No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.

What are you basing this assumption on?

And who does the disallowing? God?

Interbane wrote:

No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.

What are you basing this assumption on?

And who does the disallowing? God?

I am calling you out. This post is not objective it is contrived argumentation with no point and whose purpose is to divert the discussion.

I am calling you out. This post is not objective it is contrived argumentation with no point and whose purpose is to divert the discussion.

It is no more contrived than your criticisms. If you are going to falsely criticize someone, you should at least be prepared to defend it. Your criticism is based on the premise that "a reader is not allowed to know more about what's written than the author." And you're criticizing Wright for making an amazingly ridiculous statement?

I am sure you can think of any number of instances where a reader might know more about a subject than the author, Star.

Your original "point" in this regard was silly in the extreme, and Interbane was just pointing that out.

Get ready to draw IB!

Interbane wrote:

I am calling you out. This post is not objective it is contrived argumentation with no point and whose purpose is to divert the discussion.

It is no more contrived than your criticisms. If you are going to falsely criticize someone, you should at least be prepared to defend it. Your criticism is based on the premise that "a reader is not allowed to know more about what's written than the author." And you're criticizing Wright for making an amazingly ridiculous statement?

Is this the Twilight Zone? Of course the 'author' of a Book of the Bible knows more than the reader.

johnson1010 wrote:I am sure you can think of any number of instances where a reader might know more about a subject than the author, Star.

Your original "point" in this regard was silly in the extreme, and Interbane was just pointing that out.

To say that Paul was confused was confused was just another example of Wright's prejudice and his attempt to justify his nonexistent theory.

Of course the 'author' of a Book of the Bible knows more [about a particular passage] than the reader.

Back to where we started... Do you have any reasoning to support this assumption?

Post the surrounding text on page 308, as well as the passage in question. We can work with the details, but your assumptions have no place here.

This thread is a Chinese finger puzzle.

stahwre wrote:

interbane wrote:This makes no sense. Could you rephrase what you mean? Do you mean the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the character within the book?

No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.

Does not your statement automatically disqualify everything you've said about Wright's errors in his book?

Edit: The most important point of my last post that you don't address is what your criticisms have to do, centrally, with Wright's thesis in the book. That is why your posting comes across as at best tangential to the themes of the book. Please try to tell us why Wright's errors detract from the substance of his thesis. Remember that he has not written a book about the Bible.