• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Inference and Assumption

W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Barry Johnson said:
In Conversation with other Christians and even non Christians ,it seems as though a lot of what they believe is not always what the bible actually says.
What i mean by this is when someone will say the bible ' teaches ' this and that ,when this is often at the cost of what the bible actually SAYS . A lot of the time its usually 'inference ' . " oh I know it doesn't say such and such ,but this is what it really means. And I'm not talking about difficult things like the trinity ,in which we will struggle with as its something that we do not experience in our limited dimension/ experience. I'm referring to the basics , the essentials in which we should expect God to have wanted to be understood plainly .
Syllogism, Inference , assumption and deduction seems to be the slippery approach to the bible in which we can almost make the verses say what we want because we reading INTO the verses instead of allowing the bible to SAY what it means .
Non Christians do this when they already have a presupposition/ paradigm / worldview ,and they approach the bible and instead of reading what the bible SAYS they will impose an interpretation because they feel its inferring something they already believe . Sadly Christians also do this . Were all not immune from presuppositions and our minds tend to fill in what we already assume through bias ect . But let's test if we believe what we believe by what the bible SAYS .
Take what you believe about the bible and see if what you believe there is a verse or verses that SAY what you believe . Of course context matters . The who , what, when why and where questions apply and normal reading comprehension .
You can also test me if I can back up what I believe by demonstrating by what the bible SAYS and not always what is inferred or assumed .
Click to expand...

Jesus left behind a comforter the spirit of truth who will be with us, forever. Why leave behind the Holy Spirit, if the truth was already carved into stone? Jesus envisioned an evolving religion, that was living and evolving, and not petrified into stone. The stone heart is a cold heart. The living heart is warm.

I forget the source of this quote but it goes something like, seek spiritual gifts especially the gift of prophesy. This tells me the religion of Christianity was supposed to be an evolving religion, like life, since it was not afraid to encourage prophets. Many did appear and several began new branches. Many were also killed by those with hearts of stone.

One thing about prophesy is that it requires not only that one study, but also the ability to organize what you have learned into new relationships. These new things then need to be cross checked and cross referenced. It is free style of learning, that allows one to interface the Spirit. The spirit is not a herd thing, but comes to the individual who is seeking the truth, in earnest by their faith and their own hard work. This is often done in private, since it may invoke taboos; heart of stone, in those who prefer their religion carved into stone never to change. The spirit gives hope, so one can continue, often alone.
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
I got it......up front

the earth (substance) was with out form

what we know as this solar system......came much later
Click to expand...

There's no where stating that the
Earth ( substance) was with out form..

Where exactly is that written at..

Had you clearly read
Genesis 1:2--"And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Therefore try reading it without your private interpretation being add in..

The proper Greek translation for the word
( was ) is ( became)..
Therefore the earth became without form and void...God did not create the earth that way...as the earth became without form and void..
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
You’re talking about two different processes: the process of exegesis, and the process of interpretation. Interpretation rises out of exegesis. Why? Because exegesis strips away the filters through which we read and offers an unbiased reading of what the text actually says. Once we know what the text actually says, we can derive an interpretation of that reading. One does not involve any spiritual influence. The other may.
Click to expand...

Well it's evidence that you have no clue or idea what Spiritual discernment is..

There are certain things that are written done that takes Spiritual discernment to understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm...

Even Jesus Christ said himself in
John 6:63--"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"therefore there are many things that Jesus Christ spoken that are spirit and will definitely take Spiritual discernment to understand..what is being said in the Spiritual realm..
As written in
1 Corinthians 2:14--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned"

Therefore unless you understand Spiritual discernment you will never understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm..
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Faithofchristian said:
Well it's evidence that you have no clue or idea what Spiritual discernment is..

There are certain things that are written done that takes Spiritual discernment to understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm...

Even Jesus Christ said himself in
John 6:63--"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"therefore there are many things that Jesus Christ spoken that are spirit and will definitely take Spiritual discernment to understand..what is being said in the Spiritual realm..
As written in
1 Corinthians 2:14--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned"

Therefore unless you understand Spiritual discernment you will never understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm..
Click to expand...
the exegetical process isn’t necessarily concerned with the spiritual realm. Rather, it’s concerned with the physical realm of deciphering what has been written. Only when we know what’s written can we discern spiritual meaning.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
No, that’s not how it works.
Click to expand...
It? What is "it", and how does "it" work? Please be specific.

sojourner said:
Sure, as long as the dates and provenance match up.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works.
Dating does not always match up. territory might.
However opinion run amok on dates and piecing together bits of archaeological data.

