Subjective or Objective Truth on a deserted island

[JimG]

Angainor:

John 3:16 does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that “eternal life” means eternal life on that island (it does not rule it in either).

If you asked Wilson if “eternal life” meant eternal life on the island, he would have to say “I don’t know.” This does not mean he has a false comprehension of John 3:16, it just means that John 3:16 doesn’t answer that particuar question.

What it means is that Wilson has no clue as to the meaning of the text!

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Repeating a sentence is not an interpretation. If I quoted you something in Chinese, you quoting back the sounds is not an interpretation. It would be meaningless to you.

Your interpretation of any text is the meaning you attach to it.

duh. I have no idea what Chinese words mean. Wilson speaks English and knows what English words mean.

 

[Angainor]

[/indent]
Poor Wilson, he is absolutely wrong.

The proper interpretation of that verse is not “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.”

The proper interpretation is this:

“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.”

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

What it means is that Wilson has no clue as to the meaning of the text!

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

duh. I have no idea what Chinese words mean. Wilson speaks English and knows what English words mean.

Finally, you’re using the m-word. Mean!

If Wilson knows what English words mean, he also knows that they have layered and multiple meanings and thus any sentence can have dozens or hundreds of meanings attached to it.

That doesn’t even address the question of the context of the sentence, nor does it address whether the sentence is meant seriously, or as a part of a fictional story, or as a part of a discussion, or as divinely inspired, or as an item on a long list, or as something to be rejected, etc.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

If Wilson knows what English words mean, he also knows that they have layered and multiple meanings and thus any sentence can have dozens or hundreds of meanings attached to it.

duh again. Where are you going with this?

I have said Wilson does not have a full understanding of truth at this point.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

John 3:16 does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that “eternal life” means eternal life on that island (it does not rule it in either).

If you asked Wilson if “eternal life” meant eternal life on the island, he would have to say “I don’t know.” This does not mean he has a false comprehension of John 3:16, it just means that John 3:16 doesn’t answer that particuar question.

JimG:

What it means is that Wilson has no clue as to the meaning of the text!

To clarify. Everlasting physical life on the island is neither ruled in or out. Wilson doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase. There are other phrases that Wilson doesn’t know the meaning of. Knowing English is not sufficient preparation for understanding the text. In other words, Wilson doesn’t have a clue; he is as stranded mentally on a desert island, as he is physically.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

duh again. Where are you going with this?

I have said Wilson does not have a full understanding of truth at this point.

It’s much worse than that. Wilson has hundreds of meanings from which to choose, many of which contradict each other, and Wilson has no way of knowing which one is true.

It exactly mirrors the situation in the Protestant world today.

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

To clarify. Everlasting physical life on the island is neither ruled in or out. Wilson doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase. There are other phrases that Wilson doesn’t know the meaning of. Knowing English is not sufficient preparation for understanding the text. In other words, Wilson doesn’t have a clue; he is as stranded mentally on a desert island, as he is physically.

I agree the text does not rule physical life on the island in or out, but to say “he doesn’t have a clue” is extrapolating into absurdity.

For example, he knows John 3:16 isn’t a recipe for butter tarts.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

It’s much worse than that. Wilson has hundreds of meanings from which to choose, many of which contradict each other, and Wilson has no way of knowing which one is true.

Agreed. But the possibilites are narrowed down to hundreds.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

Agreed. But the possibilites are narrowed down to hundreds.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

There can be no journey. Wilson is permanently stuck on step one: Hundreds of conflicting meanings.

 

[JimG]

Againor, I don’t understand where you are trying to go with this example. Do you think it is a good idea to parachute bibles to people stranded on desert islands? Pass out bibles in native languages to the non-evangelized? Or are you arguing that an unfamiliar book about an unfamiliar subject in an unfamiliar format can be understood in isolation? Are you arguing for the priority of reading over preaching?

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

Againor, I don’t understand where you are trying to go with this example. Do you think it is a good idea to parachute bibles to people stranded on desert islands? Pass out bibles in native languages to the non-evangelized? Or are you arguing that an unfamiliar book about an unfamiliar subject in an unfamiliar format can be understood in isolation? Are you arguing for the priority of reading over preaching?

No, I don’t actually think understanding of truth can be had in isolation, at least not practically.

We need help, but there is truth out there to be discovered. Teachers can help pupils see the truths of the Bible for themselves. We need the Church to help us discover truth.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

I agree the text does not rule physical life on the island in or out, but to say “he doesn’t have a clue” is extrapolating into absurdity.

For example, he knows John 3:16 isn’t a recipe for butter tarts.

If we ask Wilson the meaning of the phrase “eternal life,” he will reply “I don’t know.” If we ask him what is meant by “God’s only begotten son,” he will reply, “I don’t know.” If we ask him what is meant by believing in him, he will reply “I don’t know.” If we ask him what is meant by “will not perish,” he will say, “I don’t know.” Sounds pretty clueless to me.

 

[Philthy]

Angainor:

I don’t understand this.

Why should rephrasing the idea be necessary to communicate your interpretation of the idea?

Because the language used is not specific enough to convey only one idea - like most of Scripture. You can’t recognize that?

