Disclaimer: I am not against other scholarly or spiritual approaches to hermeneutics. In fact, I employ these approaches plus the one I am proposing 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 or church. This is my attempt to stop the arguing among the different denominations provided the debaters adhere to the method 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 definition of the key term.
When it comes to doctrines, I try to stick precisely to the words and wording in the Bible. See Mother of God and My Take on Trinity.
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.
I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow because I'd like to see detailed step-by-step logical deductions without any 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 the framework of FOL. I rarely use it. When others do, I don't put much weight on it.
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. 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.
When it comes to eschatological stuff, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts.
I use the following words only in their formal logical sense: prove, deduce, entail, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.
I try to avoid these words and phrases of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, nothing to do with, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, plainly, most, best, very, the true this and the true that, prooftext, theory, there can be little argument, the Bible says, the Bible does not say, etc. Excessive use of intensifiers is often a sign of unbalanced and intellectual immaturity.
Don't be defensive, but stay objective. When disagreeing, I try to accommodate and find common ground. I admit different options with probabilities. I'm happy when someone proves me wrong because I would have learned something new. I enjoy the freedom to learn from everyone in the forum.
Proverbs 18:
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. 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.
The goal is to arrive at a consentaneous set of Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning to Biblical hermeneutics. This can be a unifying force, but I'm not interested in building an echo chamber. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unbeatable
See also The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism.
I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture. I have never been an official member of any denomination or church. This is my attempt to stop the arguing among the different denominations provided the debaters adhere to the method 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 definition of the key term.
When it comes to doctrines, I try to stick precisely to the words and wording in the Bible. See Mother of God and My Take on Trinity.
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.
I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow because I'd like to see detailed step-by-step logical deductions without any 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 the framework of FOL. I rarely use it. When others do, I don't put much weight on it.
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. 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.
When it comes to eschatological stuff, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts.
I use the following words only in their formal logical sense: prove, deduce, entail, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.
I try to avoid these words and phrases of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, nothing to do with, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, plainly, most, best, very, the true this and the true that, prooftext, theory, there can be little argument, the Bible says, the Bible does not say, etc. Excessive use of intensifiers is often a sign of unbalanced and intellectual immaturity.
Don't be defensive, but stay objective. When disagreeing, I try to accommodate and find common ground. I admit different options with probabilities. I'm happy when someone proves me wrong because I would have learned something new. I enjoy the freedom to learn from everyone in the forum.
Proverbs 18:
Proverbs 19:
Psalm 131:
Titus 3:
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. 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.
The goal is to arrive at a consentaneous set of Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning to Biblical hermeneutics. This can be a unifying force, but I'm not interested in building an echo chamber. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unbeatable
See also The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism.
Last edited:
