A Denomination-Free, Disciplined, Logical, and Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

[tonychanyt]

Are you trained in the word of God,

I read the Bible every day. See Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.

or the word of Calvin

I don't have a denomination. See Which denomination do I belong to?.

(which scripture does not support)? Let it roll and present an actual argument that others can respond to! Dazzle us with your FOL.. Ha, Ha,

See "Whoever is not with me is against me" vs "Whoever is not against you is for you".

 

[John Mullally]

I read the Bible every day. See Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.


I don't have a denomination. See Which denomination do I belong to?.


See "Whoever is not with me is against me" vs "Whoever is not against you is for you".

You have been on this forum for more than 10 years and have posted over a 1000 times, so its time to stop pleading ignoramus. You have crystalized opinions like others here - so stop pretending (hypocrisy) otherwise. Start cutting to the chase instead of hoping to trap new believers with your games.

 

[tonychanyt]

You have been on this forum for more than 10 years

I started my account some years ago but have only been active for a few weeks.

and have posted over a 1000 times, so its time to stop pleading ignoramus.

Can you quote my words where I pleaded ignoramus?

 

[John Mullally]

Can you quote my words where I pleaded ignoramus?

You signed up to this forum 12 years ago. You are intelligent and should have examined different denominations over those (at a minimum) 12 years you have been a Christian. If you spent any considerable time in those years seeking God and contrasting denominations, you should have crystalized opinions by now (see Post 21). Its OK to change opinions as our allegiance is only to the trinity - not to a theology. Given the 12 years, to say you still don't have a denomination, shows a lack of examination and commitment. Its OK to join a church where you don't accept all their teaching. You are missing out as you appear to have joined no churches in that 12 year span (you said you have no denomination).

 

[tonychanyt]

You signed up to this forum 12 years ago. You are intelligent and should have examined different denominations over those (at a minimum) 12 years you have been a Christian. If you spent any considerable time in those years seeking God and contrasting denominations, you should have crystalized opinions by now (see Post 21). Its OK to change opinions as our allegiance is only to the trinity - not to a theology. Given the 12 years, to say you still don't have a denomination, shows a lack of examination and commitment. Its OK to join a church where you don't accept all their teaching. You are missing out as you appear to have joined no churches in that 12 year span (you said you have no denomination).

Can you quote my words where I pleaded ignoramus?

 

[John Mullally]

Can you quote my words where I pleaded ignoramus?

Your disclaimers in Post 1, your lack of commiting to a denomination (or even non-denomination) given your longevity and large number of posts, all while saying you don't understand "isms". Your demand for formanility from others in their responses while refusing to clarify what in particular you are looking for in spite of multiple requests.

 

[tonychanyt]

Your disclaimers in Post 1 to start doesm't work well with your curt responses, refusal to be more specific upon request and vague demands for formality.

In your reply can you quote and display my words where I pleaded ignoramus?

 

[John Mullally]

In your reply can you quote and display my words where I pleaded ?

How about your initial disclaimers from someone who signed up 12 years ago and posted over 1000 times. .

You demand a formal response from others and reject addressing replies that don't meet that unknowable standard., all the while refusing in multiple requests to clarify what exactly you are looking for - thus presenting a guessing game. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. You don't have to explicitly plead ignoramus as you implicitly demonstrate it via your initial disclaimers, rigid yet vague demands, refusal to respond to that which does not meet your vague demands, all the while being unresponsiveness to clarification as tp your vague demands..

 

[tonychanyt]

Again, you demand a formal response and reject replies that don't meet that unknowable standard.,

Let proposition C1 = Tony needs to stop pleading ignoramus.

Did you claim C1?

 

[John Mullally]

Let proposition C1 = Tony needs to stop pleading ignoramus.

Did you claim C1?

No, Tony stopped with disclaimers after Post 1.

Let C2 = Tony demonstrates ignoramus. (see post 28)

Do you claim C2?

 

[tonychanyt]

No, Tony stopped with disclaimers after Post 1.

Let C2 = Tony demonstrates ignoramus. (see post 28)

Do you claim C2?

I rest my case

 

[Fervent]

This approach seems ill advised to me since the Bible is not a series of propositions to be weighed against each other, so a systematic approach using isolates of any kind is bound to introduce foreign contexts and eliminate key components. This is especially true because the vast majority of Biblical texts are narratives, and what isn't said can be as important to a narrative as what is said. So forcing the texts to conform to the demands of FOL is bound to lead to a distorted, rather than accurate, interpretation of the texts.

 

[tonychanyt]

This approach seems ill advised to me since the Bible is not a series of propositions to be weighed against each other,

Where did I assert that? Can you quote my words?

 

[Fervent]

Where did I assert that? Can you quote my words?

How else would you apply a logical or probabilistic model to hermeneutics?

 

[tonychanyt]

How else would you apply a logical or probabilistic model to hermeneutics?

You made a claim. Can you quote my words?

 

[Fervent]

You made a claim. Can you quote my words?

I made an inference, based on how logical systems and probabilistic models work. So care to share how you would apply such a model without treating the Biblical data as if it were propositions?

 

[tonychanyt]

I made an inference, based on how logical systems and probabilistic models work. So care to share how you would apply such a model without treating the Biblical data as if it were propositions?

Did you write the following:

Bible is not a series of propositions to be weighed against each other

 

[Fervent]

Did you write the following:

Yes, because it's not. Care to answer my question of how you can apply probabilistic models without treating it as if it were?

 

[tonychanyt]

Yes, because it's not. Care to answer my question of how you can apply probabilistic models without treating it as if it were?

Let C1 = The Bible is a series of propositions to be weighed against each other.

I believe C1 is false. What do you think?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Then I employ probabilistic analysis

How do you do this by setting up accurate priors?