Godel's Theorem and Exegesis

[DianaCC]

Godel’s Theorem holds that a system cannot be both consistent and complete. This means that if you have a logical system with axioms and conclusions, there will always be some statements within the system that are true but which cannot be proven from within the system.

Does this imply that the Bible cannot be self-interpreting?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Pretty much, because it’s almost gobbledygook without explanation. That sounds irreverent but let’s face it, in order to understand the Bible you have to believe in its core tenant (that the Judeo-Christian God lives) before anything else in it can come near to being believed as authentic. Many of the things in it can’t be explained or even believed without faith. Now, the existence of a higher being CAN be proved, but only at an individual level. Science cannot do it, it pretty much takes a miracle happening directly before or to that person. So you already have one part of the system that can’t be proven in normal circumstances, and it’s the core of the system at that. On top of this you have the issue of the Bible being incomplete in and of itself. Many things within it require knowledge of other historical, cultural, and cultural facts. Some of these facts are only passed down by Oral Tradition, both Mosaic and Apostolic. A part of the reason I became Catholic is because Sola Scriptura, when truly practiced, blows itself apart by the Bible itself requiring knowledge of things outside of it in order to be fully understood. Especially in the Protestant sixty-six book canon, where you actually come to find that you need the Deuterocanon to understand some of the New Testament.

 

[Cristiano]

Godel’s Theorem holds that a system cannot be both consistent and complete. This means that if you have a logical system with axioms and conclusions, there will always be some statements within the system that are true but which cannot be proven from within the system.

Does this imply that the Bible cannot be self-interpreting?

The Bible is not a system that is logically closed. It is a composition of inspired books written by different people in different styles. It is not supposed to be an arithmetical statement that is true.

 

[DianaCC]

Protestants often say that scripture interprets scripture. But if we assume for the sake of argument that this is true, then if verse A is interpreted by verse B, and verse B is interpreted by verse C, and so on, then we must come to a verse Z that is either interpreted by verse A again, or is self-evident and not interpreted by any other verse. Doesn’t it follow, then, that the principle that scripture interprets scripture is either circular or sometimes false?

 

[Cristiano]

Protestants often say that scripture interprets scripture. But if we assume for the sake of argument that this is true, then if verse A is interpreted by verse B, and verse B is interpreted by verse C, and so on, then we must come to a verse Z that is either interpreted by verse A again, or is self-evident and not interpreted by any other verse. Doesn’t it follow, then, that the principle that scripture interprets scripture is either circular or sometimes false?

Human logic cannot be applied to scriptures in such a simple manner because it does not account for God’s (name removed by moderator)ut.I firmly disagree with the protestant understanding because it is obvious that we have a lot of contradictions in biblical interpretations coming from different people. However, I think that using Godel’s theorem is not a realistic approach because interpretation by its own definition is not arithmetic, it is almost like measuring the length of a liter of water.

 

[Ranp]

Protestants often say that scripture interprets scripture. But if we assume for the sake of argument that this is true, then if verse A is interpreted by verse B, and verse B is interpreted by verse C, and so on, then we must come to a verse Z that is either interpreted by verse A again, or is self-evident and not interpreted by any other verse. Doesn’t it follow, then, that the principle that scripture interprets scripture is either circular or sometimes false?

In the book “Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI” Scott Hahn points out that a core features of Pope Benedict’s view of theology is that scripture must be studied and interpreted within its natural context, which is of course the Catholic Church with its body of Holy Tradition. Sola scriptura removes scripture from its natural context. Therefore, instead of interpreting scripture within its natural context, the Catholic Church, Protestants have to try to find a context and are thus force to look for a context within scripture itself, leaning to the A to B to C to Z stuff. Without the proper context we should not be suprise that Protestants have gone off in 40,000 different directions.

 

[Epistemes]

Protestants often say that scripture interprets scripture. But if we assume for the sake of argument that this is true, then if verse A is interpreted by verse B, and verse B is interpreted by verse C, and so on, then we must come to a verse Z that is either interpreted by verse A again, or is self-evident and not interpreted by any other verse. Doesn’t it follow, then, that the principle that scripture interprets scripture is either circular or sometimes false?

Protestants aren’t the only ones who say that Scripture interprets Scripture. Catholics too believe that that Bible cannot be read myopically, but must be read within the context of the whole Bible. So, be careful how far you want to take this.

The issue at hand is the illusion that the Bible can be sectioned or partitioned into verses and that these verses are like propositions. This is false. Verses are an innovation. The Bible as a historical document was never intended as a philosophical or arithmetical document, as has already been stated, and cannot be subjected to this theorum for precisely the same reasons that The Catcher in The Rye also cannot.