Angainor:

Language is used by humans to communicate an idea from one person to another.

True.

Angainor:

John is communicating an idea.

Incorrect - he is attempting to communicate an idea.

Angainor:

It is not at all like a dictionary definition.

Correct, it lacks specificity.

Angainor:

The language itself should be enough to get the idea across. That is the whole point of language.

Should be? You are sadly mistaken. Language is a tool which requires considerable skill on the part of the communicater to express specifically his intent. Even when done perfectly that does not exclude the incompetance of the recipient from distorting the intended message. Language is most effective when it is employed in DIALOGUE so that a truly ACCURATE exchange of ideas can occur. If you don’t understand the limitations of a statement to convey only the most basic of information that explains quite a bit about why you adhere so firmly to sola scriptura.

Angainor:

If Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson will correctly understand the idea that John is communicating.

False, and the multitude of Christian theologies prove my point.

Angainor:

Please assume Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills. I also have to assume that all of you have good Reading Comprehension skills when I say that Wilson interprets 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.
Do you all have good Reading Comprehension skills?

Mine are excellent. I also have very strong analytical skills. In addition I am quite capable of articulating myself accurately.
Here, let me help you understand an ambiguity in Wilson’s statement:
The word “eternal” can modify either the QUALITATIVE aspect of life or the QUANTITATIVE aspect of life, or both. What is Wilson referring to? The quality or quantity(or both) of life?
Your answer is irrelevent, of course, but the point is that Wilson has not sufficiently articulated his intended idea with respect to the “eternal life” aspect of his statement.

 

[Angainor]

Philthy:

Correct, it [John 3:16] lacks specificity.

Yes. It is unspecific, yet, as unspecific as John’s message is, Wilson has received the message and comprehends it. Wilson’s understanding is now equally as unspecific as John’s message.

Just because it is unspecific does not mean it is not objective truth.

 

[Philthy]

Angainor:

Yes. It is unspecific, yet, as unspecific as John’s message is, Wilson has received the message and comprehends it.

No, you are being sloppy here by attempting to equate the communicater-specific idea intended with the language of the message and the communicatee-specific comprehension of the language itself: they are potentially different. John’s language is unspecific, but the idea he intends to communicate with it is specific. Wilson has received Johns language and comprehends all of it - we do not know if Wilson has comprehended the idea which John had in mind. We know not whether Wilson has comprehended the intended idea, the whole intended idea and nothing but the intended idea.

Angainor:

Wilson’s understanding is now equally as unspecific as John’s message.

Correct, which means Wilson’s understanding of John’s intended idea through that message is imperfect.

Angainor:

Just because it is unspecific does not mean it is not objective truth.

That is true, but it also doesnt exclude the possibility that it is not objective truth either. In addition to not being certain of what you meant by objective/subjective truth this is why I was unable to choose any of your choices in the poll.

 

[Angainor]

Philthy:

Angainor:

Just because it is unspecific does not mean it is not objective truth.

That is true, but it also doesnt exclude the possibility that it is not objective truth either. In addition to not being certain of what you meant by objective/subjective truth this is why I was unable to choose any of your choices in the poll.

Maybe it is a fault of mine, seeing the world as black and white instead of “shades of gray”, but I generally think any given statement is either true or false. Going back to this example:

DeFide:

For example, take the very simple sentence:

I never said you stole money.

Got it? Which meaning, though?:

I never said you stole money. (Bob did)
I never said you stole money. (I thought it. I wrote it.)
I never said you stole money. (I said Joe did)
I never said you stole money. (I said you burned it)
I never said you stole money. (I said you stole my pig)

The statement **I never said you stole money. **Is either true or false.

It is still either true or false even though there is a host of related information the recipient of the statement remains ignorant about.

Did Bob say you stole the money? Maybe, but that has no bearing on the truthness of the statement: **I **never said you stole the money.

 

[vz71]

[/quote]

Exactly. Your ‘interpretation’ is nothing of the sort.
It would have been much better if you would just say what you mean.

 

[Angainor]

The meaning? That’s the problem. Words and phrases have many different meanings. Context also changes meanings.

For example, take the very simple sentence:

I never said you stole money.

Got it? Which meaning, though?:

I never said you stole money. (Bob did)
I never said you stole money. (I thought it. I wrote it.)
I never said you stole money. (I said Joe did)
I never said you stole money. (I said you burned it)
I never said you stole money. (I said you stole my pig)

As much as I like this example, I thought of a better one.

Say I wrote to Wilson and told him I threw a ball.

This is very unspecific. What kind of ball. When did I throw it. What kind of throw?

If Wilson received the letter and interpreted my words to mean I threw a split-finger fastball yesterday, he would be making conclusions unsupportable by the amount of information I supplied to him.

If sum total (no more, no less) of Wilson’s interpretation of my words were I threw a ball, then his interpretation of my words is true, even if he does not have any more information than that. Wilson could then begin the attempt to find out more about this event, possibly by asking me.

Similarly,

If the the sum total (no more, no less) of Wilson’s interpretation of John 3:16 is: **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. **Then his interpretation is true, even if he does not have any more information than that. Wilson could then begin the attempt to find out more about this event.