without the verifier knowing who is being tested, we have the predictor make a set of predictions, and we have those predictions tested for accuracy.

Similarly we test physical laws, such as chemical-reactions/gravity/relativity/...

Now consider the three explanations above

(a) To claim that the world has been incorrectly observed

( To claim that the Bible has been incorrectly understood

© To claim that the comparison has been incorrectly done

It is obvious that the world has been incorrectly observed, but it is also obvious that modern observations are much more often much more accurate than ones made even 100 years ago.

It is obvious that, given the wide range of peoples beliefs about what the Bible means, lots of somebody's must be misunderstanding it.

The comparisons are usually pretty simple, and are probably usually correct.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

I certainly agree with the general statements Bevin has made above. It would not seem reasonable to disagree. How it all plays out in real time can be an interesting study, and one which students undoubtedly approach in different ways--each with the goal of discovering, 'What is truth?'

The issue is extremely important IMO. As Bravus pointed out earlier, Jesus said, 'You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' In the last days, the issue of our loyalty to God, or our disloyalty, will turn upon small issues. Faithfulness to the 'truth' will at that time be a matter of life or death--either be faithful to the 'truth' agreed upon by common consent, and preserve your life, or be faithful to the 'truth' as God defines it, and lose everything you have as well as be subject to a death penalty. And, the stakes are far higher than that, even.

I submit that anything short of a clear and unequivocal understanding of what constitutes the 'truth' of God at that time, WILL result in the eternal loss of the student. I further submit that the PROCESSS of identifying 'what is truth' is critical to the result. I submit that it is quite dangerous to rely on 'impressions' or feelings, upon opinions, upon protestations of blind faith--or upon what someone else says. In the end, IMO, only the edifice of understanding which is built upon a rock-solid foundation, tested, evaluated, tried, proven, will stand safe against the assaults of the enemy. That, and faithfulness to that truth.

[David Koot]

On the specific point of this thread . . . I see three levels of study when it comes to Bible truth. I would treat the subject at each level of study as an object to be observed and analyzed. With reference to New Testament studies, at the first level would be the Greek text in common usage (Nestle-Aland). The words are tangible objects subject to observation and analysis. At the second level would be the collection of Greek texts. The purpose would be to compare Nestle-Aland with these other texts, identify any differences and follow up with further evaluation. The third level would be in a different league. That would be an effort to determine the correlation of the Greek text to the actual events. Such a study would IMO entail a decision as to which model of inspiration more closely approximates reality. It would also entail independent, external validation of the text. That could be a bit challenging.

Dave

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Subjective experience must ALWAYS be measured against the standard of the Bible, which is the test of doctrine as well as experience.

But the Bible itself is a record of subjective experiences. Of other people. So what would be the general principle here? If Kepler had taken Copericus as authoritative, he would not have uncovered the truth about planetary orbits.

Can someone more logical minded than I tell explain what the general principal is here? David and I look at things differently. I'm not wanting to convince anyone to my view but I would like to understand why this difference exists. I am willing to look to the Bible for guidance, but I am also willing to say that it might be wrong about certain things.

Quote:

Subjective experience is useful and extremely important in terms of what things mean to us personally. In that arena, subjective experience trumps.

Exactly! So if experience is not subjective it has no meaning to a person as far as his personal existence is concerned. This does not negate the importance of 'objective' experience or 'objective' facts, but when we take them into our minds and embrace them as truth they become of necessity 'subjective.' Nothing we know is known apart from our minds.

[bevin]

One of the biggest problems I have with the claim that it is important to study the Greek rather than a collection of translations, is that it implies that any inaccuracy in the translation is more important than any inaccuracies in the initial concepts or words.

If you walk up to a piece of rope, quickly stretch it out to about an arm's length, and cut it off with a blunt saw, there is very little to be gained by me measuring the length of each fibre with a micrometer.

So, what evidence is there that the original words are so precise that they need to be studied so carefully?

/Bevin

[David Koot]

O

So, what evidence is there that the original words are so precise that they need to be studied so carefully?

/Bevin

It is true that Greek (even street Greek) is a more precise language than English (even than the Queen's English!) However, of particular interest to this student is how translators change the meaning of the original. Note this example, Col. 2:16, 17, NIV. I have placed an asterisk beside a number of the words which have been changed from the Greek (Nestle-Aland), and have added the correct words in brackets]:

""Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or *a [no article in original; noun is plural] *Sabbath [sabbaths] *day [not in original]*. [no period or sentence break in original] *These [which] *are [is] a shadow of the things that were to come . . ."

They butchered it. Those adjustments change the meaning of the passage, particularly in regard to the 'sabbaths.' This is not the place to go into detail about that. Simply an example. NIV is KNOWN for putting a spin on things.

Simply comparing English translations can leave one confused as to the true meaning. Besides which, the English translations were done by students who had a particular mindset, which is at times reflected in their work product. In some cases that mindset is not that of the original writers. Hence, the 'spin.'

Dave

[Bravus]

But that's not a response to bevin's question. His question was along the lines (in relation to this particular text) 'what makes us think that the Greek text is authoritative'. That can break down to several subquestions:

(a) are these Paul's exact words? Did the scribe get it right? Did every copyist since get it right?

( is Paul's word authoritative here in the sense that it directly represents God's thoughts on this issue?

© and so on.

Those questions are in some way 'prior' to questions about the step from Greek to English.

[bevin]

I have no doubt the translators put their spin into things.

I also have no doubt that the Greek text has been spun by the copyists.

And, as Bravus said, how close is the original to what God actually wanted the author to write.

As SDA, we have the relatively modern example of EGW's writing processes - and we know how far she changed her writings on various topics in her lifetime

/Bevin

[David Koot]

(a) are these Paul's exact words? Did the scribe get it right? Did every copyist since get it right?

[David Koot]

I also have no doubt that the Greek text has been spun by the copyists.

[bevin]

Quote:

Fortunately, there are literally thousands and thousands of specimens of texts ranging over a time period of a millennium and more, which speak to that issue.

I have only read a couple of books by experts on this issue, and they tell me

(a) that we are not even sure that all the books in the NT that are traditionally ascribed to Paul were indeed written by him (whether or not through a scribe), and

( the variations between the very oldest texts we have of many of the NT books show that they were already being spun within a few years of their being penned, and

© we have solid examples of how inaccurate the copyists were over the following 1000 years

so I assume that your remark "speak to that issue" is short-hand for "yes, we know the spinning was happening and the copyists were not accurate".

/Bevin

[David Koot]

(a) that we are not even sure that all the books in the NT that are traditionally ascribed to Paul were indeed written by him (whether or not through a scribe),

[Bravus]

Quote:

Quote:

Those questions are in some way 'prior' to questions about the step from Greek to English.

Not for me. I begin with the known.

But this goes to the scientific distinction between accuracy and precision. Precision is how close all the answers we obtain are to one another. Accuracy is how close each answer is to the true answer. It seems to me that the kind of approach you advocate is all about precision, but in science we know that precision does not always imply accuracy.