Debate:Fallacy of Interpretations

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

It seems to me that we have a lot of topics cropping up concerning the fallibility of the Bible. However, one thing people seem to not understand is that the important thing to remember is that in the end, we are dealing with interpretations, not the actual text. It doesn't matter whether you're like me, and loosely interpret the book, or take it to be fundamental truths, at the end of the day, both views are just individual interpretations.

Here's the key thing to remember.

1. Man has the capacity to fail. 2. Thus, everything Man creates is subject to possible fault. 3. Biblical interpretations are a creation of Man. 4. Thus, every Biblical interpretation has the possibility of being wrong.

So, if every interpretation is possibly wrong, then why do we argue about it? Does my not believing in your interpretation somehow detract from the validity of your interpretation. For all we know, every single interpretation of the Bible has been wrong in some way, and we don't know the truth. So why can't we all just believe what we feel to be true, and coexist?--Elamdri 13:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That's assuming all humans are not infallible. ColinRtalk 13:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Show me the infallible human being. And don't say Jesus, he doesn't count.--Elamdri 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I might not be able to, but just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ColinRtalk 13:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
It is an intriguing concept, I've changed point one to reflect that.--Elamdri 13:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools