Language, what is it and can God write a book using it that only has one interpretati

[OlderWaterBrother]

I split this off from another thread because the discussion had hi-jacked the thread. If you want to see how it all started that thread is:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=343248

[OlderWaterBrother]

These are the last two posts that I have yet to respond to:I do understand what you're saying. I'll be honest: the theory is primarily aimed at works of literature. I would imagine that, from a linguistic perspective, one would argue that interpretability can be reduced (although still not to "zero", i.e. one correct interpretation) by careful concatenation of words, the avoidance of "poetry", etc. "All employees must wash their hands before returning to work" is, for example, more specific than "All employees must wash their hands", even though it is likely that the intention behind both phrases would be the same.

I find it amusing though that you think that the Bible is as or more specific than this. I mean, I've not read it cover to cover, but I've read enough to know that that would be utter nonsense.



Why indeed.

That is, of course, hogwash, since the fact that a word has a fluid and dynamic meaning does not imply that a person can simply decide it means whatever is convenient to them at that time. As I said earlier on in this thread, words acquire meaning the same way that we understand a "fact" to be "true" - language as we learn it is little more than a series of many interlocking educated guesses. Were you expecting something more?

And as for your question "Why would he even bother to write the Bible?", there are a number of possibilities. One is that God intended the Bible to be interpreted, without a correct meaning. Another is that God didn't write the Bible. Another still is that Barthes is a tool of Satan sent to discredit the word of God. Pick whichever you want; not because every interpretation is correct, but because it doesn't actually matter which one you choose.



Firstly, I don't "know" that Barthes' theory is "true", as you so eloquently put it. I suspect as much, based on the available evidence and the organic development of language.

Secondly, I do not "expect a somewhat correct interpretation" of what I've written. That is you assertion, and dead author though you may be, your intention in saying it is pretty clear. No dice, sorry. I'd be a fool to expect you to interpret what I've said the way I intend it.



Well, to be fair to you, this was merely an aside. You are absolutely right that this would apply whether there were a million languages or one.

However, I believe that Christian theology does posit the existence of a universal language, each word of which absolutely expresses every aspect and possible reading of its subject; this would be the language spoken in Eden, by all things, and understood by all people, which would subsequently be obliterated by God as a means to see that The Tower of Babel could not be completed.

That is, of course, only if one reads the Bible literally, rather than a series of fables. If the latter is that case, then the Tower of Babel is merely an attempt to answer the question "Why do we have different languages?" which the answer "Because a) God says so, and b) it was a sin for which you must atone by shutting up and eating your greens."



Did you think I was disputing latter? As for "easily translatable", any text is "easily translatable" unless it deals primarily with words and concepts that have no equivalent in the language into which one is translating the original.



I was referring purely to the perspective of someone who does believe that there is a "correct" interpretation. Which is still a world away from the Bible being "self-interpreting", by the way. Barthes doesn't presume that, because the author's intention is irrelevant, it never existed. That would be senseless. He does however say that that reading is not that be-all and end-all, and that what a reader finds in the text is as important as what the author thinks he put there. This is a natural progression from Freud et al's supposition of the unconscious, since it makes inevitable the conclusion that what we think we intend is not always what we do intend.





I've always tried to support those who have their beliefs ridiculed by those who do not even take the time to understand them.

I think Barthes' point is that the author doesn't get to get all butthurt if a text is misinterpreted as a result of him not being specific enough. Let's not forget that the language of the law - "legalese" - has been developed with specificity in mind. Can you honestly say that of English, or Latin, or ancient Greek, or Aramaic, or any other language in which God's word has supposedly come to us?



Strongly disagree. I believe the law of God and the law of the land to have been based on a common source. In both cases, if a law strongly opposed people's biological imperatives or social drives, it would be unlikely to be accepted whether it was enforced by God or by men with big sticks (or both). I believe this is the same reason that some of God and the Land's laws are observed more than others. Why else would we be so convinced that we should not kill, and yet so loathe to love our neighbours as ourselves?



Maybe I misunderstood what you intended by "self-interpreting", but I don't see how what you think is my "agenda" has to do with how I might read the Bible.

I am only as skeptical of the Bible as I am of the work of Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell or Albert Einstein. While I can't claim to have no bias at all any more than you can, is it so hard for you to imagine that the Bible was simply unpersuasive to someone who didn't expressly want it to be persuasive? Why would you assume that someone could only fail to read the correct interpretation as a result of some agenda, when you have no basis for believing this?



Except when it explicitly tells you not to do things and according to you has a correct interpretation, right?

As for the Bible being "alive and breathing life", I would like you to explain something to me. If the Bible has one correct interpretation, surely it would be logical for God (who is omniscient, omnipotent, and loves us, let's not forget) to write it in such a way that it did make that interpretation clear. Why wouldn't He sacrifice aesthetics for specificity? This book is telling people how not to go to Hell; why is it so important that it be "alive and breathe life", if in being so it is likely to be misinterpreted?

[themnax]

'god' doesn't 'write books'. god chooses people, once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, to be channeled by. sometimes they write books. sometimes their friends do. and then a bunch of other people come along, with all the different kinds of motivations people have, and tell each other what they think the channeler was trying to say. by the time the next channeler is chosen and comes along, everyone has it pretty thoroughly screwed up. and of course over that period of time, even a small fraction of it, meanings of words change, even whole languages come and go, so there's no hope trying to refer back to the original revelation. that's why every thousand years we get another one.

the shorter answer is that no, a book cannot be written that can any part of it, nor in whole, have only one possible interpretation. the closest that can be approached to doing so, is to write a book of poetry, whose emotional content survives the evolution of language.

trying to pin down a literary literal meaning to it, doesn't work and just completely defeats the purpose of the exercise.

[LanSLIde]

Well my two cents (I feel like an old man using such a phrase, and feel I sound like an idiot for sharing the thought that followed it):

Being that at a reduction the Bible remains a collection of words, as does any holy book, or story, it is inevitably subject to interpretation. No two people interpret a sentence exactly alike, due to personality, social context and modern vs historical context. This is compounded by the fact that several individuals with their differing interpretations are in a position to interpret the holy books for others, and unfortunately the idea of "divine interpretation" through, a specific example, the "holy spirit" is simply unreliable. If, however, every single person who read a holy book interpreted it the same way, that would certainly be the word of God. Even with simple ideas, though, being comprehended the same way gives no heed to someone's attitude towards it. Maybe certain employees just don't want to wash their hands.

