[Vision2020] Is there a correct interpretation of the bible?

[Edna Wilmington]

Forum Members,

In one of his recent posts, Mr. Wayne Fox pointed out
the absence of a universally accepted method of
biblical interpretation.  Consequently, he wrote,
there are numerous Biblical interpretations and
thousands of different Christian denominations.  These
facts are indisputable.

Mr. Fox implies that this state of affairs with
respect to Christians demonstrates that: (a) No sound
Biblical hermeneutic exists; (b) The moral
propositions in the Bible, being self-contradictory,
are unreliable; (c) Thus, no coherent body of
Christian moral truth exists; therefore, it follows
that (d) Believers in the Christian faith, regardless
of theological persuasion, are superstitious fools and
should be considered an irrelevant intellectual,
social, and political constituency.  If Mr. Fox
disagrees with this summary of his positions, I kindly
request that he explain how it should be corrected. 
Otherwise, let's assume for the sake of discussion
that Mr. Fox is correct and that with regard to
determining moral rectitude, the Christians have it
all wrong.

Mr. Fox's post also implies that a universally
accepted (non-Christian and/or non-"religious") method
of determining moral/ethical truth does in fact exist,
and in spite of their not being moral/ethical
questions, he cites the examples of determining the
specific gravity of zinc or the cause of measles. 
Thus, as it pertains to suggesting a
preferable/reliable method for determining
moral/ethical truth, Mr. Fox seems to refer his
readers to the scientific method or methodological
naturalism.  Again, if Mr. Fox disagrees with this
summary of his position, I would kindly ask that he
provide correction or clarification where necessary.

I hope Mr. Fox will be willing to answer the following
questions, which I pose with a sincere desire for fair
discussion:

1.  Does Mr. Fox repudiate all religious notions of
truth and thereby all religious groups, or does he
only reject Christians and their epistemological
system?

2.  If Mr. Fox doesn't reject all religious people as
superstitious fools, but only rejects a subset of
them, what standard or procedure does he recommend for
determining who's a fool and who isn't?

3.  Does Mr. Fox believe that a universally applicable
body of moral/ethical truth exists (i.e. without
regard to time and place)?

4.  What does it mean to describe a method of
determining moral/ethical truth as "universally
accepted?"

5.  Does a particular method of determining
moral/ethical truth require universal acceptance in
order to yield valid results?

6.  What method of determining truth should human
beings apply to moral/ethical questions?  A brief
procedural outline would be helpful.

7.  Please provide an example of how the method cited
in Question 6 works to identify moral/ethical goods: 
For example, suppose we can agree that the
firefighters in New York City, who lost their lives on
Sept. 11th, 2001, performed a morally good deed in
their partly unsuccessful attempt to rescue people
trapped in the World Trade Center.  If we can agree
thusly, please explain how the correct method of
determining moral uprightness works in this case.  If
Mr. Fox doesn't agree that the NYFD rescuers who
perished performed a morally good deed by their
efforts to save the trapped people who also perished,
perhaps he would be willing to suggest an alternative
case to consider.

8.  Would a common body of moral/ethical truth
necessarily result from consistent and universal
application of the method cited in Question 6?

9.  Would Mr. Fox prefer and consider it beneficial
for all of humanity to employ the method cited in
Question 6?

10.  If the answer to Question 9 is "yes," does Mr.
Fox's want the truth test(s) he advocates promulgated
via public education systems and advanced, funded,
and/or enforced via political systems?

Edna Wilmington


--- Art Deco <deco@moscow.com> wrote:

> Unlike the problem of finding the specific gravity
> of zinc or what causes
> measles, there is no widely accepted, convincing way
> of establishing the
> truth of any interpretation of the bible.  If there
> were, then there would
> not be several thousand Christian sects and millions
> of differing Christian
> beliefs.
> 
> Wayne Fox

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus