Inerrancy of Alice in Wonderland

[Robyn Banks]

Excerpt from Alice in Wonderland

"Who are you talking to?" said the King, coming up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

"It's a friend of mine - a Cheshire Cat," said Alice; "allow me to introduce it."

"I don't like the look of it at all," said the King; "however, it may
kiss my hand if it likes."

"I'd rather not," the Cat remarked.

"Don't be impertinent," said the King, "and don't look at me like that!" He got behind Alice as he spoke.

"A cat may look at a king," said Alice. "I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where."

"Well, it must be removed," said the King very decidedly, and he called to the Queen, who was passing at the moment, "My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!"

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. "Off with his head!" she said, without even looking round.


Commentary on this passage in Alice in Wonderland
Many people have doubted the validity and truthfulness of this passage. In the face of doubt, I am compelled to defend its truth and veracity. May I make some points, which I think have been overlooked:

1 Just because the passage sounds like a fairy-tale, doesn't mean that we should interpret it that way. It was written that way to speak to the people of the day. A nuclear physicist would use simple concepts to speak to a 13 year-old, wouldn't he?

2 Any perceived difficulties in the passage may be explained. If you can offer one possible explanation, then you can't say that Alice in Wonderland is a fantasy. For example, some say that "Cats can't speak", and therefore the story must be false. However, why does the "cat" have to be an animal? Even today, we speak of "a Funky Cat" (well, I speak like that, anyway!). And we certainly don't mean an animal, but we mean a person. It is therefore possible that "cat" means a "person". And, because a person can speak, therefore the cat can speak. See!

3 And even if there are some things that we can't explain, that doesn't mean that the passage is untrue. It just might be that we do not understand the meaning. Who can explain the entire universe? Aha! So, why do you claim to fully understand Alice in Wonderland?? Eh?

4 In the end, though, it all comes down to Faith. If you read the passage without faith, it may very well seem like a popular children's story. But, that is the problem - you don't have faith. With faith we can transcend context and meaning.

5 Many people, who read the passage, have only a "modernist" viewpoint. They are biased by their view of the world, and reject Alice in Wonderland as some sort of "make-believe". However, this is just prejudice. If we were to read the passage through the eyes of (say) the Mad Hatter, we would not see any problems with it.

6 Just because the Queen ordered the Cat's head to be chopped off does not mean that she did not LOVE the Cat. What simplistic thinking! The chopping of the Cat's head was an act of love, to demonstrate her royal justice. Obviously.

7 Anyway, if it's in Alice in Wonderland, it's all true, anyway! So how can it be untrue?? This, I think, is the most convincing proof, at least to me.

[Lizard]

Hey Robyn. What happened to your infatuation with authotorial intent?:hrm:

I assume that that is what you are trying to get at with this cute little post.

I think most people here agree that authotorial (sp?) intent is important.

The real difference is the differences of opinion on the authors intent.

So what's your point? :argh:

[dizzle]

Dear Robyn:

Is that piece original? If not please provide the author's information, and a link if possible.

[Ishmael]

This Alice in Wonderland stuff is a philosophical throwback to some positivistic school arguments against theism in terms of Verifiability--that beief or belief in God has no meaning.
I suppose this post is an attempt to philosophically point out that, in the author's opinion, "inerrancy" has no verifiable meaning as to yes or no.


Ironically, before I read this post I had just finished reading Plantinga's Advice to Christian Philosophers and posted a thread on it in the Philosophy forum.

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:
Excerpt from Alice in Wonderland

"Who are you talking to?" said the King, coming up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

"It's a friend of mine - a Cheshire Cat," said Alice; "allow me to introduce it."

"I don't like the look of it at all," said the King; "however, it may
kiss my hand if it likes."

"I'd rather not," the Cat remarked.

"Don't be impertinent," said the King, "and don't look at me like that!" He got behind Alice as he spoke.

"A cat may look at a king," said Alice. "I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where."

"Well, it must be removed," said the King very decidedly, and he called to the Queen, who was passing at the moment, "My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!"

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. "Off with his head!" she said, without even looking round.


Commentary on this passage in Alice in Wonderland
Many people have doubted the validity and truthfulness of this passage. In the face of doubt, I am compelled to defend its truth and veracity. May I make some points, which I think have been overlooked:

1 Just because the passage sounds like a fairy-tale, doesn't mean that we should interpret it that way. It was written that way to speak to the people of the day. A nuclear physicist would use simple concepts to speak to a 13 year-old, wouldn't he?