[OlderWaterBrother]

'god' doesn't 'write books'. god chooses people, once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, to be channeled by. sometimes they write books. sometimes their friends do. and then a bunch of other people come along, with all the different kinds of motivations people have, and tell each other what they think the channeler was trying to say. by the time the next channeler is chosen and comes along, everyone has it pretty thoroughly screwed up. and of course over that period of time, even a small fraction of it, meanings of words change, even whole languages come and go, so there's no hope trying to refer back to the original revelation. that's why every thousand years we get another one.

the shorter answer is that no, a book cannot be written that can any part of it, nor in whole, have only one possible interpretation. the closest that can be approached to doing so, is to write a book of poetry, whose emotional content survives the evolution of language.

trying to pin down a literary literal meaning to it, doesn't work and just completely defeats the purpose of the exercise.Not to say that what you say isn't what's happened but it just seems to me, that people limit the abilities of God. If God wanted to give mankind a book with only one correct interpretation, not just channel a message now and again but a book so that anyone at anytime could have access to his wisdom and knowledge. It seems to me that God would have the wisdom and power to be able to do it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Well my two cents (I feel like an old man using such a phrase, and feel I sound like an idiot for sharing the thought that followed it): Thanx for sharing.

Being that at a reduction the Bible remains a collection of words, as does any holy book, or story, it is inevitably subject to interpretation. No two people interpret a sentence exactly alike, due to personality, social context and modern vs historical context. This is compounded by the fact that several individuals with their differing interpretations are in a position to interpret the holy books for others, and unfortunately the idea of "divine interpretation" through, a specific example, the "holy spirit" is simply unreliable. If, however, every single person who read a holy book interpreted it the same way, that would certainly be the word of God. Yes, I see your point and do believe that no matter what book or what has been said or written, people will come up with all kinds of ideas on what it says and means, although that doesn't mean all those ideas are necessarily correct.

But what if God wanted to write a book with only one correct interpretation and use as his scribes humans, doesn’t it seem like God could do it?

Even with simple ideas, though, being comprehended the same way gives no heed to someone's attitude towards it. Maybe certain employees just don't want to wash their hands. Actually doing what the book says is another story altogether.

[LanSLIde]

But what if God wanted to write a book with only one correct interpretation and use as his scribes humans, doesn’t it seem like God could do it?
Yes indeed, although I guess the issue becomes apparent when free will and individual intelligence is involved

[tikoo]

to say god is all powerful is just a magic thing . i wouldn't say that for all i've care for words and for all that i may love .

occasionally i get over to Nevada to look at the writing on a certain stone . it's right off hwy50 and there's a free campground there .

it's a beautiful wind-sculpted sandstone . above one flat face of it is a small depression , apparently carved into it as an offering place or a flower vase or something . i put dry flowers and feathers in it . just below are two snakes . and then the words old and older and yet older . the most recent i think would be those that are geometric . like the sign for two-legged :^:this one's also seen in old Chinese script .
there's another word that combines this one with a zig-zag (many people) , a line of Existence , and an ellipse . i muse upon it as an idea of time relational to ancestors - and also to me reading it .

many lines of Existence radiate to/from one interesting and natural little hole in that front face . what's the simplest way to say I Exist ? a good hard pencil , plenty of force , and a downward motion .

and then , of where we come from ?
One Place , within .

earth wind and water hast made the hole at the center . along the side , a smaller face-surface was another such sign only much fancier . these are words of God ?
there's a loopy figure similar to this : ee
then that original shape was etched a little deeper . on the upward swoop of the 2nd loop the poet connected a circle .

anyway , these words have survived through time . isn't this an essence of sacred words .

[OlderWaterBrother]

It depends on context. If the sign is located in a guide book for mothers on maternity leave, we might think it's a curious request for mothers to wash their hands, at some point, in some unspecified location only once, before they return from leave. If it's in the staff toilet of a hospital it would have a far more specific meaning, implying sterilisation on which people's lives might depend. If it's in the staff canteen where binmen have their lunch before returning to their rounds we might assume a more lax interpretation.

Even a simple statement like that is quite ambiguous and relies on a whole network of implicit assumptions, contextual, cultural and linguistic. Implying that interpretation of any text, and certainly one as lengthy and equivocal as the bible, is unproblematic, is naive in the extreme. It’s interesting to note that from the simple ambiguous statement “All employees must wash their hands before returning to work”, although you applied it to different people and circumstances, you came up with the same basic instructions for all. It seems the instructions were not so ambiguous after all.



Second, the question isn’t whether someone can misinterpret something but whether something can be written that has but one correct interpretation and whether that correct interpretation can be found by those reading it and they can know that it's the correct interpretation without being told by the author, outside of what was written, that it is the correct interpretation.

[OlderWaterBrother]

There actually many things that have been "authored" that have but one correct interpretation like test questions or crossword puzzles or jigsaw puzzles, so why not a book?

[Archemetis]

words are symbols whose meanings are derived from an individuals expireince with the reality behind the symbol. it is not possible to write a text with one interpretation. even if your god.....unless only one person ever reads it.

there are more concrete words, ones that define physical realities....stick, rock, person, dog...ect. and there are words that attempt to define emotions or ideas or non-physical aspects of the human expirience. these are the words based on personal expirience, and that is somthing unique.
think of the word love...how many different expiriencial states can be lumped into the word love? and trully it is different every time.

[OlderWaterBrother]

words are symbols whose meanings are derived from an individuals expireince with the reality behind the symbol. it is not possible to write a text with one interpretation. even if your god.....unless only one person ever reads it.

there are more concrete words, ones that define physical realities....stick, rock, person, dog...ect. and there are words that attempt to define emotions or ideas or non-physical aspects of the human expirience. these are the words based on personal expirience, and that is somthing unique.
think of the word love...how many different expiriencial states can be lumped into the word love? and trully it is different every time.To me it's funny that people keep writing saying that it's impossible to write something that has only one interpretation and they write it anyway in the belief that what they say will mean what they want it to say to me and whoever else may read it. Yet they are imperfect humans and at the same time deny that God, who has accurate knowledge of the human brain, thought and language and how they work, should have the same confidence or even more so in what he has authored.

[Hoatzin]

Not to say that what you say isn't what's happened but it just seems to me, that people limit the abilities of God. If God wanted to give mankind a book with only one correct interpretation, not just channel a message now and again but a book so that anyone at anytime could have access to his wisdom and knowledge. It seems to me that God would have the wisdom and power to be able to do it.



Um. It's pretty much indisputable fact that people did write the Bible; whether they were inspired by God or heatstroke is more of a bone of contention. Not that you can't believe whatever you want, but unless you have reason to believe that God personally and physically wrote the Bible Himself (and maybe show it to the class?), I'd concede that point.

Having been in the thread what you are referring to: this thread smacks of butthurt, and I think you only started it to get other people involved who might take your side because they won't have seen you embarrass yourself yet.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Um. It's pretty much indisputable fact that people did write the Bible; whether they were inspired by God or heatstroke is more of a bone of contention. Not that you can't believe whatever you want, but unless you have reason to believe that God personally and physically wrote the Bible Himself (and maybe show it to the class?), I'd concede that point. Why would it be necessary for God to physically write the Bible? There are many authors who dictated their books to secretaries and didn’t physically write their books, are you saying that means they didn’t author the books they wrote?

Having been in the thread what you are referring to: this thread smacks of butthurt, and I think you only started it to get other people involved who might take your side because they won't have seen you embarrass yourself yet.I only started it because the conversation that we were having no longer had any relationship to the original topic of the thread and thus our discussion had hi-jacked the thread so I moved the discussion to this thread so we can follow the discussion where it might lead without continuing to hi-jack rudenoodle’s thread. Other than that you can think anything you like, you usually do.

As for the embarrassment that you speak of, if I’m truly embarrassed as you speak of, why would I put thread links in both threads so that people see what was said before and how the discussion is continuing? Sometimes it just boggles the mind were you come up with this stuff.

[liquidlight]

The truth just is. It doesn't need to defend itself or tell or show others anything and it doesn't need or want to write a book. It just is.

[OlderWaterBrother]

The truth just is. It doesn't need to defend itself or tell or show others anything and it doesn't need or want to write a book. It just is.Okay, but what if God just wanted to write a book does that mean that he can't even if he wants to?

[Lynnbrown]

OWB, I am reminded of when the Holy Spirit came upon a group of people, and there were so many that there was a Language problem (since Babel) - and the Holy Spirit caused each person to hear In His Language what the disciple had said, even though the various disciples did Not speak a language different from his own. Off hand, I cannot remember the exact biblical reference...(but I bet you do :))
So, even taking into consideration the fact of free will and Very varying levels of intelligence - if God Wanted to write a book that everybody interpreted the same way - then yes God could.

[OlderWaterBrother]

OWB, I am reminded of when the Holy Spirit came upon a group of people, and there were so many that there was a Language problem (since Babel) - and the Holy Spirit caused each person to hear In His Language what the disciple had said, even though the various disciples did Not speak a language different from his own. Off hand, I cannot remember the exact biblical reference...(but I bet you do :))
So, even taking into consideration the fact of free will and Very varying levels of intelligence - if God Wanted to write a book that everybody interpreted the same way - then yes God could.Good Point and the reference is (Acts 2:5-11)

[Archemetis]

i didnt realize originally that we were talking about the christian god....apparently he can do anything.

really though, name one book that is interpreted the same universally. the bible is perhaps the most diversly interpreted book on the planet.

what makes you think god has any need or desire to use words? ime that is not how the divine communicates.

[Hoatzin]

really though, name one book that is interpreted the same universally. the bible is perhaps the most diversly interpreted book on the planet.

I don't think he's disputing that it's been interpreted in many ways. I think he's just saying that some of those interpretations are wrong.

[Hoatzin]

Why would it be necessary for God to physically write the Bible? There are many authors who dictated their books to secretaries and didn’t physically write their books, are you saying that means they didn’t author the books they wrote?

You know exactly what I said before on this subject, why ask the question again?. Language is language, so if you believe Barthes' death of the author then it doesn't matter who is speaking or how they are speaking it. I could just about concede that God may be capable of doing something with language that humans are not, but if all he is doing is dictating to human brains and human scribes then no, there's no scope for God to have special, just-this-once exemption from the rule. If you go by Barthes, then it's all language that's affected; if you don't then it's none of it and you can believe in your one true interpretation of The Bible, The Qu'ran or the Little Engine That Could for all it matters.

Like I said above, you want a fresh start because you doubt that I'll be willing to go through and explain Barthesian theory over and over again to your incessant faux-dumb incredulity. And you'd be right. I can't be bothered. You can't be bothered, so neither can I.

I only started it because the conversation that we were having no longer had any relationship to the original topic of the thread and thus our discussion had hi-jacked the thread so I moved the discussion to this thread so we can follow the discussion where it might lead without continuing to hi-jack rudenoodle’s thread. Other than that you can think anything you like, you usually do.

As for the embarrassment that you speak of, if I’m truly embarrassed as you speak of, why would I put thread links in both threads so that people see what was said before and how the discussion is continuing? Sometimes it just boggles the mind were you come up with this stuff.

I guess because you know most people wouldn't bother to click them. There was no reason to start another thread to discuss this, OWB, no-one was using the original for anything else and we weren't disrupting any other ongoing debate by talking about this. You backed out of it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

You know exactly what I said before on this subject, why ask the question again? Because you brought it up again?

Language is language, so if you believe Barthes' death of the author then it doesn't matter who is speaking or how they are speaking it. No I don’t believe Barthes' death of the author, you do but I don’t.

Also you keep using the word language like you have any idea what it is or how it works and yet many scientists are still trying to figure out those very things.

I could just about concede that God may be capable of doing something with language that humans are not, but if all he is doing is dictating to human brains and human scribes then no, there's no scope for God to have special, just-this-once exemption from the rule. God doesn’t need a exemption from some manmade rule, being God he makes his own rules.

