2 ms·
To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my inter
by fenomas 5y ago
To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like:
A: everything in this book is literally true
B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9?
A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context
The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
- no-dr-onboard 5y ago> the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.