Who Knows?: The Ownership of Personal Knowledge

[sealchan]

Some people claim that they can rely only on God's understanding, not man's...but they often fail to explain clearly how it is that they, as an individual knower, can accomplish this in any rational way. The claim seems to come to that if one doesn't contradict what the Bible says then one is in tune with God's perspective, His understanding.

This seems to be a very precarious belief and not founded on good, common sense. Here are a list of potential pitfalls of thinking that be not contradicting the Bible you can be safe with God's intent:

• You misread, miss-remember or misunderstand the text
• You apply an interpretation that is not Biblical or not explicitly singled out by the Bible as the one and only interpretation
• Translation and/or tradition has produced a text that is different than the original
• The assumption of perfect understanding on the part of the author is incorrect
• The inconsistencies or intentional ambiguities between different Biblical texts are ignored
• Assumption of historical accuracy where material comes from internal and external cultural writings

For all of these possibilities and the logic of the chain of transmission of knowledge that for the sake of argument runs something like this:

God -> inspired author -> original language manuscript -> copied and altered manuscript -> translated manuscript -> cross-cultural migration of text -> evolution of reader's/hearer's culture -> individual

After the Word makes all of these transitions it reaches the brain of the individual who is studying the Word. That individual being a "man" (or presumably a woman) must thereby form their own understanding as follows:

• I trust that this particular form of the Word is true
• I understand this particular form of the Word
• My personal human teachers have all done the same
• My church is essentially correct even if other churches are not
• My own needs and weaknesses and strengths are not causing me to view things incorrectly
• Nothing in the past history/tradition of my church or its beliefs has ever parted ways with God's truth

Now I will grant that a group working together and checking each other's understanding is a good way to help maintain and verify these very things, but I think that still leaves open big gaping holes for the possibility that one's own understanding is in error even one's church or even the faith of Christian's as a whole, having departed significantly from that of the Jewish faith and culture out of which it grew. And I think that scholarship and simple reason shows that the Bible is sourced in myth and other writings from other cultures outside of the culture that the human authors who composed the stories and assembled the lists and rules wrote in.

Any and all comments, arguments and adulations welcome...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some people claim that they can rely only on God's understanding, not man's...but they often fail to explain clearly how it is that they, as an individual knower, can accomplish this in any rational way. The claim seems to come to that if one doesn't contradict what the Bible says then one is in tune with God's perspective, His understanding.

This seems to be a very precarious belief and not founded on good, common sense. Here are a list of potential pitfalls of thinking that be not contradicting the Bible you can be safe with God's intent:

• You misread, miss-remember or misunderstand the text
• You apply an interpretation that is not Biblical or not explicitly singled out by the Bible as the one and only interpretation
• Translation and/or tradition has produced a text that is different than the original
• The assumption of perfect understanding on the part of the author is incorrect
• The inconsistencies or intentional ambiguities between different Biblical texts are ignored
• Assumption of historical accuracy where material comes from internal and external cultural writings

For all of these possibilities and the logic of the chain of transmission of knowledge that for the sake of argument runs something like this:

God -> inspired author -> original language manuscript -> copied and altered manuscript -> translated manuscript -> cross-cultural migration of text -> evolution of reader's/hearer's culture -> individual

After the Word makes all of these transitions it reaches the brain of the individual who is studying the Word. That individual being a "man" (or presumably a woman) must thereby form their own understanding as follows:

• I trust that this particular form of the Word is true
• I understand this particular form of the Word
• My personal human teachers have all done the same
• My church is essentially correct even if other churches are not
• My own needs and weaknesses and strengths are not causing me to view things incorrectly
• Nothing in the past history/tradition of my church or its beliefs has ever parted ways with God's truth

Now I will grant that a group working together and checking each other's understanding is a good way to help maintain and verify these very things, but I think that still leaves open big gaping holes for the possibility that one's own understanding is in error even one's church or even the faith of Christian's as a whole, having departed significantly from that of the Jewish faith and culture out of which it grew. And I think that scholarship and simple reason shows that the Bible is sourced in myth and other writings from other cultures outside of the culture that the human authors who composed the stories and assembled the lists and rules wrote in.

Any and all comments, arguments and adulations welcome...

Everyone justifies their bible in different ways. Some feel god talks to them better in KJV rather than Living Translation. God's word isn't authentic if it's written in english but it's perfect when translated by a non-native in Hebrew or Latin etc.