If you go by Barthes, then it's all language that's affected; if you don't then it's none of it and you can believe in your one true interpretation of The Bible, The Qu'ran or the Little Engine That Could for all it matters. Once again I don’t go by Barthes and thanks for allowing be to believe in what I already believed, that so nice of you .

Like I said above, you want a fresh start because you doubt that I'll be willing to go through and explain Barthesian theory over and over again to your incessant faux-dumb incredulity. And you'd be right. I can't be bothered. You can't be bothered, so neither can I. No, I don’t have any desire for a “fresh start” and please, I can do without another rehashing of Barthes half baked theory.

I guess because you know most people wouldn't bother to click them. There was no reason to start another thread to discuss this, OWB, no-one was using the original for anything else and we weren't disrupting any other ongoing debate by talking about this. You backed out of it.

What gives you the fucking right to post so many pages of utter bullshit on an atheist forum? A couple posts then fine but this is fucking redonkulous.
Honestly, I only read a tiny fraction of this thread because excessive nonsense pisses me off.
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, gave up when OlderWaterBother hijacked it, but saw that and thought it was interesting enough to comment...It was comments like these that are the reason I started a new thread.

As for the ongoing debate if you look at the original Thread there are now people trying to use the thread for its original purpose, now that we are out of the way.

As for backing out, here I am and I’m not going any where. Why, are you wanting to back out?

[Hoatzin]

To me it's funny that people keep writing saying that it's impossible to write something that has only one interpretation and they write it anyway in the belief that what they say will mean what they want it to say to me and whoever else may read it. Yet they are imperfect humans and at the same time deny that God, who has accurate knowledge of the human brain, thought and language and how they work, should have the same confidence or even more so in what he has authored.

Sorry, but at what point has anyone claimed that what they've written has one and only one possible interpretation (apart from you, obv)?

Moreover, your point proves nothing. So what if x amount of Hipforums users did hypocritically delude themselves that Barthes' theory doesn't apply to them? It wouldn't indicate that it doesn't apply to God, because you know: x amount of Hipforums users could be wrong.

[Hoatzin]

Because you brought it up again?

When? When I made this thread?

No I don’t believe Barthes' death of the author, you do but I don’t.

Then what makes this thread any more worthwhile than a gazillion threads by atheists saying (in effect) "God can't exist because I don't believe in him; also a bunch of people died"?

Also you keep using the word language like you have any idea what it is or how it works and yet many scientists are still trying to figure out those very things.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. The fact that scientists are still studying language doesn't mean that it's impossible to know even roughly what language is or how it works. Most theories aren't totally complete - otherwise they'd be theorems - but that doesn't mean no-one can make an argument based on them. You're clutching at straws if you seriously think this weakens my argument.

God doesn’t need a exemption from some manmade rule, being God he makes his own rules.

Who said this is a "man-made rule"? It's a consequence of the existence of language, a human observed it but that doesn't mean he just made it up.

Once again I don’t go by Barthes and thanks for allowing be to believe in what I already believed, that so nice of you .

That's okay. In fact, just for being so thankful, I'll go you one better and allow you not to initiate debates and then try and use your faith as a flimsy excuse to ignore reasoned argument whenever you feel like it.

No, I don’t have any desire for a “fresh start” and please, I can do without another rehashing of Barthes half baked theory.

You say "half-baked", I and a hell of a lot of other people say "pretty sound and coherently argued". "Half-baked", "pretty sound and coherently argued"; "half-baked", "pretty sound and coherently argued"; let's call the whole thing off!





It was comments like these that are the reason I started a new thread.

Probably would've been easier to just put relaxxx on Ignore.

As for the ongoing debate if you look at the original Thread there are now people trying to use the thread for its original purpose, now that we are out of the way.

Its original purpose was obnoxious and retarded. So we just made the world a little worse.

As for backing out, here I am and I’m not going any where. Why, are you wanting to back out?

That's one interpretation. But then, I'm not God, so maybe yours it's the right one.

[OlderWaterBrother]

When? When I made this thread?



Then what makes this thread any more worthwhile than a gazillion threads by atheists saying (in effect) "God can't exist because I don't believe in him; also a bunch of people died"?



I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. The fact that scientists are still studying language doesn't mean that it's impossible to know even roughly what language is or how it works. Most theories aren't totally complete - otherwise they'd be theorems - but that doesn't mean no-one can make an argument based on them. You're clutching at straws if you seriously think this weakens my argument.



Who said this is a "man-made rule"? It's a consequence of the existence of language, a human observed it but that doesn't mean he just made it up.



That's okay. In fact, just for being so thankful, I'll go you one better and allow you not to initiate debates and then try and use your faith as a flimsy excuse to ignore reasoned argument whenever you feel like it.



You say "half-baked", I and a hell of a lot of other people say "pretty sound and coherently argued". "Half-baked", "pretty sound and coherently argued"; "half-baked", "pretty sound and coherently argued"; let's call the whole thing off!







Probably would've been easier to just put relaxxx on Ignore.



Its original purpose was obnoxious and retarded. So we just made the world a little worse.



That's one interpretation. But then, I'm not God, so maybe yours it's the right one.If you really don't want to continue the discussion we don't have to.

[Hoatzin]

I would be willing to talk about it, but there doesn't seem much point if you'll just respond with "yeah, but Barthes is all hogwash" whenever it gets difficult.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I would be willing to talk about it, but there doesn't seem much point if you'll just respond with "yeah, but Barthes is all hogwash" whenever it gets difficult.Whether things are difficult or not, that's my opinion of Barthes, I'm sorry if somehow that bothers you.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Ok, let’s talk about this Barthes' death of the author that you’ve based your whole argument on.

Let’s see, Barthes says something like it doesn’t matter what the author originally intended to say, that because it was written in a human language it is open to interpretation and there is no correct interpretation or probably closer, all interpretation are correct and thus has no real meaning except what the reader gives it.

The logical problem is that Barthes' death of the author is written in a human language and thus is self referring, meaning that Barthes' death of the author, itself has no real meaning and thus is Hogwash.

[Hoatzin]

Ok, let’s talk about this Barthes' death of the author that you’ve based your whole argument on.