2 Any perceived difficulties in the passage may be explained. If you can offer one possible explanation, then you can't say that Alice in Wonderland is a fantasy. For example, some say that "Cats can't speak", and therefore the story must be false. However, why does the "cat" have to be an animal? Even today, we speak of "a Funky Cat" (well, I speak like that, anyway!). And we certainly don't mean an animal, but we mean a person. It is therefore possible that "cat" means a "person". And, because a person can speak, therefore the cat can speak. See!

3 And even if there are some things that we can't explain, that doesn't mean that the passage is untrue. It just might be that we do not understand the meaning. Who can explain the entire universe? Aha! So, why do you claim to fully understand Alice in Wonderland?? Eh?

4 In the end, though, it all comes down to Faith. If you read the passage without faith, it may very well seem like a popular children's story. But, that is the problem - you don't have faith. With faith we can transcend context and meaning.

5 Many people, who read the passage, have only a "modernist" viewpoint. They are biased by their view of the world, and reject Alice in Wonderland as some sort of "make-believe". However, this is just prejudice. If we were to read the passage through the eyes of (say) the Mad Hatter, we would not see any problems with it.

6 Just because the Queen ordered the Cat's head to be chopped off does not mean that she did not LOVE the Cat. What simplistic thinking! The chopping of the Cat's head was an act of love, to demonstrate her royal justice. Obviously.

7 Anyway, if it's in Alice in Wonderland, it's all true, anyway! So how can it be untrue?? This, I think, is the most convincing proof, at least to me.

Robyn,
All your talk about context which I guess you would say includes Genres of literature has just hit the fan with this post. If you are trying to compare it with scripture I must say you are just slightly misguided:hrm: . The reason we can read the Bible as history is because it in fact makes the claim that God acts in History. Allison in wonderland was never taken to mean it was true by the Author or anyone else!


6 Just because the Queen ordered the Cat's head to be chopped off does not mean that she did not LOVE the Cat. What simplistic thinking! The chopping of the Cat's head was an act of love, to demonstrate her royal justice. Obviously.

Thats nice Robyn it seems you are trying to draw a parallel of God doing as he pleases in the OT. Are you ridiculing evangelicals for facing the facts that if there is a Transcendent God who is all powerful he could do has he pleases? Who are you to talk back to God? Oh I forgot you are a panentheist! Hey did your copy this post from www.tektonics.com? It seems you are good at cut and paste just wondering!:rofl:

[Jaltus]

Genre sensitivity, anyone?

[Gavin]

does anyone else think this thread is a little strange?:hrm:

[Blake Reas]

Gavin:
does anyone else think this thread is a little strange?:hrm:

Well when you can live with the inconsistencie Robyn does about Faith and an errant Scripture no I do not think that it is strange!:rofl:

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. Robyn it appears that the majority of people in this thread and the other thread who are much more knowledgable then I am (being only 19) agree with me and not you! ;) GENRE GENRE GENRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Is that piece original?
Original to me? Yes.

[Robyn Banks]

Faramir:
Hey Robyn. What happened to your infatuation with authotorial intent?:hrm:
Satire of an opposing view is often a form of support of your own view. :)

Faramir:
I assume that that is what you are trying to get at with this cute little post.
I'm a cute person. :angel:


Faramir:
I think most people here agree that authotorial (sp?) intent is important.

The real difference is the differences of opinion on the authors intent.

So what's your point? :argh:
No - inerrantists methodologically look for an inerrant interpretation primarily - not for the best (author's intent) interpretation.

Robyn

[Ishmael]

I still think I am right about his intention with the thread in the first place... though I was ignored.

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
All your talk about context which I guess you would say includes Genres of literature has just hit the fan with this post. If you are trying to compare it with scripture I must say you are just slightly misguided:hrm:
Satire employes analogy. All analogy is 'misguided' and 'false' to an extent. But the point is still made, nonetheless.

Did you laugh, Blake? Didjya? Didjya!?!?