As I said before, the archaeological evidence is there, the dating is the problem.
There are currently three theories, based on the archaeological evidence, Biblical evidence, and other extra-Biblical evidence.
I haven't yet found the article I am looking for, but try this one... Theories of the Israelite conquest ofthe Land of Canaan
...this work reviews the current theories of occupation, analyzes the biblical books of Joshua and Judges, reviews the current archaeological evidence and investigates the roles of the terrain and military tactics in order to arrive at a conclusion.
:smallbluediamond: From the contents of the Foss Temple and tombs located in the ruins to the city it is possible to date the final destruction of the Canaanite city as occurring during the reign of Ramses II, or about 1234 BCE.
Albright dates the destruction of the city to the fourth year of Merneptah's reign on the basis of Egyptian hieratic inscription that has "in the fourth year" written on it. If the markings prove to be Merneptah's, the destruction of the city could be tightly dated to 1220 BCE. It is clear that the city was utterly destroyed by fire and left uninhabited for two centuries. The absence of any biblical references to Lachish from the days of Joshua to the days of Rehoboam, Solomon's son, is reflected in the lack of building on the site from the twelfth through the tenth centuries BCE. The information available indicates that Lachish was destroyed in 1234 BCE which supports the conquest theory.

:smallbluediamond: The archaeological information available indicates support for the infiltration theory.

:smallbluediamond: Among the Canaanite cultural record discovered at the site was a shrine. Following the destruction and built on top ofthat Canaanite shrine was an Israelite Bamah built in the eleventh century BCE.154 Archaeological evidence discovered at Hazor clearly supports the biblical account of the conquest.

:smallbluediamond: ...archaeological evidence supports both the Joshua and the Judges narratives of the occupation.

:smallbluediamond: Currently, the archaeological data available does not permit the dating of the destruction except in broad terms: somewhere between the late thirteenth and early twelfth century.

Also, how long have you been in this field? You tend to credit yourself with a lot of knowledge.
Does that knowledge include the understanding that archaeological discoveries does not prove nor disprove whether a Biblical story - for example, resurrection - is true or not, but can confirm historical contexts - such as people, places, events, etc.?
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
nPeace said:
Also, how long have you been in this field? You tend to credit yourself with a lot of knowledge.
Does that knowledge include the understanding that archaeological discoveries does not prove nor disprove whether a Biblical story - for example, resurrection - is true or not, but can confirm historical contexts - such as people, places, events, etc.?
Click to expand...
Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?

Do you understand that if there’s nothing in the archaeological record to corroborate such a large cultural shift, that it’s unlikely the shift occurred as “reported?”
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?

Do you understand that if there’s nothing in the archaeological record to corroborate such a large cultural shift, that it’s unlikely the shift occurred as “reported?”
Click to expand...
You obviously have your opinion, like other scholars do. It differs to what I read in other scholarly work, including other works reviewing the facts, one of which I just posted, and you have not read, obviously.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
nPeace said:
You obviously have your opinion, like other scholars do. It differs to what I read in other scholarly work, including other works reviewing the facts, one of which I just posted, and you have not read, obviously.
Click to expand...
In biblical scholarship, opinions vary, because so little is hard and fast. It really comes down to “pick your camp.”
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
sojourner said:
Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?

Do you understand that if there’s nothing in the archaeological record to corroborate such a large cultural shift, that it’s unlikely the shift occurred as “reported?”
Click to expand...
Except there wasn’t a large cultural shift, it was little by little like God said. Also the tribes didn’t drive the other people out like they were supposed to and made a covenant when they weren’t supposed to as well.
““I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭23:27-30‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
Also Judges 1-3 describe what happened
 
Last edited:
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
ElishaElijah said:
Except there wasn’t a large cultural shift, it was little by little like God said. Also the tribes didn’t drive the other people out like they were supposed to and made a covenant when they weren’t supposed to as well.
““I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭23:27-30‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
Also Judges 1-3 describe what happened
Click to expand...
it doesn’t matter. There is no evidence of outside culture coming in. All archaeological evidence is from the same culture.
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
sojourner said:
All evidence shows that all who dwelt in Canaan during that period were culturally similar.
Click to expand...
When you read Judges it’s clear that Israel continued to adopt the culture of the people around them, that was a continuous problem so don’t see what the problem is.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
ElishaElijah said:
When you read Judges it’s clear that Israel continued to adopt the culture of the people around them, that was a continuous problem so don’t see what the problem is.
Click to expand...
Why is an ancient text of questionable provenance more reliable than archeological evidence? We’re talking at the time of the alleged invasion, not years and years later.
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
sojourner said:
Why is an ancient text of questionable provenance more reliable than archeological evidence? We’re talking at the time of the alleged invasion, not years and years later.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the discrepancy other than I trust God’s Book more than man’s interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top