Let’s see, Barthes says something like it doesn’t matter what the author originally intended to say, that because it was written in a human language it is open to interpretation and there is no correct interpretation or probably closer, all interpretation are correct and thus has no real meaning except what the reader gives it.

The logical problem is that Barthes' death of the author is written in a human language and thus is self referring, meaning that Barthes' death of the author, itself has no real meaning and thus is Hogwash.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Barthes says, actually. I'm sure he is as aware of the irony that, in attempting to talk about language in this way, he undermines his own ability to communicate his ideas.

It's a moot point though. If what you have observed above is correct then it's not just Barthes that is "Hogwash". Anything else written in a human language would also be "Hogwash". That's if you choose to dismiss anything that does not have one absolute correct interpretation (or infinite, equally correct/incorrect interpretations, since you seem to prefer to believe that that is what Barthes meant, as if to frame him as a nihilist) as "Hogwash", which I would argue is a fucking ridiculous thing to do.

So, next up: if you're arguing that Barthes is wrong, rather than that you just don't like what he's saying, then please cite some characteristics of the Bible's language that would make it less subject to what Barthes describes than any other text.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I'm pretty sure that's not what Barthes says, actually. I'm sure he is as aware of the irony that, in attempting to talk about language in this way, he undermines his own ability to communicate his ideas. Yes he does.

It's a moot point though. If what you have observed above is correct then it's not just Barthes that is "Hogwash". Anything else written in a human language would also be "Hogwash". That's if you choose to dismiss anything that does not have one absolute correct interpretation (or infinite, equally correct/incorrect interpretations, since you seem to prefer to believe that that is what Barthes meant, as if to frame him as a nihilist) as "Hogwash", which I would argue is a fucking ridiculous thing to do.It is not a moot point. It seems you have missed the total impact of what I said. As I said; Barthes is not true because when you apply it to itself it makes itself untrue, thus making it Hogwash. If it is Hogwash then it doesn’t apply to anything else or at the very least if applied to something else makes what it says about it Hogwash. Thus Barthes not being able to apply to itself means that it doesn’t apply to anything else and can not make anything else Hogwash.

So, next up: if you're arguing that Barthes is wrong, rather than that you just don't like what he's saying, then please cite some characteristics of the Bible's language that would make it less subject to what Barthes describes than any other text.That’s what I’ve been saying all along and if Barthes is wrong why would I care or need to care whether there would be some characteristics of the Bible's language that would make it less subject to what Barthes describes? Unless you're saying that you just want to get back to the original topic of why I believe the Bible has only one correct interpretation.

[eyeagainsteye]

There actually many things that have been "authored" that have but one correct interpretation like test questions or crossword puzzles or jigsaw puzzles, so why not a book?

that is a great way to look at it. It is very cool how the bible cross references itself 1000's of times. There are many hidden secrets, available to anyone with an open heart.

[OlderWaterBrother]

that is a great way to look at it. It is very cool how the bible cross references itself 1000's of times. There are many hidden secrets, available to anyone with an open heart.Thanx! That's what I've been trying to say but many just don't want to hear.

[lithium]

Barthes is not true because when you apply it to itself it makes itself untrue, thus making it Hogwash. If it is Hogwash then it doesn’t apply to anything else or at the very least if applied to something else makes what it says about it Hogwash. Thus Barthes not being able to apply to itself means that it doesn’t apply to anything else and can not make anything else Hogwash.

If the premise is not true then it doesn't apply to itself. Only if it is true would it be self-refuting, and therefore untrue. An interesting paradox, but one that doesn't really engage with the content of Barthes' essay. Yes Barthes is aware of the irony; the essay is, I like to think, largely a joke. Nonetheless its argument about the problems of authorial intention and "direct" interpretation raises some serious difficulties with the kind of "naive" understanding of language that would posit the possibility of a book (especially one as complex and equivocal as the bible) as being capable of having one and only one meaning. The argument cannot be dismissed in such a trite way.

[Hoatzin]

Thanx! That's what I've been trying to say but many just don't want to hear.

If you've been trying to say that the Bible is a complex puzzle that has to be decrypted, you're been using some very strange words to do this. "Self-interpreting", for example. Maybe you could learn a little from Barthes' "hogwash".

It is not a moot point. It seems you have missed the total impact of what I said. As I said; Barthes is not true because when you apply it to itself it makes itself untrue, thus making it Hogwash. If it is Hogwash then it doesn’t apply to anything else or at the very least if applied to something else makes what it says about it Hogwash. Thus Barthes not being able to apply to itself means that it doesn’t apply to anything else and can not make anything else Hogwash.

Sorry, that's not the case. Even if Barthes was saying that no idea could ever be communicated because of the death of the author (which he doesn't), that would not prove that the idea did not exist. So if the death of the author prevented Barthes from expressing a description of it effectively, that would not mean that it did not exist.

Even if you think that Barthes is hogwash, and that a single, correct interpretation of anything is possible, you must surely concede that a reader's interpretation is subject to the eloquence and articulacy of whoever communicates it. Dropping a physics textbook into a pen full of monkeys doesn't undo the laws of physics purely because the monkeys can't make sense of the book.

You seem to be trying to find a paradox where one does not exist. I don't believe that, at any point during Barthes' essay on the death of the author, he makes any claim that the phenomenon would not apply to his own essay. But I do believe, strongly, that simply because an idea breaks down if taken to its so-called "logical conclusion" (which is usually nothing of the sort), it does not cease to have any use or application.

I cite again the pen full of monkeys. No amount of interpretation is going to lead them to grasp an author's intention, correct and absolute or otherwise. Is that a flaw in the text? A flaw in the reader? A flaw in the author? Or all/none of the above?

That’s what I’ve been saying all along and if Barthes is wrong why would I care or need to care whether there would be some characteristics of the Bible's language that would make it less subject to what Barthes describes?

I guess because you don't seem interested in any interpretation of Barthes that might inconvenience your worldview. The reason you need to care is that you've previously derided me for apparently only being interested in reading the Bible with a view to attempting to discredit it (and offered little evidence to back that up, might I add). If I damn you for doing the same with Barthes now, it is only in the name of consistency of debate.