Blake Reas:
. The reason we can read the Bible as history is because it in fact makes the claim that God acts in History. Allison in wonderland was never taken to mean it was true by the Author or anyone else!
Incorrect. There is a small cult in Bluff, New Zealand which holds that the teachings of Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland are true and inerrant. They also laugh heartily at those who say that the Bible's writers intended the Bible to be understood as literally correct.


Blake Reas:
Thats nice Robyn it seems you are trying to draw a parallel of God doing as he pleases in the OT. Are you ridiculing evangelicals for facing the facts that if there is a Transcendent God who is all powerful he could do has he pleases? Who are you to talk back to God?
You confuse descriptions by men of what God does, with reality. Confusion of fantasy with reality is technically termed 'insanity'.


Blake Reas:
Oh I forgot you are a panentheist!
Am I? Or did I say I quite liked some of the ideas of panentheism? Are you putting me in a wee box to be able to deal with me, Blakey?


Blake Reas:
Hey did your copy this post from www.tektonics.com?
No. I wrote it.


Blake Reas:
It seems you are good at cut and paste just wondering!:rofl:
Depends what you mean by 'cut and paste'. I use quote marks to indicate when I quote from another person. When I write something that I have put together, even if I have written it somewhere else, I don't use quote marks. I 'cut and paste' both.

This is normal practice.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Gavin:
does anyone else think this thread is a little strange?:hrm:
I find it all a bit spooky.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Calvinist:
This Alice in Wonderland stuff is a philosophical throwback to some positivistic school arguments against theism in terms of Verifiability--that beief or belief in God has no meaning.
I suppose this post is an attempt to philosophically point out that, in the author's opinion, "inerrancy" has no verifiable meaning as to yes or no.


Ironically, before I read this post I had just finished reading Plantinga's Advice to Christian Philosophers and posted a thread on it in the Philosophy forum.
I don't find 'inerrancy' to be cognitively meaningless. I was making a different point.

"Half of every day I was doing nothing but believing in impossible things. There were times when I believed in six impossible things before breakfast and by dinner half of them were possible.”

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Incorrect. There is a small cult in Bluff, New Zealand which holds that the teachings of Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland are true and inerrant. They also laugh heartily at those who say that the Bible's writers intended the Bible to be understood as literally correct.

No Robyn I think you miss the point of Jaltus also who agrees with me about your confusion over Genre. First of all Alice in wonder land is NOT(<==read it) even set in our world where as the Bible is set in a specific time and place! You are wrong on this one Robyn even if your bias will not let you see it. To say it is not set in history is about as ludicrous as trying to believe that Alice in Wonderland actually happened.

In Christ,
Blake

[Ishmael]

Robyn Banks:

I don't find 'inerrancy' to be cognitively meaningless. I was making a different point.

&quot;Half of every day I was doing nothing but believing in impossible things. There were times when I believed in six impossible things before breakfast and by dinner half of them were possible.”

Robyn

"The Queen replies"

The you are simply making fun of Biblical scholarship in general. It's a ridiculous point. Because you think the bible is fiction. The Bible does not claim to be fiction; therefore, you do not know that it is in the same way you know that Alice in Wonderland is.

You know that Alice in Wonderland is fiction because the author told you it was. Unless he is a liar.

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
No Robyn I think you miss the point of Jaltus also who agrees with me about your confusion over Genre.
AH - the Fundamentalists Of Satire. :rofl:

jpholding:
First of all Alice in wonder land is NOT(&lt;==read it) even set in our world where as the Bible is set in a specific time and place!
Not according to the Cult of Wonderland, Bluff, New Zealand.

jpholding:
You are wrong on this one Robyn even if your bias will not let you see it. To say it is not set in history is about as ludicrous as trying to believe that Alice in Wonderland actually happened.
Satire has become such a serious business. One would have thought that the selection of an absurd feature would add to the satire (technically, this is how satire functions). But, no, someone knows satire better than me...

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Calvinist:
&quot;The Queen replies&quot;
:)


Calvinist:
The you are simply making fun of Biblical scholarship in general.
No - I'm making fun of holders of the doctrine of inerrancy. In my experience, there are very few Bibilical scholars who hold to 'inerrancy' these days, so the post was certainly not made to them.

Calvinist:
It's a ridiculous point. Because you think the bible is fiction. The Bible does not claim to be fiction; therefore, you do not know that it is in the same way you know that Alice in Wonderland is.
'Ridiculous points' or 'the absurd' must be mixed with serious points to create 'satire'.

