A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

[tonychanyt]

Preamble: I am not against other scholarly or spiritual approaches to hermeneutics. I use them as well as the one I describe here. I weigh different approaches.

I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture. I have never been an official member of any denomination. This is my attempt to stop the arguing among the different denominations, provided the debaters adhere to the framework here.

Axiom: The 66 books of the OT and NT autograph manuscripts were God-breathed.

To ensure everyone is discussing the same thing, it is important to have an agreed operational (algorithmic, procedural) definition of the key term. Arguing about freewill without first defining it wastes time. Also, Christians argue about once saved always saved without a common and precise definition. Arguing about words without their operational semantics will not be productive. I learned this while studying programming languages as an undergrad.

When it comes to doctrines, I try to avoid loaded terminologies and stick precisely to the words and phraseologies in the Bible. See Mother of God. Sometimes, I do use a special term as a shorthand notation to denote a relatively simple concept. See Is God omniscient?.

I instinctively practice Occam's razor. I put more weight on simple arguments over complicated ones, direct statements over implied conclusions, and unifying explanations over ad-hoc explanations. I look for elegance. See Homosexual acts are sinful.

By nature, I am slow in generalizing. I avoid isms because they tend to over-generalize, e.g., Onanism, Calvinism, etc. People who like to generalize tend to over-generalize. Stay focused; stick with precision.

I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow because I'd like to see detailed step-by-step logical deductions without missing steps. People who are not trained in formal logic tend to jump to conclusions. They often conflate ∃-for-some with ∀-for-all.

Analogical reasoning is not a valid method within FOL. I rarely use it, and when others do, I give it little weight.

Many passages are symbolic and poetic, rich with figures of speech. They must be considered before applying first-order logic to the resultant proposition statements.

However, FOL does not always resolve a problem, particularly a non-binary problem. Then, I employ probabilistic analysis. David did as well. This is where Subjective (Bayesian) Probability comes in.

Some paradoxes/contradictions, such as false dichotomy, can be nicely solved by Co-Reality Model, i.e., the horizontal perspective complements the vertical perspective.

Is it okay to speculate on the Scriptures?

Yes, but only if you can evaluate it in terms of weighting; "speculate" in this context doesn't mean randomness or baselessness. It means thoughtful analysis of the biblical passages. After my conjecture, speculation, or guessing, I assign a weight to the end result. The higher the weight, the higher my confidence. Unless you are omniscient, everyone speculates—some more, some less.

Regarding Trinitarian issues, I approach the term indifferently. It is a divine personal mystery. I would rather not spend my time analyzing the notion of the Trinity.

Regarding eschatological positions, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts because of the lack of a coherent weighting scheme.

I watch my language when I argue and avoid overly simplistic binary thinking.

I visit Biblehub.com every day.

I have been reading the Bible every day since 1994. Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.

People tend to believe what they subjectively want to believe. This approach offers a degree of objectivity in biblical interpretation by adhering to mathematical precision and technicality. It will not resolve all differences, but it guarantees to terminate any arguments within a practical number of steps, provided the participants agree to bet based on their subjective probability.

My brain works with logical precision. This hermeneutic is what I have been practicing for years. Whenever I hear or read a comment, I assign a weight to it based on its merit and compare its weight with the highest one in my memory on the same issue. If this new weight is consequential in my brain, I will modify my existing post to reflect this new weight/understanding. Believe it or not: when I do, my brain releases dopamine/serotonin, and I feel high

One aim of this hermeneutic is to arrive at a consentaneous set of core Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning. This hermeneutic can be a unifying force. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unheard of and unbeatable.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I really like your approach, however lets not forget the Holy Spirit that reveals quite a lot, Logic is not always the only way to have the truth. Are you a mathematician?

Blessings.

 

[tonychanyt]

I really like your approach, however lets not forget the Holy Spirit that reveals quite a lot, Logic is not always the only way to have the truth.

Right.