However, you might also care for the reason given: that your explanation for why you dismiss Barthes as "hogwash" doesn't make sense unless Barthes makes some claim to not being personally affected by the linguistic phenomena he describes (which he does not, to my knowledge anyway, do).

Other linguistic ideas, such as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir–Whorf_hypothesis) would seem to support this theory. One has to ignore a lot more than just Barthes' "hogwash" in order to believe in the kind of "absolutes" you would need for a book to be "self-interpreting", as you have claimed the Bible to be. The nature of human language simply prevents this, unless you're proposing that everything we observe about language is wrong. Are these people, these linguists, doing the Devil's work? Because it doesn't seem much like His style.

As implausible and absurd as it initially sounded, your claims that God and God alone might be able to circumvent these linguistic "problems" (see below) would make a lot more sense, although I suspect that might have more to do with you not having gone into as much detail with them than anything. If God can simply disregard the nature and "rules" of his creations (since you presumably believe God rather than Man invented language), then there's no reason why he couldn't write a "self-interpreting" Bible, although that still leaves us with the question of why he does so little to explain to the billions of people who must be interpreting it wrongly (given the vast range of interpretations extant throughout the world, which by this definition cannot possibly be correct) that they are DOING IT WRONG.

I'm also unclear on why a god so concerned with creating this one, correct interpretation that he would circumvent his own rules and intervene directly in the human world (something he doesn't often do, even in the Bible!) would then choose to express that one interpretation as having "hidden secrets". You've told me I'm wrong any time I've suggested that the Bible is even slightly cryptic or unclear. I'd like you to explain what's so wrong about that suggestion.

Unless you're saying that you just want to get back to the original topic of why I believe the Bible has only one correct interpretation.

I am more interested in statements you made before dismissing Barthes as hogwash, which implied that you believed a single, correct interpretation of the Bible could exist in spite of the "death of the author" phenomenon.

[Hoatzin]

If the premise is not true then it doesn't apply to itself. Only if it is true would it be self-refuting, and therefore untrue. An interesting paradox, but one that doesn't really engage with the content of Barthes' essay. Yes Barthes is aware of the irony; the essay is, I like to think, largely a joke. Nonetheless its argument about the problems of authorial intention and "direct" interpretation raises some serious difficulties with the kind of "naive" understanding of language that would posit the possibility of a book (especially one as complex and equivocal as the bible) as being capable of having one and only one meaning. The argument cannot be dismissed in such a trite way.

Apparently it can be though. Apparently the Bible is neither complex, nor subject to the same rules as other books written in the same language and put through multiple translations. Apparently it's just really bloody clever, but also incredibly bloody simple, so much so that anyone who doesn't "get" it must be going in with a closed mind. Possibly also apparently, intellectuals just don't get it because academia has taught them who to close their minds and blind themselves to These (not at all falsely) Obvious Truths.

I'm purely speculatin' though. OlderWaterBrother might just be really bad at expressing totally legitimate ideas. Just as one should not shoot the messenger, one should not shoot the message.

[OlderWaterBrother]

If you've been trying to say that the Bible is a complex puzzle that has to be decrypted, you're been using some very strange words to do this. "Self-interpreting", for example. Maybe you could learn a little from Barthes' "hogwash".



Sorry, that's not the case. Even if Barthes was saying that no idea could ever be communicated because of the death of the author (which he doesn't), that would not prove that the idea did not exist. So if the death of the author prevented Barthes from expressing a description of it effectively, that would not mean that it did not exist.

Even if you think that Barthes is hogwash, and that a single, correct interpretation of anything is possible, you must surely concede that a reader's interpretation is subject to the eloquence and articulacy of whoever communicates it. Dropping a physics textbook into a pen full of monkeys doesn't undo the laws of physics purely because the monkeys can't make sense of the book.

You seem to be trying to find a paradox where one does not exist. I don't believe that, at any point during Barthes' essay on the death of the author, he makes any claim that the phenomenon would not apply to his own essay. But I do believe, strongly, that simply because an idea breaks down if taken to its so-called "logical conclusion" (which is usually nothing of the sort), it does not cease to have any use or application.

I cite again the pen full of monkeys. No amount of interpretation is going to lead them to grasp an author's intention, correct and absolute or otherwise. Is that a flaw in the text? A flaw in the reader? A flaw in the author? Or all/none of the above?



I guess because you don't seem interested in any interpretation of Barthes that might inconvenience your worldview. The reason you need to care is that you've previously derided me for apparently only being interested in reading the Bible with a view to attempting to discredit it (and offered little evidence to back that up, might I add). If I damn you for doing the same with Barthes now, it is only in the name of consistency of debate.

However, you might also care for the reason given: that your explanation for why you dismiss Barthes as "hogwash" doesn't make sense unless Barthes makes some claim to not being personally affected by the linguistic phenomena he describes (which he does not, to my knowledge anyway, do).

Other linguistic ideas, such as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir–Whorf_hypothesis) would seem to support this theory. One has to ignore a lot more than just Barthes' "hogwash" in order to believe in the kind of "absolutes" you would need for a book to be "self-interpreting", as you have claimed the Bible to be. The nature of human language simply prevents this, unless you're proposing that everything we observe about language is wrong. Are these people, these linguists, doing the Devil's work? Because it doesn't seem much like His style.

As implausible and absurd as it initially sounded, your claims that God and God alone might be able to circumvent these linguistic "problems" (see below) would make a lot more sense, although I suspect that might have more to do with you not having gone into as much detail with them than anything. If God can simply disregard the nature and "rules" of his creations (since you presumably believe God rather than Man invented language), then there's no reason why he couldn't write a "self-interpreting" Bible, although that still leaves us with the question of why he does so little to explain to the billions of people who must be interpreting it wrongly (given the vast range of interpretations extant throughout the world, which by this definition cannot possibly be correct) that they are DOING IT WRONG.

I'm also unclear on why a god so concerned with creating this one, correct interpretation that he would circumvent his own rules and intervene directly in the human world (something he doesn't often do, even in the Bible!) would then choose to express that one interpretation as having "hidden secrets". You've told me I'm wrong any time I've suggested that the Bible is even slightly cryptic or unclear. I'd like you to explain what's so wrong about that suggestion.



