Subjective or Objective Truth on a deserted island

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
VociMike:
That’s pretty funny! I thought “interpretation” was rather connected with “thoughts in [one’s] head”. I thought, in other words, that words have meanings, and that the goal of reading (as of listening) is to convert words on the page to “thoughts in [one’s] head”.
Click to expand...
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Represents the thoughts in his head exactly.
 
40.png
Angainor:
That is what Wilson thinks John 3:16 means. “Putting it in his own words” would simply be rephrasing the same concept.
Click to expand...
So what does Wilson think that “God” means? What does he think “loved the world” means? What does he think “gave” means? “Only begotten Son”? “Believes in Him”? “Shall not perish”? “Have eternal life”?

The chances of somebody without any knowledge of Christ or Christianity properly understanding all of those concepts (not concept but concepts is exactly zero.
 
40.png
Eden:
There are so many assumptions on this to render the question almost unanswerable. Firstly, we have to assume that the stranded man can read, that the bible which appears is written in his language, that he understands the concept of God and that the first verse he turns to is John 3:16 so that he has not been “tainted” by perceptions of other passages. You would also have to assume that he knew this is not a novel.
Click to expand...
Yes, assume all of those things.
40.png
Eden:
And of course you have to assume Wilson is not a volleyball. I hope you have a sense of humor, Angainor. 😃
Click to expand...
I would be very dissapointed if nobody made that connection! 😛

Yes, you can assume it is not* that* Wilson.
 
40.png
Angainor:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Represents the thoughts in his head exactly.
Click to expand...
What does “represents the thoughts in his head exactly” mean? It means nothing until you assign meaning to each word and then each phrase and finally to the entire sentence. I’m tired of your little game. I have said over and over that good old Wilson would not have a clue what the text meant.
 
40.png
Angainor:
That is what Wilson thinks John 3:16 means. “Putting it in his own words” would simply be rephrasing the same concept.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Angainor, you’ve communicated nothing of how Wilson interprets this to me.

Some defintions of interpretation:
An explanation or conceptualization by a critic of a work of literature, painting, music, or other art form; an exegesis
Click to expand...
The act or process of explaining the meaning of something.
Click to expand...
n 1: a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reading”]reading
Click to expand...
, version]
Those would be good ones to start with. Can you offer to me his conceptualization of the verse? Perhaps you can have him explain the meaning as I asked? Or perhaps you can communicate to me the mental representation of the meaning of the text (not the mental representation of the body of the text)?
 
40.png
VociMike:
So what does Wilson think that “God” means? What does he think “loved the world” means? What does he think “gave” means? “Only begotten Son”? “Believes in Him”? “Shall not perish”? “Have eternal life”?
Click to expand...
Dictionary meanings.
40.png
VociMike:
The chances of somebody without any knowledge of Christ or Christianity properly understanding all of those concepts (not concept but concepts is exactly zero.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about advanced Theology here. Just one simple conceptualization.

If Wilson understands John 3:16 in only the most basic of terms, is his understanding wrong if he does not possess the complete picture?

His understanding is very basic, yes. But is it wrong?
 
Yes, his understanding will be wrong, for the reasons I’ve given.

Oh, and by the way, “dictionary meanings” is useless, since (a) words generally have more than one meaning, (b) phrases often have meanings different than the meanings of the individual words used, and (c) dictionary meanings are not very good at capturing theological nuances.
 
40.png
RobNY:
perhaps you can communicate to me the mental representation of the meaning of the text
Click to expand...
OK I’ll try.

I’ll go a little at a time. At each stop, try to get a mental picture of what concept is being conveyed. Then put them all together into a coherent thought. Ready?

For… God… so… loved… the… world,… that… He… gave… His… only… begotten… Son,… that… whoever… believes… in… Him… shall… not… perish,… but… have… eternal… life.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Thanks for the info. I’ll throw mine out.
Click to expand...
If you don’t understand that there’s a complicated process which goes on between viewing words on the page and generating thoughts in one’s head, that’s probably your best bet.
 
40.png
Angainor:
That depends on what your meaning of the word “is” is.
Click to expand...
You’re just getting testy because your little slam-dunk demonstration isn’t going quite as smoothly as you had hoped. 🙂
 
40.png
Angainor:
OK I’ll try.

I’ll go a little at a time. At each stop, try to get a mental picture of what concept is being conveyed. Then put them all together into a coherent thought. Ready?

For… God… so… loved… the… world,… that… He… gave… His… only… begotten… Son,… that… whoever… believes… in… Him… shall… not… perish,… but… have… eternal… life.
Click to expand...
You’ve changed positions now.

First you wanted me to tell you about the truth of Wilson’s interpretation of it. Now you’re telling me to get a mental picture of my own. My mental picture is not necessarily equal to Wilson’s mental picture. I’m telling you that you have to convey to me Wilson’s interpretation.

You keep pasting the text. That may spark Wilson’s memory so he recalls his interpretation, but the text when processed in my brain can only recall my interpretation. Unless you think that the text can cause my brain to recall his interpretation? I don’t think so.

In any case, the text is still the text. The source text is not an interpretation, it is the source text. How he applies meaning to the source text is the interpretation. “It means exactly what it says,” is a meaningless assertion. We have to each interpret it to ascertain what it, ‘says.’ But since we are two different people, we may interpret it differently, and may be at odds over what it, ‘says.’
 
40.png
VociMike:
You’re just getting testy because your little slam-dunk demonstration isn’t going quite as smoothly as you had hoped. 🙂
Click to expand...
It isn’t going as quite as I expected, but I’m not sure what I expected.

I certainly did not expect someone to vote that Wilson was false in interpreting John 3:16 to mean

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
 
40.png
RobNY:
You’ve changed positions now.

First you wanted me to tell you about the truth of Wilson’s interpretation of it. Now you’re telling me to get a mental picture of my own.
Click to expand...
Nnnooo,… I was trying to be of assistance by [post=1417358]communicating to you the mental representation of the meaning of the text[/post].
40.png
RobNY:
But since we are two different people, we may interpret it differently, and may be at odds over what it, ‘says.’
Click to expand...
If we are at odds, then one of us is wrong. It only says one thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top