Are you a mathematician?

More a logician. I have a PhD in AI

See TonyChanYT.CV

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Right.


More a logician. I have a PhD in AI

See TonyChanYT.CV

LOL, I was close, when i was much younger, i wanted to develop AI but I soon abandoned computer science as I quickly realized that the computers of that era when I was in computer science could not possibly produce anything worthwhile or come close to AI. The weird thing is that I now live only a few Km away from a HUGE IBM research centre developing and building quantum computers.. lol the thing is the development of algorithms for quantum computing seem a bit complex, IBM admits they have few advances on how to program properly these beasts.. but in a few years it will be different I am certain but will it be used for primarily for good or evil?

Cheers.

 

[tonychanyt]

will it be used for primarily for good or evil?

Both will happen. There will be good, bad, and indifferent AIs. There will be conflicts.

 

[enoob57]

Pleased to meet you Tony... My name is Steven. We hold many similarities to our approach to Scriptural truth...

 

[Stephen3141]

This is a good topic, to discuss.
---------- ----------

I think that Christians need to become more complicated, in the way they think.
(We should not impose our limits in intellectual development, onto topics
that the scriptures present.)

Occam's razor is good for explanations. But the hard sciences have demonstrated
that Einstein's theories on a number of things, are more complicated than Newton's,
although Newton's system can get the right answers on a number of topics, using
simpler calculations.

Subatomic physics, have been demonstrated in recent years, to be MUCH MORE
COMPLICATED than Einstein thought. There is no reason that compelled God, to
use Occam's razor when he created.

I would say for Christians, it is better to be right, than to be simple.
Although, Christian apologists should try to present simple explanations,
of difficult Christian truths.

What is "simple" (the definition of "simple") unfortunately, is often considered
in the context of an individual's model of something (like theology, or a system
of conspiracy theories). The ultimate "simple" explanation for everything, is
"the devil made me do it", or "the Deep State screwed up everything." We must
be very careful in differentiating between what is CONVENIENT as an explanation
(because we don't want to think), and what is the "simplest" explanation given
the objective evidence.

The question of what sound evidence is, is crucial. Because this is the trigger
that forces an intellectually responsible person to re-evaluate their personal
belief system. (The lack of this epistemological method, is what characterizes
those who embrace conspiracy theories.)

Also, probabilities are based on counts that are thrown into some group of
defined bins. When Christians use late medieval definitions, instead of biblical
bin definitions, the resulting probabilities will not correlate with biblical
weighting. I think that 60% of questions asked on Christian apologetics sites,
are the result of using non-biblical definitions. Using biblical definitions in
formal proofs/arguments, requires going back to using biblical definitions/
concepts. This has nothing to do with the modern Rules of Inference in formal logic,
but not using biblical definitions, results in UNSOUND arguments/proofs. This is
a topic addressed by modern "critical thinking" courses, or in the past, by
books on "informal logic" (such as Irving Copi's book "Informal Logic").
This "informal logic" is really the basic concepts about thinking and reality,
from the ancient philosophers. It is upstream of formal proofs.
---------- ----------

Unfortunately, modern Christians have not thought much about thinking.
Those groups who despise the intellect, haven't followed the historical
philosophical discussions that think about what thinking is. (To state
what is obvious to other thinking people.)

 

[Josheb]

I instinctively practice Occam's razor.

The posts prove otherwise.

THE simplest explanation possible is "God did it." If you truly adhered to Occam's Razor then you'd be monergist, thoroughly. So stop hiding behind the sophistry and requiring others to subscribe to standards you yourself do not practice. That one sentence undermined your entire op.

I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture.....................................................

See also The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism.

You just contradicted yourself.

This op is filled with internal contradictions. It is irreconcilable with someone claiming to use reason (or logic) and wanting an unbiased conversation.

 

[tonychanyt]

You just contradicted yourself.