I am more interested in statements you made before dismissing Barthes as hogwash, which implied that you believed a single, correct interpretation of the Bible could exist in spite of the "death of the author" phenomenon.Somtimes I wonder if you even bother to listen to yourself let alone others.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Apparently it can be though. Apparently the Bible is neither complex, nor subject to the same rules as other books written in the same language and put through multiple translations. Apparently it's just really bloody clever, but also incredibly bloody simple, so much so that anyone who doesn't "get" it must be going in with a closed mind. Possibly also apparently, intellectuals just don't get it because academia has taught them who to close their minds and blind themselves to These (not at all falsely) Obvious Truths.I think you're begining to get it! But although the Bible is a very complex book it can be understood.

I'm purely speculatin' though. OlderWaterBrother might just be really bad at expressing totally legitimate ideas. Just as one should not shoot the messenger, one should not shoot the message.Almost as bad as you.

[Hoatzin]

I think you're begining to get it! But although the Bible is a very complex book it can be understood.



Do you have any idea how arrogant you come off as when you express these ideas? I mean, even if by some miracle you turn out to be 100% right, you're still tremendously arrogant to think that you have the right to criticise others for not just going along with this stuff when you really offer no evidence or argument in your favour at all. God doesn't like Pride. I read it in a book.

[Hoatzin]

Somtimes I wonder if you even bother to listen to yourself let alone others.

Wow, what a clever thing to say.

[lithium]

God doesn't like Pride. I read it in a book.

God also doesn't like pork, shellfish or menstruating women. Though I believe Jesus went nuts for a kentucky fried chicken...

[OlderWaterBrother]

Do you have any idea how arrogant you come off as when you express these ideas? I mean, even if by some miracle you turn out to be 100% right, you're still tremendously arrogant to think that you have the right to criticise others for not just going along with this stuff when you really offer no evidence or argument in your favour at all. God doesn't like Pride. I read it in a book.What happened to the old Hoatzin you use to be above this sort of thing.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Wow, what a clever thing to say.I just happen to remember what has been said and you don't seem to.

[Hoatzin]

I just happen to remember what has been said and you don't seem to.

Is that why you said the same thing twice in two different threads in response to two contentiously different things?

What happened to the old Hoatzin you use to be above this sort of thing.

You want me to rise above... what? Your posts? Because that's hardly a ringing indictment of their content. If I should rise rise above them, why shouldn't everyone else?

[OlderWaterBrother]

Is that why you said the same thing twice in two different threads in response to two contentiously different things?Why come up with something new when all you are doing is name calling?

You want me to rise above... what? Your posts? Because that's hardly a ringing indictment of their content. If I should rise rise above them, why shouldn't everyone else?Actually you have falling into name calling and that is what it would be good for you to rise above.

[Hoatzin]

Why come up with something new when all you are doing is name calling?

Actually you have falling into name calling and that is what it would be good for you to rise above.

If I'm calling you names then shouldn't it be you rising above that? Not that I concede that I've "fallen into" name calling. I may have sprinkled my posts with the occasional ad hominem but I don't think I've ever done it to the exclusion of more reasoned points.

So: is this thread about me, or is it about something else?

[OlderWaterBrother]

If I'm calling you names then shouldn't it be you rising above that? Not that I concede that I've "fallen into" name calling. I may have sprinkled my posts with the occasional ad hominem but I don't think I've ever done it to the exclusion of more reasoned points.

So: is this thread about me, or is it about something else?perhaps you should reread some your last posts.

[Hoatzin]

Perhaps you should rise above it. Turn the other cheek, anall'at, anall'at.

[eyeagainsteye]

written by Hoatzin
"I find it amusing though that you think that the Bible is as or more specific than this. I mean, I've not read it cover to cover, but I've read enough to know that that would be utter nonsense"

Isn't it odd that the people who question the validity of the bible have not read it or seriously studied it. The bible answers 2 of the most important questions that cannot be found anywhere, but cannot be seen with a mere glance..

Why are we here?
What happens to us when we die?

40 writers over a 1600 year timespan inspired of God

I, myself, criticized the Bible, calling it a book of lies and misconceptions, a bunch of bologna, written by imperfect men..had I ever read it? No..where did I get these ideas? just from being in the world, listening to other people criticize the bible who had never read it. I find that interesting in itself.

I do believe that the bible is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving and setting things straight.

[Hoatzin]

written by Hoatzin
"I find it amusing though that you think that the Bible is as or more specific than this. I mean, I've not read it cover to cover, but I've read enough to know that that would be utter nonsense"

Isn't it odd that the people who question the validity of the bible have not read it or seriously studied it. The bible answers 2 of the most important questions that cannot be found anywhere, but cannot be seen with a mere glance..

Why are we here?
What happens to us when we die?

40 writers over a 1600 year timespan inspired of God

I, myself, criticized the Bible, calling it a book of lies and misconceptions, a bunch of bologna, written by imperfect men..had I ever read it? No..where did I get these ideas? just from being in the world, listening to other people criticize the bible who had never read it. I find that interesting in itself.

I do believe that the bible is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving and setting things straight.

I think you've misread me. I am not arguing that the Bible is a book of lies and misconceptions. I have merely argued that it is subject to the same issues of interpretation that all language is, in response to OWB's claim that it isn't (or that language isn't subject to those issues - it varies from post to post), and so that it would be illogical for anyone to state that there is a single correct interpretation.

I have to say though, I don't think the Bible answers either of the questions you mentioned. But I won't bore you with my reasons for thinking/not thinking this, as I'm sure you've already heard them from a gazillion other people.

[tikoo]

what's incredible? is G. Bush reading of and then enacting Revelation ch.9 .

i got to looking at that story different bibles . odd though ... usually that story ends with ' and nothing much got resolved' , but then there's one version that says everything would turn out so very ok in Iraq that no Armagedden would be necessary . maybe i was hallucinating . indeed , i was a bit excitable at the time and didn't even note the title of that one odd Version. oh , well . i don't really care about the subject anymore . it's become a vague and eccentric memory i note for its oddity and that i had made some street art of it out in front of the christian kid's coffee shop . i did the Fall of Babylon about the same way . Fallen , fallen ... two towers fallen . nobody really cares , so i make art , and it's not any awful sort of art and the chalk just goes away with the rain .

[OlderWaterBrother]

Perhaps you should rise above it. Turn the other cheek, anall'at, anall'at.Perhaps you failed to notice that's what I've been doing. While you've been name calling, instead of returning the favor, I've been calling for you to stop and return to the discussion.

[Hoatzin]

That's not turning the other cheek. That's being a boner.

[OlderWaterBrother]

That's not turning the other cheek. That's being a boner.I know you are but what am I? :rolleyes:

[OlderWaterBrother]

I originally posted this in rudenoodles thread but it really belongs over here.

Open mind or not the Bible is easily misinterpreted and even more so if you read it wanting it to say what you want it to say. In fact it’s commonly understood that you can get the Bible to support any belief you want including atheism.

But what I’ve been trying to say, albeit you would probably agree clumsily, is that the Bible has to be understood as a whole and if you misinterpret any part of the Bible then that makes other parts of the Bible not make sense and that the only way to make the whole Bible make sense is to have the proper interpretation of all it’s parts.

Much like the crossword puzzle I mentioned earlier, if you put the wrong word in the puzzle then you can’t solve the puzzle until that word is changed and replaced with the right one.

Likewise the Bible seems to be designed to only make complete sense when you have the right ideas, concepts or if you will, interpretations in place.

[Hoatzin]

Likewise the Bible seems to be designed to only make complete sense when you have the right ideas, concepts or if you will, interpretations in place.

I'd like to query this: how does this fit with the notion of God writing a book to tell people how to be good? It seems to imply that the Bible would actually just be confirming what people already believe - i.e. that if they're already good people, the Bible will tell them how to be good. Couple that with the other statement:

In fact it’s commonly understood that you can get the Bible to support any belief you want including atheism.

And I don't see a particularly transparent guide to being a good person.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I'd like to query this: how does this fit with the notion of God writing a book to tell people how to be good? It seems to imply that the Bible would actually just be confirming what people already believe - i.e. that if they're already good people, the Bible will tell them how to be good. First, the Bible is not just a book to tell you how to be “good”. It also tells you who God is and why things are the way they. It also tells what is going to happen in the future to change things for the better and what you can do now to be a force for “good”.

Second, the bible is set up to help you change your “beliefs” so they will be in harmony with what the bible says, if that’s what you want. So that you can be a “good” person, if that’s what you want. The Bible also helps you to see how mankind went wrong in the past and how that can be changed in the future.

And last, yes the Bible does confirm what you believe, if you have come to believe the “right” things, then the Bible can confirm that. If you don’t believe the “right” things then the Bible can guide you in changing your beliefs, again if that’s what you want.

Like I’ve said before, it’s a little like a crossword puzzle, no one starts off with the whole thing solved in their head. They start filling in as they go and as long as they fill in the right words the puzzle continues to make more and more sense and generally becomes easier and easier until it’s solved. That is unless you put a wrong word in then it can’t be solved till that word is changed. Likewise the Bible becomes easier and easier to understand as you fill in the “right” ideas, thoughts or concepts but if you have the “wrong” ideas, thoughts or concepts, there are parts of the Bible you will never understand until you change those ideas, thoughts or concepts.


Couple that with the other statement: “In fact it’s commonly understood that you can get the Bible to support any belief you want including atheism.” And I don't see a particularly transparent guide to being a good person.The statement that I made is merely pointing out that a person can twist whatever he wants to mean what ever he wants but that in no way means that is a correct interpretation of what has been written. But the Bible seems to be set up in such a way that the more a person twists it and puts his own interpretation on it, then the less sense the rest of the Bible makes.

Quite simply when reading the Bible you can do one of two things, you can hold on to what ever you believe and when you come across something that doesn’t agree with what you believe you can say that doesn’t belong in the Bible and ignore it or come up with some fantastic rationalization or you can read it with a willingness to change your belief so that the two scriptures now harmonize with each other without the need for some complicated rationalization.

[Hoatzin]

And last, yes the Bible does confirm what you believe, if you have come to believe the “right” things, then the Bible can confirm that. If you don’t believe the “right” things then the Bible can guide you in changing your beliefs, again if that’s what you want.

Yeah, you say that people can "twist" the Bible to their own end. That, I have to say, jars with my current experience, of being told that my own interpretation of it is "the wrong one". I have never knowingly "twisted" the Bible, and your use of words strongly suggests that such "twisting" would be intentional. Maybe I am misreading that.

It is probably a moot point though. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. I suspect that you would consider me too closed-minded to enjoy this incredibly important crossword puzzle on those grounds alone.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Yeah, you say that people can "twist" the Bible to their own end. That, I have to say, jars with my current experience, of being told that my own interpretation of it is "the wrong one". I have never knowingly "twisted" the Bible, and your use of words strongly suggests that such "twisting" would be intentional. Maybe I am misreading that.Yes, the twisting can be intentional sometimes but not always, sometimes it's unintentional, much like using a magnifying glass that has a flaw that you don’t know about, the image is still distorted though not intentionally.

Assuming, as I do, that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God, I would have to say to fully unlock what the Bible has to say, you would have to have or develop at least those beliefs.

It is probably a moot point though. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. I suspect that you would consider me too closed-minded to enjoy this incredibly important crossword puzzle on those grounds alone.I hate to use the term closed-mind because of the bad connotation that it has and being closed minded is not always a bad thing but even you must admit that your belief that the Bible is not the word of God would at least flavor what you read in the Bible.

As for enjoying the Bible, there is much to enjoy in the Bible even if you don’t understand it completely, such as the 23rd Psalm or the Sermon on the Mount both considered great works of literature in of themselves.

[tikoo]

i'd think the nature of believing in holy words would help an honest person hallucinate what needs be known . understanding is always and totally the reader's . like as it won't ever matter what i say , just what is heard and then how hard i get smacked in the head .

[Hoatzin]

I hate to use the term closed-mind because of the bad connotation that it has and being closed minded is not always a bad thing but even you must admit that your belief that the Bible is not the word of God would at least flavor what you read in the Bible.

I would say the same about your belief that it is.