It was a rather successful attempt. I'm quite proud of it.

Calvinist:
You know that Alice in Wonderland is fiction because the author told you it was. Unless he is a liar.
So my explanation is 'absurd'! Hang on - was it satire?

:rofl:

Robyn

[Chuck_D]

Robyn Banks:
Not according to the Cult of Wonderland, Bluff, New Zealand.
Robyn

But would said cult be CORRECT in this belief? I get the point of your satire, but it's time to get down to brass tacks. This whole exercise is useless unless you 1) describe how you determine authorial intent and 2) explain why your method is better than that used by those who disagree with you.

[Robyn Banks]

Chuck_D:
I get the point of your satire,
Didjya laugh?

Chuck_D:
but it's time to get down to brass tacks. This whole exercise is useless unless you 1) describe how you determine authorial intent and 2) explain why your method is better than that used by those who disagree with you.
Looking for authorial intent avoids the bias to the right and avoids the bias to the left. It means that we are not primarily looking for a possible interpretation which is a contradiction, like the skeptics. It means that we are not primarily looking for a possible interpretation which is a harmonization, like the inerrantists.

How to do it. Hmmmm. Big topic. Try reading Hirsch: Validity.

Robyn

[Jaltus]

No - inerrantists methodologically look for an inerrant interpretation primarily - not for the best (author's intent) interpretation.

How about this:

No - errantists methodologically look for an errant interpretation primarily - not for the best (author's intent) interpretation.

[Ishmael]

Robyn Banks:
No - I'm making fun of holders of the doctrine of inerrancy. In my experience, there are very few Bibilical scholars who hold to 'inerrancy' these days, so the post was certainly not made to them.


Then your experience is not very broad.



'Ridiculous points' or 'the absurd' must be mixed with serious points to create 'satire'.
It was a rather successful attempt. I'm quite proud of it.


yay for you


So my explanation is 'absurd'! Hang on - was it satire?

:rofl:

Robyn

No, the correlation you are trying to make is absurd.

[Blake Reas]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

Looking for authorial intent avoids the bias to the right and avoids the bias to the left. It means that we are not primarily looking for a possible interpretation which is a contradiction, like the skeptics. It means that we are not primarily looking for a possible interpretation which is a harmonization, like the inerrantists.

This is an answer? How about some methodology I mean if you are so knowledgable why don't you please enlighten us simple minded evangelicals!
:huh:

In Christ,
Blake

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
No - errantists methodologically look for an errant interpretation primarily - not for the best (author's intent) interpretation.
Some do. And they are wrong.

Proper interpretation looks NEITHER for errant interpretation first, nor for inerrant interpretation.

It tries to ascertain what the best meaning of the text is, and as a result finds that the text is harmonious or contradictory with another.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
How about some methodology
Sure. Read ED Hirsch's Validity in Interpretation. That should provide you with ample methodology. And you won't be favouring 'inerrant' or 'errant' interpretations after that.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Said:

Depends what you mean by 'cut and paste'. I use quote marks to indicate when I quote from another person. When I write something that I have put together, even if I have written it somewhere else, I don't use quote marks. I 'cut and paste' both

You say that you wrote this(Goliath "dilemma"[spelling?] ), I think you may need to clarify something! You may have reworked this into your own words but you need to give credit to where you got it from
This article was adapted from an article by Emmanuel Tov, in:

Bible Review http://www.tektonics.com/bible/david_and_goliath.html

If you give him credit on your website give "em" credit here on the forum also. Don't prance around like you did this yourself.

P.S. I guess you think the passages in scripture about not lying where interpolations!:rofl:

In Christ,
Blake :rofl:

[Jaltus]

Proper interpretation looks NEITHER for errant interpretation first, nor for inerrant interpretation.
Correct. I was just mocking your use of generalization (another fallacy).

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
If you give him credit on your website give &quot;em&quot; credit here on the forum also. Don't prance around like you did this yourself.
I did do it myself. I adapted Tov's article. Tov, unlike the hermeneutically perverse, accepts that there are errors in the Bible.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

I did do it myself. I adapted Tov's article. Tov, unlike the hermeneutically perverse, accepts that there are errors in the Bible.

Robyn

Notice Robyn I did not say you copied off of him I said:

You may have reworked this into your own words but you need to give credit to where you got it from

I hope you interpret scripture better than you read my post.

I meant since you gave credit on the web page why not here. I do not think you are that dishonest to copy someones work.


In Christ,
Blake
:o

[Socrates]

jpholding:
First of all Alice in wonder land is NOT(&lt;==read it) even set in our world where as the Bible is set in a specific time and place!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robyn Banx replied:
Not according to the Cult of Wonderland, Bluff, New Zealand.

:rofl: Either a joke, or they ate too many oysters during the last algal bloom :p

[Robyn Banks]

Holding:
First of all Alice in wonder land is NOT(&amp;lt;==read it) even set in our world where as the Bible is set in a specific time and place!
Robyn:
Not according to the Cult of Wonderland, Bluff, New Zealand.
Socrates:
:rofl: Either a joke, or they ate too many oysters during the last algal bloom :p
Streuth! A sceptical Ocker! Ya callin me a fibber, mate? Fair suck of the old sav!

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Robyn Banks:



Streuth! A sceptical Ocker! Ya callin me a fibber, mate? Fair suck of the old sav!

Robyn

What? :huh: [I'm not up on my Southern Hemispheric slang.]

[Socrates]

Gray Pilgrim quite reasonably asks about the intra-antipodean banter between me and Robyn Banks. New Zealand and Australia have a lot of cross-cultural contact :cheers:, but for the benefit of our Northern Hemisphere friends, there's over 1000 miles of ocean between our countries. :read:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn:
Not according to the Cult of Wonderland, Bluff, New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Either a joke, or they ate too many oysters during the last algal bloom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Bluff is the southernmost tip of the South Island of NZ, but is still only about half-way between the Equator and the South Pole. It is famous in NZ for its oysters.

RB replied:

"Streuth! A sceptical Ocker! Ya callin me a fibber, mate? Fair suck of the old sav!

GP asked:
"What? [I'm not up on my Southern Hemispheric slang.]"

Approximate translation: "Good heavens [literally a contraction of "God's Truth"]! A skeptical Australian! Are you calling me a liar, pal? Give me a fair go!"

Actually I wasn't calling RB a liar -- my skepticism was of the claims of this CULT. :thinking:

[TheFiveSolas]

Socrates,
That has to be one of the funniest posts I've seen to date! Very informative too!
:yipee:

[Socrates]

Thanx, 5S :yipee:

Yep, there is friendly rivalry between Oz and NZ. Although most Australians I know don't speak like that, it was perfectly acceptable in the Antipodes for Robyn to poke fun at it. Similarly, Aussies poke fun at the Kiwi accent (or "exint"), e.g. that they have "fush and chups", while they poke fun at us saying "feesh and cheeps". However, the former is a poor imitation of Kiwi speech -- the short i sound isn't really like the short u, but more like the dropping of the vowel completely, so f'sh and ch'ps would be more like it. Oh, "chips" in this context is what Yanx call "fries". :thumb:

Another thing is how Aussies poke fun at the high proportion of sheep to people in NZ -- it was as high as 20 to 1 at one stage. So one joke is, a Kiwi film about an explorer who came to live with the Maoris (the indigenous people) was called "Dances with Sheep". In turn, Australia was once a British penal colony, so Kiwis say that our ancestors were people of great convictions. :cheers:

[GrayPilgrim]

I used both Robyn's original message and your explanation as my post of the day!

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
I used both Robyn's original message and your explanation as my post of the day!
This thread went off topic.

[Solly]

You only just noticed? 6 months later?? :lol:

[Robyn Banks]

No. I just thought it was worth mentioning. :smile:

[BeHereNow]

Shameless self-promotion!

:bunny:

[Robyn Banks]

BeHereNow:
Shameless self-promotion!

:bunny:
Gosh, thanks!

[Nicky]

Delightful! Meow!!

[shunyadragon]

Delightful! Meow!!

Being an Alice and Wonderland fan. I like your comment and the ending of Alice's journey -

She took her off the table as she spoke, and shook her backwards and forwards with all her might.

The Red Queen made no resistance whatever; only her face grew very small, and her eyes got large and green: and still, as Alice went on shaking her, she kept on growing shorter -- and fatter -- and softer -- and rounder -- and --

-- and it really was a kitten, after all.

Meow!!