Can you quote my words that are contradictory according to First-Order Logic? I don't think you understand what I have just asked you. Your next reply will prove that. Let me stress for the 3rd and the last time, I prefer to argue with people who can write according to FOL. You are not making First-Order Logical sense.

 

[Josheb]

Can you quote my words that are contradictory according to First-Order Logic? I don't think you understand what I have just asked you. Your next reply will prove that. Let me stress for the 3rd and the last time, I prefer to argue with people who can write according to FOL. You are not making First-Order Logical sense.

Already did. Can you refrain from asking questions already answered?

Can you also show me where the words "probably" or "probability" can be found in scripture?
Is the difference between exegesis and hermeneutic understood?
Are you Dispensationalist?

 

[tonychanyt]

Already did.

Q.E.D.

 

[Stephen3141]

(I am having trouble with how many of the responses to this thread,
don't really deal with the original post of Tony.)

I think that there is a context for this discussion, which needs
to be explicitly discussed. This context includes a number of topics,
that are almost NEVER discussed, in Christian apologetics.
---------- ----------

About our shared reality:

Regardless of our individual persuasions about what "reality" is
(I use the phrase "our shared reality", to emphasize that we must be
discussing things that are potentially accessible to all of us), the
Bible presents a view of our shared reality. And it is this "reality" that
is the basis of core christian doctrines (which we are trying to explain/
defend in Christian apologetics.

The Bible presents components of this shared reality, often without using
the language of "pay attention here! I am telling you a component of your shared reality!"
An example would be the command "You shall not bear false witness". This only makes
sense, if there is a fixed concept of what our shared reality is, and how we could
perceive it (if we made the effort), and the ability of human language to express
accurately (enough) what this shared reality is like, and if we have the free will
to choose to accurately bear witness about this shared reality, or to pervert our
expressions about this shared reality.

The historical discussions that think about thinking, are crucial to our discussion
about what this shared reality is, and how we can perceive it (if we make the effort).
Try reading Hannah Arendt's book on "The Life of the Mind".

Out shared reality at least includes:
-- the physical universe
-- biological life
-- valid reasoning methods
-- abstract concepts
-- the history of God, interacting with human beings
-- what we call the canon of Scripture
-- human languages, that are based on logic
-- a global sense of right and wrong, that Christianity calls "the conscience"
...

(I discuss components, in the book "Making Bible Study Formal".)

Regardless of how some individuals argue that there is no shared reality,
or that we cannot know what this shared reality is, they use global concepts
and global languages to argue this point, which undercuts their argument.
---------- ----------

As some of the out-of-print books on logic mention, initial
definitions are VERY important. If your initial definitions in a proof are not
consistent with our shared reality, then your proof is UNSOUND, regardless
of whether or not it is syntactically correct (logically VALID).

As DEFINITIONS define sets of individuals (think of labels for circles,
in a Venn diagram), inaccurate definitions will result in inaccurate sets of
individuals. With regard to statistics and probability theory, counting
individuals in inaccurately defined sets, will result in errors in statistics and
probabilities. Errors in the definition of basic biblical terms, will result in
errors in trying to extract the meaning of the biblical text.
---------- ----------

Different theologies have different definitions of what "divinely inspired" means.
Theologies that are "democratic" and assert that the Scriptures present truth in
a way in which it it easy to discern, are the anti-intellectual theologies. They do
not recognize that Scripture only presents some truth (what is vital for us to
know), and only to a degree of detail that we need to know.

It is clear in Scripture, that some truths that the Bible presents, are difficult to
understand.

15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 2 Pe 3:15–16.

It is the anti-intellectual Christian groups, who demand that Scripture is
simple and straightforward to understand. Human language can express
very complicated concepts, and there are many people who do not understand
a lot that Scripture presents. This is why careful study is required, and why
there exist biblical scholars, as opposed to amateurs who claim that Scripture
is all very easy to understand.
---------- ----------
With regard to biblical scholarship, there are world-class biblical reference
books (these are non-denominational), and there are parochial (denominational)
reference books (which are often very limited in their accuracy).

With the best biblical scholarship, there is often a consensus (in the world-class
reference books) by scholars on some interpretations of texts, and there is often
a disagreement on the interpretation of some texts. (You could look at this agreemtn
or disagreement probabilistically....) At least, respect the interpretations that the
scholars agree on. In (BDAG), these texts are listed as "example" of the different
meanings of words and phrases in the New Testament.
---------- ---------

That's my take on probability, and Christian apologetics.

 

[Josheb]

Q.E.D.

How about we (you and I) pick up the original two conversations we were having in those threads, and start by getting back on topic and sticking to the specified subject in each thread?

There are scripture-provided answers explaining why the Jews did what they did when Jesus implied equality with God and those explanations are not present in that op. It's not so much that op is incorrect, just that it is enormously inadequate if the "why" is to be answered with whole scripture. Similarly, the conversation in "Jesus' Plunder" has stalled with a pair of very valid and op-relevant inquiries sitting unanswered. The (correct) answers to those questions are critical to understanding the significance of Luke 11's strongman lesson. Those answers are, as you might put it, "step-by-step" logically necessary predicates that prevent missteps. Would you prefer I post a more encompassing reply to those two ops independent of you rather then engage you (step by step) in the discussion of your own ops? Let me know because I am happy to do either.

 

[Stephen3141]

By the way, there is a big difference between an EXPLANATION, and a PROOF.

An explanation, is what rhetoricians may use to try to persuade someone that
some proposition is true. There is no necessary reason, that what may PERSUADE
someone, is actually a true argument.

One of the differences is that a proof must be based on premises
that are relevant to the Conclusion, that is trying to be proven. If
these premises are not themselves demonstrated to be true, then the
proof is UNSOUND.

I understand Occam to be saying that the demonstration that some
supposed conclusion is true, is better if there is a smaller number of
initial premises (in the Assumption part of the proof).
---------- ----------

There is a common confusion between an explanation, and an assertion.

If we defend the points of our personal theology with
"because the Bible says it's so"

then, this is an assertion. It also functions as an explanation of
how we reached our Conclusion, but it is NOT a proof or DEMONSTRATION
of why our Conclusion is correct.
---------- ----------

Many explanations are actually kinds of arguments that need to themselves
be demonstrated as true.

an example would be...
1 In Corinthians Paul commands women to cover their heads when praying or
prophesying in the congregation
2 He did this because there was a culture in Corinth of loose women, who did not
hold to appropriate dress and behavior
3 therefore, these commands of Paul do not apply to Christian congregations, today.

This is an argument from outside of the biblical text -- it is an argument from
silence. It should not be given credibility, over the apostle's teaching.

(This is the form of many arguments, that try to identify specific commands in
Scripture as "merely cultural", and not applying to all Christians.)

 

[Ace777]

I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture

That is not the issue. You are asking people to interpret something that is not scripture.
You need to focus more, your all over the place.

 

[linux.poet]

Generally speaking, I find the large quantity of messages that you have written to break down Scripture passages and connect them to other passages to be useful and informative. If this is the process that works for you to understand the Bible, fantastic.

However, this approach has two major flaws: first, that it demands that everyone who criticizes this approach to Hermeneutics use the same approach as the person who uses it. And dude, I have no idea what First-Order Logic is, I'm just going to level with you here. I read the The Thinker's Toolkit years ago which broke down a bunch of logical sorting techniques and I read Logic by Wesley C. Salmon. The central premise of Salmon's argument was that logic cannot tell what is true and what isn't, it can only tell what is consistent with itself and what is inconsistent with itself. If you apply logic to the entire Bible, you'll find that the Bible is entirely consistent with itself from beginning to end.

Premise one: All true documents are logically consistent with themselves.
Premise two: The Bible is a true document.
Conclusion: The Bible is internally consistent with itself.

That's logic, but it's obvious logic that all Christians believe in without having to refer to it. It would be more practical for evangelism purposes to turn the syllogism around like this.

Premise one: All true documents are logically consistent with themselves.
Premise two: The Bible is internally consistent with itself.

But the conclusion "The Bible is a true document" doesn't follow from the premises because the first premise does not eliminate the possibility of a false document that is entirely consistent within itself. Plenty of novels are entirely consistent within themselves and rebut that conclusion. So we would have to go for a more inductive syllogism of claiming that the Bible is consistent with observed reality and other historical and literary documents. Which runs into the induction fallacies. Therefore, logic is not really a useful tool for hermeneutics, since it will just either tell us what we believe by faith in the Gospel anyway or break down into a bunch of fallacies and errors.

The second flaw is that it ignores the historical, literary, and theological context of the Scriptures. The Bible is language, and it needs to be evaluated with the tools of language, not the tools of science and mathematics and computer programming. And before you laugh, yes, I have a web design degree and spent some time in programming classes as part of it. I passed Calculus I. That's not great, but that's probably enough to tell you that those tools are designed to examine, explain, exploit, and subdue details of God's creation. We've really taken God's creation and used it for our collective benefit. There is value in that. But it doesn't really explain the Scripture the way that history, literature, and theology can.

Take Isaiah 53, for example. It's a poem - God using Hebrew poetic language to express his anticipation of Christ's arrival. It's given in the historical context of Hezekiah's reign over Israel where people were looking from deliverance from the Assyrians. God uses that historical context to wax poetic not only about His plan to deliver Jerusalem from the Assyrian army, but also from their sin later on. The nation of Israel was asking God for deliverance and redemption and God was saying something to the effect of "deliverance and redemption is my jam, I love that and I totally got you covered. You can count on me."

I also don't need first order logic to connect Isaiah 53 with John 19:30 whether Christ says "It is finished!", Christ's declaration of victory over sin, or the events of Matthew 27 where the prophecy of Isaiah 53 was fulfilled with all of the stripes. Yes, it's all consistent, but that's not the full picture. It leaves out the fact that the poem was fulfilled in a narrative and the differences in writing styles between Matthew, John, and Isaiah. It leaves out the fact that the Jews would have to wait centauries for a different historical context for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. And it leaves out what it says about the God who planned and orchestrated this from the beginning of time. It's correct, but incomplete. Do you see what I mean?

The link you put in on Bayesian probability refers to another piece of God's creation, the Shroud of Turin. I'm not sure why we are bringing probability into this discussion at all. Either one Scripture passage refers to the other one or it doesn't. Probability really doesn't have enough nuance - one passage of Scripture can refer to multiple other ones and be thematically consistent with others. There's a significant amount of intuitive associations, and one must refer to interpretations of others and the original language in order to unwind the complexity into sound conclusions.

Finally, this is my own personal opinion, but I think it's rude to demand that everyone be logically consistent with themselves on an online forum or even explain themselves in logic. While the structure of an online forum is programmatic, the content is produced by writers. If one wouldn't expect a group of English majors to code Chat GPT, don't expect us to know what first order logic is in order to have something intelligent to say. Frankly, the theological/historical/literary approach has more value than the logical one, so why is there a demand to throw away value to fit into such a narrow band of reasoning? The demand basically amounts to pride and can even be abusive - you talk to me how I want or I won't communicate.

Yes, computer programming has value, but your previous posts I haven't really valued because of whatever this is, I valued it because I thought you were going back to the original Greek and interpreting the Bible well. I honestly thought you were a pastor before reading this. I think you should carry on with a more technical emphasis on language rather than getting all hung up on logic and probabilities. That seems to be where your strengths lie.

 

[tonychanyt]

I think you should carry on with a more technical emphasis on language rather than getting all hung up on logic and probabilities.

Right. I use all these methods and weigh each to arrive at a balanced closing assessment for the issue at hand.