No. Precisely because the Bible has been the focus of such extensive (and critical) study, we know a lot about it. Fr example, when it was written, who (in many cases) wrote the books in it, what those people were teaching, etc. We also have, because we can place the events in the Bible in a secular historical setting, a lot of background information about the culture and the people described in the Bible. That helps us understand what they believed and why they did the things they did. .
Yet there are still such varying interpretations on so many aspects of the bible.
I think that is Sheavos point.
Yep. I mean, look at Indian philosophy/religion (in India, the two aren't properly separated, which, in my opinion, is more proper). They have like four thousand years of written and oral history surrounding their viewpoints; it's a highly philosophical society, one where debate is constant. And ya know what? After thousands of years of debating, arguing, and trying to convince each other that this is the truth, they're no closer now than they were. Philosophy in general has been at it, in our history, for a good 2,500 years; you've had thousands of philosophers giving their arguments, spending their lives considering the truth, reading texts, etc, and yet no two philosophers will really even agree on what philosophy is or who a philosopher is! Then, arguably, Heidegger in the last century basically overturned just about
everything those 2,500 years of philosophy worked to do.
The truth is that there is no truth.
You're also being extremely naive if you think that the only outside influences are historians you choose to read. Your whole life is influencing how you interprets the bible, including how you interpret those experts you cite. The language you natively uses influences how you view the world in very fundamental way, and there's no getting around that. The society you grew up in also radically changes how you interpret the bible. Hell, the food you ate this morning effects how you interpret the bible. Furthermore, those historians and experts have their opinion, but that in no way means it's the correct interpretation. The bible was written in a language you don't know, in a world you can't relate to, and for reasons that frankly, you're only guessing and imaging is true because of faith. I'd say all these reasons are enough to throw into complete doubt your supposed rock solid interpretation of the bible.
Things like my native language and upbringing as influences go without saying. But that's precisely why I don't rely on those things when studying the Bible. True, the book was written in several languages I don't know, but many people I know of and some I know personally do know those languages. Furthermore, I may not be able to relate to the ancient world, but I can learn a lot about it from people who spend their lives studying it, and for under $20 on Amazon. So, no, I'm not guessing at the truth because I want to believe. My views about Christianity are pretty solidly grounded, and I suggest you venture into one of our threads about the Bible around here if you doubt that.
You can't not simply decide to get rid of all your memories and experiences when studying the bible, you can try and mitigate those effects, but it's impossible for you to get rid of them fully.
Also, I have never once questioned that you've studied the bible, or that you don't have a researched opinion on the matter, nor that your opinion is not more valid than other persons; my point was simply that this does not make it the truth. People disagree, constantly, about what the Bible means in it's entirety. Oh sure, you can point to passages, and explain what they mean, and why they mean it, but you still have to ascribe the Bible as a whole. I could have all the parts to make a car, but unless I put them together in the right way, it ain't gonna be a car; you may have a fairly good understanding of each passage in the Bible, but unless you can piece them together in the right way, it ain't gonna be the truth.
But if you want to argue that your reasons are enough to throw my interpretation into complete doubt, then I humbly submit that most of what you know about great thinkers and leaders of the past, the various philosophical schools, and so forth is plagued by the same subjective circle jerk you're challenging me with - and in a worse way.
So? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not pointing to dogma to make my point, I'm not saying that you're wrong because Aristotle says this. What I'm saying is you shouldn't take such a high and mighty attitude towards your interpretation, or that you're ever going to get "the one" interpretation.
Also, philosophy can't be pried away from theology; theology is inherently philosophical; so if philosophy is plagued by the problems I describe, so is theology.
Here's a different question: why should be a Christian and not, say, a Hindu or a Buddhist? Arguably, Hinduism and Buddhism have a longer history, and one full of debate, research, and thoughts on the matter. They too have ancient texts, whose contextual meaning can be gotten at, and which are used as a source of Truth.
Topic: Why young people leave church (Read 16190 times)