I see it mostly having the experiences, already have pre-bias, and "then" confirming their bias and experiences with something physical-the bible. Some people here on RF abrahamic and non abrahamic alike said they depend on written text to understand and practice their religion. When I asked both parties about it, they didn't reply or got offended.

So, it's really not about what's a myth and what's not. That's just people's defensive mechanisms. It's needing a physical object to confirm mystical experiences they can't "explain because god is too powerful." Too mystic. Foreign. Bigger than us. and so forth. So, there needs to be some human translation of godly words for god to speak.

How I see it, all of the misinterpretations, translator, interpretation, etc are besides the point. It's just people's defensive mechanisms because if you invalidate their tool to confirm their experiences, you invalidate their experiences.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Any and all comments, arguments and adulations welcome..

All good is from God, all the rest is from our own selves. That is the standard built within us, to me it is the Golden Rule.

If we then read a holy book and see that in tying to understand what it says, makes us any more special than any other person, then we are already departing from what it is the foundation of the Golden Rule.

A key here is that it is a quandary for us all. If there is One God and it is God that sends the Messengers who give us the guidance, the understanding of what was said is important for us all. If it is so, it it is time we found a Unity of vision in that understanding. Basically fulfil the intent of the Golden Rule.

I come from the understanding that it is so.

Regards Tony

 

[sealchan]

Everyone justifies their bible in different ways. Some feel god talks to them better in KJV rather than Living Translation. God's word isn't authentic if it's written in english but it's perfect when translated by a non-native in Hebrew or Latin etc.

I see it mostly having the experiences, already have pre-bias, and "then" confirming their bias and experiences with something physical-the bible. Some people here on RF abrahamic and non abrahamic alike said they depend on written text to understand and practice their religion. When I asked both parties about it, they didn't reply or got offended.

So, it's really not about what's a myth and what's not. That's just people's defensive mechanisms. It's needing a physical object to confirm mystical experiences they can't "explain because god is too powerful." Too mystic. Foreign. Bigger than us. and so forth. So, there needs to be some human translation of godly words for god to speak.

How I see it, all of the misinterpretations, translator, interpretation, etc are besides the point. It's just people's defensive mechanisms because if you invalidate their tool to confirm their experiences, you invalidate their experiences.

I'm thinking more of people who shun their own personal experience in favor of the Bible. It's one thing to see in the Bible a reflection of ones own experience of mystery, but it's another to abdicate personal experience in order to claim being God-only in ones thoughts. Sort of a mindless belief, of that even makes sense.

That is the impression I get from some.

 

[sealchan]

All good is from God, all the rest is from our own selves. That is the standard built within us, to me it is the Golden Rule.

If we then read a holy book and see that in tying to understand what it says, makes us any more special than any other person, then we are already departing from what it is the foundation of the Golden Rule.

A key here is that it is a quandary for us all. If there is One God and it is God that sends the Messengers who give us the guidance, the understanding of what was said is important for us all. If it is so, it it is time we found a Unity of vision in that understanding. Basically fulfil the intent of the Golden Rule.

I come from the understanding that it is so.

Regards Tony

I think it is an error to consider any book or source as wholly perfect...and who has the authority to know this in the first place?

Rather we can rest assured that our collective and time honored appreciation of a text is a good sign or word of spiritual value therein, but we certainly cant say that one text is superior to another equally time honored and trusted text. We may have personal preference but not objective certainty.

 

[McBell]

God -> inspired author -> original language manuscript -> copied and altered manuscript -> translated manuscript -> cross-cultural migration of text -> evolution of reader's/hearer's culture -> individual

Just cut out all the middlemen:

God physically takes over men and directly writes what he wants -> 1611 AUTHORIZED King James Bible.​

I mean, what could go wrong?

 

[sealchan]

Just cut out all the middlemen:

God physically takes over men and directly writes what he wants -> 1611 AUTHORIZED King James Bible.​

I mean, what could go wrong?

Sure if someone can prove that they have never read the Bible but were able to produce the Bible themselves and it were a close enough copy to a translation, then we would have eliminated a few transitions at least.

 

[McBell]

Sure if someone can prove that they have never read the Bible but were able to produce the Bible themselves and it were a close enough copy to a translation, then we would have eliminated a few transitions at least.

That is the KJO position.

 

[sealchan]

That is the KJO position.

Understood.